Scottish Parliament, 3 May 2001

349 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Introduction

Standing Orders

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

Good morning. The first item is a debate on motion S1M-1884, in the name of Murray Tosh, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on changes to standing orders.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer, for selecting me to speak in the debate.

The Procedures Committee's first report of 2001 is substantial and contains a number of detailed changes to standing orders. Many of the changes are minor and technical, which reflects the kind of work that we have to do to consider the evolution of our procedures and standing orders and the experience of working them. However, there are some significant changes, which I will highlight. Broadly, the amendments are to chapter 9 and chapter 9A—the relatively new chapter in standing orders—which relate to public bill and private bill procedures respectively.

The preparatory work undertaken by the committee and many of the changes that we have recommended arose from requests made by the Presiding Officer and Margaret Smith, the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, that we should examine the time scales for consideration of bills and for the lodging of amendments. All the recommended changes are set in what is essentially the existing process—the current sitting pattern and the current times available for legislation. The changes that we have made have therefore largely been to refine that process and to dot a lot of i's and cross a lot of t's.

One of the first issues that we considered was the notice period for lodging amendments and the intervals between stages of bills. The committee took the view that, in order to provide members with the final marshalled list of amendments sufficiently far in advance of stage 2 consideration and stage 3 debates, the periods of notice for lodging amendments should be adjusted. In the case of amendments at stage 3, the committee agreed to recommend that the notice period should be extended from two days to three. Although that results in a slight reduction in the time available for members to lodge amendments, the committee considered that that was outweighed by the advantages for members of having the marshalled lists earlier than they currently do and of therefore being able to prepare more effectively for the debate.

We did not feel that it was necessary to recommend the same change to the notice period for amendments at stage 2 or at what we are proposing in the report to call the reconsideration stage. However, we thought that bringing forward the final daily deadline for those stages would be beneficial; the report therefore recommends that the deadline on the final day should be brought forward to 2 pm for those stages. The committee took the view that an earlier daily deadline at all stages would increase the ability of the clerks to discuss with the members within normal working hours those amendments—it can be a considerable proportion of them—that require some clarification and reworking before they become fully admissible. The committee therefore endorses the suggestion by the clerks that the daily deadline be amended from 5.30 pm to 4.30 pm. That standardises the time for lodging questions and motions with the chamber desk.

The committee has recommended changes to the minimum intervals between the stages of bills in order to take out the imprecision that arises from talking about two weeks. If the intervals are defined in terms of sitting days, we would know exactly how long there will be between each stage. We have recommended a number of other changes. We have suggested that the deadlines for withdrawing or supporting amendments should be brought into line with the deadlines for lodging them. One of several further minor changes worth drawing to the Parliament's attention is that, as things stand, when a new Parliament is elected, members will be banned from introducing a member's bill for six months, either if a similar bill has been defeated towards the end of the previous session or if it has simply lapsed at the end of that session. We felt that that was unreasonable and that, in a new session, members should be able to begin afresh so that a member's bill can be introduced quickly after the dissolution.

We recommend changes to the rules on financial resolutions. One substantial change is that the role of the Finance Committee to consider the provisions that give rise to the need for a financial resolution should be delegated to the lead committees, which ought to consider the financial provisions in the context of the subject of the bills. We spent some time in committee discussing whether ministers should be required to adhere to an earlier deadline than that for other MSPs for lodging amendments to bills. We discussed that with the Executive and decided to make no recommendations to standing orders on the matter. We will review that in a further phase of work in some six months' time.

We have considered and endorsed the advice given by the Presiding Officer in the business bulletin of 9 February on stage 1 and stage 3 amendments. We considered that no changes to standing orders were required on that.

I hope that members will find that the detailed recommendations in the report are sensible and satisfactory and that they improve the working of our legislative process. I hope that members are looking forward to a fresh dose when we come to consider further changes to standing orders, as we will in a few months' time.

I move,

That the Parliament (a) approves the recommendations of the Procedures Committee's 1st Report, 2001, Changes to Chapters 9 and 9A of the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 316) and agrees to amend the Parliament's Standing Orders in accordance with Annexe A and Annexe B (Appendix B) to the Report and (b) agrees that these amendments to the Standing Orders come into force on 4 May 2001 and that the amendments set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Annexe B (Appendix B) to the Report shall apply only in relation to Bills introduced on or after that date.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am pleased to indicate on behalf of the Executive our support for the Procedures Committee report, which proposes a range of procedural changes to chapter 9 of the standing orders on public bill procedures and parallel changes to chapter 9A on private bill procedures. I can confirm therefore that there will be no Executive amendment to the motion.

As members will be aware, standing orders of the Scottish Parliament are an essential framework within which the Parliament can effectively operate and carry out its daily business. It is important therefore that the standing orders are kept under constant review so that the parliamentary processes can continue to flow smoothly. I express the Executive's thanks to the members of the Procedures Committee and its convener Murray Tosh for the positive way in which they have approached this work and for providing the Executive with the opportunity to comment on the proposals for change.

We also acknowledge the work of the financial resolutions working group, which comprised parliamentary and Executive officials. The group was set up to examine the procedures on financial resolutions and to consider whether any changes to standing orders were needed. Its recommendations have been incorporated into the Procedures Committee report.

The committee has suggested a number of changes which the Executive has endorsed. Members may be relieved, as I am, that I will not comment in detail on those changes. The changes, which are mainly minor, reflect practical experience gained in operating the present provisions and are designed to clarify, ease and simplify parliamentary business. We are indebted to officials for their detailed and painstaking work.

The revisions include changes to the time scales for lodging amendments to bills and intervals between stages and time scales for bill stages. They also include a wide range of minor changes that will clarify the interpretation of and rules and procedures in relation to a number of areas, including: member in charge of a bill; accompanying documents; terminology relating to committees; Subordinate Legislation Committee procedure for considering delegated provisions and the reporting process on budget bills; participation of junior ministers on non-Executive bills; selection of amendments; process for consolidation bills; and consequentials for private bills.

The changes to time scales for lodging amendments to bills and intervals between stages are designed to ease the management of parliamentary business. Some time scales are currently expressed in weeks, but it would be more practical to calculate the intervals in sitting days.

The Executive has a substantial programme of new legislation and committees and members have a number of important proposals for legislation. It is therefore vital that the Parliament's procedures assist the process of consideration by committees and members. Of course, we cannot rely solely on rules for the smooth flow of parliamentary business, so it is important that members and officials co-operate to ensure the best outcomes.

The changes to standing orders outlined and recommended by the Procedures Committee should assist in the more efficient and effective discharge of parliamentary business. This is an evolutionary process and, as Parliaments go, ours is still in its formative stages. It is therefore important that we are ready to adapt the framework according to the practical realities and our experiences. The proposed changes are based on experience gained in the past year. The Executive stands ready to assist any future work of the Procedures Committee and we look forward to a continued joint-working and productive relationship.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The motion is non-controversial. However, the decision on a procedure for dealing with private legislation is important to the Parliament and has been considered at length by the Procedures Committee. Although no private legislation has yet been lodged in the Parliament, it is important that the structures and processes are in place to deal with such bills when they are submitted.

It is estimated that, once the guidance is in place, there will be one or two private bills a year. Although the volume may initially be larger—I believe that some parties are holding back from lodging private legislation until a decision on procedures is made—it is vital that private legislation is processed through the Parliament, so that the public interest can be taken into account.

This is a non-controversial issue and all that it remains for me to say is that the SNP supports the Procedures Committee report.

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

We now move to the open debate, and Donald Gorrie has the entire slot to himself. You have up to five minutes, if you want, Mr Gorrie.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I will not take up that amount of time, Presiding Officer.

At the Liberal Democrat group meeting this week, I was able to assure my colleagues that the Procedures Committee report was not a sinister establishment plot but had been agreed unanimously and represents a modest step in the right direction on the timing of bills. As Gil Paterson said, it also sets out the procedure for dealing with private legislation, which is not the same as members' legislation. I think that some people are confused about that, but private legislation is what would be needed if someone wanted to build a railway or something like that.

As the convener of the Procedures Committee said, there will be continuous scrutiny of our procedures. Lengthening the period of notice for amendments and the period between the different stages of a bill is a step in the right direction, even though the increase is only small. I think that we still have not got it right and will have to lengthen the times so that we can deal with things in a measured and thorough way.

This week, the committee had a good session with the Minister for Parliament, who rightly said that he did not want life here to be a sort of war between the Parliament and the Executive. I am sure that we all sign up to that. However, there are occasions on which what may be convenient for ministers and civil servants in promoting their legislation may not be convenient for the Parliament in dealing with it. We must address those issues fairly and find a balance, but the report moves a little way in the right direction. It is a good example of people working by agreement within the Parliament and I therefore welcome it.

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

I call Kenneth Macintosh to wind up for the Procedures Committee.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank members for their brief contributions to this morning's debate. The debate has been short, but we have agreed a large number of detailed changes to parliamentary procedure. Few, if any, of the changes have been controversial, as Gil Paterson said, and credit for that is due to the work done by members of the committee and by John Patterson and the committee clerks, whom I thank. I also thank Andrew Mylne and his team from the Parliament's directorate of clerking and reporting, which also put in a lot of work on the report. Finally, I thank the financial resolutions working group, which was responsible for many of the detailed changes.

Our convener, Murray Tosh, outlined most of the substantial points. I had written on my speaking notes, "Not much I wish to add." The update is that there is nothing I wish to add to what has been said by other members. However, this is not the last word on procedures. I emphasise that the committee recognises that future changes in operational procedures or the work load of the Parliament, or simply the accumulation of more experience of our legislative process, may well result in the requirement to revisit those procedures. The committee is happy to play its part in that process.

There has been a willingness on all sides, from all parties and from the Executive, to ensure that the new Parliament works effectively and to allow procedures to evolve and improve. No one likes change for its own sake, but institutions have a habit of quickly fossilising. I am glad to report that there are no fossils here and I commend the report to the chamber.

Genetically Modified Organisms

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

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1875, in the name of Andy Kerr, on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, on that committee's report on genetically modified organisms.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

It is a great pleasure to bring the Transport and the Environment Committee's report to the attention of Parliament. A strength of the committee is that we come to issues without carrying baggage and preconceptions about the matters that we choose to investigate. We listen to the witnesses, read the evidence that is submitted to us and make a judgment based on what we have heard and read. The report that we are discussing today contains substantive elements of that evidence.

There is perhaps less interest in the report than there might have been. When a committee agrees that something is okay and that it is satisfied with the adequacy of the control mechanisms that are available under the current system, that does not grab the headlines. Nonetheless, I think that our report covers a number of important points.

