Scottish Parliament, 5 October 2000

512 contributions from 95 members. The official report.

Introduction

Fuel Duty

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. Our first item of business is the Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1238, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on fuel duty, and two amendments to that motion.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The Executive has indicated that it is not putting up a minister to respond to this debate. It is putting up a junior minister— [Interruption.]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. I must be able to hear the member's point of order.

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

In view of the seriousness of this debate, do you view the decision of the Executive not to put up one of their front-line ministers as a gross discourtesy to the chamber and to the SNP?

David (None, Lothians)

The question of who speaks in a debate is not a matter for the Presiding Officer. It is entirely a matter for the parties.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Here we go again. Only a few weeks have passed and yet again we are having a fuel debate. That should be no great surprise. It is a major issue, after all. However, it is an issue on which the UK Government takes no action and in which the Executive takes no interest, as is shown by the absence of ministers from the chamber today. We are left with an amendment in the name of the voice of agricultural labour and a summing-up by the voice of Brian Wilson.

In the previous debate on this subject, we were told tales of a workers' Government faced down by a bosses' strike. If the Executive was to be believed, hauliers and farmers overtly and covertly colluded and connived to undermine the democratic fabric of our nation. We heard claims ranging from a Minister for Justice talking about mob rule to a Labour member raising the spectre of Allende. I trust that that will not be repeated today. It was repugnant then and it remains so now.

The actions of the peaceful protesters have been vindicated by a poll in The Herald. The actions were supported by 70 per cent of Liberal Democrat voters and 62 per cent of Labour voters. It may have been a bosses' strike—I do not think so—but it was a popular protest. Did the Government listen? It did not. Following the abuse and invective, we were faced with intransigence and arrogance. The Prime Minister acknowledged that there was a genuine and sincerely held grievance, but he refused to act. He said:

"I am listening - but I was also elected to lead."

There is merit in strong government. We cannot have leadership by whim and fancy. However, this matter is no mere whim of a small section of the population or a token fancy of a specific sector of our economy. It is a popular grievance on an area of legitimate social and economic concern. Governments in other countries have listened and acted; ours has sought to cloak itself in the language and imagery of Thatcherism.

What has happened since the previous debate? Has there been a cut? Has aid been given to fuel-dependent industries? Has there been an acknowledgement that we are out of kilter with not just the rest of Europe but the rest of the developed world? Has the absurdity of the fact that the largest oil producer in the European Union has the most expensive fuel in the developed world been acknowledged? No.

All we have seen is preparation for future demonstrations and blockades. Jack Straw, rather than addressing the underlying malaise, is tooling up for confrontation. The Government is seeking to punish those who protested. Legislation is being introduced to deal with the situation, à la Thatcherism. If they cannot be persuaded, they must be punished—that seems to be the Government's attitude.

The Government is seeking to punish those whom they think have participated by default. In the Government's view, the guilty parties in that respect are the oil companies. Hence, a windfall tax is mooted. Again, if they cannot be persuaded, they must be punished.

There is a need for investment in North sea development, and taxation has a role to play in encouraging and promoting that. However, the North sea oil industry in Scotland does not require punitive taxation that has been imposed by a Government in a fit of pique.

What is the underlying situation? The problem has not gone away. The price of fuel gets higher, the social costs increase and whole sectors of the economy weaken. The tourism figures for outwith Edinburgh and Glasgow are down and are getting lower. Because of high fuel costs and the high pound, the Highlands and Islands are now a high-cost holiday destination. Lib-Lab policy is pricing tourists out of Scotland, and the tourism industry may take years to recover.

The haulage industry continues to struggle and the number of continental drivers continues to rise. This has been a matter not of taking freight from road to rail, but of taking jobs from Scotland and giving them to European competitors.

The difficulties faced by a generation of fishermen continue to multiply. Despite having rebated fuel, they still require to compete with trawlers from France, Spain and elsewhere. Other nations are providing packages of support, whereas Labour's high fuel costs are an albatross around the necks of our fishermen.

According to David Blunkett, farmers are subsidy junkies. Perhaps George Lyon will tell us whether he agrees with that. Doubtless the Deputy Minister for Highlands and Islands and Gaelic will advise us whether, as a representative for the Western Isles, he feels that farmers are subsidy junkies. He can support or repudiate that scurrilous remark. The costs are still high, but the banks continue to hound and hover above many a farm. Where has the real windfall gone? The prime recipients of the largesse that has flowed from the rising tide of oil prices are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Treasury war chest.

On 1 February 1999, our illustrious First Minister sagely predicted that oil prices were likely to stay at around $10 to $12 a barrel for the foreseeable future. What happened? The price rocketed to more than $30 a barrel. As a result, the Treasury war chest burgeoned. On monthly oil price averages and National Audit Office estimates, the Treasury has received an additional £5.2 billion since the First Minister's bold prediction.

The windfall does not stop there, however. The Prime Minister has been pleading poverty on the additional VAT that goes to the Treasury as a result of increasing petrol prices. At the height of the crisis, he told us that the additional receipts would not be enough to fund a reduction of a fraction of a penny in the price of fuel. His Government thinks differently, however. In a parliamentary answer, we were told that every additional penny on the pump price raised £50 million. Since the First Minister's words of wisdom last year, the price of petrol is up by more than 10p and the Treasury's VAT receipts will be up by more than £500 million. In that is the windfall and in that the solution. The Government in Westminster, which has the relevant powers reserved to it, has the available resources to act—the money is there. There need be no cuts in other budgets and there are no excuses left.

Our motion accepts that this Parliament does not—at present—have power over fuel duty, but that does not mean that the Executive or other elected members can absent themselves or abdicate responsibility on an issue that is so fundamental to our people, economy and country.

Individuals have demonstrated and opinion polls have disclosed; it is now for this Parliament to articulate the nation's call for a cut in fuel duty. It is absurd that we have an Administration that takes perverse pride in the outrageous price of fuel. It is as if it has said, "We've put it up, so we'll put it higher; they've suffered, so they can continue suffering; we've started, so we'll finish." But it is we who are being finished off. That is why the most important point is that the cost of fuel must be cut.

The key sectors of our economy must be saved. As has been said, some fuel-dependent industries are hanging on by their fingernails. A package of measures must be considered and must be implemented. Those measures will vary, depending on the industry concerned and on the outcome of discussions between representatives of those economic sectors and the elected representatives of the people.

On road haulage, I wrote to the Minister for Transport and the Environment, asking her to consider an essential user rebate. She said that that fell under a reserved power. In committee yesterday, however, she indicated that she was considering extending the fuel duty rebate to community buses and other worthy schemes that we have been promoting for more than a year. What is the logic that allows her to extend the fuel duty rebate to buses but not to lorries? Why is the minister competent to give a rebate to the bus industry but incompetent to give a rebate to the road haulage industry? Similarly, fishing and farming need specific packages. That has been done in France and Spain, so why not here?

The motion is about standing up for Scotland, about speaking out for Scotland and about representing our nation on an issue that is fundamental to our citizens, our industries and our economy. The power to vary the rate of fuel tax is of course reserved, but that does not mean that the Executive should have no view or say or that it should absent itself from the debate and from responsibility. Are Executive ministers not responsible for the economy? There is a Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning. Do they not care about fishing and farming? There is a Minister for Rural Affairs. Do they not care about road haulage? There is a Minister for Transport and the Environment.

Discontent over fuel prices has been growing, but when the going gets tough, the Executive goes. It is still open to the Parliament to discharge its duty to represent and look after the interests of the people of Scotland. Even if the Executive goes AWOL, members can still remain attentive. Even if the political elite in Labour does not have the courage of the people's convictions, the Parliament can and must act. A clear message must resonate from this chamber in support of our people, our industries and our national interest. If there is not unanimous support for the motion it will be clear—and SNP members will make it quite clear—that Labour does not listen, Labour does not care and Labour is the problem. Get the price of fuel down or get them out. Roll on Falkirk West.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges that Scotland is the largest oil producer in the European Union yet has the highest fuel prices in the developed world; notes that the Scottish economy as a whole and fuel dependent industries in particular are paying a heavy price as a result of high fuel prices; recognises that both individuals and entire geographic areas, in particular rural and island Scotland, are suffering; further recognises that the root cause of high fuel prices is taxation; notes that as a result of the recent increases in world oil prices Her Majesty's Government will receive a revenue windfall in excess of £4.4 billion, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to hold a summit of interested parties to address the fuel situation, introduce a package of measures to address the needs of fuel dependent industries, and make urgent representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting him to make an immediate cut in fuel duty and give a commitment to work towards the European average.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate again the implications of current levels of fuel tax in Scotland. Gordon Brown is a latter-day Fagin. He is not just picking a pocket or two, he is raiding every sporran in the land. He is probably the first Scot to take the breeks off a Highlandman.

The truth about fuel prices in Scotland is not just chilling but squalid. Britain has one of the cheapest pre-tax petrol rates in the European Union. Once tax is slapped on, Scotland has the highest fuel prices in Europe: 10p a litre more than in France and 30p a litre more than in Germany. How did that come about? In May 1997 the average price of petrol was 59p a litre; now it is 86p. That is an increase of 44 per cent. In May 1997 the tax element was 45.7p a litre; now it is 61p. That is an increase of a mind-boggling 34 per cent.

Chancellor Gordon Brown pledged in 1997 not to increase taxes. In a series of budgets, however, he has done exactly the opposite and imposed rates of 12 per cent above inflation on diesel. In the most recent budget, he promised that fuel tax would be put up by the rate of inflation, but that led to a very tricky little manoeuvre. For the purposes of that increase, inflation was measured at 3.3 per cent; however, when pensions were put up by the rate of inflation, inflation was measured not at 3.3 per cent but at 1.1 per cent—hence the insolence of the additional 75p a week.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Miss Goldie has not mentioned the most interesting statistic, which is that tax on petrol was 33p a gallon when the last Conservative Government came to power and 222p a gallon when it left power.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

With some basic arithmetic, Mr Rumbles would notice that the Conservatives were in power for 18 years rather than three years. What the Labour Government and his unseemly pals, the Labour Executive, have achieved is truly remarkable.

It seems that it is all right to slap tax on the petrol-buying motorists but still give pensioners a raw deal. If you are a Scottish farmer, fisherman or haulier, heaven help you. If you are an elderly widow living in Blair Atholl, Inveraray or Arran, heaven help you. If you are a family in the central belt and need a car to take the children to school or the parents to work, heaven help you. If that were not bad enough, the same Labour Government, and the same Labour Executive that is supported by Mr Rumbles's party, propose to pile on the agony with workplace parking charges and road user levies. No wonder that the motorist in Scotland feels betrayed, abandoned and helpless.

Can anything be done? Of course it can, and the Conservatives have said that they will do it—a vital and meaningful, but prudent, cut of 3p a litre. For the rest of this year, that would cost the United Kingdom £525 million. That is a fraction of the £5 billion revenue that the chancellor is getting this year alone over and above his own forecasts.

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

Talking about chancellors, can Miss Goldie remind us which chancellor put VAT on fuel?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It was, indeed, a Conservative chancellor, as Mr Crawford knows. A Labour chancellor would have had no alternative and a Scottish nationalist chancellor, heaven help us, would have had no alternative either, because that ruling was in line with the European dictate at the time. The VAT on fuel has been a fraction of the fiscal policy of this Labour Government.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, Mr Stone, but I am running out of time.

Why would a cut of 3p a litre be more significant in Scotland than anywhere else? Our geography makes the car essential and the public transport alternative is very limited. In the Highlands and Islands, for example, average incomes are less than 80 per cent of the Scottish average. Car and other transport users cover distances that are almost double the Scottish average. A total of 65 per cent of the people live more than one hour's drive from a major centre, as compared to 10 per cent nationally. Average fuel costs are between 10 per cent and 20 per cent higher. Our 3p cut would pack a punch with people and business. Current price levels are roasting business. The road haulage industry is in crisis.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

rose—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry, Mr Stone.

Our vehicle excise duty is 11 times that of France. We have the highest-taxed diesel in Europe. Tourism should be our flagship industry, but the flag is pretty limp and the ship is certainly low in the water. A study published last July by the Forum of Private Business found that the cost of fuel is destroying rural tourism where businesses depend on tourists travelling by bus or car. Petrol prices ranked higher than the weak euro as a factor in that.

It is indeed desirable that this subject is debated. I hope that a resounding message is going via the junior minister to his colleagues in the Scottish Executive. It is clear that what happened in the blockades of last month will undoubtedly happen again—it will happen again in the middle of winter, when neither Scotland nor the rest of the United Kingdom is well disposed to cope. I hope that the junior minister has something comforting to say to the Parliament about his consultations with his colleagues at Westminster. Unless the Scottish Executive's colleagues in government at Westminster are prepared to make some concession on fuel prices, the future for the United Kingdom is extremely bleak, and the future for Scotland is the bleakest of all.

As for the Scottish nationalists' motion, although I am glad that it was lodged and that we have an opportunity for debate, the Presiding Officer will forgive my cynicism when I point out that the authors of that motion belong to a party that is committed to a high-tax, high-risk regime. It has become perfectly clear in debates in this Parliament that the Scottish nationalists, especially in the form of Mr MacAskill, have a love of making serial commitments with uncosted implications. I fear that their vision is a chimera—a fanciful dream to dazzle—but not a prudent, workable solution. That is why the Conservatives lodged an amendment.

I will deal briefly with Liberal Democrat amendment. In so far as the Liberal Democrats know what they are doing—which, in itself, is remarkable—they too are committed to high taxation. They would put 5p on a litre. Moreover, there would be an uncosted deficit if they removed the tax disc from cars with an engine capacity below a certain level—by their own calculations, they will not replace that lost revenue. That means more fuel tax for the road user. Perhaps Mr Ian Jenkins has revealed his party's position more patently than anyone else. He said:

"The Liberal Democrats favour environmental taxes and agree with the principle that the polluter pays".—[Official Report, 22 June 2000; Vol 7, c 670.]

One cannot drive a motor vehicle without polluting. I therefore conclude that Mr Jenkins wants the motorist to be taxed again and again.

