Scottish Parliament, 18 January 2001

502 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Introduction

Fisheries

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. Our first item of business today is a debate on motion S1M-1548, in the name of Jamie McGrigor, on fisheries, and two amendments to that motion.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This morning, Scotland's fishing industry stands on the brink of a crisis unlike anything that it has seen in living memory and possibly ever. This is a grave week for Scotland—a week when the future of hundreds of our fishermen, and thousands of others who work in the industry, is bleak indeed. Today's debate may seem to be about fish, but it is actually about the plight of people who are reliant on the fishing industry. Fishermen, fish processors and their families are the ones who will suffer.

I highlight the fact that the present situation could spell disaster for people in fishing communities the length and breadth of Scotland, from Fraserburgh to Mallaig. A bleak future awaits them, with devastation for their communities—a bleak future that can be lessened only if the Scottish Executive, for once, will stand up and fight for Scottish fishermen.

Why has this situation been allowed to develop? Why should Scotland not have the clout that it deserves as the biggest player in the North sea? It is because the fishermen are not properly supported by Labour in London and—worse—are not supported by Liberals and new Labour on the Mound.

In December, MEPs from different countries were putting forward their ideas for a cod recovery plan. Everyone in fishing circles has known for at least a year that the cod stock was in a parlous state and that a cod recovery plan would almost certainly be necessary. So where was the Scottish Executive's plan? Why did the Executive not lead with a well thought out plan, which could have been submitted by the United Kingdom? By taking the lead, the Executive would have pre-empted any plan such as the current one from Franz Fischler, which will be disastrous for Scottish interests. The Executive should be leading the way and fighting Scotland's corner. The fact that it has done nothing except dawdle and procrastinate makes a mockery of devolution.

This should have been the Executive's moment to shine, showing that the Scottish Parliament really represented the interests of Scottish people. However, yet again it has let down the Parliament and the people of Scotland. No wonder there is disillusionment with our political process.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Why, during 18 years of Tory Government and more than 20 years of my lonely sojourn on the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, did Tory MEPs vote with Spain on crucial matters that were against the Scottish interest? Why did they fail to take action against Spain's flagrant rule breaking—from politically motivated poaching to the use of double holds and the marketing of illegal fish, while keeping its inspectors carefully in Madrid?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I defer to Winnie Ewing's knowledge of what happened in the past. I will say only that, today, we are talking about the present.

Why should Scotland bear all the pain when the Scottish fleet's record on conservation is the best in Europe? It is scandalous that our representatives in the Scottish Executive did not say or do anything in advance. That would have put us on the front foot instead of having to defend. The best method of defence is toujours l'attaque, but this bunch's motto is toujours les platitudes. Policies of attrition have a history of not working in Europe.

It is especially galling that Scotland's fishing fleet, the only one in Europe to have adopted conservation measures—such as square-mesh panels aimed at protecting the 1999 class of fish—should pay the biggest penalty for the failure of other Governments to persuade their fishing fleets to do the same. Has the Scottish Executive thought of making that point?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I am sorry.

As usual, the Executive showed blinding arrogance in not consulting Scottish fishermen and their representatives—the people at the sharp end, who are capable of giving well-informed advice. As a result, we are faced with mass devastation of the Scottish fishing fleet and the communities that it sustains.

The worst element of Franz Fischler's plan is the proposed use of the 140mm mesh size in vast areas of the North sea. That would be catastrophic for fishermen who depend on haddock and other species that would not be caught in such a net. The only fish that would be caught is the cod. The plan would end up targeting the very species that it is meant to protect. We need a cod recovery plan that has a chance of working quickly.

A far better plan than the one proposed would be, first, to close all the key cod spawning areas throughout the North sea between February and April. That would maximise egg production. Secondly, juvenile fish must be protected. That could be done by making the square-mesh panel and accompanying twine size reductions mandatory in all national fleets operating bottom trawls. In addition, the current Norwegian practice known as "moving on" should be adopted, whereby vessels finding areas with heavy concentrations of juvenile fish stop fishing, move on and alert other boats to avoid the area. Thirdly, the food chain for cod and other species must be protected. That would mean a drastic cut in industrial fishing, which currently takes 1.2 million tonnes, greatly exceeding the catch required for human consumption.

At a time when conservation is so important, it seems ridiculous that the only bottom trawl fishery not to have quota cuts was the industrial fishing sector, which has the worst by-catch of juveniles of species such as haddock and cod. That fishery uses a 20mm mesh and indiscriminately catches everything in its path. The main industrial fishers are the Danes, who use gill nets and who fish 24 hours a day, catching adult fish off the Danish coast and the shelf edge. It is ludicrous that industrial fishing does not contribute more towards conservation. That is one of the first issues that must be addressed. It is absolutely essential that every country makes sacrifices and plays its part in conservation.

Other speakers today will mention decommissioning, which is obviously a vital part of any cod recovery plan. The core of the Scottish fleet and dependent fishing communities must be protected.

As we speak, the unelected bureaucrats in the European Commission are threatening to reduce our fishing fleet to a shadow of its former self. Worse, I have just received news from one of our MEPs, Struan Stevenson—who continually fights for Scottish fishing interests—that, in a debate yesterday on the future of the common fisheries policy, the southern European states united to vote against the continuation of six-mile and 12-mile limits when derogation ends in 2002. They also voted to allow equal access to the North sea, the west coast and—even worse—the conservation areas of the Shetland and Irish boxes. I put it to the Scottish minister that such a situation cannot be allowed.

We have talked about the North sea, but we must not forget the west coast fishery, part of which already comes under the Irish sea cod recovery programme. What plan does the Executive have for that area? How will it deal with pressure on the west coast if vessels divert to that area? Has it done anything to bring back the full prawn quota? Where is the solution to the scallop problem that the minister said she would give to the chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association before Christmas? It is now mid-January and nothing has happened.

Any future plan must cover the conservation of other stocks, which will be important to fishermen in the future, especially if they cannot fish for cod. I refer to the deep water species that are exploited by other fleets. Some of those species take 10 years to reach spawning maturity, but reach catchable size long before that. Obviously, if the fishery is to be sustainable, conservation measures must be implemented soon, so that those species do not go the same way as the cod.

My message is simple. By not proposing its own plan, the Scottish Executive has left the Scottish fishery in jeopardy. It got us into this mess and now it will have to get us out of it. Thousands of people will suffer if this plan goes ahead. The Executive must think of the people who will suffer, and make constructive arguments to help them.

Any solution to the problems that face the Scottish fishing industry relies on the Scottish Executive taking the lead for once and leading the United Kingdom in European Union talks at a ministerial level. A big battle looms for the Scottish fishing industry and I ask our minister for once to stand up and fight for Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the failure of the Scottish Executive to take the lead in producing an appropriate cod recovery plan for presentation as a United Kingdom submission to the European Commission; believes that this failure has led to European proposals for the North Sea which would seriously disadvantage the Scottish fishing fleet; notes that the plan, unless altered, will cause tremendous economic damage to Scotland's fishing communities, and calls for an alternative plan, devised in co-operation with the Scottish fishing industry, to be promoted immediately, which will lead to the revival of fish stocks and ensure a long-term future for Scotland's fishing industry.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. Before I begin my speech, I will make a couple of comments about Mr McGrigor's rather hysterical outburst. His claim that we are not working with the Scottish fishermen is arrant nonsense. Let me read to him the comments of Hamish Morrison, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, who said:

"We have a fight on our hands but there is cause for optimism . . . I think it is very important that the country which is the biggest player in the cod fishery has, amongst its own, a common view. That must be tremendously influential."

At every stage of the game, we have worked closely with Scottish fishermen. Members of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are out in Brussels now and we intend to continue to work closely with them.

Let me tell members about the state of play with the cod recovery plan. The real plan is being worked up today, as we speak, in Brussels. The Executive and the industry have agreed a joint line for those negotiations. What was discussed last December is history and is not relevant—things have moved on.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister says that the meetings in December are irrelevant. Can she tell us when she found out about the discussion that took place on 19 December and what involvement the industry had in that discussion?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Let me say once and for all that what came out of the discussions on 19 December was not a proposal that had been agreed for anything or by anybody, but simply a proposal to kick off discussions. It had no particular status, as we have said repeatedly. Things have moved on. If Mr Lochhead wants to play that game, that is fine, but I have better things to do.

Let me spell out exactly our line for the negotiations. We are arguing against sweeping, across-the-board measures, including the implementation of 140mm square-mesh panels across one broad area of the North sea. We have never supported that proposal.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am sorry, but I would like to get on with my speech.

Such a measure would unfairly penalise our white fish fishermen, who would find it hard to catch haddock and almost impossible to catch any whiting. What would make that proposal even more unacceptable is that the Scottish industry is leading the field in technical conservation measures. The industry should be rewarded for that, not punished. We want to introduce further technical conservation measures to protect juvenile fish, but we will do that as part of a longer-term strategy.

We are arguing for targeted measures, seasonal closures to protect spawning fish and the protection of Scotland's fragile rural communities. In the medium term, we are arguing for the implementation of technical conservation measures to protect juvenile fish. The rest of Europe must come into line with our forward- looking policies. In particular, the rest of Europe should adopt 90mm square-mesh panels.

It is interesting to note that what my officials are pushing for in Brussels is remarkably close to the line taken by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. That is no coincidence. While we have been working up our negotiating line over the past four months, we have been talking to the fishermen. We are still talking to the industry, which is why the joint line has evolved this week and will continue to develop today. The industry is uniquely involved in the Commission negotiations. I repeat: industry representatives are with my officials in the thick of the Commission negotiations. We are working together for a common purpose.

We cannot afford to be short-termist; we must balance long-term sustainability with short-term needs. There will be two cod recovery plans. This week, we are debating a short-term emergency Commission regulation, which will last only six months. We will focus on limited area closures during the spawning season and we are seeking to move away from the 140mm big-mesh proposal. In August, we will agree a longer-term plan in a council regulation for the next five years. The industry and the Executive agree that proposals to extend technical measures—notably the extension of the square-mesh panel regulations—and the issue of industrial fisheries are better dealt with as part of the longer-term plan.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The minister has mentioned two cod recovery plans—one that will last for six months and one that is a longer-term strategy. What will she do in the immediate future to address displacement effects resulting from the six-month plan?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Until we have the cod recovery plan in place, there is little point in my speculating about that. As I have said, when we have the cod recovery plan in place, we will consider its potential impacts. There is no question about that.

In August, we will agree a longer-term plan. We have agreed with the industry proposals to extend the technical measures.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am sorry, but I must get on with my speech.

Of course, some sections of the Parliament have been spinning like tops—they seem to be trying to drive a wedge between the Executive and the industry. That is playing politics with the Scottish fishing industry. Given that some members of the Scottish Parliament will be involved in an election in the next few months, that is perhaps hardly surprising. However, it is the last thing that we need at the moment. I remind the Parliament that the Executive has already fought off a Commission decision to impose a punitive days-at-sea regime as part of the cod recovery plan. We were also successful in arguing that cuts in total allowable catches for associated species, such as haddock and nephrops, should not be as great as the Commission intended.

I want to put the record straight on the latest so-called Commission proposals for a cod recovery plan. As has been said, those first came to light at an EU member states co-ordination meeting on 19 December. In fact, they do not amount to formal proposals; they were a starting point for discussions. In brief, the Commission suggested that a restricted access area should be set up, which would run from the Danish coast, through Norwegian water, across the North sea and over Shetland to the north-west of Scotland. It was suggested that only 140mm mesh nets would be allowed in that area and that the carrying of other nets would not be permitted. Under that model, fishermen would have to make a choice—fish in that area or outside it, but not both. On top of that was the rule that, once the cod quota had been exhausted, it would no longer be permissible to fish in that area for anything.

There has been a rather silly suggestion—it has been repeated today—that the Executive accepted those proposals. I say again: we did no such thing. Any such suggestion is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to see that industry leaders have gone on record to confirm that they fully accept the Executive's position. The Commission made certain suggestions and the Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—as our partners in the UK team—said that we reserved our position and were unwilling to make counter-proposals until we had the opportunity to consult the industry. That was the right course of action.

There are still some important points of detail to be sorted out, but we are working closely with the industry to achieve the best possible outcome, in terms of the benefit to cod stocks and to minimise impacts. We will strive to get the best deal available for the industry, consistent with our shared conservation objectives.

We are also making progress on the Scottish fishing industry initiative, which I announced in my December statement. That initiative will build on the work that is already well under way to develop a strategic framework for the industry. We are working with Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and others to undertake a comprehensive economic assessment of the whole fishing sector and its affiliated industries. We intend to launch the initiative formally in the near future. We will draw together data and views from all stakeholders on the future structure of our fishing industry.

Yesterday, the SNP issued a press release claiming that it had "dramatic new figures". Those figures are neither dramatic nor new. To be dramatic, the figures would have to tell us something useful, which they do not. To be new, they would have to relate to more recent information than from 1997. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures for financial transfers to the marine sector show that the UK spends the same as France and more than any other EU member state, apart from Spain, which has a bigger fleet.

Scottish Executive spending on fisheries is at record levels. More than £30 million will be spent on the financial instrument for fisheries guidance over the next three years. In addition to that, we also spend in the region of £30 million per annum on research, management and enforcement in the fishing industry.

The Executive is not basing its choices on hastily put together nonsense, but on a planned approach. I remind members of the Scottish fishing industry initiative, which will look carefully at the Scottish fishing industry as a whole, in economic and social terms, and which is aimed at refocusing the industry and identifying the scope for its possible restructuring. We see a long-term future for the Scottish industry. We will be working rapidly to develop an understanding of our current circumstances and a realistic way forward for our industry. I am confident that the initiative will pave the way for changes that will ensure a healthy long-term future for our fishermen and, in turn, many rural coastal communities. That is what I want, that is what we all want and that is what we have to do for the fishing communities of Scotland.

I do not agree with the Conservative motion or the SNP amendment. The Executive has offered an amended motion.

I move amendment S1M-1548.2, to leave out from "the failure" to end and insert:

"that the Scottish Executive, as part of the UK delegation, is currently involved in negotiations on a cod recovery plan with the European Commission, is aiming to secure the best possible deal for Scottish fishermen whilst ensuring a sustainable fishing industry, and is fully involving the industry in these discussions."