The petition that initiated our report asked the Scottish Parliament to exercise its powers not to permit the release of genetically modified crops into the environment by way of trials or commercial planting and to establish in Scotland a body or mechanism to address concerns about the impact on the environment and on human health of such releases, by way of an inquiry, independent commission or advisory body. No one would argue that the issues at stake are not complex or substantial. We certainly acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed in the public debate about genetically modified organisms and the possible risk associated with them. However, in debating the use of GMOs, as in debating many issues, a careful balance needs to be struck.

We focused our approach on those bodies and individuals that we felt were most appropriate to give us up-to-date information. They included: Friends of the Earth Scotland, the organisation that wrote the petition and brought the debate to the fore; RSPB Scotland; Dr Ulrich Loening, a retired director of the Centre for Human Ecology; the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which analyses the risk of GMOs; and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission, which goes beyond the question of risk from individual plantings and crops and considers more strategic advice on ethical and social implications. The committee is grateful to the bodies that participated in our inquiry.

Many of our discussions centred on legality and European regulations. The legal advice that we received from the parliamentary solicitor was clear. It suggested that neither the Parliament nor Scottish ministers has the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops, as was proposed in the petition from Friends of the Earth Scotland. I understand that that view is shared by the Scottish Executive rural affairs department. It stems from the provisions of European directive 90/220/EEC, which requires that member states should not unnecessarily restrict the release of GM crops if the release is safe for human health and for the environment. That explains to those who argue against GM plantings why there is a clear case for not imposing a ban. Through our discussions with the organisations involved in the debate, we came to the view that a blanket ban would not work. The current arrangements could be tested in the courts, but the majority view of the committee was that any court case would be difficult to defend and probably unsuccessful.

The committee—with the exception of Robin Harper, Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod—therefore recommended that, in the context of the current European legal framework, it was not able to support the petitioners' request that the Parliament should use its powers to ban the release of GM crops into the environment.

We also considered the various possible risks of GMOs. We erred on the side of the precautionary principle, which suggests that we should consider that there may be such risks. Laboratory testing is done at the start of any process if there is a desire to release a specific product. No one, including Friends of the Earth Scotland, has raised any objections to laboratory testing. However, laboratory testing can go only so far, so there is a need, as has been identified, for farm-scale trials and further releases into the environment.

Again, with the exception of Robin Harper, Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod, the committee agreed that it supports the precautionary approach to GM releases. Consequently, the majority of members considered that, in the context of the European legal framework, there is a role for farm-scale trials in a rightly cautious but not unnecessarily restrictive approach to GM development. Again, we view the issue as one on which we must take evidence and consider the existing control mechanisms. We came to the view that farm-scale trials, within the context of the current controls, are appropriate.

ACRE is the organisation that considers the science. It deals with the precautionary mechanisms and investigations prior to planting—there are years of investigations before any planting in the environment. Its evidence to the committee was strong and we did not receive any further evidence that led us to doubt our confidence in its scientific advice. We recognise that there is no consensus in Scottish society on GMOs, but we examined the control mechanisms that ACRE has adopted—that is its role—and we were satisfied with them.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The fact that GM contaminated seed was issued in error suggests that the control mechanisms are lax. Perhaps ACRE has been able to deal with only the specific issue of trials and not more general matters. How would Mr Kerr reassure the public and farmers—especially organic farmers—who might want stricter quality controls over the seeds that are being planted?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am not sure whether Brian Adam is referring to the Advanta incident. If so, the committee report refers to that and I will cover it later.

ACRE's job is to consider an individual bid for a seed to be placed into the environment, to carry out the laboratory testing that is required and to assess the risk to the environment from a proposed field-scale trial. From the evidence that the committee received, and from ACRE's answers to the questions that it was asked, we have confidence in its approach. The mechanisms are in place; proper application is important in every case. Clear lessons are to be learned from the Advanta incident.

We recognised that there are specific Scottish interests in the advisory framework on GMOs. Some aspects of the rural economy, such as crofting, are largely peculiar to Scotland. The branding of Scottish products is also important. Brian Adam mentioned organic farming, which is another important issue.

Two members of ACRE are from Scotland, albeit that they are on the committee because of their scientific ability, not because they are Scottish. All AEBC appointments are made in consultation with the devolved Administrations—ministers from devolved Administrations appointed two members. Representatives from the AEBC told the committee that they recognised that there are issues unique to Scotland, which they take into account when considering these matters. Indeed, the AEBC is required to do so in its terms of reference.

The committee, with the exception of Robin Harper, Bruce Crawford and Fiona McLeod, did not agree with Friends of the Earth Scotland that the AEBC would not be able or willing to represent Scottish interests. We were satisfied that a separate Scottish body was unnecessary and expressed confidence in the work of the AEBC.

We feel that there is much greater scope for transparency, publicity and involvement of local communities to ensure that the public are properly advised about farm-scale trials of GM crops. We have requested that the Executive and the other bodies involved produce a plan to inform local communities of trials and discuss and agree minimum information that is required of companies if trials are to take place. The committee is keen that that should not involve any additional expenditure by public bodies—the companies should meet the cost. The recommendation of the committee was to support the general principle that the costs of seeking approval for GM releases should be met by the applicant. The committee encourages the Scottish Executive to work within that principle when possible.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Yes. Thank you for the promotion.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I am sure that it is well deserved.

Will the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continue to be the main source of information to the Scottish Parliament on GM plantings and harvests? Members will recall that in May last year MAFF failed for almost four weeks to inform Scottish ministers of GM seed plantings that spring. The minister subsequently failed to tell us until I found out a week later that there had been a GM harvest from the same sites in 1999. Will we still use MAFF, which farmers do not trust?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Dorothy-Grace Elder has made some wild generalisations. I do not think that her portrayal of what happened reflects the role of MAFF at that time.

The committee agreed unanimously that the Advanta incident was not handled properly. Major players in the game heard about the Advanta release on Radio Scotland—that was not good enough. We are critical of the fact that no control mechanisms or management systems were in place to deal with and give information on the incident. As someone with a background in quality management procedures and control mechanisms, I found it astonishing that no procedure was in place to deal with the incident. However, the Scottish Executive has recognised the problem and has produced draft guidelines for dealing with such an incident, should one happen again. An important point to have emerged from the report is that, with the Advanta incident, which was unacceptable in many ways and did not reflect well on the organisations involved in GMO development, we have identified the problem, which should mean that it will not happen again. I assure Dorothy-Grace Elder that we have identified the problems and asked the Executive to resolve them—the Executive has now drafted guidelines on the issue.

In closing—I am sure that the Presiding Officer will be happy about that—I say that, although there are great public concerns about GMOs, great benefits can be sought from them if we make progress. The reason for farm-scale trials is to see whether we can make progress. The settled will of the committee is for the precautionary approach. We have said that research on GMOs must continue to ensure that public confidence is maintained. I commend the report to the chamber.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the 1st Report, 2001 of the Transport and the Environment Committee, Report on petition PE51 from Friends of the Earth Scotland on genetically modified organisms (SP Paper 253).

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I want to take the five minutes that I have in this debate to explain why the SNP dissented from only three of the 79 recommendations in the report. As Andy Kerr outlined, the committee was as one on a vast majority of the issues.

Given the brevity of the time that is available, I will deal with recommendations 25 and 35, which the SNP dissented from. They are about this Parliament's power to deal with GM crop field trials under the EC directive 90/220/EEC, which Andy Kerr mentioned. My colleague Bruce Crawford will deal with recommendation 63, which is about a separate Scottish advisory body.

As Andy Kerr said, GM crop trials are of huge interest to the public. That is primarily because genetic modification is a new science, which has not only the potential to produce enormous benefits for agriculture in this country, but the potential to endanger human and environmental health. That is why the public is interested in GM crops and has concerns about them. The committee's report is timely and its recommendations should be accepted by the Government. The Parliament should be aware of people's concerns and should accept the recommendations of the committee to show the Scottish people that we understand their concerns.

Recommendations 25 and 35 rest upon the interpretation of the EC directive. The Scottish Executive has said that it cannot restrict GM crop field trials, because the directive requires that Governments should

"not unnecessarily restrict the release of GM crops if the release was safe for human health and the environment."

The key point is whether at this time GM crop releases are

"safe for human health and the environment."

Andy Kerr alluded to the fact that there is not a consensus view on the safety of GM crops within the committee, society in general or the scientific community. A quick scan of the enormous amount of literature on the safety of GM crops will back up that view. For example, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel examined this issue—Canada is the third largest GM crop-planting nation on the planet—and concluded that there was no full evidence that GM crops did not cause harm. Dr Ulrich Loening told the committee that there has been insufficient research on the long-term effects of GM crops. Furthermore, a British Medical Association report entitled "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health", which was published in 1999, contained 19 recommendations, including a moratorium on GM commercial planting and the statement that there should be no releases of GM material into the environment.

It is therefore important to point out that, instead of ensuring the safety of GM releases, the Scottish Executive is looking for a supposed lack of evidence of harm. Any approach should be the other way around; safety should come first.

I will turn from the consideration of the scientific arguments to a further investigation of the EC directive. Article 4 of the directive states that Governments must

"ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment which might arise from the deliberate release ... of GMOs"

which can be interpreted to mean that safety must come first.

The SNP believes that article 4 enables the Parliament to prevent GM crop field trials. Indeed, we are not alone in holding that view: Friends of the Earth Scotland gave such evidence to the committee.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

In response to that very point, Sarah Boyack said that any such prevention

"would be illegal unless based upon sound scientific evidence of harm."—[Official Report, Transport and the Environment Committee, 27 September 2000; c 998.]

Where is that evidence?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Mr Kerr knows as well as I do that the committee was aware of the lack of consensus on the issue, and that there is still no such consensus within the scientific community. That is the issue that we must examine.

I want to return to article 4 of the EC directive, which the SNP and Friends of the Earth Scotland believe would allow the Parliament to prevent GM crop field trials. Just last month, the Friends of the Earth Cymru received legal opinion on the matter to the effect that the article permits individual Governments to prevent such trials. In June 2000, the Welsh Assembly voted for a moratorium on those trials—and Wales is still a GM-free country. There are other European Union—

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am terribly short of time.

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

There is enough time.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Okay.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Fiona McLeod is absolutely right—like this Parliament, the Welsh Assembly has had an agonising debate about the subject. However, does she concede that, in the past 10 days, even the minister in charge has had to accept the legal advice, which he will tender to the Assembly, that it is not in a position to impose a blanket ban under EC directive 90/220/EEC?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As I understand it, the legal advice that the Friends of the Earth Cymru has received says the exact opposite. As a result, the matter is still up for debate in Wales. Other EU countries bound by the same EC directive have actually done something under article 4. Austria, Luxembourg, Greece and France have implemented controls over GM crop trials.