I move amendment S1M-1238.2, to leave out from "is the largest" to end and insert:

"has the highest fuel prices in Europe owing to the high levels of taxation levied by Her Majesty's Government; notes that this position is reducing the competitiveness of Scottish business; recognises that the essential car user, particularly in rural Scotland, is suffering and calls upon the Scottish Executive to make representations to Her Majesty's Government in order to reduce taxation in general and fuel tax in particular."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As Kenny MacAskill and others have rightly said, fuel duty has become the burning issue for the majority of motorists in Scotland. Not only do they pay the highest fuel tax in Europe, but until recently they received very little in return—no improved roads, no alternative public transport and no relief for rural motorists, who are hit disproportionately hard. This is not a new issue in the Highlands and Islands—it has been around for many years. Motorists in the central belt are only now having to pay more than 80p for fuel, whereas in the Highlands and Islands 85p has been a normal price for petrol—the norm there is now 90p to £1 a litre.

Motorists and hauliers are angry and upset—with good reason. For every litre of petrol that they purchase, 62p goes on tax and VAT. What do they get back? I remind Annabel Goldie that, under the Tories, who invented the fuel price, we saw—

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I hope that the member will allow me to make some progress. I will let her in later.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have a point of information for Mr Lyon. Fuel prices arose some time during the 1890s when the motor car was invented.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am taken aback by that comment.

I was going to point out—in case the Tories had forgotten it—that the tax and VAT element of fuel rose from 33p a gallon for four star in 1979 to 222p a gallon in 1997. Tax and VAT rose to 222p under the Tories, yet we have crumbling roads, because of cuts in local authority budgets, and a motorway system that at times has more cones than cars. Did the money go into public transport?

Not a penny. The rail system was starved of investment. Now we have a privatised rail system that provides a worse service than British Rail did. At the same time, rail fares increased above the rate of inflation. We also ended up with a privatised bus service, resulting in the complete disappearance of rural buses, whereas in towns and cities 10 buses appear at once.

Is it any wonder that motorists feel angry and upset? They pay 62p a litre in tax and get nothing in return. We were told by the Tories that the tax would be a green tax—in reality it was nothing more than a stealth tax. The Tories and the Labour party have raised fuel tax and other indirect taxes to fund cuts in income tax. That is dishonest politics and the chickens are coming home to roost. At least Tony Blair has acknowledged that fuel tax is being used to fund public services.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I know that Duncan Hamilton always likes to intervene on my speeches, but I have been talking for three minutes and I must make some progress.

Hague's Tories have now seen the error of their ways: they have discovered a new economic miracle on planet Portillo. We have heard all about it this week. The Tories are going to cut fuel taxes, income tax, business tax and tax on savings. However, the really clever thing is that at the same time they are going to outspend Labour on health, education and pensions.

Do Hague's Tories really believe that the voters will buy that or is it an indication of Hague's desperation that he must jump on every populist bandwagon that comes along? The problem with bandwagons is that, when you are waiting for one, three turn up at once.

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

We have heard precious little about the Liberals' amendment, which says that they will impose

"a cap on fuel taxes in real terms for five years".

Does that mean that they are committed to increasing excise duty by the rate of inflation for the next five years, no matter what happens to world oil prices?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It means a cap on fuel taxes, which is the same as the SNP's policy.

Talking of jumping on political bandwagons, I will turn to the SNP. We have had four different fuel policies for an independent Scotland in the past few years. In 1997, the fuel price escalator was an integral part of the SNP's spending plans. That commitment was given in the SNP's manifesto for the 1997 election, under the heading "Paying for Scotland's Future". The SNP's 1999 manifesto also included the fuel tax escalator. However, on 10 July, John Swinney, the new leader of the SNP, changed the policy. At the Scottish Grand Committee, he stated that the SNP would freeze fuel duty. A few weeks later, he said again that it would freeze fuel duty, but that the freeze would be at the level from before the increase in March. Alex Neil's fundamentalist wing of the party wants a 20 per cent cut in fuel duty. So we have a choice of four policies. Take your pick.

The SNP is not serious about fuel duty. It has used more than half its parliamentary time in the chamber to discuss reserved issues.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member give way?

David (None, Lothians)

Order. The member is in injury time, so there is no giving way.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

That demonstrates clearly to the people of Scotland that the SNP has abandoned Westminster and that it has no interest in raising Scotland's problems in the right forum, which is Westminster. The SNP is an irrelevance in Westminster. It has completely walked away from that Parliament.

Our amendment deals with the real concerns of motorists in Scotland, especially rural motorists, who have been disproportionately hit by fuel tax. The amendment goes a long way towards addressing those concerns.

I move amendment S1M-1238.1, to leave out from "acknowledges" to end and insert:

"notes that fuel is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament; recognises that rising fuel prices and haulage costs create particular financial and social difficulties for individuals and businesses, especially for remote, rural and island areas of Scotland, and further recognises that the Liberal Democrats have opposed all fuel duty increases since the introduction of the fuel escalator under the last Conservative government and support (a) a cap on fuel taxes in real terms for five years, (b) investment of additional resources acquired through increased VAT in public transport, (c) the encouragement of fuel-efficient cars by abolishing Vehicle Excise Duty for the most fuel-efficient vehicles and (d) targeted assistance for Scotland's remote, rural and island communities to alleviate the additional fuel price that these areas incur."

David (None, Lothians)

I will clarify for members that, although the chair allows injury time for interventions, once a member is beyond the allotted time there should be no more interventions. Members should not accept interventions and members should not try to intervene.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

What an unedifying sight we have seen so far—the Conservative bandwagon and the SNP funeral cortège, driven by Kenny MacAskill. They had nothing positive to say about Scotland's economy. As usual, it was all doom and gloom. The Labour party understands the concerns of motorists; it has addressed the issues and is spending more on transport than has ever been spent before.

Let us introduce some facts. The oil price has increased from $10 at the start of last year to $35 a barrel now. That has had an effect on the price of fuel. The increase in fuel duties this year was the lowest for 11 years. Cutting fuel duty would be worth £2 a month to the average motorist, but would cost the public finances £1 billion. I am amazed by the spending strategies of the SNP and the Conservatives. Perhaps I should not be surprised by the SNP, because it spends, spends and spends. Indeed, I recollect that the SNP finance spokesperson borrowed a calculator during the party's press conference to launch its spending plans for Scotland.

The Tories forget some of the history behind their past strategies. Why did they introduce the fuel duty escalator? How did we get here in the first place? We have an environmental problem to deal with; we cannot get away from that fact.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is popularly accepted that, by 1997, the United Kingdom's environmental obligations under the Kyoto agreement had been met. That is why the Conservatives were prepared to cease the application of the fuel escalator, and voted to that effect in the House of Commons.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Indeed; that is correct. The estimated increase in fuel duty between 1996 and 2000 will have saved emissions of between 1 million and 2.5 million tonnes of CO 2 per annum by 2010. That was the rationale for the escalator. We acknowledge the impact that the escalator has had on the economy. Ours is the party, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London, that has taken away the fuel duty escalator and—to answer George Lyon's questions—made commitments to transparency on where the money from increases in petrol taxes will be spent. The Tories taxed motorists and did not spend on infrastructure. Under Labour, and under the coalition in Scotland, we are doing the opposite. The Minister for Transport and the Environment recently announced historic spending increases on transport.

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

I thank Andy Kerr for giving way. He seems somewhat coy about the Labour party's professed policy. Is it the case that the chancellor is committed to increasing excise duty at the next budget by at least the rate of inflation?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

No, that is not correct. The Labour party's policy is to address society's needs; that includes the needs of motorists and the road haulage industry as well as the health service, education, infrastructure and social inclusion—all the massive spending priorities on which we are delivering.

In Kenny MacAskill's paradise, he always talks about Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland and even France, all of which have higher vehicle taxation. Once that higher taxation is combined with the road user charging schemes on the continent, it can be seen that the cost to our motorists is much more on a par with the cost to motorists elsewhere.

Yes, it costs £50 to fill up a typical car in the UK, while it costs £42 in France and £44 in Holland, but those other countries have road user charging schemes and taxation on the motorist is much higher than in the UK. If Kenny MacAskill cared to consider the facts, he would find that that is true.

We all acknowledge that road haulage is central to the modern economy in Scotland. The Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs's 15th report states:

"We have not accepted the principal argument advanced by our witnesses from the road haulage industry, that fuel prices and VED"—

vehicle excise duty—

"are too high, and should fall. We believe that in the past haulage rates have been unrealistically low, and have not reflected the true costs imposed by the road haulage industry on our society."

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is not it amazing that many Scottish haulage firms are in trouble? Is not it amazing that many such firms are closing down and their services are being replaced by foreign drivers who do not spend any money in the UK and pay nothing towards wear and tear on our roads?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The foreign cabotage rate in this country is 0.06 per cent. We are hearing the usual scare story from the Tories. The real cost to society of motoring is estimated at £42 billion; revenues are £23 billion. The effect of cheap fuel is dramatic. Consider America, where petrol cost 35 cents a litre in 1995 and consumption was 1,600 litres per person. In the European Union and Japan, petrol costs between 60 cents and 90 cents a litre and consumption is 500 litres per person. We must face some hard realities about our environment and our economy.

It was Labour that first met the Road Haulage Association, and John Reid who agreed to remove the fuel duty escalator. Labour has listened to the industry on the improvements that can be made to its vehicles. Labour is delivering at a national level.

On George Lyon's point, it is one thing to levy money from motorists, but another thing to spend that money on infrastructure. The difference in Scotland is that we have the commitment to spend that money, which is being delivered through the public transport fund. Money is going to local authorities to repair roads and bridges. That is how we repay the motorist.

David (None, Lothians)

I remind members that we have two debates this morning, so we need to keep the debate moving along swiftly. I ask for four-minute speeches.

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

Members of all parties will agree that in rural Scotland the motor car is a necessity, not a luxury. However, Labour taxation policy on the use of the motor car in rural Scotland treats it as if it were a luxury, not a necessity.

Despite the fractious tone of the debate, there lurks somewhere a consensus that the motor car is a necessity in rural Scotland, and that action must be taken. Characteristically, I will shed light rather than heat on that debate. We have heard nothing about what the Government will do to alleviate the crisis in rural Scotland; nothing, that is, except what we heard from Mr Brian Wilson, who toured various parts of the Highlands with Alasdair Morrison. He said that the answer is liquefied petroleum gas and that people can get grants of up to 75 per cent to convert their cars to LPG. The problem is that only two makes of car qualify for that scheme. In addition, the cars have to be less than one year old and the only garage that can do the conversion is based in Southampton.

Active steps can be, and have been, taken by other countries. In France, there are 1,000 multi-service shops, selling petrol, which are supported by the Government. In Greece, there was the imposition in 1996 and 1997 of a maximum price outwith Athens and Salonica. In Portugal, there are lower excise rates for the Azores. Greece has lower rates for the Greek islands. In Italy, the rural populace is protected in places such as Gorízia.

Every other European state with its own independent Government is taking action to protect its rural population. The British Government has taken no action and—even after the protests—proposes to take no action.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

On derogation, Mr MacAskill said that

"it would be legitimate for residents in Glasgow and Edinburgh to argue that the cost of fuel was offset by lower house prices in rural areas".

How does that statement affect the SNP's argument on derogation?

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

Mr MacAskill is on record as stating the case for the necessity of urgent action on rural prices. Were Mr Kerr to read our motion, he would find that it says exactly that.

I hope that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's suggestions on specific measures to provide protection for rural motorists will be investigated. However, the Executive seems reluctant to impinge in any way on a subject that is reserved to Westminster, even when that subject has serious repercussions for our rural population in relation to farming, fishing and tourism, which have been mentioned by members of other parties.

The sorry truth of the matter is that unless the Parliament is granted more powers, there will be no solution to the problem.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

rose—

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

rose—

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

I will give way to Jamie Stone first, then to Robin Harper.

David (None, Lothians)

You must watch your time, Mr Ewing.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I thank Fergus Ewing for giving way.

Although the escalator has been done away with, Fergus Ewing will agree that those of us who live in the Highlands are stuck at the top of the escalator. House prices may be low, but incomes are pathetically poor in crofting areas in the north of Scotland. Should not his proposals include an examination of the derogation on VAT? In the Highlands, we pay over 90p a litre, including VAT, which means that we are hit extra hard on the VAT front. Such examination would be a constructive way forward and would mirror what is happening in parts of Europe.

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

That approach is one possibility, but my own inkling is that a maximum price should be imposed, as has been imposed in Greece.

I promised that I would give way to Robin Harper, given that I so churlishly did not do so during our previous debate on the issue.

David (None, Lothians)

You have 10 seconds left.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Good morning and thank you.

Perhaps the member who sums up for the SNP could answer my question. I accept much of what is said about the problems of rural Scotland, but in an independent Scotland, would the SNP sign the Kyoto protocol? The SNP must find an answer to that question. What steps would the SNP take to meet Scotland's environmental responsibilities?

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Ewing, please answer that question and wind up.

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

I am happy to answer Robin Harper's question. The SNP policy is that we are committed to working towards a rate of excise duty on fuel that is in accordance with the European average. I believe that environmentalists should argue, as Robin Harper argues in relation to other environmental issues, that action should be taken on a European basis. What is the point of having 15 or 16 different rates of excise duty? Logic suggests that Scotland would benefit from the lower rate of European tax. That compelling logic is so powerful that not even the Labour Government will be able to ignore it.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

If so many of our Scottish National Party colleagues are concerned about reducing taxation in the UK, why are they not standing for next year's Westminster elections? Why do they not make their arguments in the arena where that matter can be addressed?

The truth of the matter is that the SNP is more concerned with a shallow, populist approach than with influencing what happens in UK politics. That approach was characterised by Kenny MacAskill, who gave the game away early in his speech when he referred to recent opinion polls in The Herald and the Sunday Herald. The SNP is more concerned with responding to short-term opinion polls than with setting out a responsible programme.

Week in, week out, we hear from the nationalists about the need for increased public expenditure. Kenny MacAskill is a great advocate of that approach—his favourite issue is roads, but many other members of the SNP have their own hobby-horses. Yet the minute that a populist bandwagon, such as the debate on fuel taxes, comes along, the only question for the SNP is whether it can scrabble aboard quicker than William Hague can.

One difference between William Hague and the Scottish National Party is that at least the UK press puts William Hague's populism under proper scrutiny. I appeal to the Scottish press to subject the SNP's position to the same level of scrutiny.