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As Jamie McGrigor indicated in his opening remarks, this is an important debate. Indeed, the fact that we are having another fisheries debate so soon after the debate in December, and so early in the new year, highlights just how crucial this period is for Scotland's fishing communities.

It was completely outrageous that within days of the quota deal in December, which short-changed Scotland, European Union officials and civil servants from Scotland and the rest of the UK agreed behind closed doors in Brussels to a plan that would be utterly devastating for Scotland's fishing industry, delivering a second enormous blow to Scotland's fishing communities in as many weeks.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

At no time did we agree to the plan that was put forward on 19 December. Richard Lochhead should get his facts straight.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I refer the minister to the minutes of that meeting, which perhaps she has not read. Her colleague, the Minister for Rural Development, can refer to this matter when he sums up. The minutes say:

"Member States could accept conditions indicated in (i)."

Paragraph (i)(b) refers to

"using towed gear of a high mesh size (140 mm)".

That is in black and white in the official minutes of the meeting.

The proposed plan would not have safeguarded Scotland's fishing communities or fishing stocks. It would have had an enormously disproportionate impact on Scotland's fishing communities while other nations went virtually unscathed. The Shetland and north-east of Scotland fleets in particular would have been hit hard. It was appalling, but perhaps not surprising, that the UK-led civil service team gave consent to that anti-Scottish plan. As a result, the industry has had to go into overdrive, as it is doing this week in Brussels, to change those plans, and it has been on the back foot since the talks began.

No other independent member state of the EU would have given consent to a plan that would be so devastating to its industry. If the officials in the Commission had listened to the industry, they would have learned that the proposal for 140mm square mesh was counterproductive and would lead to nothing more than a directed cod fishery. It would achieve none of the objectives and it would restrict our fleet's access to other important white fish stocks.

All our fishermen and all members of Parliament accept the need for tough measures, but those measures must be effective and must keep our industry viable. That means targeting spawning grounds and seasonal closures, which are being discussed this week in Brussels. We have to close the key spawning grounds for cod in the 10 to 12-week period to April. The grounds will have to be closed as soon as possible. That will maximise egg production and reduce mortality. Various maps show the spawning grounds, but we have to work with the industry to identify where the spawning grounds are so that what we do is effective. We have to close spawning grounds no matter where they are, be they in Scottish waters, Norwegian waters, English waters or wherever. We also have to close them at the right times.

We must close the spawning grounds to all fishing vessels, including the industrial fishery. A credible conservation policy cannot live alongside the industrial fishery. We cannot allow the valuable food supply that is so important to the regeneration of white fish stocks to be hoovered up by the industrial fishery. December's decision at the quota talks to transfer thousands of tonnes of whiting to the Danish fishery at the expense of Scotland was an enormous blow, but it rubs salt into the wound to think that our officials agreed to a plan on 19 December that again gave an exemption to the Danish industrial fishery, which runs against the interests of conservation.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, I will not.

We have to increase the chances of survival for juvenile fish, which means spreading the use of the 90mm square-mesh panel. However, our fishermen cannot be the lone champions of conservation. Westminster has not even found 10 minutes to implement its side of the bargain. Only one part of the UK is showing a commitment to conservation. Our fishermen feel that their reward for adopting these innovative conservation methods is to have a threat hanging over their livelihoods. All fleets must adopt the square-mesh panel and other measures. Scotland cannot bear the pain alone; it cannot be solely responsible for the regeneration of Europe's fish stocks.

All fishermen and, importantly, all environmentalists agree with the measures that have been outlined. The challenge in the short term must be to avoid the displacement of the pressure from the cod spawning grounds to other fisheries, which could have a bad knock-on impact on the prawn fishery in particular in many of our smaller fishing communities on the west coast and elsewhere. Yes, technical measures to avoid that displacement must be implemented as soon as possible, but we also have to consider suggestions such as the funding of temporary tie-ups, which would compensate those skippers who choose to remain in port, to reduce the fishing effort in the short term.

In the longer term, we need to fund a decommissioning scheme. There is no way around that. If we have to reduce fishing effort in the longer term, we must introduce a decommissioning scheme that will allow some fishermen to leave the industry with dignity.

Today, we need the Government to deliver a vote of confidence in the industry. That means new investment. We have to deliver a vote of confidence to maintain crews in the industry, so that they do not look elsewhere for employment. We have to keep the banks on board; if they get nervous, many of our skippers will face bankruptcy. We have to announce new investment for the processing industry, which is responsible for 5,000 jobs in Grampian alone. We have to announce new investment to develop new technical measures and to fund decommissioning.

In its hour of need, the industry requires an injection of support from the Government. Other countries give their fleets generous support. In Scotland, the position is absolutely pathetic. At the moment, the Government's fisheries budget accounts for 0.035 per cent of the total budget. Fisheries account for less than 1 per cent of Ross Finnie's rural development budget. Of the £5 billion that came to Scotland as part of the comprehensive spending review for the next three years, fisheries benefited from an extra £11 million, half of which, as it turned out, was from Europe.

The new Labour Government is prepared to write a blank cheque to protect the jobs of car workers in Sunderland or Longbridge: BMW was offered £127 million to protect jobs at Longbridge and, as we speak, there is an offer on the table to give £40 million to protect jobs at the Nissan plant in Sunderland. However, fishermen who are willing to risk their lives to bring fish to the table, and who sustain an industry that employs 20,000 people in some of Scotland's more fragile communities, do not count. That must change and it must change today. If we do not deliver for our industry in its hour of need, the people of Scotland will not forgive this Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive. The SNP asks for a commitment today that the Scottish Government will deliver for our fishing industry, invest in it and save it.

I move amendment S1M-1548.1, to insert at end:

"; notes that, while other European Member States provide generous financial support for their fishing industries, Scotland's industry receives minimal support, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to announce an appropriate level of new investment in the industry given that such additional support for our fishing communities in their hour of need will ensure that they continue to make an enormous contribution to Scotland."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am surprised by the motion in Jamie McGrigor's name, and I am even more surprised by the tone in which he got the debate going. The Conservatives should have learned by now that creating divisions at home weakens the position of the UK delegation when negotiating in Europe. In the motion, they have tried to take party political advantage of the problems facing our fishing industry.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Mr Rumbles must agree that the Scottish position could hardly be weaker. That has been brought about by the failure of the Liberal-Labour Executive to produce any form of plan in advance of the discussions.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Mr McGrigor made it clear in his speech that he has complete amnesia about the problems suffered by the fishing industry during 18 years of Conservative rule. I did not know that it was Conservative party policy to have Scotland lead the UK delegation to the European Commission. I wonder whether Mr Hague is aware of Jamie McGrigor's new policy. Is this another example of Jamie simply getting it wrong, or is it a new, UK-wide policy position by the Conservative and Unionist Party? A response on that point, perhaps? Jamie McGrigor was quick to his feet earlier; I notice that he remains in a sedentary position now. If this is a new policy by the Scottish Conservatives, they would seem to have joined the Scottish National Party in an unholy alliance and fully deserve the term that was coined for them in last week's Scotland on Sunday : the Vichy Tories. The Tories have abandoned their claim to a united front in the UK delegation to fight our fishing industry's cause.

Not all Conservatives are like Jamie McGrigor. To his credit, David Davidson has been quoted in The Press and Journal, criticising former SNP leader Alex Salmond for seeking to turn the cod recovery plan into a constitutional issue. Of course the SNP would do that—that is their raison d'être. If David Davidson and Jamie McGrigor talked together more often, perhaps they might get it right.

Another Tory, Struan Stevenson MEP, recently took a sensible line on the issue, saying that

"the fishing industry is far too important to turn into a political football."

How right he is, and how disappointing the debate has been so far, as we have seen the Tories and the SNP doing just that.

I refer to the cod recovery plan. It should be acknowledged that conservation measures are essential to the survival of fish stocks, and hence to the long-term survival of the fishing industry. The Scottish Parliament should back the line that many of our MEPs have taken, which is to reject the draft plan in its current form, as its impact on the Scottish industry would be totally unacceptable. The most important point to make is that the current difficulties are the result of the European Commission's centralist approach, which has made no provision for consultation with the industry. Any successful strategy must be developed and delivered in partnership, to achieve a situation where the industry has some sense of ownership of the strategy. First, that is realistic, because the industry has acknowledged the need for conservation measures; an example of that is the square-panel nets to reduce the catch of immature fish. Secondly, the effectiveness of any strategy will be enhanced if it becomes self-enforcing.

For many years our fishermen have not been consulted properly on various issues. There must be an attitudinal change in Europe, at the UK level and in Scotland, so that everyone works together in an automatic consultation process with our fishing industry. In my view—and that of the Scottish Liberal Democrats—nothing less will do.

In the European Parliament, Elspeth Attwooll, Scotland's Liberal Democrat MEP, has united with other MEPs to condemn the cod recovery plan proposals. Unfortunately, the UK delegation's cautious approach to the Commission's proposals must change, as a vacuum has been created that is being exploited by parties wishing to make mischief here. Is that not what we have seen so far today?

Despite Jamie McGrigor's completely off-the-wall allegation, it is clear that the Scottish Executive is opposed to the plans. The minister has made that clear today. The Scottish Executive is fighting our corner in the UK delegation very well indeed.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

So far, Mr Rumbles has gone on about the close relationship in the coalition between the Liberal party and the Executive. How much influence did the Liberals have in ensuring that, before the cod recovery plan debate started, the minister had a game plan? If Mr Rumbles knows of it, will he share it with us now and tell us what the minister said to his party—or is he just fishing about in the dark as usual?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I notice that Mr Davidson is smiling. I am sure that that will be addressed by the minister in his winding-up speech.

The Liberal Democrats feel that the Scottish Executive is doing a grand job fighting our corner. I urge the fisheries ministers in Edinburgh and London jointly to state their opposition to the Commission's plans. I say to David Davidson that that is the key. I thought that the Conservative and Unionist Party was just that, but it seems to be hiding its unionist credentials, especially today. I am rather surprised by the tone that it has adopted.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I will give way to Jamie McGrigor, as I was attacking him.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This party believes in sensible devolution. We know perfectly well that the hub of the UK fishing industry is in Scotland, which is why we are saying that the Scottish Executive—and that includes the Liberal party—ought to stand up for it.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Perhaps the Conservatives could make clear their policy position in their summing-up speech. Has Jamie McGrigor just invented a new policy, off the cuff?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

David (None, Lothians)

The member is on his last minute.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To conclude, it is essential that we back the UK delegation in taking alternative plans to the Commission. At this stage in the process it is not helpful to attack the UK negotiating machinery—as the Conservatives have done—or to engage in constitutional politics, as the SNP has done. If we are to have any hope of preventing this unfair plan—which, if enacted, would devastate Scotland's fishing fleet—we must send a clear and united message to Europe.

David (None, Lothians)

We move to back-bench speeches. We want to try to conclude the debate by about five minutes past 11. Seven members want to speak, including no fewer than three Ewings. If members take four minutes apiece, we will be on time.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is always a pleasure to be able to support, from the Conservative benches, what the fisheries minister says. The first thing that she said was that she was glad that the debate is taking place. Since it is a debate in Conservative time, I am delighted to back her on that.

We have spoken in the past about where the Parliament fits into the structure and activities of the Executive. In the minds of some, it is questionable whether the debate should have taken place while negotiations are on-going in Europe. It is essential that the Parliament takes the opportunity to express its views at a time when there is still a chance to influence thinking and to contribute to the debate.

I was delighted to hear the minister explain what happened to the cod recovery plan and previous proposals, and to hear her say that there was no intention of accepting the original plan that was discussed on 19 December. Our fishermen were quick to let us know that they had no intention of approving anything in that proposal.

I am therefore delighted to hear that further negotiation is taking place. I am also pleased to hear that a two-tier plan is being developed. It is essential that the cod is protected in the short term, but also that it is protected in the long term, and I welcome the plan for a cod recovery plan with a five-year structure.

Recovery in cod alone is not enough for our industry, however. We have heard about the importance of reducing the capacity of the fleet. It is essential that, as the cod stocks recover in the North sea, the fishing industry is scaled to be appropriate to that recovery. For that reason, we must look ahead, in tune with that five-year plan, to find ways to ensure that, at the end of those five years, our industry is in the perfect position—in terms of size, capacity and the type of boats that it contains—to match its catch to the productivity of the sea.

We must work together—not through the kind of argument that we have heard so far today—to get a decommissioning scheme in place. The benefits of a decommissioning scheme are obvious, but I shall run through one or two of them. Such a scheme would give us the opportunity to tune the industry to the catch and to ensure that, at the end of the five years, the boats are the most modern, the safest and the best suited to the continuation of a successful industry. To achieve that, we need money. To get that money, we must be prepared to work together. European money is available, but, as we have heard before, the extent of European support for any decommissioning scheme will be limited—as are any match funding schemes from Europe—by the agreement that was entered into at Fontainebleau many years ago. I raise that subject specifically because I know that it will be cited to us, whether I raise it or not.

I shall close by saying something about the Fontainebleau arrangements. As a result of the Fontainebleau agreement, the additional cost of any scheme will represent only 21 per cent of the total cost, whereas 50:50 funding would be the order of the day were we not party to that agreement. I also remind members that the benefits that we have received from the Fontainebleau agreement—which the current Government continues to receive as a result of that agreement—exceed that funding by a massive proportion. It is therefore inappropriate for the Fontainebleau agreement to be used as an excuse for failure adequately to fund partly European-funded schemes that require UK money to attract that funding.

I urge the minister to make efforts, as part of a longer-term strategy, to ensure that UK money is available to attract the additional European money that may be available to match that funding, to get the recovery plan and the decommissioning scheme going hand in hand.

Winnie Ewing (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I, too, welcome the debate. For decades, we have spoken of crisis in the fishing industry, but there is no doubt that this is the worst. This is the bobby-dazzler crisis of them all. According to the industry, it puts half our fleet at risk. It raises bankruptcy as a reality on the near horizon of the dependent communities that I have spent decades touring and which I know intimately.

I ask the minister to reflect on the terrible confusion in this crisis. Commission experts admit that the measures that they have suggested will not work. Fischler is saying that there is no hurry and that we can wait until March or April, although the fishing industry is telling us of the imminence of the spawning season. That is an example of the serious confusion that the Scottish Executive faces when it deals with the Commission.