The committee itself accepted that the directive is open to interpretation. That question is not yet closed, and perhaps it is up to the European Committee to pursue further this specific issue in the report. That would be an example of a devolved Parliament and its committees working for Scotland.

Apart from three recommendations, the SNP signs up to this report. I hope that members will not think that I am finishing on a sour note if I say that, given the three recommendations on which the committee failed to agree, we need an independent Scottish voice in Europe to argue for Scotland's return to a GM-free, quality-food nation.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The Friends of the Earth Scotland petition, on which the Transport and the Environment Committee has based its report, asked us to do two things: to stop the release of GMOs and to establish separate Scottish monitoring bodies. As those requests form the report's core issues, it is a bit of a cop-out to agree with everything apart from the two points that stimulated the whole debate in the first place. Furthermore, it is extraordinary that, in her opening statement, the SNP member told us that the party's views on separate Scottish monitoring organisations would be established by a later speaker instead of doing so in that speech.

I assume that the SNP will hold with the reservation that it made at committee, which was based on the fact that the two members had not taken part in the process and could not realistically have been expected to sign up to the full recommendations. At the time, the committee showed flexibility and agreed at that stage to respect those views. However, many months have passed, and one would have thought that, in the intervening period, some of the evidence would at least have influenced the SNP line in this debate. The evidence gathered by the committee goes to the heart of what we are all about. If we are asked to examine an issue and then gather evidence, we are beholden to reflect upon that evidence in order to come to some conclusions. We would be an anti-Parliament—or a non-Parliament—if we simply gathered evidence and then disregarded it.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Does Mr Tosh accept that, on two of the report's recommendations that the SNP was not happy to sign up to, the committee report makes it clear that there is no consensus view on scientific safety and that there are differing interpretations of the EC directive?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Although I accept that there is no consensus, we must proceed on the basis of the best legal advice that we have received. Already this morning, we have had an indication—not least from Ross Finnie's intervention—that the Scottish Executive believes that the Parliament does not have the power to stop the release of GMOs. Furthermore, it is extremely unclear whether the Executive has such a power. Whatever my reservations about the Executive, I would much rather it operated on legal advice that suggests that it does not have such a power than on the advice obtained by Friends of the Earth in Wales.

Although our investigation established that the Parliament does not have the powers, the exercise was useful in making us go through the whole issue and helped the committee to clarify whether we should or should not have GM trials. It is clear from the evidence that there should be trials. I accept that there is no consensus about the criteria for the regulations and that there is legitimate concern about when any commercial exploitation of the new technologies should take place. However, if we do not allow laboratory tests and field trials at some stage, we will never be able to test or establish the commercial and humanitarian opportunities that might arise from producing much more substantial and beneficial crops, which is of course what GMOs are designed to achieve.

It is therefore important that—in some way, in some form and at some stage—trials take place and that we operate on a proper precautionary basis. Although I accept that there is disagreement about that matter, it is wrong in principle to say that GM technology should not be used. There must be properly controlled and sensible experimentation.

As for the question whether we should establish a Scottish ACRE and AEBC, it was very clear from the evidence that such bodies were quite unnecessary. I suppose that, in an independent Scotland that lacked those regulatory organisations, they would have to be set up and, as a result, it is not intellectually inconsistent for the SNP to hold such a view. However, continuing to maintain that in our current devolved context there is a need—and a justification—for wasting resources to monitor, control and regulate this activity is simply nonsensical and shows the infantile face of Scottish nationalism that says that we must have a Scottish equivalent of absolutely everything.

We highlighted flaws in the procedures and specifically requested—indeed demanded—that what happened with Advanta would not happen again. I believe that the Scottish Executive subscribes fully to that approach and was justifiably concerned about the relationship between MAFF and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency at that point. However, the operation of ACRE and the other regulatory bodies is not a problem: they are perfectly adequate to safeguard Scotland's interests as well as the wider UK interests.

The petition was wrong, and the committee's report is correct. It is a matter of great regret that, having had ample time to consider the evidence, committee members cannot accept the integrity of the process and the good sense of the recommendations, and that, in the context of a devolved Scotland, it is appropriate to accept the existing monitoring arrangements. I support the committee report and I regret the position that is being taken by the SNP on this matter.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The preamble to the Liberal Democrat constitution commits us to safeguarding the balance of nature and the environment and to harnessing technological change for human advantage. In approaching the difficult questions that are raised by technology that enables genetic modification, we should recognise that those objectives, although competing, are equally valid.

Other well-established and relevant Liberal Democrat principles include ensuring openness and accountability in Government decision making and upholding the right of the individual to make informed choices.

A further consideration is the need for our agriculture industry to be able to compete internationally without unnecessary burdens that would compromise its competitiveness. As paragraph 6 of the report states, the

"issues concerning the development and release of GMOs are substantial and complex."

However, risks are inherent in any process of creating or introducing novel products, and some non-genetic developments—such as the introduction of non-native species and the move to growing winter wheat—have had serious adverse effects on biodiversity of the kind that critics of genetic modification fear.

There are significant commercial, health and environmental benefits to be achieved through the responsible application of techniques of genetic modification. There is also a great deal of public concern about the potential risks that are associated with genetic modification. It is, therefore, essential to have a robust public policy framework in place before commercialisation begins, to ensure that when or if commercialisation goes ahead, the technology is used responsibly.

Much of the policy framework for GMOs is dictated by Europe, where the precautionary principle is the basis of environmental policy, manifested in the step-by-step approach of the European directive on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. Under the directive, the containment of GMOs is reduced and the scale of release increased gradually, step by step, only if evaluation of the earlier steps indicates that the next step can be taken without harming human health or the environment.

The Transport and the Environment Committee considered where and from whom the Government and the Scottish Executive obtained advice on GMO matters. The plethora of acronyms in paragraph 16 of the report indicates that there is no shortage of advisory bodies. We are told that there are no fewer than 14 specialist scientific committees in the UK Government's advisory framework for GM technology. The two main bodies are ACRE and the relatively new AEBC, the remit of which is also to consider the wider implications of the use of GM technology. As Andy Kerr said, that remit was commended by committee members, who felt that it is important for the wider issues to be considered. The committee agreed that Scottish access to those bodies is satisfactory.

There has been much public concern over the lack of consultation on the GM farm-scale trials in Scotland. Clarification is needed of the difference between consultation and the giving of information. Consultation implies that responses can materially influence, change or stop whatever is being consulted on. In the context of the current set of farm-scale trials, we are talking about providing information, not consulting. As both the Rural Development Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee concluded, under EC regulations, the Scottish Executive cannot prohibit the trials. However, it is extremely important to make as much information as possible about the trials available to the public, detailing how they are to be conducted, what precautions are being taken and what safeguards are in place.

The first farm-scale trial in Scotland last year was conducted in Daviot, which is in my constituency and only a few miles from my home. As a good example of consultation, I cite the meeting that was organised for the people of Daviot through the auspices of the local community council. At that meeting, a representative from Aventis, the company that was supplying the seed and organising the trial, a representative from the Scottish Crop Research Institute, which is undertaking the scientific monitoring of the trial, and two representatives from SERAD each gave presentations about the aspects of the trial for which they were responsible and were open to questions afterwards. There was a good turnout of local people and a fairly long and probing question session. Those who were present found the meeting informative, useful and reassuring. Therefore, I endorse the committee's recommendation that standards should be set for companies that undertake such trials, concerning the information that they give to the public and the way in which it is provided.

I also endorse the report's recommendation on producing and publicising guidelines for dealing with the sort of accidental release of GMOs that occurred last year in the Advanta seed contamination incident. I wonder whether one loose end, in connection with that incident, has been tied up through the committee's evidence taking. At our meeting on 27 September, we were told that SERAD was awaiting a report from the Canadian authorities on the circumstances that led to the seed contamination. I wonder whether that report has been received and what it says.

In conclusion, I welcome the report, which is thorough and workmanlike. It contains many sound conclusions and recommendations, and I hope that the public will find it reassuring.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I found Murray Tosh's speech interesting, although it lacked the intellectual rigour that we normally expect from him. He suggested that everyone would have to arrive at the same conclusion on the basis of the evidence that was received. It was rather unfair of him to suggest that, because SNP members arrived at a different conclusion from that which was reached by him and other committee members, they were in some way wrong. Evidence should influence our decisions, but not everyone will arrive at the same conclusion on every occasion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I understand that a body of evidence that is received by a committee might permit different interpretations. My point was that we did not hear any coherent argument for setting up a Scottish ACRE and a Scottish AEBC. No good case for that was put forward; neither did the SNP members of the committee produce any evidence to support that proposal.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Bruce Crawford will address that matter in his speech. However, the implication of Mr Tosh's earlier remarks was clearly that a unanimous opinion should have been arrived at on all areas of the GMO issue, not just on that specific point.

Like my colleagues, I believe that the GM farm-scale trials do not yet have a role to play—and I emphasise the word "yet". I would be much happier if the Scottish Parliament followed the lead that has been taken by the Welsh Assembly, in spite of what the Minister for Environment and Rural Development said in his intervention. I would prefer Scotland to be a GM-free zone. Many people in the north-east believe that our region is being used as a guinea pig. The Daviot and Tillycorthie areas account for 10 of the 18 GM trials that have been authorised in Scotland, and a large section of the public are extremely concerned about that.

When the first Daviot trial was announced, I went to well-attended meetings in Daviot and Inverurie. I attended the meeting to which Nora Radcliffe referred. Although I agree that it was well attended, that information was provided and that there was a significant question-and-answer session, I did not arrive at Nora Radcliffe's conclusion that people were reassured by it. It was also a ticket-only meeting. On the face of it, it was organised by the community councils, but we heard only one side—

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

The meeting was organised at the request of the chairman of the community council, which undertook to let local people know about the meeting. The council was concerned that the meeting should be, as Mr Adam said, an information-giving meeting. There were also concerns that the meeting might be taken over by people with another agenda.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We heard only one side of the argument, which was put forward by those who had an interest in the matter. The meeting was well attended and conducted, but we will have to agree to differ on the interpretation of the outcome.

The general point that Nora Radcliffe made about providing information and having meaningful consultation is important. The process that we are talking about, however, does not reflect well on the Executive as no meaningful consultation is taking place. People are simply being informed that they will have trials on their doorstep; they cannot influence whether the trials take place.