Where is the SNP's commitment to public services when, the minute some claim about reducing taxes comes along, SNP members jump on board the bandwagon? What would be the position on taxation in an independent Scotland? Would the SNP alter its taxation policy every month in response to fluctuations in the price of a barrel of oil? What effect would that have on the crocodile tears that the SNP regularly sheds for manufacturing industry? How would industry survive in an independent Scotland with that taxation policy?

SNP members advocate moves towards European averages for fuel taxes, but we do not hear them advocating a move towards European averages for other forms of taxation. Would they favour a move towards the 53 per cent of gross domestic product that Sweden levies in taxation, or Norway's 44 per cent?

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

Bristow Muldoon has spent an awful lot of time asking what the SNP would do. Has not he read the motion? Is not it about time that he started defending his Government's record?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I am surprised that the SNP is wasting its Opposition time on debating here issues that should properly be raised at Westminster. However, Tricia Marwick intervened at just the right time, as I was about to move on to the response from the UK Government, which I think has been responsible.

Tony Blair, in his conference speech last week, said that he is listening to people's anger over fuel duties—the hauliers and farmers, to say nothing of ordinary motorists. He recognises that there is real hardship, but he must also listen to concerns about underfunding in the NHS, and about the need for investment in schools, more police on the beat and better public transport. The real world is full of competing causes, most of them good and deserving, many of them heart-rending. A Government that chooses priorities is not arrogant; a Government that fails to choose is irresponsible.

As Andy Kerr pointed out, Labour's response to transport and environmental problems is also a balanced one that reflects the need for substantial increases in public transport as well as considering fuel taxation. Why do we hear no concern from the SNP about the relative increases in the cost of public transport? Because that is not a short-term, populist issue. Populism can work in the short term in opinion polls, but I am confident that, when it comes to real choices, the people of Britain will reject the shallow populism of William Hague at UK level and its tartan counterpart, as exhibited by the SNP.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

As all members know, and as the Liberal Democrat amendment makes clear, fuel tax is a matter that is reserved to Westminster. However, I am delighted that we have a distinctive and realistic Liberal Democrat amendment to the SNP motion. There should be nothing surprising about the fact that we disagree at times with our Labour colleagues on issues that lie outwith the partnership agreement. On subjects such as the fuel tax, we have our differences.

George Lyon's amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats quite clearly recognises

"that rising fuel prices and haulage costs create particular financial and social difficulties for individuals and businesses"

in rural Scotland. That is one of the main reasons why the Liberal Democrats at Westminster have consistently opposed all fuel duty increases since the Conservatives first introduced the fuel tax escalator. We have a sensible fuel tax policy that aims to protect rural Scotland. The position that has been adopted by William Hague's Tory party will be seen for what it is: an opportunistic and cynical move. The SNP position of calling for a cut while also calling for increased public spending is quite indefensible.

I believe firmly that the real problem is the public's perception that the Westminster Government feels that it is okay for the price of fuel to rise continuously. People are fed up with what appears to be a never-ending rise in fuel taxes. That is most certainly not an acceptable position for our rural communities. We all know that for much of the Scottish population, there is simply no alternative to travelling by car.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I want to ask about a point of Liberal policy, which promises a cap on fuel taxes for five years. Will Mr Rumbles confirm that that would still commit his party to raising fuel duties year by year in line with inflation, regardless of oil prices? Is that correct or not?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What does a cap mean? A cap is a cap. That is a simple and straightforward phrase and, if Duncan Hamilton listens, he will hear me go on to explain specifically what we intend to do.

The accepted wisdom from the Tories, and now from the Westminster Government, that there should be a deliberate move away from income tax—which is far and away the fairest form of taxation—to indirect taxation such as fuel duty, pretends that people have a choice if they want to spend money on fuel. That is a great mistake. Who does the tax on fuel hit hardest? In our rural areas, it hits the relatively less well-off harder than anyone else.

To tackle the problem of continuously rising fuel costs, the Liberal Democrats demand a real-terms cap on fuel prices for at least the next five years. We demand that any extra VAT revenues that the Government receives from the rises in fuel prices be redirected to help public transport and reduce taxes for road hauliers. We would cut vehicle excise duties for lorries, by charging foreign lorries to use our roads, and we would cut vehicle excise duty for fuel-efficient cars.

Liberal Democrat policy would leave Scotland better off. It would help to address transport problems in our rural communities, and would mean a more realistic choice of transport. We do not support the SNP motion, nor the unrealistic Conservative amendment, but urge support for our sensible amendment.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We have heard the usual rants from members of the Lib-Lab coalition: it seems that everybody is wrong but them. It has been stated that fuel tax is there to help the environment, but it has nothing to do with the environment. When someone fills their car up with £60-worth of petrol, £45.60 of that is tax. The tax is all about filling up the coffers at Westminster.

First, I want to focus on the effect on our public services of the punitive level of fuel duty that members have spoken about, especially its effect on the emergency services, which are already affected by years of underfunding by Governments of various shades. Millions of pounds have drained away through spiralling fuel costs; all that money is siphoned off to line Gordon Brown's war chest.

It is estimated that 80 per cent of emergency service funding, for police, fire and ambulance services, goes straight back to the Treasury in fuel duty. That is a ridiculous situation. Money is being given with one hand and taken back with the other. I do not see the sense in that at all.

Accountants' figures revealed recently that Scotland's biggest police force, Strathclyde police, had overspent by £500,000 by the end of the financial year as a result of rising fuel costs. Since Labour came to power, the police force has spent £14 million on fuel, £11 million of which has gone straight back to the coffers of the Treasury in London. We can ill afford to lose that money; the situation is crazy. All too recently, we heard about police manpower shortages, but we could afford to employ more police officers if the Executive dealt with the issue of fuel taxation.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Sandra White give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, thank you.

Similarly, the fire service has incurred increasing costs. Fire board costs have risen from £4.28 million to £5.07 million and a significant proportion of that increase is due to increased fuel duties. The health service also loses money that it can ill afford to lose. The cost of fuel for ambulances has risen from £2.77 million to £3.2 million—a rise of 16 per cent over the past three years. Of that money, 80 per cent is siphoned off from health service budgets to the Treasury. That is another ridiculous situation.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will Sandra White give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No, I shall not give way.

My second point concerns an issue that I have raised before in the Parliament, and that I shall probably raise again. Many people in the public sector are pushing to be allowed to use red diesel rebated fuel, which is taxed at only 3p a litre, in contrast to standard diesel, which is taxed at 52p a litre. Red diesel is available to tractors, diggers, road rollers, mobile cranes and even snow ploughs. How can the Executive justify the fact that police cars, fire engines and ambulances must pay 52p a litre in tax when those other vehicles pay only 3p a litre in tax? That situation is a wartime relic—perhaps the Executive is one too—and is no longer justified. It should be stopped now.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will Sandra White give way?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am sorry, but I will not give way. Andy Kerr has had his say, and the minister can deal with my point on red diesel in summing up.

If red diesel was made available to public services, millions of pounds could be saved. If the ambulance service had used rebated fuel over the past three years, £7 million could have been saved. That money could also have been used in our hospitals—in the heart transplant unit of the Glasgow royal infirmary, or in the Glasgow western infirmary, which is crying out for radiotherapy machines and for funding for updated cancer research. The money could even have been used to reduce the waiting lists for digital hearing aids. However, the Executive does not seem to see that. Members may laugh, but the people are not laughing; they are crying out for help. This is not funny.

As a matter of urgency, the Executive—or the coalition as I prefer to call it—must make representations to end this absurd anomaly. It is in power; let us see it do something about this matter.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As I have been relegated to speak in the middle of the debate, I feel like a bystander in the latest instalment of the Kenny MacAskill show. We all had a good laugh at his speech this morning. The heavy team sat behind the ministers to barrack and boo. Tavish Scott was at his best, muttering "pathetic" all the way through Kenny MacAskill's speech. When we read the parliamentary sketch in The Scotsman tomorrow morning, how we shall all laugh at what it says about Kenny.

If we take the trouble tomorrow to read what Kenny MacAskill said and to strip away the rhetoric, jibes and cheap points, we might be left with about two minutes of his speech, but it contained an irreducible core that merits careful consideration from members. The heart of his speech was not so far away from what George Lyon said at this year's Liberal Democrat conference, when apparently he spoke about the matter in hand.

Kenny MacAskill is no fool; that may come as a surprise to some members. Many sensible professional and business people take Kenny MacAskill quite seriously. The nationalists are on to a real grievance, which we—as unionist politicians in unionist parties—ignore at our peril.

It was wrong for the Executive to come to the debate today without the relevant minister to respond, and for it to line up its back benchers to say that fuel tax is not a devolved issue and that the SNP is wasting its time by debating it. Unionist government operates at European, British and Scottish levels. We address such issues at every level; if we separate them out and say that they are not our responsibility, we open up an avenue for the enemy.

On 364 days out of 365, Henry McLeish builds his status as the minister in the Scottish Parliament who deals with Westminster, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Department of Trade and Industry. He says that we have matters in hand, that we make representations and that we champion the Scottish economy all the time—except when we debate fuel. Suddenly we are told that the nationalists are exaggerating, misleading and distorting. Of course they are; that is what they are good at. That is how they got to the Parliament.

When the SNP tunes into a real sense of grievance, the Executive ignores it at its peril, and there is a real sense of grievance about fuel tax. The Liberals have articulated that this morning. Mr Rumbles, who has now left the chamber, did not say what the Liberals would do to protect rural motorists, hauliers and haulage customers, but he articulated the grievance. What are we doing about that? I mean all of us—the Parliament and the Executive. What have we done, in more than a year, about high fuel prices in rural areas? Members must not think only about people in the Highlands and Islands who pay the high prices. We must think about the rural areas where people feel that they are disadvantaged.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Mr Tosh give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. I have answered all George Lyon's points.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

He did not make any.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That is right.

Throughout Scotland, there is a sense of grievance that we have not addressed. A parliamentary committee has started off down that road. It has identified that high fuel prices are the inevitable consequence of low turnover in remote rural outlets. What will we do about that? There are mechanisms to deal with it. Fergus Ewing mentioned derogation, which is probably not relevant, but are we willing to consider subsidy and fuel duty rebate? Are we willing to do anything? Has any political party in the Parliament presented a properly thought-through policy to deal with the problem? [MEMBERS: "Yes."] Well, I did not hear it, but I would be delighted to. We certainly did not hear it from Mr Lyon, who is nodding vigorously.

The job of the Parliament and the Executive is to represent Scotland in the union to deal with this problem for rural areas, including the Highlands and Islands. If the Executive adopts the Brian Wilson position of contemptuously turning its back on the people with whom it disagrees, it should not be surprised when Kenny MacAskill runs his sgian-dubh between its shoulder blades.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Contrary to what Murray Tosh said, I have an articulated argument. As I said in an intervention during Fergus Ewing's speech, the Highlands are being crippled by the high cost of fuel, as are other rural areas.

High levels of fuel taxation are imposed for environmental purposes. However, pollution from the Highlands is a drop in the ocean to what comes from Edinburgh, Glasgow, London or greater Manchester. For that reason, there is a special case for rural areas.

As I have said before, the higher the price of fuel in the Highlands, the higher the VAT we must pay and the harder it hits us in the teeth. One cannot take a broad-brush approach to the fuel issue in Scotland or the UK generally.

Running an ancient Peugeot 205, which is a necessity in the Highlands, is entirely different from the luxury of a second BMW for someone in London SW6. That is why there is strength in the VAT argument. I am sorry that Murray Tosh said that derogation is not worthy of consideration, as I believe that it most certainly is.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I did not say that—will the member give way?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I will not give way to Murray Tosh, but if he says that I have got that wrong, I accept what he says.

Derogation is the way forward. We should have, on the European model, lower VAT in Scotland's rural areas. That is the one way in which we can underpin those fragile economies. That model works in other parts of the EU, and we should duplicate it here.

I must press this matter with the minister. I asked Ms Boyack about it some weeks ago and was told that it was being discussed in the UK Government. I make no apology for pressing the issue again. I will continue to do so until we get a fair deal for fuel in the Highlands.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will address three matters. First, I will address who is responsible for the current situation. Secondly, I will address what we are going to do about it. Thirdly, I will spend some time on the various measures that have been proposed, in particular by our friends on the Liberal benches.

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

Friends?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

That was a joke.

The debate used to focus on who was to blame—the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries or the oil companies—but we have passed that stage. It is interesting that nobody—apart from the sycophant—has disputed the fact that the Government is largely responsible for the position that we are in.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member give way?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No.

Murray Tosh made an interesting point a few moments ago. He said that it is wrong to suggest that Parliament does not have a role to play. If Parliament is to represent the interests of the Scottish people, it is vital that Parliament takes the agenda forward.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

rose—

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Murray Tosh and I disagree about the role of Parliament. I want it to deal with fuel taxes outwith the union—he would rather that it did so within the union. The point on which we agree is that we need radical, original and creative thinking. We have not heard a great deal of that—certainly not from Liberal members.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

rose—

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Members will know from our motion that the SNP proposes a substantial package of measures: we promise an immediate cut in the rate of fuel duty; we promise immediate measures for fuel-dependent industries; and we promise an immediate summit for all those who are involved to plan a long-term strategy. That is immediate action, which can be set against the long-term inaction of the Executive and the Westminster Parliament.

The baying that we hear from the savages on my right brings me to the Liberals' position.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No. I want to deal with the points that were made by one of Mr Stone's colleagues. [Interruption.] Presiding Officer, perhaps you could control those people.

Mr Lyon said that the matter of fuel rightly rests with Westminster. Why is that right? Liberal Democrat members are meant to belong to a federal party and Mr Lyon is on record throughout their election campaign as saying that he believes in independence. However, Mr Lyon and his federal party believe that while they represent their Scottish constituents, it is right that Westminster should deal with the biggest issue in Scottish society. That is an abdication of the Liberal Democrats' role, which shows how far they have moved.

The Liberals announced their policy today. They point out correctly that their policy is to cap fuel tax for five years. I will quote from The Economist of 23 September—hardly a radical nationalist magazine—which analyses the Liberal policy. It states:

"Read the small print, and they are far from promising a cut in fuel tax. Mr Kennedy"—

I remind Liberals that he is their leader—

"in an emergency debate on the fuel crisis on September 18th promised a cap on fuel taxes for five years 'in real terms'. This would still commit the party to raising fuel duties year by year in line with inflation, no matter how high the world price of oil rises."