Mike Rumbles spoke of the need for a strong UK delegation. I have a long memory, and I was a member of the European Parliament Legal Affairs and Internal Market Committee that visited Edinburgh. Mr McLeish assured us verbally—I noted his words and warned him that I was doing so—that, when the Scottish interest dominated, such as in fishing, we would take the lead in the delegations with Europe. I put that on record.

I spent 20 years on the European Parliament Fisheries Committee, which contained Labour members, Tory members and myself, but no Liberal members from the UK. My heart was broken by the way in which both Labour members and Tory members voted with Spain. Crucial matters such as the 1983 reform—which we cannot now undo—were voted for. I warned those members that they would lose their seats, and they did: the members of the Fisheries Committee who voted with Spain lost their seats to other parties, and no wonder.

My heart goes out to the minister, as she has arrived at the debate in very stormy seas. Will she please rule something in? I am asking her to rule in proper decommissioning, covering boats, quotas and licences. We do not want a repeat of the disaster when we gave all the money to Hull trawlers—a subject on which we need not dwell, but which was an example of the UK delegation not doing a very good job.

We also need zonal management—a subject that was dear to the heart of my late colleague Allan Macartney, who got zonal management agreed to unanimously in the Fisheries Committee and even got the Spaniards to vote for it—which is saying something. Will the minister tell us what she rules in and what she rules out?

Finally, I cannot understand why the UK Government and the Scottish Executive cannot simply support a ban on industrial fishing. There is not enough fish for human consumption—that is a fact. There have been inquiries galore into industrial fishing, and no one disputes that fact. Why, then, should Denmark get extra tonnage? So that there is fish soup for pigs, although there is not enough fish to go round the tables of other European countries.

The unionist parties of the three colours keep assuring the public and the fishermen that there is enough clout in being part of the UK. In the case of fishing, that is clearly not true. Big Brother keeps letting us down. In contrast, Denmark—a small country with its own Government—gets what it wants. The sooner Scotland has a Government that can give the fishermen the answers that they want, the better that will be for everyone.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The debate is badly timed: it is too late to influence discussions on a cod recovery programme and it is too early to address the actual plans. Discussion between the Commission, the Government and industry representatives is continuing as we speak, and we will not know the outcome of that until tomorrow at the earliest. The important debate on what will happen as a consequence of the finalised plans will have to take place after that. I am pleased that Rhona Brankin has been able to accept an invitation to attend the Rural Development Committee at the end of this month, and I look forward to having meaningful discussions at that time. The minister will then be better placed to describe to us how the Government can

"secure the best deal for Scottish fishermen while ensuring a sustainable fishing industry."—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol 9, c 716.]

That commitment to a sustainable Scottish fishing industry was reiterated by Ross Finnie, the Minister for Rural Development. I do not understand the confusion, concerning the way in which the Liberals and Labour are working together on that, as there is a coalition partnership within the department.

I must question why the Tories brought this ill-timed debate to the chamber today. The talk of an imminent general election makes me suspicious.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We do not choose when we are allocated non-Executive time. In December, we thought that it was appropriate—given what was going on at the time—that we used our parliamentary time to ensure that the Executive explained to Parliament exactly what has been going on and to express to the ministerial team the anxieties of our fishing communities. That is why this debate was chosen. Perhaps if people in Europe had taken a closer look and the Executive had allowed us to change the date of the debate, things might have been different. However, that is the thinking behind the debate.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The Conservative party selected the topic for discussion, but we are not able to discuss the matter with full information at the current time.

I do not deny that the initial cod recovery plan put forward by the Commission was far from satisfactory. However, it was the Commission's plan, not the Executive's or the UK Government's, and the Executive has made it quite clear that it does not accept the Commission's approach. To suggest otherwise is misleading—I think, Mr Lochhead, that I am being generous in describing it in that way.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Yes, briefly.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member confirm—

David (None, Lothians)

Order. Only one member may stand. Dr Murray will need to sit down if she is giving way. I call Mr Lochhead.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member confirm whether she has read the minutes of the meeting on 19 December—yes or no?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am advised by the minister that the minutes are not a record of the meeting, that the Executive has not agreed the minutes and that it has made that position clear to the Commission official concerned.

As we have heard, cod stocks have been in decline for 20 years. Between 1992 and 1997, the number of UK fishing vessels declined by 29 per cent—that is 3,167 vessels. Admittedly, that decline does not equate directly to a decline in fishing effort, but Conservative members can perhaps enlighten us as to what exactly the Tory Government did during its 18 years in power to reverse that position. Mr Johnstone reminded us of one of the things that it did: Mrs Thatcher signed the Fontainebleau agreement, which is now creating problems in funding the decommissioning of vessels, although I feel strongly that that is a problem that we must face.

I am grateful to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for the briefings that they have provided to members. I was impressed by their arguments for the protection of spawning grounds through the establishment of closed areas and the extension of technical conservation measures such as the use of square-mesh panels—which, I was advised by fishermen yesterday, fat fish such as cod escape more easily than they do traditional diamond-mesh panels—and thinner twine. I was perturbed to learn from the fishermen last night that the square mesh-legislation has not yet been introduced south of the border. I hope that our Westminster colleagues will follow that up. Perhaps that is a job for Mr Salmond. It will give him something to do, given that the SNP believes that Scottish MPs should not vote at Westminster.

This is an important issue for Scotland, and for many rural communities in particular. I hope that a sensible cod recovery plan will be agreed. I note the Executive's commitment to involve the industry in all discussions. I trust that we can move forward to provide what, despite our differences, we all want—a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

In relation to Denmark's position and how pleased that country is, I want to tell the chamber that I read an article from the news service in Vietnam, which yesterday gaily announced that Denmark has given it £40 million to assist its fisheries. Denmark is obviously so pleased with what its Government did for its fishermen that it is giving money away to help fisheries on the other side of the world.

I want to talk about reform within the European Union and changes to the common fisheries policy. The European Committee is beginning an inquiry into the common fisheries policy and will, I hope, have some good results later in the year. I ask Mike Rumbles how he thinks that the Liberal Democrats' position, which is to give away the veto, would protect our fishermen against the ambitions of Iberia's fishermen. He talks about our being divisive in Europe; he would simply give everything away and ensure that the Spanish fishermen dictate to us.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I want to finish setting out my position.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The member mentioned me by name.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The member should sit down. We have heard enough from him.

David (None, Lothians)

The member is not giving way.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

He is feart.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No means no. I am sure that Mike Rumbles learned that in the Army education corps or wherever.

When we come to future European negotiations, we should look at how the German Länder operate. Germany has a much better system for negotiating, which relates to its regions. Scotland House should perhaps take that as an example for the future. That would give us more clout on issues such as fishing.

EU enlargement will soon be a reality—perhaps in the next 10 years. Poland and Estonia have particularly large fleets and have made it clear that they will make full use of the FIFG to update their fleets. They will pose serious competition to our fishermen and we must ensure that our fishermen are in a position to survive those changes. However, we will not be allowed to know what those changes are, because the Foreign Office will not release the documentation that would tell us what Poland and Estonia envisage for their fishermen in negotiations. That means that Scotland cannot take a view and influence the position. However, if one goes to the applicant countries, their Governments are much more open and will happily give the details.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

It is patently obvious that Ben Wallace refers to independent countries and to the secretiveness of the British state. I thank him for his earlier reference to Denmark, which, of course, makes her own decisions because she is independent.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To achieve success in negotiations, it does not matter whether a country is independent or not. Denmark has only three votes on the council, compared with Britain's 10. Independence would condemn us to being overruled at every corner by Spain, which has considerably more votes than we could ever wish for. Our view is that it is competence in negotiations that matters.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Give way.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Presiding Officer, if the member has something wrong with his hearing, he should make an appointment to see the doctor. He has been told no on a considerable number of occasions.

David (None, Lothians)

That is enough of this military cross-talk. Let us get back to the fishing.

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have a final question on the £30 million, which the minister mentioned, that is to be awarded under the FIFG, which replaced PESCA in December 1999. Is the £30 million being used, or will it be used, to match structural funds under objective 1 and objective 3 programmes, or will it be used to access additional European money for the restructuring programme or the rebuilding and replacement programme? I hope that the FIFG money that the minister talked about is not being double-accounted in structural funds that have already been granted—it could be argued—for a very different reason. I hope that it is additional money that will be used to get extra money from the EU.

To respond to Elaine Murray's point, since the Fontainebleau agreement, and as a result of the rebate that Margaret Thatcher secured for us, we have received more than £36 billion. The amount that would be needed to decommission or replace vessels is tiny compared with that. That shows that the Fontainebleau agreement was a success, not a failure. As her Government has done nothing to apply for any of the green money, the member should withdraw her comments.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I note that the expression "political football"—in relation to fisheries policy—has cropped up from time to time during the debate. I want to make it clear that the SNP has at no stage seen the issue as a party political football. We regard fishing as a crucial industry, which is vital to the Scottish economy and to our coastal communities. All the comments that we make are directed towards ensuring the future of the industry and we will continue to direct them in that way.

To the Conservative party in particular, I say that people such as Alex Salmond, John Home Robertson, I and others who have served in the Westminster Parliament have lived through many debates in the House of Commons on the common fisheries policy. The Conservatives especially have turned the issue into a political football. Conservative MPs would suddenly discover that there was a fishing industry and they would use it to build up Euroscepticsm, rather than to argue a case for the industry. I want that on the record, because I feel very strongly about it.

Our fishing communities know that every year, major negotiations take place before Christmas. Every fisherman, every fisherman's wife, every fisherman's family and every village and community out of which the fishermen operate wait to see what there might be in their Christmas stocking, but every year it seems to become emptier. We want a long-term strategy and I wish Rhona Brankin well in that.

The debate is taking place in a vacuum, because we do not know the details of the discussions and negotiations. I understand that representations are being made by civil servants, including a civil servant from the Scottish Executive. It would be helpful if the recommendations that were made to that civil servant for the discussions were placed in the Scottish Parliament information centre. We would then know what recommendations were made.

I read articles such as that in today's The Press and Journal; the headline is: "Confusion reigns at fish talks". The article says:

"consider how yesterday's discussions in Brussels developed. There were so many shifts of principle, position and statement within the meeting, and the messages emerging were so garbled and contradictory that visiting media were run ragged. Many were aghast that a top-level discussion should descend into the realms of Keystone Koppery."

That is why it is vital that we know the exact nature of the Scottish Executive's negotiating position. We have a fear of coastal clearances. Many members can be emotional about the Highland clearances but, if the measures go through unamended, we will have coastal clearances.

We talk about valuable species of fish, but our fishermen are also a valuable species. We ask them to risk their lives to bring home the harvest of the sea. Will a minister tell us—I do not know whether Rhona Brankin or Ross Finnie will reply—what the Executive's long-term strategy is? Is there a commitment to maintain the fishing industry in Scotland? It is vital to our economy and I do not want anybody to stand by and watch it sink. Almost half our fleet is threatened with redundancy. I say to members of all parties that, if other industries were threatened with a 50 per cent reduction in their potential, the chamber might be busier. We have a responsibility to have regard to the impact of the problem.

I ask the minister to respond on displacement. If the closures during spawning are agreed, what will be the impact on the fisheries effort that is displaced from the closed areas? That is very important in areas such as Moray and around the north-east of Scotland.

Finally—there is so much to say and so little time to say it—I want to talk about decommissioning, which has been mentioned. If 100 to 150 vessels must be taken out of the fishing fleet—those figures are from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation—what representations will Rhona Brankin make to ensure that our fishermen can leave the industry with dignity? Winnie Ewing mentioned the previous decommissioning scheme in Hull, which has left a lot of sensitive nerves exposed at Westminster.

I want to ensure that, if there is a decommissioning scheme, the Executive will match the money that is available from the European Union to ensure that our men can with dignity leave the industry to which they have committed their lives. I ask the minister to rule the decommissioning system in, please.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

No member should underestimate the importance of the debate or the difficulties that face the Scottish fishing industry. The future is uncertain for our fishermen. We all knew how difficult the situation was going to be from the quota discussions, which were debated in the chamber in December.

Although the Scottish Executive must be congratulated on the efforts of our ministers in ensuring the best available deal for our fishermen in the quota discussions, no one pretends that the quotas are a good deal in respect of the impact that they will have on our fishermen. They mean that many boats will face the difficulty of not being able to land sufficient fish to meet their running costs, which is a great concern for skippers and crews.

We all understand the anger of the Scottish fishermen that the Commission has introduced the cod recovery plans without bothering to consult the industry directly. I welcome Rhona Brankin's assurances that the Scottish Executive does not support the cod recovery plan, but is in clear opposition to it. I wish that some other parties in the chamber would recognise that the Scottish Executive has not given its support to any cod recovery plan that has been produced by the Commission and that it is in active discussion with the Commission on improving the proposals and introducing alternative plans.

I hope that in summing up, the SNP will acknowledge the Scottish Executive's opposition to the proposed cod recovery plan.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Has Iain Smith read the minute?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have read the note of the meeting. It does not indicate that the Executive supports the cod recovery plan. If any member can give me a factual statement that shows that the Executive supports the cod recovery plan that has been produced by the European Commission, they may feel free to do so. The fact is that such a statement can be found nowhere. The minister has given us assurances this morning that the Executive does not support the plan.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

A Scottish Executive official was at the meeting, admittedly in a junior capacity. Page 2 of the minute states:

"Member states could accept conditions indicated in (i)."

That is about the one-net rule and 140mm mesh. Iain Smith says that he has read the minutes. Why cannot he acknowledge that that is stated on page 2?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

It is not a formal minute of a meeting; it is a note from an official on that official's understanding of the meeting. The minister has indicated clearly this morning that the minute is not accurate and that it does not reflect the position of the Scottish Executive. Is Mr Salmond calling the minister a liar? Is he?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

If an official who represents the Scottish Executive accepts, as the minutes indicate, the conditions in (i), is not it reasonable for members, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and the SFF to conclude either that the minutes misrepresent the position of the Scottish Executive—the minister's claim—or that the officials of the Scottish Executive and its members were sleeping on the job?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Before we go back to Iain Smith, I must make two points. Iain Smith should not invite interventions from other members and interventions should be brief.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Sorry, I was not aware that I invited an intervention.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

You did.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I did not invite an intervention. I asked the SNP to accept, in its summing-up speech, that Scottish ministers and the Executive do not support the cod recovery plan and never have. Our fishermen deserve better than they are getting from the SNP and the Conservatives. Our fishermen recognise that we are in a difficult situation and they recognise the efforts that the Scottish Executive is making to involve them in discussions—it is important that the Scottish Executive involves them in the discussions on producing an effective cod recovery plan.