The meeting that I attended in Inverurie, which other members, including Alex Fergusson, also attended, was of a slightly different nature. The vast majority of participants expressed their concerns about the trial. Some have suggested that that meeting was hijacked by others, but I do not accept that. As far as I could see, most people who attended were local, had an interest and had significant concerns. Their views reflected accurately the views of the vast bulk of the residents of the area who were against the farm-scale trials and still are. On 18 March, The Herald carried quotations of a number of near neighbours of the New Craig farm that express their concerns. Speaking of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Professor Steve Bruce of Aberdeen University, who lives with his wife and three children just yards from New Craig farm, said:

"I do think she should have told us rather than leave us to learn from the media".

Mac Mackie, the managing director of the family-run dairy and farming business, Mackie's, close to the farm, said:

"I would have liked to have been told so we could check if there was anything we should be concerned about".

Roderick Nutten, from Loanhead of Pitninnan, which is also close to the farm, said:

"We were not even asked or consulted about this. I don't really know anything about genetically modified crops so I don't know if I should be concerned or not but I think someone should have explained to us what this all means."

People in the area felt that they had not been properly informed or consulted. All that has happened up to now is that information has been provided and the trials have gone ahead.

I am a scientist by training and I know that the scientific community is divided about the threat of cross-contamination of species. Recently, Michael Meacher, the UK Minister for the Environment, admitted that cross-contamination was a possibility. That is a significant change of heart on the part of the Government and that ought to be taken into account.

I am concerned about bees: there is evidence from Jena University in Germany that the guts of bees that have been feeding on GM crops have been altered. That alteration is bound to have an effect on the important role that bees play in pollination. I need not mention the significant amount of money that is involved in the honey industry.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I want to emphasise my agreement with much of the report that was prepared by the Transport and the Environment Committee, on which I serve. However, I am informed by a deep sense of frustration at the feeling that the Executive is overly complacent about the safety of farm-scale trials. There is a feeling that the Executive believes that the arguments on GMOs are done and dusted. Farm-scale trials are commercially motivated and are more an exercise in public sedation than they are genuine scientific endeavours.

The three fundamental differences of opinion I have with the report echo those that the SNP has already mentioned. On the safety of GM trials, I disagree entirely with the conclusion that releasing the novel organisms into the environment to test them can be considered a precautionary approach. We heard evidence that there are serious concerns about the impact on the environment; for example, there has been little or no research into the effects on subsoil and soil bacteria.

The UK Government believes that the risks are minimal and are worth taking in order to speed the development of the technology. However, the committee heard evidence that there were serious concerns about testing the safety of GM crops in that way, particularly in regard to the possibility of horizontal gene flow. Murray Tosh said that we did not hear enough evidence about the dangers, but that is because the research has not yet been done. More research is needed.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Will the member give way?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I do not have time.

The committee said that it could not decide whether the Scottish Parliament has any powers to ban GM crops and said that it is not the job of the committee to decide that. It is up to national Governments to interpret EU law and take action. I echo what has already been said on that matter by the SNP. The courts have to decide matters only in relation to disputes over sovereign action. As has been mentioned, several European countries have clearly concluded that they have powers to ban GM crops and have done so.

To say that we do not know what powers we have and cannot therefore do anything is to avoid the issue. If there is confusion about the law, we need an independent examination of exactly what powers the Scottish Parliament has to restrict GM crops. The committee concluded that the European Committee could be asked to pursue that question. I would like to echo what the SNP has said on that matter and call for that committee to do so.

The report disagrees with me on the need for a Scottish body to oversee GM crop developments. Murray Tosh said that the suggestion that there should be such a body was infantile and that the body would be a waste of time and money. Surely, however, having such a commission in Scotland would stimulate public debate on this important issue within Scotland, rather than having to—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member give way?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will try to finish my speech within the time limit and see how much time I have left in which to take points from other members.

Most of my committee colleagues were of the opinion that a committee based in London with only one Scottish representative—I believe that the committee now has two Scottish representatives—should decide the future of GM crops in Scotland. However, agriculture is devolved to Scotland and GM crops, which are an important aspect of agriculture policy, should not be, as it were, devolved back to a UK body. We saw how Ross Finnie was kept in the dark about the Advanta GM contamination incident. I argue that the Scottish Parliament must be allowed to decide for itself about GM technology.

The petition from Friends of the Earth Scotland called on the Scottish Parliament to exercise its powers not to permit the release of GM crops into the environment by way of trials or commercial planting and to establish a mechanism in Scotland that will address the concerns about the impact of such releases on the environment and human health. I do not believe that the report has adequately addressed the petition. There is clearly a need for further investigation. I believe that we should suspend GM field trials at least until that investigation has been carried out.

I have half a minute in which to answer questions from other members.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does Robin Harper accept that ACRE is not an English, Irish or Welsh body but a UK body to which we send Scottish representatives? Does he accept that the Scottish Executive negotiated a moratorium with the industry on the issue of the commercial release of genetically modified foods? Does he also accept that, during Britain's presidency of the EU, we pushed for labelling of all genetically modified food products? Finally, does he accept that no GM foodstuffs have been licensed under Labour?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I am happy to accept all those points. I will take an intervention from Andy Kerr.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Thank you. This is a unique method of dealing with interventions.

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

How this can be done within 30 seconds remains to be seen.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

What is important is that the best representatives of the scientific community should serve on bodies such as ACRE, not whether they live north or south of the border.

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

All right, Mr Harper. You have one minute, and that is it.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I take Mr Kerr's point.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

He has finished.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Any more interventions?

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

If not, that leaves up to four minutes for Dorothy-Grace Elder.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

I will not apologise to Andy Kerr for promoting him earlier—it might be just a matter of time.

I agree with Robin Harper that much more investigation is needed, and I believe that we do not have good cause, historically, to trust any UK body in relation to agricultural matters. Britain has a long and dishonourable history of adulterated food and interference with the food chain, which took place before we knew what we were doing.

On the subject of food, I come from a long history of handling with tongs absolutely anything that I hear from any Government. Heavy money is involved, fellow parliamentarians, in the whole GM-motivated industry, as are very heavy politics. We need think of only one case—that of Lord Sainsbury and his links with the Labour Government. Lord Sainsbury is one of the greatest defenders of the GM movement.

Genetic modification is unlike any other experiment, because it tinkers with the very basis of plant and crop life. That leads me to handle with lead-lined gloves all Government reassurances about GM, even from the best of people, who themselves might believe what they say.

We have no reason to trust UK bodies such as MAFF, which is heavily involved in GM. The people in MAFF contributed to the BSE disaster by refusing, over many months, to tell farmers precisely what was in feed, because of what they described as reasons of commercial confidentiality relating to the feed industry: and so, the BSE disaster became catastrophic.

MAFF is in many ways under suspicion over its handling of the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I have no hesitation in itemising what happened in this Parliament with regard to MAFF in May last year, when we were meeting in Glasgow. At that time, Mr Finnie admitted that MAFF had delayed for almost one month passing on information that it had received from Advanta via Canada, to the effect that a rogue seeding had been carried out in Scotland in spring 2000. Mr Finnie ordered that the fields concerned should be ripped up immediately.

What Mr Finnie did not inform us at the time was that in 1999, the previous year, there had been not only a planting, but a harvest, and that the GM material had entered the human and animal food chains. It is still there. However, both MAFF and Advanta in Canada had been informed. Mr Finnie chose not to inform Parliament, until I dragged the information out of him with tongs a week later. He chose not to inform us then; what are we not being informed about now?

Members have spoken rather wimpishly today about the Parliament not having the relevant powers, as if we should merely accept that, just like children. If GM seeds are in our fields, that gives us a moral right to the powers, and seizure of those powers to protect our farmers, our population and our future generations, because we do not know how GM will work out in the long term. I urge the Parliament to put some steel in its spine: it should get those powers.

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

We come to wind-up speeches. We are on schedule, so I will allow three minutes for each party representative, starting with Des McNulty for the Labour party.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The Transport and the Environment Committee has produced a very good report. The committee has a record of carrying out serious work, and has produced a series of good reports, of which its report on GMOs is a positive example.

We are indebted to Friends of the Earth Scotland for focusing attention on the issue, which is obviously of public concern. We should also be grateful to all those who gave evidence to the committee, which made a number of important recommendations that have not been entirely covered in speeches.

It is, perhaps, not relevant simply to focus on what happened in the past; much of the debate should have focused on what might happen in the future, if the recommendations that are being made by the Transport and the Environment Committee are taken up. It is regrettable that SNP members who listened to the evidence are not here to participate in the debate, and that we have had to content ourselves with contributions from members who did not hear the evidence, and who do not appear to have read the committee's report.

The arguments on the matter should not focus on our positions on constitutional matters, but on our position on the scientific evidence.

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

Will Des McNulty give way?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I will not, Bruce—I am sorry.

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

rose—

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Can I continue? I have only three minutes.

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

rose—

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

The member is not giving way.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is important that we reassure ourselves that the current advisory bodies, ACRE and the AEBC, will effectively conduct the work that they are required to do. The AEBC was created after petition PE51 was lodged. In its evidence, Friends of the Earth Scotland made it clear that the creation of the AEBC and its proposed mode of operation were satisfactory in relation to some of the issues that it had raised. The Transport and the Environment Committee calls for the AEBC to operate within mechanisms that will deal effectively with the specific Scottish context. It is not that we need to produce a specifically Scottish science, but that we need to ensure that the recommendations deal with the specific Scottish context.

The committee made important points in recommendations 45 and 46: that the research that is required—I agree with Robin Harper on this—must focus not only on biotechnology and biodiversity, but on a range of issues on agricultural management and on the socioeconomic implications of proceeding with the science. We need to use proper scientific advice, and we must ensure that that is properly fed into decision making. Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned BSE. I spent about half a day during the Easter recess reading through the BSE report, which contains evidence that, in the past, Westminster did not always take adequate account of scientific evidence. We are calling for scientific evidence to be properly built into decision making.

The precautionary approach that we are advocating should involve a default no, not a default yes, to applications to carry out trials. We ought to be satisfied that trials will be properly conducted and that they will properly build scientific knowledge. We are not in the process of simply allowing companies to rent land to carry out trials that will have no wider benefit. The report includes important recommendations about public information, particularly in relation to the minimum information standard, which will give greater transparency and more information on decision making.

One particularly important issue is that the public should not at any point pay for the costs of taking the GM agenda forward. The costs of approvals of GM releases and trials should be met by the companies that are involved—that recommendation should be built into the mechanism.

The report gives a positive approach and maps the way forward. It should be considered positively, and I look forward to hearing the minister's responses to my points.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I start by declaring my interest as a farmer. I also note the Executive's pragmatic approach to the matter.

I support Murray Tosh's view that we do not need a Scottish ACRE, and I look forward to Bruce Crawford outlining the SNP's policy position in his closing speech.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will John Scott give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No, thank you.