That is the fact.

The magazine continues:

"Given the current public mood, this may sound like electoral suicide."

Frankly, given the Liberals' standing in Scotland, would the people know? Would they care? Would they notice? I do not think so.

It is wrong of the Liberal party—just because it has taken Labour's shilling—to pretend that it would cap fuel prices. It would not. Under the Liberal party's policy, fuel duty would continue to increase in line with inflation. The Liberal party supports that and will answer for that disgrace at the next election.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

It is clear to Parliament—if only from the frequency with which the SNP uses its parliamentary time to debate fuel duty and other reserved matters—that the SNP thinks that it mines a rich vein of political opportunity. That is telling, because the SNP has nothing to add to the debate. Like the Tories in Bournemouth this week, the SNP has no vision. It has not thought through a position on the future of Scotland. It reacts to events and is tossed and turned on the ebb and flow of populist opinion. On a different day, in a different place and to a different audience, the SNP would present a different policy.

One SNP member says "derogation", one says "environmentally friendly" and another says "freeze the duty". One says "cut it by 2p" and another says "cut it by 10p". Duncan Hamilton wants to run the UK economy, but no SNP member wants to stand for election to the Westminster Parliament.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Duncan Hamilton took no interventions, so he cannot expect to intervene.

The Government listens and leads. We have listened to the concerns of drivers, but we also listen to those who tell us that 18 years of Tory rule did immense damage to our public services. We know that that is true and we are committed to reversing that damage and to building better public services. We will hold strong to our commitment to record spending on the national health service and to making education a priority—with record spending. We will also hold strong to our commitment to record funding for law and order.

The SNP built the fuel tax escalator into its economics of independence. How will it make £100 million of cuts in Scotland in its spending plans? We know how the Tories would make their cuts—at least they are honest. They have planned to make £16 billion of cuts through having fewer teachers, fewer nurses and fewer policemen. Where would the SNP make its cuts?

Duncan Hamilton blames the Government alone, but we acted in concert with our allies. Fuel prices are a global problem. Last year, the four leading oil companies—all multinationals—were expected to double their profits to $35 billion, but there has been a massive contraction in global oil prices and world oil demand. Last week, the United States Government released millions of barrels of oil from its emergency reserves to avoid a crisis. Such action was last taken during the Gulf war.

Can anyone imagine the insular nationalists appealing to international opinion? Would kailyard Kenny MacAskill—wherever he is—ask OPEC to drill for more red diesel?

Although Fergus Ewing tells the European Commission that Scotland wants to play a full role in Europe, he ignores the fundamental principle of the single market and derogation.

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

Does Allan Wilson go along with Andy Kerr's denial of the officially stated Labour party and Treasury policy of increasing excise duty by at least the rate of inflation at the next budget?

Is it true that Labour's policy is founded on the idea that fuel tax is too low?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

That is not what Andy Kerr said, nor is it Labour party policy.

Only yesterday, the European Union adopted the terms of a communication on the EU's oil supplies. The communiqué that was issued mentions

"increasing the consistency of national policies and strengthening a common approach . . . resisting the temptation to offset oil prices by cutting and aiming to harmonise excise duties between Member States, in particular by raising minimum taxes".

The EU is trying to address the real problem of the rise in global oil prices.

The nats refer to their green credentials, but it is easy to have such credentials. Dr Richard Dixon, the head of research at Friends of the Earth Scotland said of the SNP:

"Instead of developing serious strategies they are trying to score cheap political points by pretending to be the motorist's friend."

SNP members are undoubtedly trying to be the in-crowd, but that only shows their inconsistency and incompetence. Such a policy has led to a gap in their budget proposals as big as the hole in the ozone layer.

Furthermore, the SNP's inconsistency and incompetence is a symptom of something much deeper. Like the Tory party, it has no constructive vision. Instead, it sees every problem as a problem of the Executive's making and every difficulty as a political opportunity to be talked up and aggravated to gain a few votes.

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

Will the member give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Sorry, I am just concluding.

The SNP does not want to share the problem—that might help to find a solution that would benefit Scotland and its people. The fact that the party has no positive policies and is not interested in helping to govern Scotland is proven by the way in which SNP members return to the issue time and again. The Scottish people will quickly realise that.

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

We move to the winding-up speeches. Tavish Scott, you have four minutes.

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

This will be funny.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I thank Tricia Marwick for that warm welcome.

This is an important debate; it is right that MSPs should raise issues that are so important to all parts of Scotland and the Scottish economy.

However, it is also right that MSPs should respect the fact that only the Westminster Parliament has the right to change UK tax policies. Murray Tosh's interesting speech highlighted not so much his link with the SNP on the issue, as the fact that the Scottish Tories have no MPs. They are not keen for the matter to be debated at Westminster because they have no members there. To be frank, after listening to Malcolm Rifkind on the radio this morning, I do not think that they will have any MPs after the next general election either. Murray Tosh and Kenny MacAskill also had a veritable love-in for a minute or two.

The Tory party's transport policy changes every day according to which bus goes past. Although Annabel Goldie said that it was all right to cut taxes, she missed the point that was made by so many members from rural, island and remote areas. Jamie Stone, Fergus Ewing and others rightly highlighted the fact that in such areas fuel can cost 8p to 15p more per litre than the average price in Scotland. Annabel Goldie and the other Tories clearly do not give a damn about that—we will hold them to account for that attitude at the next election.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will Tavish Scott give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No.

Jamie Stone said rightly that derogations have merit and should be considered properly and pursued. Fergus Ewing could have been more accommodating on that point.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I did not ignore that issue in my speech. The problem with derogations is that they require EC consent, but such consents are rarely given and only in difficult circumstances. It might be more realistic to find out whether some form of fuel duty rebate is available. Should not we investigate such solutions through our various political opportunities, channels and committees and press for them to be identified and implemented?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Murray Tosh's remarks seem to be constructive until we consider the Tory attitude to Europe. Every day this week, we have seen on our television screens a Tory party that hates Europe and that would do anything to get out of Europe. The Tory party's main funder—who is to spend £20 million on the party's next general election campaign—spent money on the recent referendum in Denmark. I will take no lectures from the Tory party about Europe. In the 1993 budget, Lord Lamont of Lerwick increased fuel duty by 10 per cent, established the fuel duty escalator and increased fuel prices by a further 3 per cent above inflation—three more taxes for the consumer. That followed the Tories' election campaign in which they said, "No new taxes." We had a lot of new taxes—22 in all.

What about today's Tories?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will Mr Scott give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No, I will come to Annabel Goldie in a moment.

What of William Hague's Tory party—or, after the public confessional on Tuesday, I should say Michael Portillo's Tories—which, I presume, the Tory group in the Scottish Parliament signs up to? William Hague's Tories have the attention span and consistency of a tabloid news editor. The story of the day becomes the Tory policy of the day. To propose a cut in duty after last month's protests is not the action of a responsible party, in terms either of energy policy or fiscal policy—the phrase "blithering nonsense" comes to mind. William Hague's Tories are nothing but knee-jerk opportunists.

As for the nationalists, how many policies do they have? I have counted their policies and today we heard about two more. Let us go through them all. "Paying for Scotland's Future" was one policy. There was no reference to the matter in the party's 1999 manifesto, "On to independence". That makes two policies. We heard John Swinney's policy on 10 July. That makes three. The party suggested a freeze on duty in a parliamentary motion. That makes four. Alex Neil suggested another 20 per cent cut. That makes five. Where is Fergus Ewing? There here is. His proposal made it six policies. Now—to top it all—Kenny MacAskill's motion represents policy number seven. We have heard seven fuel policies from the SNP.

On top of that, we heard great protestations of gloom from the SNP on the radio this morning, when it criticised this debate in the Scottish Parliament. It said that the matter should undoubtedly be debated here and nowhere but here. However, the SNP is sending nobody to Westminster. That party's people are not down there, arguing where it matters. The SNP does not care about Westminster. It has given up on Westminster, but Westminster is where it matters. That is why the Liberal Democrats and Labour send people to Westminster to argue the Scottish case. The SNP is not standing up for Scotland—it has given up on Scotland in that chamber.

As George Lyon rightly pointed out, 50 per cent of the SNP's Opposition time is spent on reserved matters. Duncan Hamilton always attacks George Lyon. What Duncan cannot accept is that George beat him and will beat him again and again.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No. I am just finishing.

Liberal Democrats would use investment to support public transport and to support targeted measures for rural and island Scotland. The Liberal Democrat MPs at Westminster have voted against every fuel rise since Norrie Lamont's budget. We have consistently argued for measures to deal with the problem.

It is time for the taxpayer and the motorist to get a fair deal. The policies on investment in public transport and targeted measures for our rural areas will clear the way for that.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We have had an interesting morning. Some major changes in personality have occurred. We saw an almost dignified Mr MacAskill, but I would like to know what Tavish Scott had for breakfast, because it certainly affected him.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Danish bacon.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

George Lyon warned me that he wanted an intro for that one.

For Labour, Mr Kerr started with what I almost took to be humility and that is not his usual style. He then went green—but he remains greedy. What has Labour done in three years? Its members talk about the years that we Conservatives were in power. Labour has been in power for three years and what has it done, but increase the price of fuel one way or another in that time?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What about the 222p?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It would be helpful if Mr Rumbles would quieten down for a wee while.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at the moment.

Fuel duty has a disproportionate effect in Scotland because of distances to markets. Others have said that the Conservatives do not care about rural Scotland. I am sorry, but I represent a rural area. All sectors of the rural economy are being damaged by taxation by the Labour party at Westminster.

Allan Wilson's speech was just a load of emotional blackmail. It was the old story: if people want a hospital, they must pay up through fuel charges. That is the usual line from old Labour. He went on to talk about the £16 billion cuts that we are apparently going to make. How could we cut something that has not been delivered? He should grow up.

The SNP started off on the theme of punishment, which is usually a good subject for the SNP, before it got on to independence—an unusual line of attack. Mr Ewing said that the SNP will work towards equalising tax on a European basis. How? What measures will be taken? At what cost? How will that be paid for? When will the SNP have an opportunity to deliver that?

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

Do the Conservatives—who say that they want to be constructive today—agree that the people of Scotland want the same level of fuel tax as the average level in Europe? Every party in the chamber should agree to that aim.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not argue with Mr Ewing—I ask how that would be delivered. He gave us a vision, but no plan of how to achieve it.

Mr MacAskill suggested selective packages for virtually every industry. What a bureaucratic nightmare. The cost of that would be quite disproportionate. We must consider cuts across the board to ensure that everybody reaps the benefits, because everybody is affected.

The price of competitiveness that Scotland pays cannot be sustained. The Government must hear that point. That price is hitting the rural economy, where almost everything moves by road and there is almost no opportunity to use public transport. The essential car user has had enough.

The Liberal Democrats, through Mr Rumbles, told us that the Government should not listen to the people. That was a strange comment. The Conservative party listens to the people and will deliver. I do not know whether Tavish Scott included the new Liberal Democrat policy on his list, but it is this: indirect taxation will not be pursued but there will be higher direct taxation. That will kill investment and enterprise. The Liberal Democrats might like to clarify that later in the day.

Mr Lyon promised to renationalise rail, although I am not quite sure what that has to do with the fuel tax debate. His party still talks about raising fuel tax, but none of its members has said what they are proposing for taxation in the future.

Tavish Scott was, as I said, extremely excitable this morning. He got on to his usual point about Tories and the EU. However, we like the Common Market—we went into the Common Market—but we do not like having to swallow every piece of legislation that other EU countries think is good for them, but which does not suit Britain. That is the difference between us and the Liberal Democrats.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Does Mr Davidson agree that what has come out of the Conservative party conference this week has been Euro-sceptic all the way down the line, including the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech on Tuesday? Their message has been: "We don't want to be part of Europe and we will do what we want." The Conservatives want to get out of Europe.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Our position is clear. We want to be in Europe, but not run by it. That is the end of that.

It is right that the Scottish Parliament should discuss all matters that affect Scotland. The view that fuel duty can be discussed only in Westminster is a cop-out and makes no sense. The Scottish people expect the Scottish Parliament to discuss the issues that matter in Scotland. The job of the Executive and the minister is to make sure that that message is passed to the Cabinet in Westminster.

We said that our policy is to reduce fuel tax across the board. The content of Miss Goldie's amendment is a direct response to the public, to whom we have listened. I must point out that we did not make such a move in the middle of a strike—we waited until the situation had calmed down before we made a move. We agree that a strong Government must be a sensitive Government and should not make knee-jerk reactions.

I beg the minister to take the messages that he has heard today back to the Executive and down to Gordon Brown. Scotland has had enough of the Government's fuel taxation policy.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

It is enlightening to listen to the Tories talking about the necessity of debating the matter in a Parliament that they opposed so vehemently.

Whenever I hear Kenny MacAskill shout his speeches in the chamber, I wonder whether he has an overdeveloped sense of humour or is an absolute fantasist. Whatever the answer, he would have been an excellent deputy leader of the Scottish National Party. I was also interested to note that the nationalists have turned out in force today—they have filled all their seats. It is interesting to recall that when my colleague Sarah Boyack set out her transport spending plans for Scotland last week—announcing £500 million for Scotland—those seats were empty. In that statement, she announced more money for trunk roads, local roads and public transport—much-needed resources for Scotland's transport infrastructure.

Kenny MacAskill talked about fuel duty rebate being extended to the haulage industry. We must ask him which part of public spending in Scotland he would cut. It is always a pleasure to respond to my friend, Fergus Ewing. I could not help but note that—this is merely a passing observation—when one of my colleagues criticised the Tories, the first member on his feet was Fergus Ewing.

Mr Ewing should know well that EC derogation on fuel prices in rural areas applies only to existing schemes. He chose to ignore the assistance for rural petrol stations and reductions in vehicle excise duty for smaller cars.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the minister give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I must respond to the points that Mr Ewing made in his speech. He expects swingeing rises in vehicle excise duty in the next budget. The fact is that measures in the previous two budgets have cut £400 million from motorists' car tax bills. That includes a cut of £55 in VED for the drivers of 4 million smaller cars.