Some issues must be addressed. Decommissioning is important, but we cannot afford a decommissioning scheme that repeats the errors of the past. The previous scheme only modernised the fleet, but did nothing to reduce its catching capacity. Closure of spawning grounds is preferred to the proposal in the cod recovery plan that there should be a blanket closure of fishing grounds.

Many other issues must be addressed. I hope that the Scottish Executive will, in discussions with the Commission and Denmark, take seriously the issue of how we address the problem of industrial fishing. We must work together on this.

The Scottish Executive must be commended for working with the fishermen in producing proposals for the discussions. We must learn from the cross-party efforts of members of the European Parliament who got together to lobby the commissioner. As a result, the commissioner has accepted that there will be proper consultation with fishermen before any emergency plan is introduced Today, we have heard Richard Lochhead and Alex Salmond refuse to accept the fact that the Scottish Executive opposes the cod recovery plan. We have also heard Jamie McGrigor's disgraceful opening remarks, in which he accused the Scottish Executive of not even being in consultation with the SFF. The Scottish Executive is standing up for Scottish fishermen. The fishermen demand that the Scottish Parliament unite behind them. I hope that the Conservatives and SNP will consider that point and that they will unite behind Scottish fishermen and the Scottish Executive by voting for the Executive amendment.

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

Let us try to make progress. Every reasonable member would acknowledge that the minister is well intentioned. I hope that my remarks will invite the minister to address a number of points that have not been mentioned in the debate.

The inevitable focus on the so-called cod recovery plan—which is really a plan to terminate rather than to conserve either stocks or fishing communities—has perhaps distracted attention from the impact that the plans will have on the west coast.

Any measures will result in more fishermen leaving the North sea to fish off that coast. I invite the minister to address three questions that the Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association asked to be raised in the debate. First, are there any plans for a cod recovery plan for the west coast? Secondly, what progress has been made on the work on log book data to make the case for a minimal bycatch of cod by prawn fishermen, with a view to rolling over the reduction in the prawn quota, which many of us feel was never justified? Finally, for more than 18 months, the industry has been promised sight of a draft statutory instrument that will address technical scallop conservation measures. We have been told that the draft instrument has been held up, first by the Scottish Executive's legal department and now by MAFF. What is the current position and when will the delay end and progress be made?

The question that we face today is whether the Scottish Government wants a fishing industry in Scotland. Is there a future for fishermen in our country? I do not believe that that is putting the question too baldly, nor have I put the question that way to create a sense of false drama. It is a statement of fact. I hope that the debate will give rise to a common purpose about the need for investment. Commitment to the future of the fishing industry will be demonstrated only by a commitment to invest. In that regard, proper investment will recognise that the size of the fishing fleet in Europe and Scotland is too large for the fishing stocks. Restructuring is required and a properly funded decommissioning scheme is the only way to achieve that.

An immediate benefit of announcing such a policy would be to reassure the banks. In defence of the Royal Bank of Scotland—which has, perhaps undeservedly, experienced a hard time in the past couple of days—I should say that fishermen recognise that many banks have shown their commitment to the fishing industry by extending the period of repayment on the massive loans that are the norm for Scottish fishermen.

I also urge the minister to address seriously a question that will not go away: who speaks for Scotland? Is not there a case for decommissioning one of the three sets of civil servants with whom our fishermen must negotiate year after year? That cannot be right, as other speakers have pointed out, and it is hardly surprising that there is confusion.

Finally, perhaps the most sombre fact of all is that, although the Scottish fishing industry is like all other industries in most respects, it differs from them in one: day and daily, fishermen imperil their lives at sea. In the past four years, 43 Scottish and 103 UK lives have been lost and last year's figures demonstrate an alarming trend in which the risk is increasing. Last year, 14 lives were lost from Scottish fishing communities.

I suggest to the minister that that is happening because of the increased financial pressures that face fishermen. Many boats are going to sea—and have been going to sea in the past year—with insufficient crews because many fishermen are leaving fishing to go to the oil industry. That situation is placing many lives at risk. A decommissioning scheme would provide reassurance, commitment and confidence and I believe that all parties are united in their aim to back such a policy.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I listened with interest to Jamie McGrigor's explanation of the thinking behind bringing today's debate to the chamber. It is unfortunate that he seemed to be unaware of the fact that Scottish fishermen's representatives are—even as we speak—working together with representatives of the Scottish Executive and the UK Government in Brussels to achieve an emergency cod recovery programme that is compatible with a sustainable future for the Scottish fisheries industry.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does not the member agree that it would have been better to have had a cod recovery programme in place, rather than waiting to discuss one now, when it is too late?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Scottish fishermen will be bemused at the suggestion that the important question about cod recovery plans is who gets in first instead of who gets it right with the support of the industry. Ministers have worked to achieve the latter—we should welcome that.

Having heard Jamie McGrigor last week denounce the principle of salmon conservation in a debate on legislation that was before the chamber, I expected the worst this morning. However, at least he did not go as far as to say that cod conservation was unnecessary. Perhaps we should welcome small mercies.

I also listened closely to Richard Lochhead's speech in support of his amendment. Although the speech started with the usual ritual glorification of civil service minutes, I should be fair and say that it largely supported the Scottish Executive's current negotiating position in Brussels. That position supports the limited-area proposition and seasonal closures to protect spawning, but it opposes the suggested requirement for 160mm mesh nets. It ensures that the map of key areas of the North sea reflects conservation needs instead of placing all the burdens of conservation on one member state. Those sensible propositions attract widespread cross-party and cross-industry support. As has been said, it is important that the common position that has been taken by the Government and the industry in the negotiations is sustained and that ministers are able to act with the support of the whole industry.

I welcome Alex Johnstone's acknowledgement of the minister's explanation of the need for a two-stage cod recovery programme. This week's negotiations centre on essential emergency measures for the short term and do not in themselves form an adequate future for the industry or a base on which we can build in the longer term. After this week's emergency measures have been agreed, it will be important to continue such a partnership approach to develop a long-term strategy.

I agree with members who said that any strategy should contain a radical reduction in industrial fishing and I welcome the minister's clear recognition of that. However, members should be aware that a closure order that covers the east coast of Scotland has already been put in place by the Executive, which has recognised the fact that industrial fishing affects white fishing and that there is a need to limit industrial fisheries to protect North sea cod.

As has been said—and as was said in the debate in December—our negotiating position in the EU in the argument with Denmark over the catch of industrial fisheries has been much assisted by the fact that we have 10 votes to Denmark's three. We must protect that position.

Margaret Ewing—who has, unfortunately, left the chamber—had some wise words about the importance of not treating the issue as a political football. We must recognise that fishermen are, like some of the fish they catch—as the SFF has pointed out—an endangered species.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Does the member agree that the Danes have done very well in the negotiations? They do much of the industrial fishing and there has been absolutely no reduction in the industrial fishing quota. Why has the Scottish Executive brought about that situation?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

That is not the case. There has been a reduction in the industrial fisheries quota. As I said, a closure order on industrial fishing is in place on the east coast of Scotland.

From where I sit, the jobs of fish factory workers in Aberdeen are no more and no less important than the jobs of car workers in the north-east of England. All parties must recognise that Government has a responsibility towards people in that kind of industrial employment, which is why ministers are working actively on long-term strategies for both the fishing and fish processing industries. We must welcome such strategic approaches and the building of a strategic partnership. They deserve the chamber's support.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I start with a quotation from The Press and Journal , which members will accept is a newspaper that has a substantial interest in the fishing industry and fishing communities. This morning's editorial states:

"Events in Brussels yesterday displayed nothing so much as the fact that virtually nobody in the European Commission or the Westminster Government has a grasp of even the industry practicals, never mind the principles."

Why should The Press and Journal, leaders of the fishing industry, fishermen or fish processing workers be disillusioned by what has been happening over the past few weeks? It is because we have a cod recovery plan, which is actually a cod extermination plan. Ministers and members on the Liberal benches say that it does not really matter that that is the proposal that is on the table. However, in any negotiations, it is better not to have as a starting point an absolutely disastrous suggestion. Rhona Brankin is very upset that we have got a hold of the note of a meeting—so much for the commitment to open government—which rather weakens the negotiating position that the Commission's compromise—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will Mr Salmond give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will Mr Salmond give way?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Perhaps I should give way to the senior minister first.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

With regard to the note—written by an official at the Commission—of the meeting, will Mr Salmond accept as a matter of record that officials of the Scottish Executive have intimated to the Commission that they do not accept the record that is set out in that note, in so far as it purports to suggest that there was no opposition to the plan?

Secondly, will Mr Salmond accept that that proposal was also put forward by Commissioner Fischler using his emergency powers, under which he is not required to consult, and that we therefore both agree that the position is very unsatisfactory?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am grateful to the minister for putting that on the record. However, he will accept that the report shows that the officials who were present at that meeting indicated assent to the Commission plan. More important—perhaps this is the point that we should be worried about—the report also says that no counter-statement to the Commission compromise was offered. Even if Mr Armstrong misrepresents a meeting and sends out a note to all the people he was misrepresenting, why was no counterstatement offered? That might have shifted the negotiating position at the outset.

Fishermen are angry about that. Instead of being upset because fishermen are angry, Rhona Brankin should acknowledge that the public debate that has been generated during the past two weeks has galvanised officials and ministers, here and in London, to adopt a more sensible position. I pay tribute to the Scottish White Fish Producers Association and to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, whose members are prepared to engage in that debate and to get politicians doing the job that they are meant to do.

I see Ross Finnie shaking his head, but I spoke to Elliot Morley on 9 January. Unusually for a UK fisheries minister, Elliot Morley knows a lot about fishing and is a very decent person. He admitted freely to me that he had no knowledge of the meeting, no knowledge of the issue and no knowledge of the minute. To his credit, he made sure that he had that knowledge by the next day. Given that UK officials are leading the delegations, does not Rhona Brankin find that slightly worrying? Perhaps she should engage in the same honest admissions as her London colleague.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

That document had no official status—we did not agree to it. Alex Salmond should check with his colleagues in the SFF, which accepts unreservedly that the UK never signed up to that plan.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It remains the case that the Commission compromise that is on the table is undermining the negotiations. It is incredible that the minister does not realise that, in European negotiations, the point of initial discussion can affect the point of agreement.

The Tories have collective amnesia about what happened when they were in government. I just wish that I had had Alex Johnstone with me when I was arguing with John Selwyn Gummer about the Fontainebleau agreement and the problems that it would cause for support for the fishing industry. Under that agreement, 71 per cent of the cost of decommissioning would be borne by the UK Government. In my view, that still means that there is a 29 per cent net gain. I want Ross Finnie to acknowledge, as Rhona Brankin will not, that the level of support for our fishing communities is deplorably low.

Rhona Brankin said that there was politicking in the speeches that were being made today. I have spoken in every fisheries debate in the House of Commons since 1987 and in every fisheries debate in the Scottish Parliament, but her interest in fisheries is of somewhat more recent vintage. Those of us who are fishing MPs represent our communities in fisheries debates because we believe in the industry. Thirty-three per cent of people in my constituency work in activities that are related to fishing. I am proud to be a fishing MP and my colleagues are proud to be fishing MPs. When we debate such issues, it is because we care about our communities and about the industry.

We want, above all, to hear in Ross Finnie's closing speech an acknowledgement that we must come out of the European talks with measures that will conserve fish, rather than destroying livelihoods in our communities. We must have a plan that people can rally round and support. Even if we get such a plan, aid will still have to be provided for the fishing sector—onshore and offshore—to make that plan sustainable.

Margaret Ewing made a fundamental point about displacement on to other fisheries. The minister—less than 1 per cent of whose rural development budget is for fisheries support—must surely acknowledge that there must be a step change in aid and support for the fishing communities in their hour of need.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

This is a serious issue and, by and large, it has been a serious debate. I want to state right at the outset that we are engaged in a process which, as Jamie McGrigor said, did not arise today but has been building up for some time. The Scottish Executive is negotiating with one objective in mind: to ensure that there is a future for the Scottish fishing industry. In that context, I found the opening speech from Jamie McGrigor, bearing all the hallmarks of a pall-bearer, just too much. He tried to reduce this serious debate to gloom and doom, as if the whole industry was going to collapse, when what we are actually about is seeking to negotiate a cod recovery plan that will ensure the future of the industry.

I repeat for the benefit of Richard Lochhead and Jamie McGrigor that at no point did the Scottish Executive accept the draft proposal that was put on the table by the European Commission. I emphasise that point with all the power that I have. As Rhona Brankin said just a few minutes ago, even the Scottish Fishermen's Federation accepts that the Scottish Executive never accepted that proposition and that we are trying to negotiate a cod recovery plan for the benefit of the industry.

I welcomed Margaret Ewing's speech, in which she reminded us that we should not treat the fishing industry like a political football. British members of the European Parliament have come together in a non-partisan way to recognise the importance of the industry, and that co-operation has been a model in recent days. She raised the issue of displacement, and the Executive is alert to that issue. I cannot give her a definitive policy because, of course, there is no plan. The phrase used in the chamber this morning has been the cod recovery plan, but there is no plan and there will be no plan until the conclusion of the Commission's meeting. We are certainly alert to the problems that could arise from displacement, and officials are considering how those problems could be addressed.