I accept the need for a cautious step-by-step approach, as outlined in the Transport and the Environment Committee report, which I welcome.

We must be realistic, because we will have to deal with some harsh realities in the near future. The sooner we get rid of the froth on the subject and look at the bigger picture, the better. The population of the world is rising dramatically. The current world population of 6 billion is set to increase by 50 per cent in the next 50 years and, in the meantime, we must find a safe way in which to feed everybody in future. The Malthusian cliff looms large and unless we address the issues now and develop safe GM foods and organisms, this generation will have failed our children and our children's children.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No, thank you.

Each successive generation has had to cope with the population explosion of its time and GM foods offer our generation the scientific solution that we so desperately seek. We also have to bear in mind the advent of global warming—a subject that is close to Robin Harper's heart. As global warming gathers pace, two main things will happen. First, low-lying, fertile, food-producing, coastal land will be flooded by rising sea levels. Secondly, the equatorial desert strips that band the world—the barren deserts of the world—will increase in size and width. That, too, will reduce the world's food-producing ability. Therefore, we are contemplating two driving issues, which are that our ability to produce food using existing science and technology in a reducing land mass is about to diminish, and that our population is set to rise. We must move forward quickly and safely.

The debate is no longer about whether we go down the road of scientific advance and whether we have field trials; the question is how we do so safely. That is why we must show leadership, shoulder our responsibilities and start getting our act together. We must stop driving scientists and bioscientists out of the country by accepting the sterile and sometimes selfish arguments of those who stand against progress as, on today's showing, Robin Harper would have us do.

We must have an intelligent and nimble Executive. MAFF's track record on this matter—and others to which Dorothy-Grace Elder alluded—calls into question MAFF's very existence. I agree with Charles Kennedy's call for the disbanding of MAFF because of its appalling record over the years. We cannot afford any more blunders like the Advanta crisis that was foisted on us last year, to which Brian Adam referred.

GMO is a reserved matter and so it should remain, but we must accept our responsibilities to the Scottish people and to the wider world. Scottish Conservatives are committed to the cautious development of GM organisms. The time for talking is over. We must recognise the potential benefits of the technology, but we must proceed with caution. We must recognise genuine public concerns and we must proceed on the basis of science alone. We should introduce clear and unambiguous labelling.

We must get on with it. With 700 million people starving in the world at the moment, we have no time to lose.

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

I thank John Scott for concentrating so much on the committee's report—that was very useful. Andy Kerr, however, reflected well the Transport and the Environment Committee's findings. He did a good job, as did the committee in taking evidence. It carried out a very robust process on the Friends of the Earth petition.

For a Tory, Murray Tosh shows a remarkable ability to roll over to what the Executive says. The committee report is full of evidence of contradictions and problems, particularly concerning the EU directive. The report states:

"The Committee accepts that the EC Directive is open to differing interpretations."

Fiona McLeod properly gave our interpretation of the directive. No malice was intended and, had Murray Tosh had a little patience, he will hear me note that Fiona McLeod and I entered the process of examining the petition at a late date and could not have full individual ownership of everything that happened.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

indicated disagreement.

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

Murray Tosh may not have meant that, but that was the intent that I understood in what he said.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

If Bruce Crawford reads the Official Report , he will see that I acknowledged that he and Fiona McLeod came late to the debate. It was accepted that they could hardly be expected to sign up to evidence that they had not heard. My criticism today is that, having reviewed that evidence, Bruce Crawford has shown little sign of accepting any of it.

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

I will come to that. I have already mentioned what paragraph 24 of the report says about the European directive.

Murray Tosh also said that the SNP should have made its position clear in its opening speech. We did not, because I intend to deal with it in summing up—we are given only so much time in the chamber.

It is obvious that we cannot take individual ownership of the whole process. There is much to applaud in the report, but it would be wrong to pretend that we accept the direction that has been taken by the committee in all its recommendations. We have had time to reflect on the report, and our position is strengthened by that period of reflection.

Fiona McLeod dealt with one area and I will deal with another. We support the view of Friends of the Earth that a separate Scottish GM advisory body is required. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development might deal with science that is similar to that which his UK Government counterpart deals with, but there can be no question that there are distinct economic and social circumstances in Scotland. More important, there is a distinct natural and agricultural background. Andy Kerr referred in particular to the crofting communities of Scotland. In the light of those differences, it is important to ensure that any advisory body acts properly and appropriately in advising ministers. That could be more efficiently achieved if a separate Scottish GM advisory body were established. There are separate bodies all over the place that advise ministers, so the nonsense from Murray Tosh about setting up another body is a red herring. There should be a body that is closer to ministers and that has a greater understanding of Scottish circumstances, rather than a body that is distant from ministers and which does not focus fully on Scottish requirements. Executive ministers have many advisory bodies.

Murray Tosh should look at the evidence. In column 1019 of the Official Report of the Transport and the Environment Committee meeting on 27 September 2000, it can be seen that Kenny MacAskill tried three times to get information from the minister on what would happen if a Scottish representative in the current process was unable to persuade his or her colleagues not to proceed. On three separate occasions, Kenny MacAskill did not receive an answer from the minister. We want to protect and enshrine the Scottish position by having a separate advisory body. The evidence is all there.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I state at the outset that the Scottish Executive's overall policy is that we are neither for nor against GM. Our priority is to protect human health and to safeguard the environment. We are pro-safety, pro-environment and pro-consumer choice.

I welcome the basic thrust of the Transport and the Environment Committee's report. I welcome the recognition by a majority of the committee that, under current legislation, Parliament does not have the power to impose a blanket ban on the release of GM crops. That does not mean that we consider that such releases should be subject to anything less than the most stringent controls, which is what the present system provides for. I share Murray Tosh's view that, if the committee received advice to the effect that that is a correct interpretation of directive 90/220/EEC—it is the Scottish Executive's interpretation—proceeding on an ultra vires basis is not the correct way in which to protect our interests.

I also welcome the view of the majority of the committee that there is a role for farm-scale trials. It is wrong to suggest that simply because Luxembourg, Germany and France have decided not to hold trials, they have the power to ban the commercialisation of GM crops. The interposition of additional trials is an extra precautionary principle that has been introduced in this country, along with a three-year moratorium on the commercialisation of trials. Given that the other countries in the EU do not have powers to unreasonably prevent commercialisation, that will take place without those countries having the additional knowledge of the effects on biodiversity that is gained from trials.

I also welcome the committee's majority recommendation that it is not necessary to establish a separate Scottish GM advisory body.

Like Murray Tosh, I understand the SNP's intellectual argument, but I do not think that it holds true for a devolved institution. I believe that ACRE and the AEBC serve us well I will speak about the committee's recommendations for changes to our current system. The essential issue is the involvement of local communities. Many members made that point well. The committee recommended that companies that undertake trials should be required to set out how they propose to inform local communities. The committee also recommended that the Scottish Executive, ACRE and other stakeholders should discuss and agree the minimum information standards that are required.

As I said, I am concerned about that matter—about which Brian Adam said that we had done nothing. I say to him that the essential problem is that the framework under directive 90/220/EEC, or under part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, is silent on that matter. However, I recognise that communities can feel justified in believing that they have not been given enough notice of trials—

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I will finish this point.

Better public information and consultation are being considered, as Brian Adam knows from the evidence that was given by the AEBC. Those aspects will also be covered in the AEBC's forthcoming report on farm-scale trials and I assure him that the Executive will wish to act on the AEBC's recommendations.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

If the directive is silent on informing local communities, does not that give the minister discretion to act and to accept the precautionary principle that the driver ought to be to say no, unless a product is proved to be okay? Why has he chosen not to use that interpretation?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I did not say that the directive was silent on how the Executive should reach decisions. I said that it was silent on how proper consultation on the process should be conducted, which suggests that we should fall back on a system of holding public information meetings only. People want to go further than that.

Under article 9 of the recently promulgated directive 2001/18/EC, member states must consult the public when appropriate and will be required to lay down arrangements, including a reasonable time period, for that consultation, in order to give the public or groups the opportunity to express opinions.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Let me finish this point.

We are giving urgent consideration to how that requirement should be given effect in Scotland. I say to John Scott that GM regulation is not a reserved matter, and we will be able to implement that directive through Scottish regulations. As I said, although GM regulation is not reserved, according to schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, it is controlled by an EU directive, and as Brian Adam knows, under section 57(2) of that act, we must implement all EU directives.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The minister said that he would give urgent consideration to directive 2001/18/EC. Is he able to say when he hopes to introduce guidelines on public consultation? As my colleague Brian Adam made clear, there was great consternation locally when folk heard—in the press the following day—about the 17 March decision on New Craig farm.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not able to give a specific date. If Fiona McLeod has read directive 2001/18/EC, she will recognise it as a rather familiar, but not short, European directive that contains about 38 articles. It will be necessary for the Executive to consider how best to implement the directive. That might be done through the provisions of part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, although it might be neater to deal with it through the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972. It is crucial that the directive is implemented through Scottish regulations, and many issues will have to be considered when the regulations are drafted. I regret that I am unable to give Fiona McLeod a specific date. However, I am anxious that public consultation should be incorporated in the Scottish regulations.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Can the minister assure members by setting a target, rather than giving a date, to introduce the guidelines before next year's planting?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am reluctant to give a precise date, given the requirement to introduce secondary legislation—which, I suspect, will require considerable scrutiny by the Parliament. I am able to say only that I am deeply concerned about consultation, and that I am anxious that directive 2001/18/EC is translated into Scottish regulations as soon as is humanly possible, although a number of issues must be dealt with in that process.

I note the committee's view that the move towards greater transparency in the GM release process should not involve additional expenditure by public bodies. The committee also took the view that, in general, the applicant should meet the costs of seeking approval. We accept that recommendation and we are putting in place a revised scheme of fees and charges to cover the administrative costs of running the regulatory process. We published a revised fees and charges scheme that came into effect on 18 April.

We also accept the Transport and the Environment Committee's recommendation that new guidelines should be introduced on how to handle any future accidental releases. For that purpose, we published draft guidance that reflects the general approach to emergency procedures for other circumstances in which such procedures may be necessary.

That allows me to move neatly on to the point that was raised by Nora Radcliffe on the Advanta seed contamination incident. I regret to say that the Canadian authorities have found their investigation to be an extraordinarily difficult task. Although they have complied with our requests for information about the investigation, we are in their hands. I understand that the investigation is nearly complete—the most recent estimate of when we might receive a report of the investigation is towards the end of May.