It is always a pleasure to explain matters to Sandra White. She talked about red diesel, which is a concession for off-road vehicles. Again, I explain that those vehicles have that concession because they use public roads rarely and do not contribute to congestion or wear and tear on roads. She claimed that the level of fuel duty was nothing to do with the environment. It is estimated that the increases in fuel duties over the past four years will, by 2010, have saved emissions of 1 million to 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hear what the minister is saying. Does he mean that when people are unable to drive on roads in winter, he can make the excuse that road gritters—which get rebated fuel—use the roads only occasionally?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Another devastating intervention from Sandra White, Presiding Officer.

I remind members that budget increases in duty and VAT on unleaded petrol and diesel is the lowest since 1989, at 1.9p per litre. On average, that will cost less than £2 per month for people who travel about 9,000 miles per year.

As much as the Opposition—the nationalists—may malign the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the budget was good news for Scotland. Measures in the previous two budgets cut £400 million from car tax bills. Scotland's motorists and businesses will gain from lower fuel duty increases and many motorists and hauliers will gain through lower vehicle excise duty.

In future, fuel duty rates will be set budget by budget. The chancellor has also made the commitment that any real-terms rises in road fuel duties will be lower and the revenues will go straight to a ring-fenced fund for the modernisation of roads and public transport.

I will highlight some of the transport initiatives that were announced recently by the Executive. The list is long, but I will mention only a few. I cite the rural transport fund for 2001 to 2004, which will be increased by about £18 million as part of the spending review. Support for lifeline services in 1999-2000 was at record levels; the highest ever level of subsidy went to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. The revenue subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd was also the highest ever, at £15 million. Two CalMac ferries have been ordered since 1997 and both orders were won by Scottish shipyards.

Those figures and initiatives illustrate clearly the Executive's commitment to rural Scotland and to island communities. The investment is not only in transport, but in industry and jobs.

I turn now to rural fuel and the oft-cited Office for Fair Trading report into high fuel prices in the Highlands and Islands. That recently published report identified high costs of distribution in remote areas and low turnover as key factors. It found no evidence of profiteering on the mainland or the northern isles, but the OFT will undertake further investigation into unexplained price differentials in the Western Isles. I can assure members that I will take a keen interest in their findings.

Following the OFT report into fuel prices, a contract has been awarded for a study into bulk purchasing of fuel. The consultation exercise is already under way. It would be premature to speculate on the outcome of that study.

I will finish on another important initiative. Liquefied petroleum gas is not only cleaner than traditional fuels, but cheaper by up to 5 per cent. We are making an additional £0.3 million available in 2000-01 for powershift vehicle conversion schemes in rural areas, which will encourage more people to convert their cars to LPG. The recent spending review increased powershift funding by almost £1 million for the years between 2001 and 2004. Following discussions with the Government, Shell UK has begun a programme of introducing 23 LPG outlets in the Highlands and Islands and the rural north-east. I know that Kenny MacAskill denounces that, time and again. Those are just a few of the significant Executive initiatives of the past 14 months.

Finally, to respond to Tricia Marwick's point of order at the beginning of the debate, it has been both an honour and a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Executive.

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

That was interesting—it is good to see a minister make such a sturdy defence of the chancellor and his fuel tax rises.

The SNP stands accused of wanting to discuss reserved matters in the Scottish Parliament. Some people have had a go at that, while others have said that it is okay. Things were different when we raised pensioners' issues and the Act of Settlement. When the heat is on, the Executive does not like it. That is why we have heard some spin today.

Incredibly—but not surprisingly—we have not heard the word "listen" once from the Labour, Liberal Democrat or Tory benches.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

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

If David Davidson used the word, he was the only member of those parties who did—I apologise to him. Examination of the amendments that were lodged by Annabel Goldie and George Lyon and the language that was used in support of them reveals that the Tories and the Liberal Democrats have fallen into the same trap as the new Labour Government—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will Mr Crawford take an intervention?

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

I will take a leaf out of Sandra White's book. The Executive has had the chance to listen to the Scottish people's views on fuel during the past few weeks, so the deputy minister should sit and listen to me on the issue. [Interruption.]

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

Order.

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

Like the Government, the Executive wants to foist on the people solutions to an extremely complex and serious situation. Quick soundbites will not provide the answer, but pragmatism and common sense might.

When will the unionist parties—I except Murray Tosh from this—learn that politicians do not have all the answers? When do they propose to talk to and listen to our farmers, hauliers and fishermen to find out what they think is important? As our motion shows, the SNP wants to establish a summit of interested parties and to begin a dialogue, to listen and to help find a lasting solution.

Many members have, understandably, become hung up on the fuel tax escalator, but if we are to get to the bottom of the issue, we must examine Gordon Brown's statement of intent on taxation policy. In July 1997, he set himself and the Government four key tests for what he saw as good taxation policy. First, such policy must be well designed to meet objectives without undesirable side effects—that is a beauty. Secondly, it must keep dead weight compliance costs to a minimum. Can we see that happening with fuel tax? Thirdly, distributional impact must be acceptable. Fourthly, a care must be had for the implications for international competitiveness. Andy Kerr may look through his notes, but I bet that he will not find that.

The chancellor set those four tests, but he and the new Labour Government have comprehensively failed to pass them. The failure is clear for all to see. As far as undesirable side effects are concerned, we can say pretty safely that something undesirable happened in the past few weeks—fuel was in short supply and the life of the nation was grinding to an abrupt halt.

We need only ask our farmers, fishermen and hauliers—and, indeed, our hoteliers—about the dead hand that crippling tax costs place on their businesses. Even George Lyon would agree that there is a big difference in distributional impact between rural and urban Scotland. He would also agree with the points that were made about low-income car-owning households. However, it is in competitiveness that we see the chancellor's biggest failure.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

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

When Mr Stone listens to people in Scotland, I will give way to him.

Andy Kerr said that the price of fuel was not too high.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

rose—

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

Scotland has the highest fuel prices in Europe. The average cost of the hauliers' tank in Europe stands at £350, while in Scotland it is £868.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

rose—

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

Order. The member is not giving way.

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

Gordon Brown's tests have been blown out of the water. It is time that he and Tony Blair swallowed a couple of humility pills. They should start listening to people and put matters right before Scotland finds itself on the brink again.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I thank Bruce Crawford for giving way—people will talk about us. I am all for listening to the public, but I am also all for telling the public the truth. Will Mr Crawford tell the truth to the people of Scotland—and to the people of the UK, if he wants a wider audience—and admit that the increases in fuel costs are not the result of taxation by the Labour Government? Motoring organisations recognised that the previous budget was the best motorists' budget for years. Will the member acknowledge that?

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

Well, I am really reeling now. Will Cathie Craigie tell us how her party raised an additional £5.17 billion in oil revenues and an additional £500 million from VAT?

The action that was taken by our farmers and hauliers represented an outpouring of anger by ordinary people over unreasonably high taxation on a vital commodity. However, it was not only the farmers' and the hauliers' protest: it was the people's protest. The First Minister asked in the chamber who the protesters represented. As far as I am concerned, the people who stood at the gates in Grangemouth represented me and millions of other Scots who are fed up with paying Gordon Brown's tax.

The people of Scotland—an oil-rich nation—cannot understand why we must fork out more for fuel than people in any other country in Europe do.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

rose—

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

I have seen Pop Up Pirate jumping up and down all day—I have had enough.

The protesters, who were backed by a huge majority of the people of Scotland, sent a wake-up call to new Labour. Unfortunately, new Labour has not listened. Today, the SNP has given Parliament the chance to send its own message to the new Labour Government. The Government should sit down with our hauliers, our fishermen, our farmers, our people in the tourism industry and others and give them the relief that they so desperately require. If new Labour sits down with those people, it should really listen to them.

The people will say that the situation is like Chinese water torture and that they do not know how long they will be able to stand the pain, so the Government should stop attacking them and give them relief now. There is no need for the Labour party to prove how tough or strong it is; it is time for listening and for common sense and pragmatism. If new Labour is not prepared to do that simple and dignified thing, it should pass the powers to decide on fuel taxes and other fiscal matters to the Scottish Parliament—let us sort out Labour's mess.

Local Government

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

We move to the next item of business, which is the Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1239, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on proportional representation in local government, and amendments thereto.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I hope that my speech will be less controversial than my tie has been this morning.

In July 1999, we debated the report of the McIntosh commission on local government and the Scottish Parliament. The report recommended that:

"Proportional representation (PR) should be introduced for local government elections. A review should be set up immediately, to identify the most appropriate voting system for Scottish local government, with a view to legislation which should take effect in time to govern the next council elections in 2002 . . . The criteria to be used in determining the system or systems of PR to be adopted for Scottish local government should be

proportionality the councillor-ward link fair provision for independents allowance for geographical diversity and a close fit between council wards and natural communities.

. . . Of the possible electoral systems, AMS, STV and AV Top-up should be given particular consideration."

The Minister for Communities subsequently established the all-party renewing local democracy working group, chaired by Richard Kerley. The remit included

"the most appropriate system of election",

taking into account the five criteria that were established by McIntosh.

Why change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Well, the system is broke.

I am sure that members are aware of a certain council, not too far from here, where one party with less than half the vote holds such an overwhelming number of seats that the main opposition party can muster only two members. For donkey's years, the administration has been able to ensure complete domination of the council, knowing that it has only a rump opposition, unable to provide an effective political challenge and struggling to ensure democratic accountability and scrutiny. In that council, members of the ruling party standing for election are almost guaranteed a place on the council, simply because of their political allegiance. It cannot go on. We cannot continue with one party completely dominating on less than half the vote, as happens in SNP-run Angus Council.

In Angus, the SNP has one councillor for every 1,063 votes that are cast; Labour has only one councillor, despite the fact that the party gained 8,931 votes. Is it right that an SNP vote in Angus is worth eight times a Labour vote? I think not. If we look elsewhere in Scotland, we will see a similar pattern. New Labour, the party of government in Holyrood and Westminster, is discriminated against by an out-of-date and unfair system that has given Labour only one seat out of 36 in Argyll and Bute, one out of 34 seats in the Borders and none of the 68 seats in Aberdeenshire.

What about the voters? As Kerley stated in his report, where a seat never changes hands

"and the same party gets its candidate home repeatedly, even by a narrow margin and on a small minority of the vote. . . . those who do not support it never get the effective use of their votes, and this produces two ill effects - fatalism and disillusion on the part of voters and complacency on the part of the winning party. Both are bad for democracy. The essence of the case for proportional representation is that it produces a result which more fairly represents the spectrum of opinion within the electorate."

That is where there is a choice. However, in much of Scotland, voters have no opportunity even to cast a vote—let alone a vote for their favoured party—or to see their party of choice elected.

In last year's local government elections, 59 wards were uncontested. In Alex Salmond's constituency, the shambolic nature of the local unionist parties allowed five SNP councillors to be elected unopposed, leaving voters with no choice. Across Scotland's 1,222 wards, new Labour failed to field candidates in 262 wards. The Tories did not field candidates in 499 wards, the Liberal Democrats did not field candidates in 499 wards, including, astonishingly, all 92 Ayrshire seats, and the SNP did not field candidates in 165 wards. Tens of thousands of voters were denied any choice, let alone the option to vote for their preferred party.

We need a system that will increase voter choice, between candidates and not only between parties. We need a system that will ensure that no vote is wasted and that puts power in the hands of the electorate, rather than the selectorate. We must eliminate the anomaly that means Labour can win overall control of Aberdeen Council and City of Edinburgh Council on 32 per cent of the vote while the SNP in East Ayrshire gained 51 per cent of the vote and remain in opposition.

We need a system that does not discriminate against parties that appeal across the social and geographic spectrum, in favour of those with, traditionally, a much narrower focus and relatively concentrated vote. We need a system that will be a cornerstone of a modern and responsive local government, able to improve service delivery more effectively and efficiently. We need a system that works for urban, rural and mixed authorities and one that meets the five criteria set out by McIntosh, which form the cornerstone of Kerley's work. That system is the single transferable vote.

Let us consider choice. Under STV, we would have multi-member wards of three to five members, or two in the most sparsely populated areas, reflecting natural communities. All councillors would be elected in the same way. Under STV, voters would not have to consider tactical voting, supporting a candidate of dubious merit out of party loyalty or the fatalist view that no one else could win in that ward. Voters would not be stuck with a candidate who may have been deselected from another part of the local authority and selected unopposed in a smoke-filled room by three men, or women, and a dug. They could choose between two, three or even four individuals from the same party who are standing in the same multi-member ward, and perhaps give their second or third preference to an individual from another, or no, party. Over time, that would weed out less effective members and improve the calibre of councillors and the quality of representation.

Parties that are unable to contest every seat under the current system would be much more able to select and field candidates, leading to fewer uncontested wards or wards where voters have no opportunity to vote for their favoured party. Political parties would gain strength where they currently are under-represented, and also would gain through an improvement in the quality of councillors where they are successful already. The possibility of more hung councils would inject co-operation and more innovative ideas into local government, given that single parties are not the font of all knowledge, and would make committee or executive meetings more meaningful. Indeed, policy making would be likely to be debated and analysed more thoroughly with more councillors involved in the decision-making process, leading ultimately to better service delivery.

In councils where a party clearly has lost the confidence of two thirds or more of the electorate, one-party administration would be impossible, just as it would be impossible to gain 31 per cent of the vote, as the SNP did in Midlothian, and have no elected representatives. Such a democratic deficit is no longer acceptable following McIntosh and Kerley.

How does STV shape up against the five McIntosh criteria? As everyone in the chamber will agree, no system is perfect. We need a balance, for example, between the impact of any system on proportionality and the member-ward link. STV maximises the use of each vote to ensure that the representatives who are elected in a ward reflect voting patterns. Voters simply vote for their favoured candidates—1, 2, 3 in order of preference—by party, or whatever other criteria they consider to be important, using a single ballot paper. From the total votes cast a quota is calculated, which is the minimum number of votes that is needed for a candidate to be elected. Elected candidates have their surplus votes transferred in proportion to their next preference. The candidate coming last drops out, and his or her votes are transferred to their voters' next preference. In that way, all votes are fully utilised. The greater the number of councillors per ward, the greater the proportionality.