Winnie Ewing made a valuable point about decommissioning. Alex Johnstone should understand that decommissioning is not a question of getting to the point at which the best vessels are what is left. We must also examine capacity, and Winnie Ewing made a clear point about the need to examine capacity, quotas and licences. That is a complex matter, but it is one that will have to be addressed.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

There are fishing representatives in the gallery today. Every time they come to fishing debates in the Parliament, ministers say that they cannot make commitments because there is a further set of talks round the corner. Whatever the outcome of this week's talks, action by the Executive will be needed in response. Will the minister take the opportunity today once and for all to give a fresh commitment that new money will be made available to help implement whatever measures come out of this week's talks?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not about to make such a commitment. When the time comes, I will be prepared to make commitments on quite specific proposals. As I was in the middle of saying, we are absolutely clear about the fact that, if we are in a situation that does not appear to have an immediate recovery point, we must examine clearly a decommissioning plan. That cannot simply be any old plan—Winnie Ewing reminded us about the problem with the Hull situation. We must consider the linkage between licences, quotas and vessels and also the condition of vessels. That is not simple, but we are not closing our mind to facing that problem.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Does the minister appreciate that, in my constituency of Banff and Buchan, one of our best white fish ports was laid up by the banks in the past few days and that one of our best fish processing factories is in administration? Richard Lochhead pointed out that support for fisheries is just less than 1 per cent of the rural affairs department's budget. Although it is soon to rise to just over 1 per cent, does the minister concede that, given the extent of the crisis, that seems a low percentage from the point of view of our fishing communities?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I understand that. I do not want to get into a debate about the difficulties of people who might be in receivership or bankruptcy, but I think that even Mr Salmond would agree that their being in that situation would not necessarily mean that they were candidates for inclusion in a decommissioning scheme. I do not know whether that is what Mr Salmond was suggesting, but he chose to mention such people. The important point is that, in the past few years, we have raised the level of expenditure that is committed. I do not rule out the provision of further finance for measures that will emerge from the cod recovery plan or the longer-term plan—we must remember that we are talking about a short-term measure and that the longer-term measure is probably just as important.

I say to Winnie Ewing that one should be careful about saying that one wants absolutely to rule out industrial fishing. She might like to have a discussion with the fishermen in Shetland who know quite a bit about industrial fishing. The absolute ruling out of industrial fishing is something that we might not want to pursue.

The important point is that the Executive is trying to ensure that the short-term plan meets Scottish requirements. More important, we have to continue to work with the Scottish fishing industry to ensure that the longer-term plan also meets the requirements of the industry. We are quite clear that we have to agree the technical measures that are required to deal with the long term.

I repeat—and this is the commitment of the Executive—that our objective in the negotiations on the short-term and long-term measures is to ensure a sustainable future for the Scottish fishing industry. I urge members to accept our amendment and to reject the Conservative motion and the SNP amendment.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

This has been an important day. I welcome the little bits of clarity that we have had. As Alex Salmond rightly said, there was total confusion in the country and people did not know what was going on. I do not dispute the fact that the Executive has been heavily involved with the fishermen recently, but I must point out that people saw the crisis coming for a long time. Mr Salmond obviously backs the Conservatives' notion that, when one goes to a negotiation, one should have a game plan worked out and a position from which one would have to be displaced; one should enter into the negotiation with conviction. That said, I welcome Richard Lochhead's opening comments.

In view of the spirit that I think is evolving in the debate, we accept the SNP amendment, which expresses support for our motion. We do so not to score brownie points but to show Scotland's fishermen that there are areas of agreement and that we recognise the problems. Recognising the problem is only one part of the solution, however.

I welcome the fact that Ross Finnie spoke about some of the definitions relating to displacement issues. I realise that I am not allowed to ask the minister to intervene, but it would be helpful if he could place on record today a definition of the limited spawning ground closure areas that Rhona Brankin mentioned. That might aid understanding.

We have covered many items today. It is obvious that the proposed total ban is neither practical nor sustainable and that we have to deal with spawning ground closure in the period that has been recommended. We have to deal with juvenile escape and technical measures. We must ensure that the Executive gets across to the UK Government the fact that measures must be applied across the UK and that we need to sell the measures to our colleagues who share the fishing grounds with us. It is unfair to have the Scottish fishermen giving up a lot and investing a lot to get far ahead on a measure and not to have support for that across the fisheries. I recommend the Norwegian move-on policy, which would involve our scientists and protection services in ensuring that we could look after our stocks—fish do not stand still and stay within a little box that someone has drawn on a map. We must be aware that we need to have more flexible management.

On the issue of industrial fishing, the protection of the food chain is vital. There are no ifs and buts about that. If that means that a few of our boats have some difficulty in order to ensure the preservation of the industry in the long term, it is incumbent on the Executive to assist those people, as Margaret Ewing said, and ensure that they keep their dignity. We have to manage that sensitively. In the previous debate, I also called for sensitivity. We sent the minister off the last time around with the support of the chamber. However, we are now in another round and we want to send the minister away today with a clearly focused idea of what we think he needs to do. I am sure that the fisheries organisations have also made their views clear.

Although there has been today a lot of talk about what would be ruled in, most of the talk has been about what would be ruled out. It would be helpful and would give confidence to fishing people if the Executive could make it clear what type of support—not necessarily what amount of support—will be ruled in.

I see that Mr Rumbles has deigned to join us again. In answer to his question about a new policy coming from the Conservatives, I instruct him to read our proposal this morning. It talks about a United Kingdom submission and suggests that Scotland should go as part of a UK delegation. The interesting point is that some of us have said that, because the hub of fishing is in the north-east of Scotland and the rural affairs department and the fishermen are streets ahead of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in terms of their thinking on issues of sustainability, it might be helpful if the MAFF offices or officials were located closer to what is going on.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

That remark about my deigning to return to the chamber was strange as I missed only one of the speeches this morning.

Mr Davidson's approach is also strange as his party's fisheries spokesman, Mr McGrigor, talked about how well Denmark does despite having three votes in the negotiations to the UK's 10; he seemed to suggest that we would be better off if we had our own votes. He seemed to be taking a nationalist position, and I cannot understand why.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I am trying to wind up the debate at this point.

The crux of the matter is that the fishing communities—and we should bear in mind the accepted fact that there are up to six or seven jobs behind every man who risks his life at sea—are in deep trouble. I welcome the minister's comments about a plan. Presumably that is why Wendy Alexander, in agreeing to meet me to discuss the problems of those communities, has held off a little. I look forward to the meeting with her.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

On the issue of the possibility of Scotland taking the lead in the delegation, under the Conservative party's proposals, if the Scottish department were supporting the use of the square-mesh panel and the English department were not, would we have the square-mesh panel?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The sensible point is that any sustainable measures should be carried out across the UK fleet. It is incumbent on the Executive to ensure that it wins the case by using scientific evidence and by having the fishing organisations on its side. That is what we need of the minister. There is no dispute about the issue that Mr Salmond raises.

I welcome comments that have been made about the involvement of the fishermen and the scientists. However, if we are to have a sustainable fishery, we cannot think only about closing spawning grounds. What is needed is a longer-term restructuring of the fleet and attention to safety in that process.

We must ensure that the quotas that are currently held, and perhaps sold on, by somebody who has decommissioned a boat are maintained in the regions where they were originally owned. There will be tremendous pressure from the nations that will be coming into the European Union to try to buy those quotas. We must look after Scotland's fishery, which is what this morning's debate is about. The quotas should be maintained in Scotland, even if at a reduced level. We must ensure that our fishermen have a future, and that the people of our fishing communities have a life to look forward to.

Transport Links

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1547, in the name of Murray Tosh, on route action plans and priority trans-European network road links, and one amendment to that motion. I invite members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons now. This is likely to be a short debate, and I advise members in advance that they may be restricted to three minutes.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Presiding Officer, the—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I am sorry, Mr Tosh—I have not called you to speak yet. Please give me a few seconds.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The minister is not here yet.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

My apologies—I now call Mr Tosh to speak to and move the motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That was probably the most sensible 20 seconds of today's discussions—I do not mean that seriously; they are about to improve significantly.

The issue that the Conservative party wishes to highlight in the debate is a Scottish, British and European matter of considerable importance: the future of the strategic road routes, known as Project 13, which connect Ireland—north and south—through Scotland and also through Wales and England to the entire European Community.

The trans-European network route was established in December 1994 at the Council of Ministers in Essen, together with the upgrading of the London-Glasgow west coast main line railway. The Parliament has had the occasional opportunity to raise the railway issues involved, but we have not focused in any detail on the road route—that is the purpose of today's debate.

After the Euro-route was designated in 1994, the then UK Government worked up the A75 route improvements at the Glen, to the west of Dumfries, for implementation and, as noted in the minister's amendment, that scheme has been completed.

At the same stage, two important schemes were also identified at the Stranraer end of the route, but they have not been implemented. In 1996, the route accident reduction plan was brought forward, which led, in 1997, to the development of the route action plan, which was published last year. There has been a strategic response, but our concern is what happens now. How will the RAP be carried forward and what outcomes will derive from the strategy?

The concern that we have felt and which has been expressed to us by people from Dumfries and Galloway Council and from the north channel partnership is that the proposals are not adequate and do not meet the necessary standards to deal with the identified difficulties on the A75—and much less with the anticipated traffic growth in the years ahead.

The A75 is a slow route, and the overtaking opportunities are not what they should be. Major investment is required. Some major investment has been made by the private sector in the development of the harbour facilities for the routes from Stranraer and Cairnryan to Northern Ireland. However, our concern is that, if there is no public sector investment in the road network, in an area where there is no effective rail alternative, business might be lost, the economy might be damaged, and there will not be the potential for growth in the area that there should otherwise have been.

The whole future of Stranraer as a viable economy is at stake in the years ahead. The level of investment in the Holyhead route is of gathering concern to the community around Stranraer. We must attempt to match the sheer volume of cash that has gone into the Holyhead route and the dramatic improvement in journey times along that route, otherwise we will lose the business that is currently going through Stranraer.

One of the concerns that has been expressed about the route action plan is that, while a number of valuable individual schemes were identified, there appeared to be no cumulative assessment of the overall impact of a comprehensive strategy; we do not appear to have the net present value of the whole route's upgrading.

Another remarkable feature of the plan was its being led by the anticipated financial constraints—which are clearly a real issue—instead of by the need to bring the route up to standard. The whole approach is back to front.

What we want today is a clear indication from the Minister for Transport of the Executive's strategic view on the A75 corridor. Does the Executive recognise the need for and the value to Scotland of the traffic that goes through Stranraer and Cairnryan? Is it committed to retaining that traffic and to building on it in the future? Is it really committed to having a road freight route through Scotland? Given the Executive's views on road transport, there might be a view that the traffic ought to go through Holyhead. That is not our view, and I am not saying that it is the minister's view, but we need to know what the Executive's view on that is.

To follow from that, we need to know the Executive's thoughts on funding. The plan indicates a possibility of £30 million of investment over the next 10 years. It is not clear that that is a commitment—in so far as it can be committed—and it is not clear when the investment will be made, nor whether it will be front-loaded or back-loaded. We need to find out from the minister whether there is a definite, firm intention to implement the entire firm list of projects. We then need to know what the Executive's intentions are in relation to the statement in the plan that, when the firm list has been completed, there will then be the opportunity to bring forward further projects.

We need to know the Executive's attitude to Euro-funding. Dumfries and Galloway Council is unclear about whether the opportunity for Euro-funding exists, and about the level of investment necessary to attract match funding. The council also wishes to know the Executive's attitude to the route action plan. Is the RAP set in stone, or is it capable of being revisited? The council has expressed the view that, if it had been offered £30 million and asked to do the planning, it would not have selected the priorities that the Executive has selected; it would have put different projects on both the firm list and the extended list. It feels that there has been insufficient dialogue and it wants the opportunity to press the case for weighting more proposals towards improvements at the Stranraer end, which are the pressing concern of the ferry operators and of the road hauliers.

The council would really like—it hopes to do so within a year of the route action plan study having been published last March—the opportunity to meet the Minister for Transport and her officials, to analyse thoroughly what is happening, what is proposed and the direction in which the Executive is going. I am aware that there is an outstanding request to the minister to meet representatives of the council. I hope that the minister will be able to respond to that in the very near future, because there is real concern about the matter.

I am in no way attempting to minimise the difficulty that the minister and the Executive will have. We all know that the bids for road expenditure are much higher than current resources will allow, and we would all be able to draw up an extensive list of priority projects. I acknowledge that the Executive has spent heavily on necessary roads maintenance this year and last year, but we draw attention to the fact that the road construction budget is half what it was a decade ago in real terms. We would be anxious for that road construction budget to be built up again in the years to come. Some of this may be invented, and some of it has been cruel, but we have all read in the press that the minister's budget is to be filleted in the weeks and months ahead.

I hope that we can make it clear that we are behind the minister in protecting the roads budget and in attempting to increase the resources at her disposal. I accept the logic of much of the argument that she has presented over the past year and a half, that we should seek to develop and allocate more resources away from the mega-projects and towards the route action plan developments, which can be promoted in all parts of Scotland. We must not lose sight of those route action plan priorities.

I believe—although I might not be entirely correct—that the minister is probably at the stage of being able to roll her budget forward by another year. I think that it was about this time last year that the Minister for Transport announced the £44 million programme. If she is in the position to roll that forward, I hope that she is also in the position to extend the coverage in Dumfries and Galloway and to extend the budget by a year to bring in a further couple of projects.

We are asking Parliament to approve the principle of roads expenditure in an area where there is no satisfactory alternative and where the economy manifestly depends on a good roads infrastructure. It is an area which, while not among the most deprived, is one of the poorest in Scotland in terms of wages; its recent economic performance shows that it is in relative decline. Local councillors and members of Parliament from all parties believe that improved transport infrastructure is one of the keys to reversing that decline and giving the area a vibrant future. For local, Scottish and European reasons, as we attempt to connect our economy and the Irish economy with the rest of Europe in the single market, the A75 route action plan is a strategic priority for Scotland and a matter of major concern to us all.

I hope that the minister will go as far as she can with a positive and encouraging response. I hope that she is prepared to be flexible and that she might be in a position to increase the level of activity on such an important route in the next few years.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the strategic importance of the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan and the A75 corridor, in linking Northern Ireland and Scotland with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and in developing priority Trans-European Network links; applauds the efforts of Dumfries and Galloway Council and the North Channel Partnership to highlight the strategic importance of the corridor as well as its economic importance to South West Scotland; notes the concern of the Council and the Partnership that the Executive's current proposals for the A75 will neither ensure improvements to the standards required for a Trans-European Networks road link, nor deliver agreed improvements within a timescale which would allow Stranraer and Cairnryan to compete effectively with the A55-Holyhead corridor, and calls upon the Scottish Executive, in recognition of the strategic importance of the A75 corridor, to work with all relevant partners to reassess the A75 Route Action Plan proposals, with a view to promoting a more comprehensive upgrading of the route and bringing forward firm funding proposals.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the A75 today. I am well aware of the arguments for more investment on such a strategic route and I recognise the importance of the ferry ports at Stranraer and Cairnryan, not just to the local economy but to Scotland as a whole. Murray Tosh asked me for that commitment; it is implicit in our amendment.