I will deal quickly with one or two other points that were made during the debate. It is all very well for Dorothy-Grace Elder to campaign against MAFF, but I concern myself only with the integrity of the people who serve on ACRE, and the integrity and professionalism of those who serve on the Food Standards Agency and the AEBC, because it is from those bodies that I seek advice when I discharge my responsibilities. Despite Dorothy-Grace Elder's prejudices and feelings about MAFF—which may be understandable—I say to her that not one piece of evidence has been adduced to me that suggests that I should do anything other than accept the integrity and professionalism of those bodies. That is important, because the Executive seeks advice from them.

I have touched on the issue of meaningful consultation, and I also mentioned commercialisation, which was raised by Murray Tosh.

I am sorry if Robin Harper feels that the Executive is being over-complacent in relation to GMOs. I do not believe that that is the case, because we are very much concerned about the issue. Our approach is not driven by other considerations and our concerns are genuine. I had hoped that he would share our concern that, before we get pressed into having to give approvals to commercial crops, we should have trials that seek to test the effect on biodiversity and on the different farming practices that will be necessary for the crops. I also thought that he would recognise that approach as a sign that the Government is concerned about knowing the whole story before granting approvals for commercial crops. If we wait for the after-effects, it will be too late.

I thank the Transport and the Environment Committee for its well-considered and balanced report. As I said, we are pursuing a number of the issues that the report identified. We are in touch not only with MAFF, but with our colleagues in other UK Administrations—the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly—and we are always actively considering the development of policy in this area.

In the meantime, I am grateful for the views that have been expressed during the debate and I commend the approach that has been taken by the Transport and the Environment Committee.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call John Farqhuar Munro to wind up the debate on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee.

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

As the Presiding Officer intimated, my task is to wind up on behalf of the Transport and the Environment Committee, of which I am deputy convener.

As members heard Andy Kerr say, the committee accepts that issues around the development and release of GMOs are substantial and complex. The committee also recognises the concerns that have been expressed by large sections of the public about the possible risks that are associated with the release of GMOs, and it has suggested that a careful balance must be struck between the ongoing development of GM technology and minimising potential associated risks. We have heard some of those concerns expressed this morning. Robin Harper suggested that the precautionary approach was not acceptable or sufficient. I believe that that term also causes confusion.

The committee understands the public concerns over GM crops and believes that there is still a need for a wide-ranging and rational debate on future GM crops trials. The overall need for the technology, where GM fits in with agriculture and whether there are sufficient benefits to justify the risks of further developing and exploiting that technology should be considered. I suggest that many of the current problems have arisen because that debate did not take place earlier with local communities. The opportunity must be taken to promote a wide-ranging debate on GMOs and associated crop trials. The number of people who came to give evidence to the committee is proof of that.

The Transport and the Environment Committee is concerned that, despite many reassurances, there is still public concern about the risks that are associated with GM releases. As part of the approval process for farm-scale trials, the committee recommended that companies that undertake such trials should be required to set out how they propose to inform local communities of the trials. The committee also recommended that the Scottish Executive and other stakeholders should discuss and agree the minimum information standards that are required from those companies.

It might not surprise members that the committee suggested strongly that greater transparency is required in the process of ministerial decision making and in how ministers arrive at conclusions.

I want to suggest respectfully to the Executive that any GM crop trials should, in future, be subject to the democratic planning process in the local authority areas in which such trials are proposed. That is reasonable.

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

Will John Farquhar Munro say where in the committee report that particular element is referred to? I thought that he was summing up on behalf of the committee.

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

The suggestion that the democratic process should be applied is my own. I said that I respectfully suggest that. Bruce Crawford obviously did not hear me.

In conclusion, I thank the committee for the diligence in its meetings. I also thank those who gave evidence and the clerks, who worked diligently to ensure that the committee's democratic process was appropriate and successful. I sincerely thank the convener and members of the committee for concluding the report. As I intimated, the issues are varied and complex and we must continue to exercise the utmost caution.

Rural Scotland (Employment Patterns)

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1892, in the name of Alex Johnstone, on behalf of the Rural Development Committee, on that committee's "Report on the Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland".

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is my pleasure to be able to present the report on behalf of the Rural Development Committee. The report has taken some considerable time in the committee's busy schedule but the subject is important.

The committee first met less than two years ago. Our priority at that first meeting was to identify issues to which the committee should devote its time over the ensuing four years. Obviously, there were priorities concerning farming, fishing, forestry and other traditionally rural matters that had been dealt with by committees at Westminster. However, it was obvious to the committee that the new rural affairs concept—which this Parliament sought to launch—was a priority that had to be addressed.

At this stage I must pay tribute to one or two people who were important to the report. I would like to single out two former members of the committee who were integral to pushing the rural affairs agenda and getting the inquiry up and running—Cathy Peattie and Irene McGugan. They pushed the priority of rural affairs at an early stage and made us realise that there was more to it than the farming and fishing priorities of the past.

I also take the opportunity to thank for their input many of the professionals and advisers on whom the committee relied for the success of the inquiry and subsequent report. From the Scottish Parliament information centre, I highlight the efforts of Simon Wakefield, who was particularly active in controlling the direction of the report. I also convey our thanks to Sue Sadler, who organised many of the public meetings. I particularly thank Professor Mark Shucksmith, who was the adviser to the research project. He helped to steer us through some of the more difficult areas and was integral to the drafting of the report.

I will go over what the committee did to consult the public of Scotland on how we should report on the subjects that we chose. After considerable discussion and consultation with our adviser— once he was in place—we decided to investigate the impact of changing employment patterns in rural Scotland. That crystallised and defined more clearly the views that were originally expressed on the first day on which the committee met.

To that end, the inquiry was launched on 30 March 2000. The overall aim of the inquiry was to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into the major changes taking place in rural Scotland, the impact of those changes on rural communities—particularly on poverty and housing—and the effectiveness of current policy responses. The inquiry also aimed to contribute to understanding how joined-up government can be made to work for Scotland's rural communities.

The objectives of the inquiry were to identify the key drivers of change in employment patterns, to identify who gains and who loses as a result of those changing employment patterns, to assess the impact of the changes and to review the current policy to support employment in rural Scotland. We also wished to identify best practice and areas for improvement in policy, as well as to report on the inquiry and make recommendations for action to address likely further changes.

The consultation process on which we embarked relied on a number of methods. A series of seven local consultation meetings was organised. Those meetings took place throughout Scotland to enable members of the committee to hear views from local people regarding their experiences of changing employment patterns, the impact of those changes and the policy actions that they felt would be effective. Five of the meetings were open to the public and two were by invitation only. The research team worked in partnership with local organisations to set up the public meetings, invite local people to participate and promote each meeting widely in the locality.

At this point, I should say that we subsequently received representations that the publicity was not as effective in some cases as it may have been. One of the lessons that we learned during the inquiry was that, just as we know what is going on, we believe that people on the ground ought to know what is going on. It is disappointing that many who felt that they had something to contribute were unable to do so simply because they were not aware that the meetings were taking place. I advise committees to examine more closely the publicity attached to public meetings that the Parliament or its committees hold in future.

The public meetings took place in Newtown St Boswells, Stornoway, Newton Stewart, Laurencekirk and Dingwall. There was also a meeting that was designed to cover Argyll and Bute, which was eventually carried out by means of a video link. That meeting afforded us the first opportunity to exploit that technology and we advise others to use it to contact other areas of Scotland.

Local authorities and local enterprise companies were involved in each public meeting. They were invited to make presentations to MSPs and members of the public. Those presentations covered the employment changes experienced in the area and set the scene for the discussion that followed.

Through the meetings, 246 people were able to make their views known to the researchers. At the same time, a consultation document was mailed to more than 400 individuals and organisations with an interest in rural Scotland. That document was also placed on the Scottish Parliament website and more than 350 accesses to it were made. Press releases were sent to national and local media to alert the general public to the consultation. Responses were invited, to be in by 18 May last year. That succeeded in eliciting 100 written responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals.

What information did we glean from the consultation process? The key findings of the report are that rural employment is in decline in most sectors and that transport—especially the cost of transport in rural Scotland—is by far the biggest concern of those who expressed opinions at the public meetings and through the consultation.

We also found that poverty in rural areas is distinct, in that it is highly dispersed and often disguised within a more wealthy community. It is also most common among older people. The key causes of poverty are lower wages, low uptake of benefits, the higher cost of child care and the lack of affordable housing.

Although rural Scotland's economy is different from that of urban Scotland, it is very diverse. Demand for the service sector is growing in rural Scotland as traditional manufacturing and agriculture decline. The Rural Development Committee is concerned that the combination of poverty and declining traditional industries is threatening the sustainability of rural life in certain areas.

I want to touch on the Executive's reaction to the report. There was some disappointment among members of the committee, who felt that the reaction was rather hostile. I want to take as constructive an attitude as possible. When it established the inquiry and subsequently drafted the report, the committee's aim was to benefit the future work of the committee and the Parliament, and, we hoped, stimulate reaction from the Executive—which we certainly did. If the report was interpreted as an attack on Executive policy, I can only offer my apologies to the minister, because that was never the intention. By making constructive progress and by addressing the issues that we have identified as priorities for the Parliament, the committee can proceed hand-in-hand with the Executive—whoever may form it in future—to work on longer-term policy, up to and beyond the horizon of the current political climate.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Ha!

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That was not meant as a joke, David.

I hope that the committee and the Executive will have the opportunity to do a constructive job, working together in Parliament in the interests of rural Scotland.

I am delighted to move the motion in my name, That the Parliament notes the 1st Report, 2001 of the Rural Development Committee, The Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland (SP Paper 254); recognises the problems faced by Scotland's rural communities as highlighted by the research findings in the report; further recognises that work is already under way to address some of these concerns, and urges the Scottish Executive to continue to address the Committee's concerns.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The SNP welcomes the opportunity to debate the Rural Development Committee's report. We add our congratulations to everyone involved—my colleagues in the committee, the clerks, the adviser Mark Shucksmith, everyone at the Scottish Parliament information centre who helped, everyone who sent submissions to the committee and, especially, everyone who turned out at the seven public meetings that we held around the country. Those meetings were very successful.

A couple of factors stood out in our inquiry. One was the high turnout at the public meetings. People were extremely enthusiastic about coming along to speak to parliamentarians about the rural economy. That was invaluable. I attended successful and worthwhile meetings in Dingwall and Stornoway.

Another factor was the unanimity of the committee on many of the recommendations and findings. There was huge agreement on the report, which includes many unique recommendations. I hope that the minister will respond positively.