As for the ward-member link, each elector would have an equal link to several councillors, and a choice of whom they wished to advocate for them. Multi-member wards existed in Scotland prior to 1975, albeit the members were elected by the first-past-the-post system. In England and Wales that system still exists, and appears to present little difficulty. The Tories introduced STV in multi-member wards in Northern Ireland, and no one would argue that that has been unsuccessful. Given that parliamentary constituencies are considerably larger than any ward would be under STV, I doubt that anyone in the chamber would argue about the weakness of the constituency-voter link.

In any case, members may wish to reflect on whether it is the primary function of elections to elect individual councillors, determine who should form the administration, or both. If it is the first of those, it is clear that under the current system many voters never have a chance to express judgment on how well their councillor performs anyway, given frequent boundary changes, deselections and retirements.

Independents would be just as able to win election under STV as anyone else, and in an urban setting perhaps more so. Kerley makes it clear that geographical diversity can be served, even in areas that are represented exclusively by independents, with STV, given the flexibility that is proposed in the number of councillors. That flexibility should end the situation whereby so many councillors are elected unopposed.

As far as establishing a close fit between wards and natural communities is concerned, all parties in this chamber have expressed great concern about current boundaries, which often cut through the heart of communities. Larger wards under STV would limit the risk of dividing communities, or combining areas that have no community feeling.

It is for those reasons that Kerley concluded that STV is the most appropriate electoral system for local government.

What of the other systems that McIntosh suggested should be looked at? Briefly, the additional member system, or AMS, which is the system that we have here in Parliament and which was cobbled together as a second-best compromise between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, and the additional vote plus system, or AV-plus, fail the McIntosh criteria. While they meet the proportionality test, they both result in two categories of councillor—ward and list—which breaks the ward link for list councillors, who would cover the whole council. That would present considerable difficulties in the Highlands and elsewhere. In addition, voters would have no direct voice in compiling party lists, which would put power in the hands of party apparatchiks, not the public. Independents would be discriminated against when additional lists are allocated. Unless there was a substantial increase in councillor numbers there would have to be considerable redrawing of ward boundaries.

The Kerley group was hand-picked by the Executive and it has spoken, so why, months after publication of the Kerley report, is the Executive procrastinating and prevaricating on this issue? One could argue that the next council elections are too close—hardly. STV could easily be introduced for the next elections by merging existing wards. There is plenty time to do that. Local authorities are already implementing other McIntosh recommendations, and looking closely at Kerley.

I am saddened by the Executive amendment, which is simply an attempt at delay. I hope that Labour members will remember that it is the chamber that legislates on the matter and not the Jimmy Hoods or Charlie Gordons of this world. We must not yield to pressure from Westminster or council chambers on the matter.

What of the Lib Dems? I am confident that they will see the Executive amendment for the holding operation that it is. It is a fudge to delay the day of reckoning, but the issue can be kicked into the long grass no further. We all know that STV is a fundamental Lib Dem manifesto commitment, which that party is determined to implement. That is why I am confident that our Lib Dem colleagues will snub the Executive and come on board today on this issue. I welcome that support.

On 9 September, Donald Gorrie said in The Scotsman:

"If we don't get it"—

electoral reform on the statute book before the next council elections in 2002—

"I believe most of my colleagues and the party in general would decide that the coalition should stop. This is my personal guess."

On 24 March, Andy Myles, former Liberal chief executive, said in the same newspaper:

"People had better start to accept that PR is going to happen. Labour is not going to get off the hook on this. Donald [Dewar] cannot dither . . . PR is on the way for local Government."

Come on in, folks—the water is lovely. Introducing the single transferable vote is best for democracy, best for local government and best for Scotland. I ask members to support the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of local government and resolves to implement the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for the next local government elections.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

It is national poetry day and, after hearing Kenny Gibson, it would be appropriate to quote from the great imperial poet—not normally my reading material in the evenings—Rudyard Kipling:

"If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting to".

I hope that those words are a helpful contribution to the debate.

Kenny Gibson made a measured contribution and a substantial exposition on the nature of the STV system. I nearly changed my suit for an anorak after his speech. I want to touch on the fundamental issues that were mentioned by Kenny. I thank him for identifying some of the issues that the ministerial group is considering.

I remind the chamber that we said that on receiving the McIntosh recommendations we would follow an immediate programme of change, which would include progress on electoral reform. Wendy Alexander and I made a commitment on the first day of the Parliament to ensure that we considered that in the round. The all-party Richard Kerley working group was set up to identify a number of key principles and to consider the way in which we address the future governance of Scottish local government. Those are complex matters. They are not simple, definitive, soundbite matters—I will try to avoid those where possible in my contribution this morning.

We should recognise that there are many complex interactions. Kenny Gibson touched on the creation of the additional member system. That happened largely because the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party engaged in genuine discussion through the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The two main Opposition parties walked away from that democratic debate. The Presiding Officer was part of a process—intellectually, at least—that recognised the convention as a substantially important development for Scotland.

AMS has been developed elsewhere in Europe, largely because of the tension in trying to create the conception of a constituency link while maintaining a regional link. Those are issues that must be deliberated thoroughly and formally, which is why the ministerial working group was set up, post-Kerley.

The important thing to all councils in Scotland is that my contributions, and those of Wendy Alexander, do not happen in isolation but are part of a wider modernisation agenda. It is unfair to single out one issue and suggest that it is the cure for whatever ills there are in local government. People should judge the Executive parties on the way in which they address the complex matters of finance, language and partnership approach and there should be a fundamental recognition that we operate differently from the way that we operated in the past.

It is not a singular agenda. People do not have to be rocket scientists to know that there are divisions and differences within parties and across parties on the nature of electoral systems. There are those who favour electoral reform but not STV. There are those who favour electoral reform in its different definitions, whether it is AV or AV-plus. There are those who will argue consistently—and importantly for local government—that it is critically important to have a ward-member link. Kenny Gibson and I, and many others in the Local Government Committee, know that that is a compelling issue throughout Scottish local government. At a local level, it is the idea that people should identify with a particular individual where possible.

On the modernisation agenda, I do not want to reheat any of the contributions that I have made in the past. However, we should consider how local government is part of the process of change. That is why there are commitments in both the Labour and the Liberal Democrat manifestos about modernisation, the concept of community initiative and community planning and the issue of considering finance within local government. While we have delivered on those issues over the past year, we still have a long way to go, but that journey is worth making.

Kenny Gibson was right to say that the renewal of local democracy working group considered a number of important questions, which included the following. How does one widen council membership? How does one address the age profile, gender profile and ethnic profile of Scottish councillors? Those are legitimate issues and all parties should genuinely participate in a discussion about them. How do we recognise the time and commitment given by people to their role as elected councillors? Along with Kenny Gibson and many others in the chamber, I have played that role, and I know that the time involved in being a councillor is punishing and that the remuneration offered is punitive. We should have a genuine, open debate on those issues.

The ministerial working group is considering the Kerley report, which made 36 wide-ranging recommendations. Twenty-one recommendations were on widening participation in and membership of councils and addressing changes to existing structures within councils. Six related to the package of remuneration paid to a councillor and to the training and development of councillors. Four recommendations dealt with electoral systems and five with the size of councils.

It is important that we consider those recommendations in the round—we cannot avoid doing so. It is quite right and proper for the ministerial working group to deliberate on how those recommendations relate to the timing of future decisions on their implementation. The timing of those decisions is critical. We must get that right for the longer-term changes to Scottish local government.

The agenda is different in two respects from that of the previous reorganisation of local government, which had no democratic mandate: there was no cross-party consent for it and it did not recognise natural boundaries. Some local government boundaries are absurd and are based on parliamentary constituency boundaries, such as those for my own constituency, Glasgow Shettleston, which is divided by the River Clyde. I would have thought that the Clyde should have been considered to be a reasonably obvious natural geographic boundary when the ward and constituency boundaries were being drawn.

It is important that we address these questions properly, which is why a ministerial working group has been set up to consider them.

We are aware that, according to statute, local government elections are due to take place in 2002. Substantial submissions have been made to the Executive and to the Local Government Committee about whether those elections should run parallel to the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003. It is important that we recognise that the timing of elections will have an impact on the nature and structure of the electoral system, should that system change.

We are committed to making progress on many of the Kerley recommendations. However, it is important that we take into account the fact that the recommendations are complex and interrelate.

As we discuss local democracy, we must also take into account the role of the elector. Should we propose a system that assists and develops the elector's role? We must address whether introducing changes to the system will impact on the electorate's response to having three or four different electoral systems in different layers of democracy. Voter fatigue is a point that has been made to all parties—individuals tell us that there are far too many elections and that elections are held too frequently. The ministerial working group should also consider those legitimate issues.

We recognise that such widespread changes should take time to implement. I pay tribute to members of the partnership parties who are prepared to engage in that extensive debate. No doubt members of the Local Government Committee will identify how they should address the Kerley recommendations.

We must consider properly the debate around electoral reform, find an appropriate time scale and work out how to deliver much more effective local government. There are different views in the chamber on those issues, but those views will stimulate and contribute to the debate, both at ministerial level and at a wider parliamentary level. We must examine the recommendations over a period of time and arrive at appropriate conclusions.

I move motion S1M-1239.2, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"notes that the Partnership Agreement contains a commitment, following the publication of the final report of the McIntosh Commission, to an immediate programme of change including progress on electoral reform; notes too that the Executive established the Renewing Local Democracy Working Group chaired by Richard Kerley, and welcomes the decision by the Executive to establish a Ministerial Group to consider its recommendations and the Executive's commitment to continue to make progress on electoral reform and other issues relating to the modernisation of local government."

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We believe that this debate is premature and should have awaited the outcome of the deliberations of the Scottish Executive's ministerial working group. It is obvious that the Scottish National Party is using this opportunity as a vain attempt to embarrass the Labour-Liberal coalition.

Scottish Conservatives have consistently opposed any moves towards proportional representation in local government elections. We support the present first-past-the-post system. I will elaborate on the reasons for that in a few moments. To some, it may seem strange that we oppose systems that have benefited us in the Scottish and European Parliaments. However, it is not about party games but about what we believe is best for the electorate. We support the first-past-the-post system because it provides strong governance with clear accountability to a party that wins an outright majority. It ensures that the electors, and not politicians, choose the ruling administration. Most important, it provides a direct link between the elected member and the people who elected him or her.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will Mr Harding give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to get started on my speech. We oppose proportional representation because it would remove the advantages of the current system and mean that administrations would be made up through deals among politicians in smoke-filled rooms after the election is over, as has happened in this Parliament.

A major reason why the Labour party has a firm and unfair grip on local government is the way in which local government boundaries are drawn. Although they are independently agreed, it is the councils themselves that initially draw them up. A draft is then agreed by the council on the votes of the ruling group and passed to the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland. We believe that that system is unfair and has allowed councils to manipulate boundary commission findings as they put together the first draft on which all proposals are based.

If the boundaries were more independently drawn up, it would negate some of the need for PR, as the electorate would be able to have more effect on the elected member that they would get and therefore on the council administration. At present, boundaries often stack up opposition votes in a small number of wards and spread the remainder thinly across the council.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Harding give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not.

An example that has already been quoted is that of City of Edinburgh Council, where, despite gaining more votes than Labour in 1992, the Conservatives got fewer seats. Even a relatively large increase in votes for Conservatives may not change the administration. Meanwhile, Labour can maintain control and a similar percentage of seats, even with far fewer votes, because the distribution of votes and wards is weighted unfairly.

A new, fairer and more independent system for drawing up boundaries must be devised.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will Mr Harding accept an intervention?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No thank you.

We believe that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland should start from scratch, rather than using the existing boundaries as a basis for change.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will Mr Harding accept an intervention?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No thank you.

The commission should determine the first proposals for consultation and party groups on each council should then be asked for their comments, along with members of the public and other interested bodies. Redrawing boundaries will be essential if the Kerley proposals to reduce the number of councillors and to increase remuneration are implemented. Incidentally, we support those proposals, provided that they are self-financing.

We believe, in spite of what Kenny Gibson keeps saying, that the Kerley remit was flawed, as the working group was not allowed to consider PR alongside first past the post. Even within the Kerley committee there were differences of opinion, and we await with great interest the outcome of the deliberations of the ministerial task group.

The Scottish Conservative position on PR remains clear. We believe that the current first-past-the-post electoral system should remain for local government elections. To alter the system creates confusion, as Labour has now forced three different electoral systems on us at four levels of government.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Keith Harding was a member of Stirling Council for a number of years. Would he accept what Stirling Council's chief executive said in a report on community councils, which are now being elected by STV? It says that the introduction of STV has brought in

"an unprecedented degree of representative legitimacy".

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

He says that the representativeness increased because there was a postal vote, but I do not agree with his comments.

Proportional representation for local elections would mean yet another different system and even more confusion, and would lead to the danger of a change to the system for general elections. Any such change would be out of keeping with the British political system. For general elections, first past the post provides a clear result and leads to strong government. PR would most likely lead to permanent coalition government, with politicians controlling the agenda through secret deals such as we have seen in this Parliament.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Will Mr Harding give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Coalition government takes power from the electorate and concentrates it in the hands of politicians. It has led to the Liberals selling out on tuition fees for political power. The outcome of PR is that it becomes much harder to remove an unpopular Government, and clear victories, such as Labour's decisive win in 1997, would not be possible.

In local elections it is vital to retain the link between a councillor and the ward that he or she represents. It is only through that link that councillors remain responsive to the needs of their local communities and can provide the effective representation of local needs that the electorate value. That is best done by direct election of all councillors on a first-past-the-post basis at ward level. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins, a principle that most people subscribe to and understand. However, if it becomes inevitable that some form of PR will be introduced in the Scottish local government elections, it is vital that it should retain the link between councillors and the communities that they represent. The alternative member system comes closest to meeting the criteria with which Kerley was presented for choosing a system, although it still has inherent flaws.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Mr Harding give way?

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, I will not give way. I do not have time.

The system has a high level of proportionality, at least partially retains the member-ward link and gives a fairer provision for independents. The system is already in place for this Parliament and so is understood by the electorate.

We would like this to be implemented in conjunction with directly elected provosts, where there is a demand, to retain strong governance and give the electorate the chance to change the administration quickly at the next election.