I want to put on record our acknowledgement of the work done by Dumfries and Galloway Council and the north channel partnership in raising the profile of the economic importance of the route. Dumfries and Galloway Council has consistently pursued the issue; as Minister for Transport I have heard from others, including the north channel partnership, the British-Irish Council and the Northern Ireland transport minister.

Clearly, life in the chamber would be a great deal easier for me if I could respond positively to every trunk road issue raised with me by members. Unfortunately, that is not the real world. My job is to try to ensure that we have the best investment across Scotland. Understandably, Dumfries and Galloway Council wants significant improvements to the A75, to give guaranteed journey times and to speed up traffic on the route. However, for large parts of each day the route has more than enough capacity for the volume of traffic. The main delays occur when ferries arrive. Around Dumfries, there is the additional issue of congestion caused by people travelling to work. The investment strategy for the route has acknowledged those issues and brought important benefits. Crucially, the accident rates on the A75 have fallen since 1997 and are below the average for that type of route.

On occasion, critics ignore previous Governments' investment, much of it by the Tories, who were working on a broadly similar strategy for investment in the A75, as Murray Tosh will be aware. The 1997 Labour Government also invested in the A75. One of the only two projects that escaped the moratorium that we introduced on the massive road building programme—without the resources to implement it—that was left by the Tory Government, was on the A75. The Glen, a £7 million scheme, was one of the two projects built while the strategic roads review was under way—the other was Creagan bridge in Argyll.

We are implementing the route action plan quickly. The short-term measures are due to be completed this year, and the two highest priorities for the medium term are in the two-year programme that I announced last March. The funding for that work—the Cairn Top to Barlae route and the Chapelton to Bush O' Bield route—is just under £5 million and is guaranteed. The Chapelton to Bush O' Bield route will be first. I am pleased that the council is working with our consultants to deliver those two improvements by 2003.

I know that more investment for the A75 is the top priority for Dumfries and Galloway Council, but I restate a point that I made earlier: as Minister for Transport for the whole of Scotland I must consider competing demands for trunk road improvements elsewhere. Other investments are going into the south-west, for example, work on the A/M77, the M74 and A76. All three are routes of importance to Dumfries and Galloway and its economy.

The Conservative motion raises the question of future plans. An additional £68 million is available for motorway and trunk roads in the period to March 2004 but, as members are aware, there are enormous and costly pressures throughout Scotland. I do not underestimate the challenge. If I asked them, every member of the Parliament would come up with a trunk road project that they saw as the top priority in their area. We could go to all the councils and they would all come up with several top priorities. I will be more than happy for members to support the transport budget today. I caution that some of the press coverage of it is ill informed and exaggerated—that will not come as a surprise to anyone here.

The route action plan was commissioned in 1997 and was completed by external consultants who consulted a wide range of bodies before producing their final report in December 1999.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Is not it the case that, in assessing schemes to include in the route action plan, the consultants had regard to the potential budget, so some schemes are not included because the consultants knew that there was no hope of them getting into the department's budget?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

All the route action plans throughout Scotland must be prepared so that we can prioritise, not just on the route concerned, but across all of Scotland. We cannot ignore the budget implications. The RAP takes account of our core criteria: economy, environment, accessibility, integration and safety. It identifies a clear strategy for improvement that the Executive has already begun to implement. As I said, we have begun work on the short-term measures identified in the plan and two schemes identified as medium-term priorities should be completed by 2003. That work will provide overtaking opportunities between Stranraer and Newton Stewart and between Newton Stewart and Dumfries.

I am well aware from discussions with members and officials from Dumfries and Galloway Council that it takes a different view of the priorities. I will announce, by the end of March, the roll forward for further minor schemes identified in the A75 RAP, as an addition to the programme that I announced in March last year. In considering that, I will take into account the council's views and look at the scope for additional work.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

rose—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, I am coming to a conclusion.

I will be happy to meet the council again to discuss its economic strategy. It would seem best to do that when the new economic strategy is available—it has not yet been passed to me, but I know that it is to be issued shortly. I hope that the council will send it to me so that we can take a long, hard look at it and see whether there are issues that can be built into our programme. However, I do not want to build up expectations.

I stress the point that I made earlier—we have record levels of investment and new money in the trunk roads programme, but there are also new demands and commitments. I am keen to ensure that we consider fully the issues raised by Dumfries and Galloway Council, but I will not make commitments today that are unrealistic and cannot be implemented. There will be further work on the issues by the Executive and the prospect of further discussion with the council. Through that, we will make sure that if we have the opportunity to deliver more than we are delivering at present, we will take it.

I move amendment S1M-1547.1, to leave out from "notes the concern" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Executive's decision in the Spending Review 2000 to increase expenditure on transport by £500 million in the period to March 2004, recognises the progressive improvement of the A75 most recently through the scheme at The Glen completed in 1999 and the measures covering the next 10 years set out in the Route Action Plan, and notes that the Executive has already completed the short term measures and is now implementing the medium term priorities in that Plan."

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

This is not the first time that I have risen to speak on the A75. In my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I called it

"the Euro-route from Ireland to Leningrad".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 May 1997; Vol 294, c 325.]

I was obviously an unreconstructed Marxist, as I had not changed to St Petersburg. I referred to the only two 30mph speed limits on the road from Stranraer to Leningrad being in the villages of Crocketford and Springholm.

I confess that I had not gone to east Europe to check the veracity of the statement, so it might have been a slight exaggeration, but all that has changed in the UK section is an increase to three speed limits, because a 40mph speed limit has been added in Dunragit. The residents of Dunragit are—rightly—delighted, because the bulk of the village is separated from the school by the A75, but I suspect that they would be even more pleased if they had got a bypass instead of some signs and traffic calming.

I congratulate the Conservatives on lodging the motion. The cause unites the rainbow coalition that runs Dumfries and Galloway Council with the Tory opposition. As the minister said, it is not easy for politicians to deal with the issue because all politicians in non-urban areas will put almost identical paragraphs about upgrading roads in their election leaflets. We could almost write such a statement today—all we would have to ask the politicians to do is fill in the number after the "A".

There are competing priorities in my constituency and the rest of Dumfries and Galloway. The minister mentioned the A77 north from Stranraer to Ayr. The A76 is, unfortunately, used by far too much traffic that comes through Dumfries instead of leaving Ayrshire in another direction to reach the motorway network. Furthermore, the A7 lies in the constituency of Dumfries.

Despite all the competing electoral pressures, the council has said that the A75 is a strategic priority. That is to its credit and shows the importance that we all place on the route. There are three reasons for that. The route is important for the future economic development of Dumfries and Galloway, for the ferry operation and the staff who are involved in that and for the economies of Northern Ireland and some parts of the Republic of Ireland. The issue goes much wider than Dumfries and Galloway.

It is obvious that good communications are essential for economic development and particularly tourism. Dumfries and Galloway used to advertise itself as the best-kept secret in Scotland. One reason for that is that people found it so difficult to get there.

Evidence about what can happen when good road infrastructure exists is easily found in the report from Cardiff Business School's Welsh economy research unit on the economic impact of the A55 improvements. A conclusion of that report says:

"There is no doubt that the impact of the A55 improvements have been both substantial and significant to the economy of North Wales. More importantly, the benefits of the improvements will continue to grow over time . . . North Wales now faces the positive challenge of becoming a fully integrated part of the UK economy"

and the European economy. That challenge exists only because the necessary infrastructure is in place to connect north Wales to the rest of the UK and Europe. Would that south-west Scotland faced the same positive challenge. It will have it only if it has the necessary infrastructure.

I know that time is limited, so I will pass briefly over the importance of the ferry traffic to the port of Stranraer. I am sure that someone else can provide the relevant statistics. I have written on the subject to every member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and all the TDs for the relevant provinces in the north of the Republic of Ireland. Members of almost every party in Northern Ireland have sent me replies that support the proposals and emphasise the A75's importance for Northern Ireland, Donegal and some other counties in Ireland. The road is important not only for Dumfries and Galloway and Scotland, but for the whole UK.

The route action plan contains typical civil-service speak. It is not really a plan, because its dates are not firm. Frankly, the plan is just a wish list—and not a particularly good one at that. The early actions just tinker at the edges. This year, there is little or no action. I would welcome some stronger guarantees that we will get some action in the future. When I look at all the big initiatives that roll out to 2008—which still do not get near to satisfying what the ferry operators or the council would like—I am not very hopeful for the future.

I know that amendments such as the Government's are just items for debate, but I wish that the Executive's amendment did not seek to remove the bit in the motion that notes Dumfries and Galloway Council's concern, because we must recognise that the council has legitimate concerns. We need a firm commitment from the Executive that it will heed the economic study that the council has commissioned with its slim resources. We also need a convincing commitment to the strategic importance of the road.

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

As we have heard, route action plans would be marvellous if only we had the resources to implement them. To be fair, route action plans have already been completed in several areas, but it is regrettable that many of our arterial roads remain in a seriously dangerous condition. One criticism of the route action plan strategy is that each action plan has been commissioned in isolation, so no strategic comparison has been made of the allocation of funding.

I welcome the opportunity to raise the importance of strategic road links through rural areas. They can be seen as the economic backbone of those areas, especially in places with similar geography. It is interesting to consider that the distance between Stranraer and Dumfries is greater than that between Dumfries and Edinburgh.

The A75 has been talked about for many years. It is important, given that the European Commission has identified it through its trans-European network programme. Will the proposals in the route action plan reflect that status? Why has action taken so long? After 22 years of improvements, we are still debating the road.

The answers to those questions must be found in how we plan and manage our road network. There has been a lack of strategic thinking and a culture of building on the basis of who shouts loudest. For example, the A75 was not even mentioned in the 1999 strategic roads review. Why are we considering roads in isolation, when all routes are linked and depend on one another? Hard but fair choices must be made. I ask the minister to examine the criteria that have been used to decide whether roads gain funding.

The A75 has a good case and I support the Tories' motion, but I am concerned because although what they propose will require additional spending, the Tories promote the need for massive tax cuts. That causes a dilemma. When the Tories tried that strategy before, the roads budget was cut again and again. I know that from my days on Highland Council. I note that Michael Portillo has not changed his mind about that plan. He has said that he is not prepared to match the Labour Government's transport spending pledges. He claims that the necessary money can be found from—watch it—the private sector.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does the member accept that he is being a bit unfair in criticising the Scottish Conservative party? The policies to which he refers are Mr Hague's. It is by no means clear whether the Scottish Conservative party supports him and his policies.

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

That is an interesting suggestion. I caution against private finance initiatives, public-private partnerships and other deals. I do not want to sound alarmist, but Michael Forsyth managed to privatise the Skye bridge at a stroke and our Labour colleagues have privatised the skies, so anything is possible.

I will concentrate on the situation in the Highland Council area, which I represent. Under successive Governments, roads have suffered massive real-terms reductions in the capital and revenue budget allocation to roads and transport services, with the inevitable result of a rapid decline in the infrastructure of the area's roads and bridges. That has had an undoubted effect on the area's economic viability, as we heard earlier. The situation must not be allowed to continue or, collectively, we will be accused—justifiably—of presiding over another Highland clearance.

Three of the busiest fishing ports in Europe are found in the west Highlands. Mallaig, which is classified as Europe's premium herring port, is almost inaccessible because of the narrow, twisting and tortuous sections of single-track road. Similarly, ports such as Kinlochbervie, Lochinver and Scrabster are poorly served by the direct route north of Inverness.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Please wind up.

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

Much of the system is deteriorating and does not meet today's standards for safety and traffic volume.

We may have a romantic notion of the road to the north and "The Road to the Isles"—members all know the words of the song:

"by Tummel and Loch Rannoch and Lochaber I will go By heather tracks wi' heaven in their wiles."

Nothing has changed—

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

Will the member give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The member is winding up, Mr Crawford.

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

Heather tracks are still masquerading as passable roads.

I am pleased that, at last, the Scottish Executive is putting money back into the transport system, but more must be done if we are to reverse the legacy of underfunding. I hope that the minister will reconsider the situation and that she is monitoring whether there are adequate resources to tackle the problem.

Finally—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Come to a close, please.

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

—I urge the minister to give local people and councils a greater say in the development and management of the trunk road network. At present, when it comes to policy, all roads lead to Edinburgh—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Munro, come to a close.

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

The fiasco over trunk road maintenance is just one example of the problems that that causes. Clearly—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Munro, please close now.

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

We require more local involvement and scope to address regional priorities.

If we can fund—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Mr Munro.

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

If we can fund the extension of the M74, surely we can allocate more funding for some of the smaller schemes in rural areas.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I must ask members to observe the time much more strictly. This is a short debate and I will be able to give members a maximum of three minutes for speeches in the open part of the debate.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will try to be brief, Presiding Officer.

I welcome this debate, which is an opportunity to highlight the strategic importance of the A75 for Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe. For too long, the A75 corridor and the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan have been seen as an issue for Dumfries and Galloway. I hope that the Parliament will redress that balance today by indicating that it shares the European Union's view that the A75 is a priority project and fills a missing link and by ensuring that Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are linked properly to the heart of Europe by a modern and efficient infrastructure.

The minister knows that the A75 corridor is one of only 14 trans-Europe priority links, many of which are rail links. That makes the A75 far more than a road that links Annan to Dumfries, and Stranraer more than a community that is reliant on ferry jobs for its existence. The route and the ports at the end of it are part of a much wider overview of the flow of people and freight across the United Kingdom and Europe.

I hope that when the minister sums up, she will clarify her strategic approach to those issues and confirm that she is in favour of freight and people from Ireland coming along the A75 into the rest of the United Kingdom, as she did not do so in her opening speech. I also hope that she will confirm that she will work closely with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in London, which liaises with the EU on such issues.

The minister gave me a helpful reassurance that the Executive does not favour Troon over the ports of Stranraer and Cairnryan; she must now confirm that she wishes traffic to use the A75 and that she understands that its viability is threatened by the investment in the A55 to Holyhead. I hope that today's debate will be a watershed and that the minister will make clear the Executive's position on the A75. I also hope that the minister will accept that some people in Dumfries and Galloway perceive the Executive to be ambivalent and her civil servants not to have been overly helpful on this issue.