Against that positive backdrop, the SNP was absolutely astonished by the Government's 13-page response, which sought to parry the committee's recommendations by simply listing what the ministers think they have achieved. They seemed to be in a huff because we did not spend several pages of our report paying tribute to the wonderful work of the ministers to date. We wanted to engage in a constructive debate with the Executive. The committee's purpose was to go out, speak to people around the country and find out the real picture. We then came back and reported to Parliament and to ministers in the hope that the committee could influence the decision-making process in Scotland's new Government.

In its response to our report, the Government talks about the positive picture from rural Scotland. That was the first defensive remark. In recent weeks, discussions in Parliament have been dominated by the foot-and-mouth crisis, the fishing crisis, the decline in the textile industry and the tourism crisis.

I want to turn to the scores of written submissions that the committee received and to consider four or so of them that were at the top of the pile. The Rowett Research Institute said that because of the severe downturn in traditional agriculture, rural employment has moved from very low paid, but reasonably secure employment in agriculture, to a situation of wholesale redundancies and very short-term rural employment that is part-time, seasonal and poorly paid—for example, in tourism. It goes on to say that many rural residents have two or three part-time jobs just to maintain basic family budgets. The ministers talk about everything being rosy in rural Scotland because there are areas of low unemployment. I ask them to bear in mind the nature of the employment that there is.

Peebles Hotel Hydro told the committee that it was having to hire staff from overseas because of a feeling here that wages in the industry are poor and a difficulty to do with split shifts. It said that there was a lack of accommodation in villages around Scotland for incoming workers and a lack of skills among the work force in rural Scotland for certain positions—for chefs in particular.

The Scottish Wildlife Trust pointed out that it is extremely concerned about the current economic plight of our primary industries. Perth and Kinross Council, on the subject of social services, said that rural areas had fared worse than urban areas because of the difficulties in recruiting care workers in rural communities. Shelter Scotland spoke of the appalling housing problems in our rural communities. The picture is not as rosy as ministers would have us believe.

An extremely worrying remark by the Executive was that it was not surprising that

"Rural Scotland has not benefited from the key growth areas in the economy."

That somehow suggests that rural Scotland is not suitable for the key growth areas in the economy. Our report highlighted the fact that we must address that. We believe that rural Scotland could be appropriate for the growth economy. The minister is telling us that, although traditional industries are declining, the new industries belong to the urban communities. Where does that leave rural Scotland in the 21st century?

It is a pity that Wendy Alexander is not here. The minister who will respond to the debate has very few powers over many of the issues referred to in the report. It would have helped if ministers from across the Executive had come here today to speak about the report.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I hope that Richard Lochhead is not suggesting that, within an Executive, it is not possible to have ministers who can act in a cross-cutting way for the benefit of rural Scotland. Ministers in the Cabinet have a collective responsibility and are perfectly capable of articulating interests on all matters that affect rural Scotland.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister mentions cross-cutting. The cross-cutting Cabinet is very enigmatic. No one knows when it meets or what it does. In the chamber, we have never heard about how it is working to help rural Scotland.

In last week's debate on skills in Scotland, Wendy Alexander did not mention rural Scotland once in her opening speech. Back in February, we had a debate on "A Smart Successful Scotland". Again, the minister did not address any of the concerns of rural Scotland, as if it was not supposed to be part of smart, successful Scotland. We must start talking about information and communications technology inclusion, and not just social inclusion. We must ensure that rural Scotland benefits from new technologies and is as digitally switched on as urban Scotland. Broadband and telecommunications are two issues raised in the report that the Government must address in relation to rural Scotland. If it does not address those issues, our rural communities will be uncompetitive in the 21st century economy.

I will turn briefly to the soft measures promoted in the report. We must build up confidence in rural communities. It is not enough to supply premises and grants to help get companies off the ground—we must tackle social exclusion and build confidence.

I also want to raise the issue of the social remit for Scottish Enterprise, which was rejected by the Government. Why can the Executive not accept that recommendation? The report made it clear that Scottish Enterprise does not take on board rural concerns as much as Highlands and Islands Enterprise does.

The Executive must not alienate our rural communities. It has already alienated the fishing community. Only this week it has become clear that the Executive has refused to hold an independent inquiry into the salmon farming industry. I urge ministers to take a leaf out of the committee's book: hold public meetings around the country and speak directly to our communities. If ministers take that approach, they might be able to take off their rose-tinted glasses, see what is really happening in rural Scotland and do something about it.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As a member of the Rural Affairs Committee—as it was when we began the inquiry—I would like to join members in thanking everyone who helped us to draw up the report.

As everyone realises, since the report was published the situation in rural Scotland has changed beyond recognition, most dramatically in the south-west. On its publication, the report painted a fairly gloomy picture; that gloom has turned into an outright crisis from which it will take many years to recover.

The last eight or nine weeks have highlighted the precarious and interdependent nature of our rural communities. Let us make no mistake—many of those rural communities are under genuine threat. The report highlights the facts. Employment in many rural sectors is in decline. The traditional rural industries of farming, fishing and forestry face particular challenges. Transport costs are almost unbearable given the low-wage economy in rural Scotland and—most worrying of all—rural poverty is on the increase. For those reasons and many others, many of our communities are under threat. We must ask ourselves if and why that matters.

Those communities are as diverse as the countryside in which they exist. One of the things that struck me most about the two fact-finding visits that the committee undertook—one was to Newtown St Boswells and the other to Newton Stewart—was that one could not have come across a more stark example of differing social, physical and mental attitudes to what are, in essence, the same problems.

Those communities matter—not just because they look pretty and attract tourists, but because they are a vital part of Scotland's social make up. Such communities foster and preserve some of our most precious and, in some cases, almost forgotten traditions, such as language and the arts. If those communities are allowed to decline further, our country is in danger of losing something that cannot be replaced. That is why the Executive must work to help private and smaller projects, such as the Museum of Lead Mining at Wanlockhead, as well as the better- known and bigger national institutions. We owe it to the future to ensure that we preserve the past.

However, that approach must go hand in hand with modernising the rural economy. If not, the whole of rural Scotland will simply become one huge museum. We must determine the best way to revitalise the rural economy and create jobs. We will not do that by throwing more money at the problem through the enterprise network—I am sure that the minister will be pleased to hear me say that. We must reconsider the way in which the local enterprise companies and Scottish Enterprise operate to benefit rural Scotland. We must reconsider how the Scottish Tourist Board—or visitscotland or whatever it will be called next week—operates to benefit rural Scotland. Most important, we must take a long hard look at whether the current planning regulations best serve rural Scotland.

We must improve the road infrastructure. One of the most quoted phrases in the Parliament is that, in rural Scotland, the motor car is not a luxury, but a necessity. That is absolutely correct and must be recognised by the Executive with a genuine effort to examine and address the problem of fuel prices. That subject was hailed as the No 1 hurdle in the path to rural prosperity at every public meeting we held and by almost everyone who gave evidence.

We must improve access to information technology. I am sure that every member who represents a rural area will have tales to tell of businesses that have not become established because of the lack of access to up-to-date technology. I would be amazed if my colleague, David Mundell, did not address that point when he sums up the debate.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the report as a genuine effort to establish a starting point from which to begin the regeneration of our rural economy—a phrase that has become all the more poignant in recent weeks. Sadly, it is typical of the Executive to see the report as negative and unhelpful. I would expect nothing less of an Executive that has fully lived up to the expectations of much of rural Scotland—it is an urban-based Administration with little understanding of how rural Scotland works. Perhaps if the Executive were to take the report more seriously, it might begin to correct that image.

The Scottish Conservatives support the motion.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I beg the indulgence of both the committee convener and the Parliament, as I shall focus much of my speech on a specific constituency issue—the 161 jobs that have been lost in Campbeltown. Much of the content of the report is relevant to that situation and I hope that members will allow me to highlight the key issues faced by the people of Campbeltown.

Before the announcement about job losses was made, Campbeltown had an unemployment rate of 7.5 per cent—well above the average for the Highlands and Islands Enterprise area. The major employers—farming, fishing and forestry—are all under pressure. The Rural Development Committee report identified that as a key issue in rural areas and it is also a key issue in Campbeltown.

Last week's announcement of the closure of the Jaeger factory, which resulted in the loss of 161 jobs, was a body blow to an already depressed area. To give members an understanding of how great a blow it was, I will tell them that it means that nearly 7.5 per cent of Campbeltown's working population have lost their jobs in one fell swoop. It is a human tragedy. Not only are 161 people losing their jobs, but many of those jobs are held in families—the mother, father and some of the children might all be employed in the factory. It is not just the breadwinner's job that has been lost, but the whole family's income.

The factory provided jobs for young people, which are extremely difficult to find throughout the Highlands and Islands. One of the great problems that much of rural Scotland faces—it is not true only of the Highlands and Islands—is that young people leave and older people come back to retire. The great danger is that rural Scotland will end up with a gigantic retired community. That is a worry for many of us. The loss of the Jaeger jobs is a loss of opportunity for young people.

It is through no fault of the work force that it has been made redundant. The workers have done everything that management has asked of them: flexible working; retraining; team working; reduced managers and just-in-time responses to orders. The public agencies have played their part—£296,000 has been pumped in over the last few years to try to keep the factory going. More money was available—the total amount available to the company was £550,000—although it has not been drawn down. However, that was not enough and the matter has ended in tragedy. Why? Because in Morocco, which is where production has been shifted, wage costs are 25 per cent of those in Campbeltown.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I agree with what Mr Lyon has said about the closure of the Jaeger factory in Campbeltown. Would he agree that it is now all the more important to make progress on the possibility of establishing a wind turbine manufacturing plant in Machrihanish?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am coming to that.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Will the member allow an intervention on the same point?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Very briefly, because I am about to address the issue.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I agree with what Mr Lyon has said about the body blow to our rural communities. It may not grab front-page headlines in our national press, but we are well aware of the realities. From what I heard this morning, I understand that a package is being worked out with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and that the minister with responsibility for the Highlands is in Campbeltown today. Does George Lyon have any information that he can share with us on that issue?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I will come to that.

I argue that the impact on Campbeltown is greater than that of the Motorola closure on Bathgate. Why? Because in Bathgate, with help from agencies with retraining and reskilling, there are prospects of alternative employment. In Campbeltown, retraining and reskilling will have a limited impact, because there are no other potential employers in the area. Indeed, the nearest big town where there may be jobs is 50 miles away. That is why the key to solving the problem and giving hope to the work force of Jaeger is to find another inward investor. Without new inward investment, the population will decline once again. Families will be forced to move away, there will be fewer children in schools, less money in the local economy and more shops will shut. There will be a downward spiral in an already depressed area.