In conclusion, any form of PR will increase the number of councillors who are elected from parties that are proportionally under-represented, as the Conservatives have been in recent elections. We would be likely to increase our number of seats throughout Scotland under PR, but we argue against it on principle—actually against our party's own interests.

I move amendment S1M-1239.1, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"resolves that no alteration to the voting system for local authority elections should be considered until after the publication of the report of the Ministerial Task Group being chaired by the First Minister; agrees that this report, together with the McIntosh and Kerley recommendations, should be debated as a whole, and, in view of the limited time scale, resolves that the next local authority elections should take place on the basis of the existing first-past-the-

post electoral system which delivers accountability, a clear link between elected member and voter and puts the power to create administrations in the hands of voters rather than politicians."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Kenny Gibson made a good speech, and I agree entirely with everything that he said. However, I speak in favour of the Executive amendment. That amendment, like most amendments, is not ideal but it twice contains the word "commitment" and it refers to

"the Executive's commitment to continue to make progress on electoral reform".

We feel that that is a very important commitment. All Liberal Democrat members strongly want a reform of local government voting. A considerable number of Labour members also want a reform of local government voting, but a considerable number of Labour members are strongly opposed—at the moment, anyway—to local government electoral reform. We must recognise that fact and work through it.

We faced a similar proposition before, in the Scottish Constitutional Convention that worked towards setting up our Parliament. Liberal Democrats, a considerable number of Labour people, the trades unions, the Churches and a lot of the other bodies wanted proportional representation, but a considerable number of Labour people did not. The system was negotiated, worked through and discussed, and we ended up with a Parliament that was elected under a PR system—not the Liberal Democrats' chosen proportional system, but at least a satisfactory one. We achieved something, and we want to work in the same way to achieve local government reform. The SNP pranced about outwith that convention, said it would never work and achieved nothing at all. With due respect, Kenny Gibson is doing the same today.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Liberal Democrats and Labour combined in the convention to force a decision whereby all parties who were represented on that convention would have to support one policy regarding the future Scottish constitution. How could Scotland's party of independence possibly have participated in a convention that was rigged against a campaign for independence?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The SNP made a tactical decision that I think was wrong.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will Donald Gorrie give way?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

No. I really must progress.

As for the Tories, although Mr Harding made the point, it is an interesting spectacle to see people who have enjoyed eating turkey at Christmas voting to abolish Christmas—that turns the situation on its head.

How are we to achieve PR for local government? We are to do it by persuasion, not by soundbites or by premature debates. The Liberal Democrats support the use of the STV system in all elections, but feel that is especially suited to local government elections. It is much better than list systems.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am listening to Donald Gorrie with interest, as, over the years, he and I have shared many platforms on the issue of proportional representation.

I have read carefully the Executive amendment. In the context of the commitment that is being given in the name of Frank McAveety, surely the Liberal Democrats feel that there should be a clear commitment to a time scale? Does Donald Gorrie want PR to be introduced before the next round of local government elections, or is he prepared to wait another six or seven years?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

We will not wait for six or seven years, but it is often foolish to give time commitments. It is better to get the right answer than to get a quick answer. We are prepared for negotiation to go on. However, we have said that we would seek to see legislation being passed during this session. That is a reasonable time scale.

STV is much better than the list system used in the European Parliament elections, which was proportional but failed to retain the ability of a voter to choose an individual. STV retains the ward link, contrary to what a lot of propaganda says. A ward has several members, but there is still a ward. I was elected—and other members in this chamber may have been as well—to a council in a three-member ward. It worked perfectly satisfactorily. Half the councillors in local councils in England are elected on the basis that there are three members per ward. It works well.

The idea that one member representing one ward is a holy grail is a load of rubbish. Competition is good in most spheres. I thought that the Tories favoured competition. What is the merit in one member having a monopoly to represent one area? If there are several members, the voter can go to someone that they have voted for. If they have a useless member, they can go to someone else. Not all councillors are marvellous and conscientious; not all MPs and MSPs are marvellous and conscientious. It is good to give the voter a choice. It will reward good ones.

The merit of STV is that the councillor would be rewarded for good service. He or she would represent an area. It would encourage co-operation within the council. It would produce competition between councillors to give a better-quality service to their voters. It would avoid the landslides that have occurred—more often in England, but also in Scotland—when, because of a political feeling, a lot of very good councillors have been swept away as well as the bad ones. It would give more scope for those of us with a somewhat rebellious disposition to be a bit free of the party's choice. It would no longer be the case that the party would determine the single representative for an area, so if someone has strong local support they could stand up for themselves. The system works well in Northern Ireland; it could surely work well here.

I endorse many of Kenny Gibson's arguments. It is important that we make progress, but the way forward is through discussion. People are genuinely of a different opinion from myself and others. We must argue, discuss and explain because sometimes people are not fully conversant with the merits of the system.

I am happy to support the Executive amendment. It is a step forward and we will continue an adult dialogue on the subject. I hope that we will end up with the right answer.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

When Neil McIntosh recommended a move to proportional representation, he described it as

"an essential step towards the goal of enhancing local democracy."

McIntosh did not concentrate on electoral reform: he reported on all sorts of measures to overhaul local government. The debate is on electoral reform, but we must keep it in mind that that is part of a wider scheme of reform, which will work only in conjunction with a general move towards democratic accountability.

The present electoral system of first past the post is becoming redundant. We did not use it in our parliamentary election, Wales did not use it in its Assembly election and Westminster is considering reform. No other country in Europe uses first past the post; most use PR.

The SNP advocates a move to the single transferable vote system. We do not recommend that system because it complies with the criteria laid down by Neil McIntosh, neither do we recommend it because it is the system that the Kerley report recommended. We recommend STV for local government elections because it delivers a highly proportional result and it is closest to an optimal system for elections—in other words, it makes almost every vote count.

Keith Harding (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why does the SNP favour STV? It is used in only one country in Europe—Ireland.

Why is it so wonderful?

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

After examining all the systems, we, like many other people in Scotland, have plumped for STV, for reasons of fairness and equality.

What is the point of turning out to vote when the chances are that that vote will make no difference? In Dundee last year, the SNP won more votes than did Labour, but Labour took more seats. In Scotland as a whole, it took more than twice as many votes to elect an SNP councillor as it did to elect a Labour councillor.

Glasgow City Council provides the most extreme example. In Glasgow, the Labour party ended up with 94 per cent of the councillors on just 49 per cent of the votes, while the SNP took 29 per cent of the votes but gained only 2.5 per cent of the seats. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives both lost out: they each gained 1.2 per cent of the seats on, respectively, 7 per cent and 6 per cent of the votes.

Although the Labour party mainly benefits from the current system, it can lose out as well. As Kenny Gibson mentioned, despite taking 18 per cent of the votes last year in Angus, Labour gained only 3 per cent of the seats—I suppose first past the post is not all bad, Kenny.

If voting patterns remain the same at the next election, electoral reform will hurt the Labour party most—it will be the biggest loser. However, one would have to live on another planet to think that the electoral performance of the parties will remain the same. Opinion polls—not just the most recent one—suggest that there will be change in Scottish politics. If that is so, everybody will benefit from a move to an equitable electoral system.

Democracy is about people rather than parties. That fact should outweigh any consideration of political advantage. Do we not always claim that, rather than political advantage, we seek democracy for the people?

The first-past-the-post system encourages people to stay at home. It reduces the influence of any vote and it produces disproportionate results. No electoral system is perfect, but STV would achieve a closer correlation between the percentage of votes cast and the percentage of seats won. STV would maximise the influence of votes and ensure that fewer votes were wasted. It complies with all the criteria that were set out by McIntosh, including—this is most important—the high degree of proportionality and the maintenance of the councillor-ward link. It is the system that Kerley recommended as the form of PR that is most suited to Scotland and most beneficial for Scottish voters. If it is good for the Scottish people, it should be good enough for us.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

In choosing the best electoral system for local government elections in Scotland, we must consider carefully what we hope that change will achieve. It is beyond doubt that the current system is flawed, but it is also clear that there are limitations in any system that we might introduce in place of first past the post. We must be clear about what those limitations are.

The Local Government Committee has read many pages of reports and heard hours of evidence and debate. I will be honest and admit that I am still undecided. That is not a sign of weakness, failure to understand the issues, or lack of courage to make a decision. Rather, I am undecided because I want an electoral system that delivers more than only a fair division of seats among the political parties. I want a system that holds out the hope of an improved quality of representation.

There is no doubt that the link between the councillor and the ward is significant and should be preserved. However, one question then arises: would five councillors facilitate a better link by offering constituents a choice of personalities and political parties? A representative who does not hold surgeries, does not answer correspondence and merely drops leaflets through doors just before the election is a bad representative, regardless of the system by which he or she was elected. I remain to be convinced that today's motion would go any way towards addressing accountability, about which I am concerned.

We all have experience of the challenges thrown up by the electoral system that was chosen for the Parliament. Our system does not meet the objectives of making votes count and giving the electorate access to MSPs from different parties. For example, constituents of the leader or deputy leader of the SNP have no access to a Labour MSP. I remind members of my opening remarks—we need to be clear about our objectives before making a decision.

Those who were sceptical about our electoral system were wrong in their understanding of the Scottish electorate. They did not struggle with the task on 6 May 1999. They clearly used their second votes to ensure that parties that had been unsuccessful under the Westminster system were represented in this Parliament. Some may think that that is good; some may think it not so good.

The process of reaching a position on Kerley is still incomplete. We must ensure that the electoral system makes councillors accountable for their decisions and connects them to the communities that they represent.

Politics has made me cynical, and it has certainly made me wary. I do not believe that the motivation behind the motion is the health of local democracy; rather, it is the health of a party that is struggling to break through and make its mark in local government in Scotland. Further debate is needed. There is honest disagreement among the parties in the chamber that must be addressed, and political parties must also be given the opportunity to address that issue. As other members have said, the voters must consider it too.

I will not be supporting Kenny Gibson's motion. It is an unnecessary, untimely and unhelpful addition to the real debate about finding an electoral system for local government that is in the best interests of the Scottish people.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I wrote this speech in pedagogic mode. I thought that I might ditch the first two paragraphs, but after hearing Keith Harding's speech I have decided to keep them.

The current system is firmly rooted in the distant past. It was ideal for a two-party electoral system, when there was a docile, undereducated and underinformed population that was accustomed to subservience to bosses, officers and the clergy, was worked to the point of exhaustion, had little leisure, was racially homogeneous and socially conventional, and was content to play an occasional part in politics when elections came along to change councils or Governments.

Now we have a population that is egalitarian and better educated, is informed on world and domestic issues several times a day, has ample leisure time and is multicultural, and in which individuals mould their own mores. It is a population used to opinion polls and interactive telephone and teletext surveys.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

How does the member explain the fact that historically our elderly population has been far more likely than our younger people to participate in elections and to be active citizens? We are now faced with problems of turnout and of involving people as citizens. If in the past people were so passive, why did they develop structures such as trade unions and parties to fight for them? Nowadays there is less sign of that.

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If the member wants the distillation of my 28 years in education and history, she can have it. I do not deny for a minute that when they had the opportunity, people urgently went out and voted. I am suggesting that they did not have sufficient opportunities. The sad circumstance now is that an insufficient number of young people vote. That is the result partly of the first-past-the-post system.

Our society is confident and sophisticated enough to understand the anomalies of the first-past-the-post system and to be disillusioned by it. Instead of having two parties competing for votes in Scotland, we now have four. Defenders of the status quo support it because it suits their political purposes. We must recognise that in a number of the political parties represented in this Parliament there are elements that defend the status quo.

Last week, four Azeris who had been guests at the UK Liberal Democrat and SNP conferences visited the Parliament. Some weeks previously, their ambassador in London made it clear to me that he saw our democratic process as some kind of endgame, which means a destination to be arrived at or a permanent condition. I disagreed with him, and there is a danger that supporters of the first-past-the-post system will fall into the same trap as the ambassador. However, most of those supporters are in some of Labour's urban fiefdoms and in the Tory backwoods, which appear to be larger and whose inhabitants are more willing to articulate their position than I at first thought.

As the Local Government Committee wrestles with the McIntosh and Kerley reports, quizzes the leadership advisory panel and tries to drive towards more transparent and fairer local government, it is clear that democracy, like devolution, is a process, not a destination. Although all MSPs know that, we might have to take the message elsewhere.

PR expresses the diversity of opinion within Scottish society. In 1999, PR gave a higher percentage of voters a stake in the daily processes of the Scottish Parliament. If democracy is about involving people and encouraging them to take an interest in what councils do, we must move further and faster to create a system of elected members and councils that proportionately represents the will of the people.

That takes us to consensus politics. I do not believe that anyone here seriously thinks that consensus politics is a bad thing. Of course, there are exceptions.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way? [Laughter.] I would not wish to disappoint Mr Campbell. If the system he generously advocates is so popular, why do political parties such as mine—which would stand to gain from the system if it were introduced in local government—reject it for local government? Furthermore, why are political parties in nation states such as Italy looking to move towards the first-past-the-post system?

Colin Campbell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I cannot under any circumstances account for anything that the Scottish and British Tories do, or for any decision that they ever make. However, the Italian example is trotted out fairly regularly and is in fact a classically bad example of the worst of PR. The systems in some of the more western European countries—either towards the Atlantic seaboard or possibly bordering the North sea—work reasonably well. Of course, the Irish system, which has already been referred to, works well.

PR will allow greater participation from the electorate—which the Local Government Committee and others want—and will also eradicate the very dangerous scepticism that turns to apathy, where people leave politicians to get on with the politics.

As Gil Paterson said, the debate is about the high goal of a fairer and more balanced system of local democracy. I urge colleagues today to accept the urgency of the need for that and to support Kenneth Gibson's motion.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

I whole-heartedly support the modernisation of local government. Furthermore, having served as a local councillor in senior posts, I can suggest many ways in which to value the role of councillors and to give them more support, so that, with dignity and integrity, they can achieve positive outcomes for the electorate.

However, the debate is not about the winner-takes-all system's great advantage of simplicity, nor is it about how many people in Scotland understood the d'Hondt system used in the Scottish Parliament elections. The debate is about whether we support elected bodies that are consultative or elected bodies that govern with strength and determination according to manifesto promises.