I welcome the minister's commitment, which I hope will be firmer than that which she gave me on 5 October, to meet representatives and officials of Dumfries and Galloway Council for a full discussion of the A75, as I know that the council would welcome such a discussion. I thought that the minister might come to Dumfries to open a cycleway bridge, although it appears that that is no longer the case. That would have provided an excellent opportunity for her to bridge the gap between her, her officials and Dumfries and Galloway Council.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I welcome this debate, which is really about the urgent need to integrate the south-west of Scotland into the European economy. Both the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Office before it demonstrated a lack of vision and understanding by failing to recognise the economic potential of the Loch Ryan corridor and the link with Ireland.

To be frank, there can be no excuse for the failure to invest sufficiently in the A75, which links the ferry ports with the UK motorway network. In 1993, the A75 was designated as part of the trans-European network, linking Northern Ireland with the ports of Felixstowe and Harwich. In 1995, it was included as part of the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link, which is one of the Essen 14 European Council priority projects.

By contrast, the route action plan proposals are severely limited: the plan is an unambitious, piecemeal development that is far from being the step change that is required to free up the flow of traffic and reduce journey times.

Over the past 20 years, the A75 has attracted Government investment of only £110 million, compared with the £730 million that has been spent on upgrading to dual carriageway status the A55 from Holyhead, with its ferry link to Dublin, in north Wales. I suspect that the average journey time between Stranraer and Gretna has barely improved in that time, while average journey times on the Bangor to Chester section of the A55 have reduced from five hours in 1965 to less than 90 minutes today. The private sector has shown far more faith in the Stranraer ferry ports and their economic potential than have successive UK Governments. In the past four years alone, Stena Link has invested £90 million in its Stranraer to Belfast route and it employs 600 people in Dumfries and Galloway.

Historically, the north channel route between Northern Ireland and Scotland had a competitive advantage over the Dublin to Holyhead route as the sea journey time is shorter, but that advantage is rapidly eroding because of the lack of investment in road links to Stranraer. In that context, it is worth mentioning that the A77, which is the main link to central Scotland from Stranraer, also requires significant upgrading, particularly the single carriageway section that lies south of Ayr. That road has become notorious for its slow journey times, high accident rate and lack of bypasses for communities such as Maybole and Girvan.

From the Irish perspective, fast transport communications with Europe are vital for the maintenance of the Republic's economic success story. Recently, the Republic announced a £4.5 billion investment programme for its national road network, with the explicit aim of reducing journey times. There has been significant upgrading of the Belfast to Dublin rail link, with passenger journeys increasing from 400,000 to 1 million in the past few years.

On both sides of the Irish border, high priority has been placed on establishing a northern transport corridor from Ireland through its ferry ports straight into Europe, avoiding the south-east of England. For the Larne to Stranraer route to continue to work, the A75 must be brought up to modern standards.

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

Come to a close, please.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is the challenge that we face and to which the Executive must rise, to secure the future of our ferry ports for crossings to Ireland and to strengthen Scotland's links with Ireland for the mutual benefit of our sister nations.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I agree with many of the sentiments in the Conservative motion and with much of the content of previous speeches, but I am not happy that this matter has been debated in this way. First, the debate is premature because the results of the economic impact survey have not yet been published. Secondly, I would have preferred not to debate this issue on a Conservative motion in Opposition time. We should have debated it on a cross-party motion, which would have reflected the genuine level of cross-party support at all levels of government and representation.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, but I have no time to take interventions.

All credit must be given to Dumfries and Galloway Council and its partners in the north channel partnership for their campaign for the upgrading of the A75. I believe that that campaign has already claimed some success, as the Executive amendment demonstrates. In particular, I acknowledge the hard work of the council leader, John Forteath, who is a Labour member, and the council convener, Andrew Campbell, who is an independent member. For both of them, no effort to promote this route has been too great and no journey has been too far. At the end of last year, they travelled to Brussels to promote the A75 in Europe. The A75 is unique in Scotland in having the status of being part of the trans-European network. Accompanied by the chief executive of the council, the director for infrastructure and the director for finance, they travelled to Edinburgh on 13 December to discuss with the First Minister the A75 and the Crichton campus development. The council representatives were most encouraged by Henry McLeish's response, as he was very keen to read a copy of the economic impact survey when it was available and suggested that we should investigate whether some of the £30 million that was already in the route action plan for the A75 could be brought forward.

Some play has been made of the council's concern, but I have it on the authority of councillors and council officers that the council welcomed the fact that £30 million of work has been identified. However, it believes that the case can be made for considerable additional expenditure. The economic impact survey was commissioned to provide ammunition for that case. I put it on record that I, too, believe that the case can be made. That is why I arranged the meeting between the council and the First Minister and why I have lobbied the Minister for Transport and her colleagues in enterprise and lifelong learning and in rural development. I will continue to try my best to convince the Executive of the case, but I admit that there will be fierce competition from other route action plans, including those for the A7 and the A76 in my constituency.

I ask the minister to repeat her commitment to meet Dumfries and Galloway Council to discuss two issues once the economic impact survey is available: first, the funding and the timetable; and, secondly, the question, which Murray Tosh asked, of which projects should be prioritised, as there is disagreement between her officials and the council on that. If she will do that, I am content—for the time being—to support the Executive amendment, but I will be back.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

As the Liberal Democrat local government spokesman over the past four years, I have had many contacts with Dumfries and Galloway Council and the excellent Liberal Democrat councillors, such as Joan Mitchell, who are involved in leading it. I am aware of the problems that face the south-west of Scotland. As a member of the Scottish Parliament, I have become aware that for various historical and other reasons the south-west and Ayrshire have not had a fair share of attention from the British Government compared with that given to other parts of Scotland. We have to put that right.

On a visit to Scotland to study transport matters, some members of the Dáil told us that they were worried that a meeting with Scottish Executive officials had left them with the impression—which may have been picked up wrongly—that the Executive is not committed to Stranraer and is considering alternatives, to get Irish traffic to go further north. It is very important that the Executive give a strong commitment to the Stranraer ferry service, which is a vital part of European connections. I understand that at last we are going to do something about a ferry from Rosyth on the Forth to the continent, which has been discussed for 20 years or more. Attracting Irish traffic would be a major boost for the viability of such a ferry.

While the A75 is important for local employment considerations, which can be advanced for the south-west but also for other areas, it is particularly important at a strategic level. The road is vital. The minister must give a commitment to work with the local council and local members of all parties and to ensure, when cash is available, that there is a viable road connecting Stranraer with the Scottish motorway system. That would give an enormous boost to the south-west, make friends with the Irish and bring prosperity to other parts of Scotland. We need a stronger commitment from the minister than we have heard hitherto.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome Murray Tosh's motion, which gives us a chance to discuss trunk roads. I agree with my colleague Donald Gorrie that the upgrading of the A75 is a vital project for the south-west, but I would like to draw parallels between the south-west and my constituency. All the points that have been made about the economic importance of the A75 to Stranraer and Northern Ireland are true of the A83 in my constituency and the link with Northern Ireland that no longer exists.

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

I take George Lyon back to what we are talking about today. The amendment says that the short-term work on the A75 has been completed. Is he happy that that is a factually incorrect statement, because the short-term work to realign the Palnure section of the road has not even started?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I think that the minister answered that point in her speech.

I return to drawing a parallel between my constituency and the south-west. The A83 is a vital artery into Kintyre. It is vital for the future economic development of Kintyre that a connection is made between Campbeltown and Northern Ireland.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We have already had one Liberal Democrat talking about the road to the isles; we are now into Kintyre. Does this have anything to do with the motion or the amendment? Is George Lyon's speech in order?

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

It does not have a great deal to do with the motion. Please speak to the point, if possible, Mr Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The minister, speaking in response to Murray Tosh, invited the rest of us to highlight some of the competing claims. Clearly, that is what I am doing.

The linkage between Northern Ireland and the Kintyre peninsula is vital for the long-term economic development of that area, as is the upgrading of the A83. There have been 11 deaths on the A83 as a result of serious road accidents. There are questions about safety. There have also been no fewer than four landslips in the past two years.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I use the roads to which Mr Lyon refers and I, too, am concerned about them. We have an hour for this debate. Mr John Farquhar Munro, who is a very close friend of mine, almost sang us "The Road to the Isles" and we now have landslips in Argyll. Could we debate the subject that is on the business list?

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

Yes. We are up the highways and byways. You have another 45 seconds, Mr Lyon; let us see whether we can reach the end of the road.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am marching slowly to the end of the road, if my colleagues will allow me to proceed. The point that I am trying to make forcibly is that there are indeed competing claims for the additional £500 million in Sarah Boyack's budget. There are serious issues relating to roads such as the A83 that require immediate action.

I recognise that the Executive has taken action to address some of the concerns that are raised in the motion, but other parts of the country have competing claims. There are valid cases for investing in upgrading trunk roads, such as the A83, to make them safer, more accessible and more usable, so that they can cope with the increase in traffic that will come about in my part of the world.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I shall talk about the A75 and the motion. I am sure that the Liberals will find that surprising.

I commend the Tories for securing this debate; today we see the more enlightened face of Scottish Conservatism. I also commend the administration of Dumfries and Galloway Council for the work that it has done in encouraging all parties to be involved in this issue—the council has met and briefed all parties. As Murray Tosh said, we should also commend the commercial sector for the real interest that it is showing in an issue that is vital to it. The only party that cannot be commended today is the Labour party. I am sorry that the minister made a misguided speech about competing priorities; I am also sorry that Elaine Murray was so defensive. Today we have an opportunity to debate an important issue. It does not matter who brings it to the chamber; what is important is that we get some agreement on it.

The minister spoke about competing priorities and said that each of us could take up one of them. The Liberals took that literally, but it was a red herring. In reality, special circumstances dictate that we take some action now on the A75. There are safety reasons for that and, as my friend Mr Morgan indicated, there is the community requirement. There are reasons to do with the designation of the road as a European route of major importance. There are interests from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There is the crucial fact that a large number of jobs depend on the route. The council's unpublished economic study indicates that the route directly affects something like 1,160 jobs in the community and 2,500 in Scotland as a whole. There is also a strong indication that a large number of other jobs in the Stranraer and Wigtown area are dependent on the route.

Stranraer is the busiest port in the United Kingdom after Dover and is clearly a major asset to the Scottish economy. The sea crossing to Northern Ireland is the shortest that exists from Scotland: indeed, it is possible to see Northern Ireland from Galloway. The route has been much used, but there is a danger that it will decay and that the link, and jobs, will disappear. Those jobs are unlikely to move elsewhere in Scotland, despite the development in Troon. They are much more likely to move south, where transport links, such as the improved A55 link, are vital.

The message from this debate is clear. This is not an opportunity for the minister simply to say that there are lots of claims and that the Executive will do things. It is not an opportunity for her to evade reality, as her amendment does. It is an opportunity to recognise that there is all-party commitment to this unique case, which requires urgent action. For the minister simply to roll schemes forward year after year, for her officials to assure the council that action is being taken and then for nothing to happen is the best guarantee of job losses in Stranraer and of the decay and disappearance of the crossing. The matter requires urgent action, not complacency or civil service evasion. That is being said not just by the SNP, not just by the Tories, not just by the Liberals—although they have not said it today—and not even just by Labour: all parties are saying it. All communities in the south-west, and many people outside the south-west, are also saying that the route is a priority for Scotland.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I made it extremely clear, both in my opening speech and in the amendment, that the Executive recognises the strategic nature of the A75 for the south-west of Scotland and further afield. However, given some comments today, I feel that I have to restate that.

Many negative comments have been made about route action plans. I say to members that those plans are an important way of assessing priorities and of identifying future investment. We do not need one-off schemes for our trunk roads; we need sustained investment over the years. The purpose of the route action plans is to allow the Executive to judge how to prioritise schemes in considering our future roads programmes.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No. I must answer other members' questions.

Several members have mentioned the European nature of the route. We have successfully accessed European funding for the A75 in the past—for example, the Glen project received European support. We applied for TENs support for our route action plan, but did not get it. Let me emphasise to members that, although TENs money is helpful, it amounts to only 10 per cent of the cost of the scheme—we still have to come up with the other 90 per cent. We have tried to get money out of Europe, which has identified the route as strategically important. However, we have not been successful in securing that money. We will consider that again in the future. That is the current position.

Let me take up the point made by John Farquhar Munro about the strategic roads review. The review was an inherited list of schemes—it was not an analysis of priorities throughout Scotland, but merely a list of the outstanding roads programmes left by the Tories, which had not been financially prioritised. Out of that list, we took action on the A75. We considered the A75 and the Creagan bridge to be top priorities. In November 1999, we also gave the go-ahead to the A830—a matter in which John Farquhar Munro has a great interest—the A96, the A78, the A1 and the A77. Last September, I also gave the go-ahead—as part of the £500 million of new money—for additional funding for roads and bridges to be made available for local authorities to spend. That is new money for local authorities.

We need sustained investment in the A75. John Farquhar Munro said that local authorities should have greater say in trunk roads decisions. I am happy to listen to local authorities and to consider their views. However, I must make decisions relating to the whole of Scotland. I am keen to ensure that there are discussions and dialogue across borders. There is no ambivalence in our priorities. Adam Ingram suggested that there had been little investment. There has been nearly £117 million over 20 years—£7 million in the past two years, £5 million in the next two years and more to come with the route action plan. That is the sustained investment that we need.

Alasdair Morgan made a thoughtful speech and acknowledged that we have made progress over the years, although not as much progress as he would like. However, I note that no member has suggested an alternative approach to our route action plans—members simply listed other roads and other schemes. We need to prioritise.

Elaine Murray asked for commitments on two issues: that I would talk to Dumfries and Galloway Council about funding and timetabling and that I would address the issues on which we disagree. I am happy to do so in the future. She said that she was content for the time being and that that was as much as I could expect from her—I am very grateful for that.

Donald Gorrie said that the inter-parliamentary delegation had suggested that the Executive intended to downgrade Stranraer. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already answered a parliamentary question on the matter and I have ensured that the local press is kept informed on the issue. It is fair to say that that parliamentary delegation did not have as firm a grasp of priorities in Scotland as members of the Scottish Parliament would have. One of the comments that was made to me was that we had invested too much money in the A9 over the past few years. I cannot think of many members who would agree with that comment—certainly not John Farquhar Munro. Dialogue is important, but we should not expect every delegation from outwith Scotland to know better than members of the Scottish Parliament.