The winner-takes-all system enables voters to choose a concrete set of policies and a team to execute them. What is the point of guaranteeing that each party's number of representatives will be exactly proportional to the number of its voters if it remains free to ally itself with whomever it chooses—for whatever purpose—and to change partners at any moment?

PR generally weakens democracy and majority systems strengthen it. In the final analysis, that makes the latter more moral and just.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Sorry, I cannot—I do not have much time.

The first duty in developing morality and justice in political relationships is to reinforce democracy and weaken dictatorship. Voters should not choose their doubles; instead, they should choose Governments with the capacity to make decisions. By dispersing the votes among numerous independent parties, PR prevents citizens from expressing a clear voice for a governmental team.

Government by majority is government by persuasion. Are we committed to the vision of strong, clear leadership? As politicians, are we about setting out our manifesto with integrity and providing the electors with clear options at the ballot box, or are we about deals behind closed doors after elections? Are we cynically saying, "We gave people the chance, but now the election is over we are going to form a coalition with one of the other parties"?

In the Scottish Parliament, the Liberal Democrats are in coalition with Labour, but on Dunbartonshire Council, they are in coalition with the Tories. If we go with PR, are we saying, "By the way, Mrs McMurdo, this is how it will be in this year's elections and next year's elections, but you never know who we might form a coalition with next year"? Do we really want to sign up to that sort of politics?

There are also evaluative considerations, such as whether stability of government is more desirable than an attempt faithfully to represent public opinion. In my opinion, the debate is as much about proportionality of power as about proportionality of representation.

When the pro-PR lobby claimed that the Jenkins system would produce a fairer result in terms of the number of seats that each party had, detailed analysis showed that it would produce a much less fair result if one compared the length of time that each party would have been in power with their share of the vote. In the past 50 years, the Liberals would have enjoyed 64 per cent of the time in power with an average share of the vote of just 13 per cent. Under PR, minor parties are able to exercise power disproportionately to the level of support they have.

I have heard speculation that one of the events that caused the Prime Minister to think again about proportional representation at Westminster was the crisis in Kosovo. He saw at first hand the difficulty that his European allies had taking tough decisions while keeping their coalition partners on board. The Green party in Germany, which received less than 7 per cent of the vote, threatened to pull out of the coalition with Gerhard Schröder's SPD.

In the Scottish Parliament elections, it took 25,000 votes to elect an SNP or Tory list member compared with 250,000 votes to elect a Labour member.

Then there is the debate about the power of the Government—whether the power of the Cabinet or of the Executive. PR is about democratic centralism. Thus, crucial questions in all political systems in which elections are held are how parties select their candidates and what the opportunities are for the electors to influence that choice. Under PR, the political party's centre or headquarters is more likely to have control of who the candidates will be than the activists in the constituencies.

The report written for the Labour party by Professor Plant acknowledged centralised power as one of the issues that Westminster would need to address under devolution to Assemblies or Parliaments. He said that the Westminster Parliament would need to form a view on whether it wanted consultative bodies or strong governing bodies.

The debate is the same, but we are talking about Scottish local government against the background of a Westminster white paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People", in which the Government does not propose to change the voting system for electing councillors in England and Wales. Are we seeing ghosts of the poll tax emerging from the closet?

If to govern is to serve, it is surely right to serve in accordance with a party's principles, not with principles that have been merged with the principles and policies of one or two other parties through a coalition. That may be the ethic of conviction, but it is also the ethic of responsibility to the electorate.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I congratulate Helen Eadie on being the first honest speaker. Come and join us, Helen; we will be delighted to accept you.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

rose—

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Sit down, Kenny. I had enough of listening to him on Glasgow City Council.

While I am on the subject of Kenny Gibson, may I say that he made the most restrained, diplomatic speech that I have ever known him to give. Members should have seen him in Glasgow City Council. Mike Tyson would have been afraid of him there.

Then we had Frank McAveety, who disappeared for a good chunk of the debate. Frank is back. Then we had Trish Godman. I had the dubious pleasure of serving with both those nice people on Glasgow City Council, but what do we find them doing now? Trish Godman and Frank McAveety do not lack ability, but my, they waffled today and the Liberals' faces were delighted—beaming all over. The Liberals were not beaming when Helen Eadie spoke. They were out for the aspirin tablets more often than not, because that was the true voice of the Labour party which, along with the Scottish Conservatives, appreciates the system as it is.

Why did Kenny Gibson decide to debate the issue? Because he thinks that PR will get the SNP more seats. At present, on Glasgow City Council, the SNP has John Mason and Mrs Gibson—Kenny's mother. The Herald indicated that bringing in PR would increase the number of SNP seats from two to five. That is not a great influx.

It was interesting that two newspaper articles that appeared before the Scottish parliamentary election said that the use of PR in the election was historic as it would be the first time that it had been used in this country. That is wrong, however, as PR was used in Scottish education boards prior to 1929 when its use was abolished. PR was also used in university parliamentary seats up to 1950, when, again, its use was abolished.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If the Tories are so opposed to STV in local government, why did they bring it in for local government in Northern Ireland?

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Northern Ireland is a completely different system. Because of the mix of the electorate, the people desired STV for local government. Scotland is not Northern Ireland. Is Kenny Gibson suggesting that it is?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

The fact is that the Scottish education boards were abolished, not PR. Mr Young's argument is false.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

With all due respect, it is not false. Donald Gorrie mentioned that he was a councillor in Edinburgh when there were three councillors for each ward. I had that experience in Glasgow, when I was elected in 1964 to the Glasgow Corporation. There were tensions and problems—poor little Mrs McGinty was often confused about whom she should contact about a leaking roof or a hole in the road. The system that is being suggested could well mean having five, six or seven councillors representing a vast constituency. That is not desirable and will mean that local government will no longer be local.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

If multi-member wards are so bad, why did the Tories not abolish the system in England and Wales?

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We leave England and Wales to control their situation. Kenny would agree with that as he does not want England and Wales controlling us.

My good friend and colleague, Brian Monteith, mentioned Italy. The Italian Prime Minister, who took office last year, indicated that he wanted a complete review of the PR system in Italy because the country lacked stability. The woman Prime Minister in New Zealand said that, after five years of the PR system there, she felt that it should be reviewed because instability had been introduced to New Zealand politics. That is the sort of thing that we find happening again and again.

Kenny Gibson also said—remarkably—that we should not accept dictation from council chambers. Members should have heard Kenny in his bygone political life. "Why should we accept dictation from Westminster?" he would ask. "Let us make our decisions here." Take it from me, we have seen the greatest conversion since St Paul on the road to Damascus.

It is true that councillors, particularly in the larger local authorities, have problems. Many cannot get time off work, many lose pay when they get time off work and the amount of money that is paid to them is derisory—councillors will be unanimous on that.

Keith Harding referred to the redrawing of boundaries in local government. Everything that he said was absolutely correct. I do not need to tell Frank McAveety—who has disappeared again—or Trish Godman about how some of the boundaries were drawn in Glasgow.

Fifteen countries in Europe use the PR system for local government. As Keith Harding mentioned, only in Ireland is the STV system used. Apart from Ireland, the closest to STV is Norway, which uses what it calls the STV group system.

Labour members—apart from Helen Eadie, and all credit to her—are waffling to keep their Liberal Democrat allies on board because, if the PR system is not put in place, the Liberal Democrats are out of the coalition. Ask Donald Gorrie; he will say that that is the situation. It is amazing that there are only half a dozen Liberal Democrats here for this crucial debate.

I will say no more. I hope that my words have not fallen on deaf ears.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate, and I pay tribute to Kenny Gibson for having lodged his motion. It has been a high-quality debate, in which a sense of the real feeling of the whole chamber has come through: there is a desire among most members to move towards a modern, pluralistic, reasonable relationship between central and local government. One or two members, without giving their names, have given us the last roar of the dinosaurs. Members will recognise the people to whom I am referring.

Behind the debate lies a spectrum of opinion, across both the Parliament and the partnership parties. I want to introduce slightly more perspective than we have heard in one or two recent speeches.

For 20 years or more, the power and standing of local government was deliberately reduced by the Conservative party when in government. Authorities have been capped, surcharged, regulated and underfunded. It is no wonder that there is demoralisation in local government; that council building stock is clapped out; that local services are struggling.

The Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration in this fairly elected Parliament is changing that, and is recognising the separate mandate of councils. It will introduce the power of general competence. That will deal with the increase in the strategic powers that councils will have over housing, and will progress the McIntosh-Kerley reforms that lie behind the debate.

I pay tribute, if I may, to the Labour party. In bringing about the Parliament and its electoral system, it has acted against self-interest. It did so because it was right to do so, just as it will be right to bring about a reform in the voting system of local government.

I take seriously some of the points that some of my Labour colleagues made about their concerns and reservations about certain systems of proportional representation. As Donald Gorrie said, that is a matter on which there must be further discussion and debate and whole-hearted consent to the changes.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mr McAveety's amendment, which I assume Robert Brown is supporting, mentions

"an immediate programme of change including progress on electoral reform".

Would Robert Brown care to tell us what, in his view, progress is? Is it merely talking about it, or is it actually delivering it?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Members will be aware that it is the long-standing desire, demand and fervent hope of the Liberal Democrats that proportional representation be implemented for local government.

I want to develop the point that I was making, as it goes to the heart of something that Helen Eadie was saying. She made two points that I thought significant. The first was on her support of the idea that the winner takes all. The whole point is that the winner does not take all; the person who gets less than 50 per cent of the vote frequently takes all, which is a different concept entirely. With respect to Helen, that is far from being the democratic concept that she was going on about.

Helen Eadie's second point was also important, but rather more subtle. Coalition governments, whether here or in other countries in Europe, do not give the minor parties—the junior partners in coalitions—some sort of absolute mandate on power.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Robert Brown give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

No, I am sorry—I will finish my point.

It seems very odd that the Liberal Democrats have been criticised here for the efforts that we have made to bring about, for example, the tuition fees deal and—

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Robert Brown give way?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I will not, as I want to finish this point.

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

You are now over your four minutes, so please begin to close.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Junior partners exercise power in proportion to the voting mandate that they get from the electorate, in the same way that the senior partner does. However, that is entirely different from saying that one party—as in Glasgow or in Angus, with one party getting less than 50 per cent of the vote—should have a monopoly on power.

If it is of any comfort to my Labour colleagues, if there was a proportional system under the single transferable vote, Labour would still be in power in Glasgow. The SNP, however, would not be in power in Angus—that is a reasonable point.

Let us get down to business on PR; let us use this Parliament; let us offer a new hand of fairness and partnership to councils that recognises their independent mandate—a more democratic mandate that is based on the will of the people. That is the essential quid pro quo for the reforms that we want. It is the path on which the Liberal Democrat-Labour Administration is set.

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

As this is an SNP debate, I will allow Linda Fabiani to speak, but for no more than two minutes.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am surprised by what Helen Eadie said. In the light of recent opinion polls I would have thought that Labour members would have been trying to rush PR in so that they can represent the people who vote for them at the next election.

We have PR in the elections to this Parliament; it is a fair system and people are well represented by the list members. The next logical step is to introduce PR in local government—the government that is closest to people. Studies have shown that people are in favour of it—people in Scotland are inherently fair and it is obviously fair that the political balance of councils should reflect the votes cast. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can disagree with that.

In South Lanarkshire Council, Labour, with 50 per cent of the vote at the most recent local government election, has 81 per cent of the seats. That cannot be fair. Perhaps if there was a better political balance, councillors would not be selling off all the green space in East Kilbride. In North Lanarkshire Council, with 55 per cent of the vote, Labour has 64 per cent of the seats. Perhaps there would not be the same problems with privatisation of the direct labour organisation there if there was a better political balance.

I am frustrated by the Liberal Democrats. Their 1999 manifesto came out for STV in multi-member wards. They allowed that commitment to be watered down by their coalition partners and are now talking about a commitment to make progress on PR in local government. Come on—we have had the McIntosh and Kerley reports; how many reports and consultations do that lot need before they do something?

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

rose—

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is time that the Lib Dems stood up for themselves on the issue.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Ian Jenkins is standing up.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Well, sit down. They did not stand up for themselves on tuition fees or, last week, on the Sutherland report. They should put their money where their mouth is—and stand up for themselves today by voting for the SNP motion.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

John Young seems to damn with faint praise by saying that the only honest speaker this morning was my colleague Helen Eadie, when his colleague Keith Harding spoke before she did. That perhaps says something—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

He must know something we do not.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Indeed, he must.

I come to the debate from a perhaps slightly different perspective from that of many of my colleagues in the Labour party. When I was elected to Dunfermline District Council in 1988, the result—which I still remember; perhaps I am a bit of an anorak—was Labour 387, Tory 330, Liberal 327 and SNP 159, on a 30.7 per cent turnout. A 28 per cent share of the vote got me elected to the council; 9 per cent of the electorate voted for me.

That win under first past the post started me thinking about whether we need to look at different electoral systems.

Electoral systems will always give rise to passions on both sides of the debate. The Tories want to support first past the post although—fortunately, I suppose—that system has turned against them recently. First past the post has also turned spectacularly against the Labour party in other parts of the UK. Political parties should think about the issue not in terms of their own political advantage but in terms of what best serves the electors. There is no doubt that if only two candidates are standing and there are only two main political parties, first past the post is by far the best system. It has served Britain well and has shaped our politics. However, as soon as a third candidate is introduced, there is an element of distortion.

It is not fair to say that STV is a panacea. It has several drawbacks. In urban areas, it is easier to understand how it might work, but in Scottish local government we have a rich tradition, particularly in rural areas, of a large number of independent councillors being elected to serve their area. Amalgamating those small rural areas into much larger areas might make it more difficult—although I am not saying that it definitely will—for a person who truly represents that one community to be elected under STV.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the member for letting me intervene. One thing that I mentioned in my speech, but which no one seems to have picked up, is that 59 councillors were elected unopposed. In the Western Isles, 12 councillors out of 31 were elected unopposed. Of the 19 who had contests, 17 were new councillors—which shows how unhappy people were with their existing councillors. Surely if wards are merged—even if it is only two or three together—that will still give better choice. For example, it is better to pick three councillors from a selection of four than to have only two wards, in one of which a councillor is elected unopposed, and in the other of which the electorate has a choice between only two people.