I did not invite members to list every rural road. George Lyon took things a little too far. I merely made the point that all members have a wish list for their constituencies. I have to wrestle with priorities.

Mike Russell mentioned safety. There have been safety improvements on the A75 and those form part of the route action plan.

It is important that we do not talk down Stranraer and the south-west of Scotland. We may not all agree on the future priorities, but it is important to put on record the fact that there has been sustained investment and that there will be future investment. I am happy to talk to the local council about the matter. In asking me for more money, members should not make the mistake of downgrading the whole area by talking it down. There is a real debate with important issues for people living in the area. We must also acknowledge that private investment is going into the area. I welcome that. I want to ensure that jobs are secure for the future. Let us ensure that the debate helps rather than hinders that process.

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

I call Alex Fergusson to wind up for the Conservatives. If you could finish as close to 12.15 pm as possible, I would be grateful.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will do my best.

If one were to take a map of Scotland, draw a line from Ayr to Carlisle, and cut off the section that lies to the south and west of that line, one would have an understanding of how people and agencies who live and work in that part of Scotland feel. As has been said, there is a feeling of being cut off, remote and somewhat neglected by Government at both the UK and the Scottish level. Feeling cut off and neglected is one thing, but feeling cut off and neglected when one lives and works within touching distance of the rather grandly named trans-European road network is another thing altogether.

In April 1998, Henry McLeish, our First Minister, said:

"The A75 performs a vital role in the economy of South West Scotland and is also a key artery of the trans-European Road Network to Ireland."

Sadly, that 100-mile section of the thousands of miles that make up the trans-European network is the blockage in the arterial system. When one has a blocked artery, one requires surgery.

This has been a good debate and I welcome its tone, but it has also been a necessary debate. In answer to Elaine Murray, I cannot think of a more timely opportunity to have such a debate, given that the Minister for Transport is considering further funding. The debate is necessary because the subject is of national importance. As Mike Russell pointed out, the route serves Britain's second-busiest port. That fact alone makes it all the more unsustainable that the convoys of freight vehicles—I use the word "convoys" advisedly—face a two-hour journey to the east on the A75 or a one-hour journey to the north on the A77 before they can access a road that is truly worthy of serving the second-busiest port in the nation. Therein lie some of the difficulties facing south-west Scotland: there is a geographic disadvantage, which in turn creates an economic disadvantage.

In his members' business debate last week, Euan Robson drew attention to the labour shortage in the Borders, which is exacerbated by the proximity of that part of Scotland to Edinburgh and the central belt. The south-west does not have that advantage. The nearest city to Stranraer is Belfast, not Glasgow, which brings problems of its own. I learned only yesterday, to my horror, that Stranraer has an annual turnover of social workers of 85 per cent. It is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit doctors, nurses, teachers and others on whom any community depends. The reason is simple: the transport infrastructure is, for all the reasons that we have heard in this excellent debate, inadequate and unacceptable.

If these unique problems—the word "unique" is relevant, because there is a uniqueness about that part of Scotland and that road—are to be overcome, the transport infrastructure must be looked at considerably more robustly than is currently envisaged in the Executive's route action plan. Quite simply, that plan is not good enough, which is why the motion calls for it to be revisited, reworked and refunded.

This debate is necessary not simply for local reasons, vital though they are, which is why our motion also stresses the importance of the international links of which this route is such an integral part. As Alasdair Morgan mentioned, those links have an important part to play in the economic regeneration of Northern Ireland and in the economic miracle that is the Republic of Ireland. Surely it is right that Scotland should play its full part in the international economic expansion that surrounds us. That is why the motion applauds the efforts of Dumfries and Galloway Council and the north channel partnership to highlight the strategic importance of the route; without due recognition of that strategic importance, Scotland will not fulfil her proper role in the international marketplace.

That situation was recognised by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe, which recently urged the Scottish Executive to stop stalling and to complete the high-priority upgrade of the Euro-route from Gretna to Stranraer. This debate has made it crystal clear that, without a firm commitment to such an upgrade, Scotland's role in international trade will be severely diminished and those of us who live and work in that beautiful part of our country will feel increasingly cut off from the rest of it. The Executive's amendment encapsulates the complacency that this debate has shown to be completely unacceptable. I commend the motion to the chamber.

Non-departmental Public Bodies

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

The next item of business is a statement by Angus MacKay, on a review of non-departmental public bodies in Scotland.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Yet again, we have seen a ministerial statement widely trailed in the press. It has been trailed in The Scotsman and, at 7.30 this morning, there were details of it on Ceefax. I am talking about specific details in the press before the minister has made his statement to the Parliament. I have asked the Presiding Officers many times—and I am asking again—whether you will require ministers to look at this matter closely and whether, in your view, the ministers are in contempt of the Parliament by giving information out to the press before they do so to the chamber.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

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

Is it on the same subject?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

It is on an identical point. Suffice it to say that I, too, was greatly concerned about what I saw in the press this morning. I am not given to being pernickety; I hope that I do not have a reputation for being tiresome for the sake of being tiresome. It is not for me to chastise the minister—perhaps it is as well for him that it is not—but it is for you, Presiding Officer, to determine how to deal with conduct that, in my opinion, deeply damages the institution of the Parliament and its integrity, authority and stature. It is for you to determine how to deal with persons who are guilty of conduct that insolently and dismissively questions and impugns the authority of this institution.

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

Tricia Marwick and Miss Goldie have raised important issues, which have been considered this morning in some detail by all three Presiding Officers. We have examined this morning's media, which cover this issue in detail—column after column, page after page and story after story. We then carefully compared the content of the media reports with the content of the minister's proposed remarks. This is a subject on which the Presiding Officer has warned ministers on a number of occasions, specifically on Thursday 2 November, when he said, as a basic principle:

"We do not expect to read in the newspapers what will be said in Parliament—we expect to read what has been said."—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol 8, c 1259.]

Today's press briefings have clearly given dates, details and policy objectives. Therefore, with regret, on this occasion I intend to take the minister's statement as read and to move directly to questions. I say to the minister, in fairness, that if he fears that there are matters that have not yet been put into the public domain, I shall most certainly give him extended time to cover those matters in response to questions. I call Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It is regrettable that the shameful actions of the Scottish Government have led to this decision today. For the record, I received the statement only 40 minutes ago.

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

To the point, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I do not know about you, Presiding Officer, but I have a feeling of déjà vu this morning. On 9 February last year, Jack McConnell launched a consultation document on appointments to quangos. Since the consultation process was completed—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw to your attention the fact that I was unable to listen to the radio this morning and I have not read the newspapers because I have been working on constituency business. I would welcome the opportunity to hear the minister's statement.

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

I have already ruled on that. I have ruled specifically, making it clear that this is the common view of all three Presiding Officers.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I may be wrong in this, but it seemed to me from the reaction in the press gallery that the press had advance indication of this ruling as well.

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

I have no knowledge of that whatever. Please continue, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Since the consultation process was completed, it has lain gathering dust on the shelves. Labour's much-vaunted bonfire is not even a smouldering ember.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Does Mr Gibson intend to ask a question or are we going to be subjected to a speech?

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

I ask Mr Gibson again to get to the content of the matter and to put his question.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Indeed, quangos continue to proliferate, with three quango births last December alone and more in the pipeline. Perhaps the minister could tell us how many quangos have come into existence in Scotland since new Labour came to power and how many have been merged or abolished over the same period. Rather than simply consult, the Government must commit itself to democratise, scrutinise and—where possible—merge or abolish quangos altogether.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There is a genuine point here. Some of us have no idea about the statement—and this is the Parliament, after all. Is the ministerial statement available?

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

My belief is that it has been made available. Members from all parts of the chamber are waving it at you, Mr Rumbles. Extra copies are available at the back of the chamber. Mr Gibson, please get on and conclude—

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

rose—

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

Yes, minister.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

An unfortunate turn of phrase, Presiding Officer.

I genuinely want to raise a point of order. I preface it by saying, very briefly, that I have not discussed the details of my statement with members of the press. I have certainly been asked to provide that information, but I have refused to do so.

In the light of that, Presiding Officer, perhaps you could give me and the rest of the chamber some guidance as to what the normal practice is, in terms of informing either the minister concerned or the Minister for Parliament, Mr McCabe, that you are intending to make a ruling that will deny that minister the opportunity to make a statement. I ask that for information.

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

I hope that advance notice would normally be given to the minister and to the Minister for Parliament. I do not know whether that happened on this occasion.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have now been handed the statement and I want to represent my constituents in the discussion, but I am placed at a disadvantage. Other people have had the statement or were aware that the statement was not going to be heard and could read the press. I am unable to ask a question on the issue, because I cannot read quickly enough—

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

Order.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

My constituents have been disfranchised and I want to know how that is to be dealt with.

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

I do not regard that as a point of order; I am going to close that down and get back to business as quickly as possible. The papers are available at the back of the chamber to members of all parties, equally.

Please conclude briefly, Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

After four years of new Labour, we need action on this important issue. Given that, on 7 December, the Minister for Finance and Local Government stated in the chamber that he would make an announcement before the end of the year on a small business rates scheme—an event that has not yet happened—we should be forgiven if we do not hold our breath concerning the proposed time scale for action on this issue.

I ask the minister to explain what action the Scottish Government now plans to take, specifically in respect of the responses to Mr McConnell's previous consultation. Alternatively, is the minister, as his statement implies, lumping those responses in with the review that was announced today?

For the record, will the minister outline exactly which categories of non-departmental public bodies will be covered by the review? Does he agree that his statement on the commitment and dedication of those serving on public bodies is somewhat at odds with the First Minister's comment that Scotland is smothered by unelected, unwanted and increasingly corrupt quangos? Can he advise us whether the Scottish Government has a view on which quangos—other than the symbolic Scottish Homes—to consider for abolition?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I am somewhat nonplussed about how to begin answering questions on the statement, given that Mr Gibson has the benefit of having had a copy of it for 40 minutes while other members have not had that privilege. It seems to me that I could conduct this discussion in private with Mr Gibson as fruitfully as I can here in public, as other members have not had the opportunity to listen to what I have to say and, not having had the benefit of the statement, cannot engage fruitfully in a discussion about its contents.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had to endure a number of points of order while I was questioning the minister.

I gave a television interview at 10.55 this morning, based on Mr MacKay's statement, despite the fact that I did not receive it until 11.35.

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

That is not a point of order, Mr Gibson.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You have made an unprecedented ruling that the minister should not make a statement. We are also in the unprecedented situation that the press were aware—I make this clear to you, Presiding Officer—of the ruling that you were going to make. You may not be aware of that, but I can confirm to you that members of the press gallery were aware that that was going to happen. Parliamentary process is being turned on its head. I strongly recommend that we now suspend the meeting. There is no point whatever in the minister continuing to try to answer questions on a statement that the chamber has not heard.

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

I can confirm to Mr McCabe that I have no knowledge whatever of the press being aware of this. I say to the chamber only what I said in my opening remarks in response to the points of order made by Miss Goldie and Tricia Marwick, which is that Sir David Steel has raised this matter on, I think, six separate occasions. The matter was considered by all three Presiding Officers. I hoped that the minister would have been informed in advance.

Mr McCabe, it is my intention to continue as best we can, for the simple reason that, as I said to the minister in my opening remarks, if there is any point of public policy that he feels has not been touched on in the public media, I shall allow him to deal with it in his remarks.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Not having briefed the media on this subject and not having read any of the written media in which this is presumably printed, I am, like many of my colleagues, not able to decide which points of public interest are currently in the public domain and which are not. You, as Presiding Officer, are instructing, or advising, me that I should do so, but I cannot fulfil that in any good faith.

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

I gave you leeway, Mr MacKay. Having given you that leeway, I ask you to respond to the points made by Mr Gibson. Will you do so now, please?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I say again that it is not possible for a minister in Scotland to answer questions in this chamber on a statement that has not been made.

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

I have given the joint ruling. Mr MacKay, could you respond, please, to the points raised by Mr Gibson?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Presiding Officer, can you confirm whether, when you were considering your position on this matter—if a statement had been given to the press in advance, presumably individual members raised their legitimate concerns with you in advance—you discussed directly with any members their concerns and whether you advised any members of how you intended to rule?

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

No. Sir David Steel and I considered the matter. When I took the chair, I did not know the final judgment, because Patricia Ferguson had to go back and consult Sir David. Could you now respond to the points made by Mr Gibson?

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

On a point of order. [MEMBERS: "Oh."] Sorry, but it is deliberate. This is a very serious situation. I say again: it is impossible for a minister to answer questions. On behalf of the Government, my advice to the minister would be that he should not answer questions in the chamber.

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

Are you declining to answer questions, Mr MacKay?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

As far as I understand it, having not made a statement—

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister know what is in his statement?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

Presiding Officer, this is reducing events to the farcical. I am afraid that this sets a very bad precedent for how the business of the Parliament should be conducted, particularly on a subject that is of as serious import as this one is. In my view, I have tried to the best of my ability to answer Mr Gibson's questions. I had not finished doing so—there are one or two further points that I would make. I cannot see what this situation contributes to the debate on the subject.

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

I regret very much that, following the decision, which was reached, as I said, by the three Presiding Officers jointly after considerable consideration, the debate has degenerated into what Mr MacKay called a farce. Frankly, I cannot see how I can produce meaningful dialogue in the chamber this morning. Therefore, with the agreement of the chamber, my proposal is to move to the next item of business, which is consideration of business motion S1M-1550, in the name of Tom McCabe—

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will we have another opportunity to question the minister about his statement once we have had the opportunity to read it?

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

We are entering uncharted territory this morning, Mr Canavan, as you are well aware. I assume that, after this meeting, the matter will be discussed through the usual channels, involving the business managers and the Presiding Officers. I assume that a subsequent occasion will be found to discuss the subject.

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

rose—

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

I believe that Ms Marwick has a point of order.

Tom McCabe (Labour, Hamilton South)

On a point of order.

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

We will go to Ms Marwick first.

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

Mr Canavan raised an important point. The complaint that the SNP and the Conservatives have had since the inception of this Parliament is that information is going to the media before we get a chance to ask questions about it. This is a farcical situation. Details were reported in the press, but we are still being denied the opportunity to ask the minister questions and to have the minister answer them. It seems to me that ministers are happier to have information in the public domain than they are to answer questions in the Parliament.