A lot of work has been done. A new customer contact centre has been built at a cost of £1 million. There must be a redoubling of effort to find an operator. Money has been offered to Landcatch to develop 14 new jobs in the old shipyard, with a fish hatchery. As Margaret Ewing and Jamie McGrigor mentioned, there is the potential development of a wind farm construction plant at Machrihanish. That development was announced in the media today, which I regret, because the deal has not been concluded. The media should not raise people's expectations before contracts are signed. The contract is close to being signed, but further work must be done.

The people of Campbeltown are looking for the Scottish Executive to apply to the Jaeger closure the same priority and effort that is being applied to the closure of the Motorola factory in Bathgate. I ask the Executive to redouble its efforts to turn the promises of prospective jobs into reality, to give people hope.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

We move to the open part of the debate.

Cathy Peattie (Labour, Falkirk East)

As Alex Johnstone said, the inquiry was important and provided an opportunity to find out what is happening in rural areas. The process of the inquiry, as he outlined, was also important. It provided the opportunity to meet local people and hear what they had to say. As Richard Lochhead indicated, meetings were well attended. People from different airts and pairts and with different interests came along and were happy to tell us what they thought should happen. The use of video links was equally important. Many of the issues that are highlighted in the report came from the communities with which we had such links and from the papers and questionnaires that we gathered. The report did not result from the committee closing doors and deciding what it wanted to include in the report; it came from what local people felt was important.

I will address one particular area. Committee members will not be surprised to hear that it is bottom-up approaches and community development. We cannot seriously examine issues relating to poverty, unemployment and education in rural areas if we do not start by examining what there is on the ground. Top-down solutions do not work, nor do economic strategies that take little notice of what is happening on the ground.

It was clear in the areas that we visited and heard from that the most successful projects were those that involved partnerships among local people, local authorities and local enterprise companies, because they could identify what was needed in the areas in which they worked. It is vital that partnerships are real. There is much in the report about the value of local participation that works. Such participation should be developed. Communities should have an increased share of economic development budgets, which should be devoted to communities and people and take on board softer measures. Social capital is important. Social economic objectives have to be adhered to.

We heard from councils for voluntary service, which work in partnership with a host of organisations at local level to deliver in areas such as housing. We heard about the new deal and its flexibility in working with the voluntary sector, community development, economic development, care of the elderly, social care, community transport, education, training and much more. So much can be delivered by working in partnership if all partners are on board, for example the excellent service provided by post buses, which provide important links in communities.

It is clear from the evidence that we gathered that when a partnership approach is developed, it works. I agree that HIE played an important role in taking on board the social aspect, which is vital when addressing social care and community development, but HIE recognises that it cannot address such issues on its own; it can deliver only through working with local people, organisations, businesses and communities. HIE is involved not because it has a social ideal, but because it recognises the value and skills of local folk.

We need to get back to building on and supporting local communities, which are the real stakeholders in Scotland. If we want to change how things work, we must get away from top-down delivery and listen to local people. I would like the Minister for Environment and Rural Development to read the report, because there is a lot in it and it is a good starting point. It is important to listen to and value what local people have to say and to find ways in which they can participate in changing their communities.

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

I will address one or two issues, the first of which is transport and the cost of petrol. I do not want to give the usual, although totally justified, rant about petrol costs, but—as other members have alluded to—the one concern that audiences raised spontaneously at meetings we attended in various places was the price of petrol in their communities. It came as no surprise to members of the Rural Development Committee when, later in the year, the petrol protests got so much support from the general public.

My constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has one of the highest car-ownership levels in Scotland, yet one of the lowest per capita incomes. People are relatively worse off. Families have to have one or two cars to get to work, because family members must work, as wages are low and jobs are never at the same time or in the same place.

Often, bus services are inadequate. Recently, a factory closed in Dalbeattie. We had a public meeting and one young lad who had been laid off and was having difficulty getting work complained that although he had managed to get a job in Dumfries—the nearest town, which is 10 miles away—it started at half-past 7 in the morning and the first bus in the morning did not get him to Dumfries until 10 minutes to 8.

It is right that the Rural Development Committee should talk about the need for innovative solutions and about assisting public transport needs—Dumfries and Galloway Council already subsidises public transport substantially—due to the volumes and distances involved, but public transport will never be the answer in all cases. Therefore, we must address the relatively high cost of car ownership in our rural areas. If people cannot get to work, they have a choice: they can move. Increasingly, that is what is happening in rural areas. We have a declining younger population and an increasing elderly population, with many knock-on effects for social service expenditure and council revenues.

The second issue is telecommunications. We want new industries in our rural areas. We want e-industries. There are many people who would love to work in rural areas because of the high quality of life. With modern telecommunications, the playing field for remote areas and areas close to urban centres could be levelled, but that is not happening. If anything, the disparities are growing, because nearly all investment in broadband technology is in our central belt and the main population centres. Market forces are working against rural areas.

If the Government makes a commitment to broadband, it has two choices. First, as the Rural Development Committee suggests, it could place a public service obligation on telecoms companies to provide broadband services to rural areas. After all, the companies were prepared to shell out, perhaps ill-advisedly, huge sums of money on third-generation mobile phone licences, so perhaps they should, as a quid pro quo, put some money into broadband technology. The other option is to provide subsidies. If rural areas are not to fall behind, modern telecommunications technology—the 21st century equivalent of roads and railways, which we could do with too, by the way—must be put into our rural areas.

I have time left to touch only on the flow of funding into rural areas. In Dumfries and Galloway—I presume that the situation is the same in other areas—most funding comes from the common agricultural policy. That will be examined in the aftermath of foot-and-mouth, but there are big problems with renegotiating anything through the European Union. Farmers say that they are in a worse crisis now than they were 10 or 15 years ago, despite the vast amounts of agricultural subsidy that have been provided. Has any other policy put so much money into areas over such a long time and achieved so little? We must study the system and consider how we can use the money for rural areas more imaginatively, to allow everyone to benefit from it, including those who work in forms of agriculture that do not benefit from the CAP because of its curious structures.

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

I welcome the debate. The Rural Development Committee's report gave us valuable food for thought.

My first point arises from a communication I received from Midlothian Council. We must be careful when we speak of rural Scotland and our definition of rurality. Penicuik is in my constituency, and Midlothian Council told me—I think that it was in a communication about the Arbuthnott formula, but I am not sure—that it felt aggrieved when Midlothian was not included in the list of rural areas. Much farmland and many recreational areas and small communities are within Midlothian Council's boundary. Some people might quarrel with our broad definition of rural Scotland.

Everyone recognises the Borders as a rural area. It contains towns and settlements that were based on traditional industry, which put factories and mills at the heart of the community. The transitional nature of the economy of those areas and agriculture have allowed the Borders to access European funding.

However we define rurality, we must ensure that our understanding of its problems is based on better statistics and criteria and that funding formulae produce fair results for rural areas. It is no use basing a measure of prosperity on cars when even the least prosperous people need cars to access employment and facilities, as Alasdair Morgan said. As he also said, raw unemployment figures can disguise the fact that people leave an area because it has no jobs or only part-time and poorly paid jobs. We need better statistics and better interpretation of them.

I will give an example that shows why fair funding formulae are important. Last week, we debated education and training. I draw ministers' attention to the position of Borders College. Last week, it was announced that further education colleges are to receive average increases in funding of more than 12 per cent. Borders College is to receive 0.7 per cent. Even that figure is based on targets for growth that the college believes it can scarcely achieve with the limited pool of people in its area. I say to ministers that we cannot allow colleges in rural areas to lose out if we want to sustain the objectives of which we spoke last week and speak today.

The public sector is important to the rural economy. The biggest employers in rural Scotland are health, education and council services. The jobs are important not only for their volume but for the varying levels of skill and professionalism that they give employees opportunities to use. The jobs also provide an infrastructure for communities and help to keep communities viable. For those reasons, we must do everything possible to protect local hospitals, rural schools and rural post offices. They are important for communities, job opportunities and a sustainable future in rural Scotland. Cathy Peattie talked about the importance of the voluntary sector. It gets into all corners of rural Scotland, as well as urban areas, and we must help it.

As I am speaking about the importance of public sector jobs, I take the opportunity to renew a plea to the Executive to make progress with its promised dispersal of public service jobs. We face the restructuring of agriculture and textiles, the volatility of the electronics industry and problems in tourism—at least partly from the consequences of the foot-and-mouth outbreak—so it would be a wonderful boost to the economy of the Scottish Borders if Government jobs, in the shape of a public agency, were relocated in the central Borders. I ask the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to encourage her colleagues to give that urgent consideration.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It should not take a tragedy for us to take an issue seriously. It should not take an accident for us to realise that something is unsafe. The inquiry into rural communities was being conducted before the foot-and-mouth crisis began, but in the wake of that crisis, it seems much more important to address the issues that the committee's report highlights and to allow our rural communities to play a full part in Scotland's economic and social structures.

I represent the Highlands and Islands; I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate because, contrary to the Executive's opinion, people in the Highlands and Islands are suffering greatly and were suffering before the foot-and-mouth crisis began. We all knew that, but now we have more evidence of it.

In recent weeks, the plight of people in rural communities has been highlighted repeatedly. We have all seen the news, heard from those who have been affected and read the papers. Members who represent rural constituencies have seen at first hand the devastation that the foot-and-mouth outbreak has caused throughout already precarious regions. Everyone's awareness of rural communities has been raised. We can just switch off the television, but rural communities must somehow pick up the pieces and keep going on increasingly lower incomes.

Now that the somewhat alarming reports are calming down a bit, it is easy to forget that people in rural areas are still suffering under the burdens that they had before—only now those burdens are much heavier. Mr Finnie's insinuation that the Rural Development Committee was overreacting was deeply patronising and betrayed his inability to grasp the situation in our rural areas. Some hope we have of improving the situation, when we have a Minister for Environment and Rural Development who dismisses fact and concern as conjecture and overreaction. It is interesting that the much heralded values of social justice and social inclusion are applied only to housing or drug abuse.

Perhaps we have missed the point. Perhaps the Executive has, secretly and without anyone realising, helped our rural communities to overcome their difficulties. It is not like the Executive to keep anything quiet, but perhaps we have overlooked the great work that it has done and we are being unfair. Nonetheless, farm incomes this year are at their lowest for 60 years. In the past three years, farm incomes have halved and halved again. After the present crisis, agricultural businesses may not survive. Employment in most rural sectors is in decline, as are agriculture, forestry and fishing. Manufacturing employment has also declined—the latest example is Jaeger's closure in Campbeltown, which George Lyon talked about. Instead of taking action to improve matters, the Executive has started consultation on a bill on land reform, which will solve none of the problems that rural areas face and will introduce new problems that will cause conflict and even more hardship.

Transport costs are not only the biggest barrier to economic prosperity, but the factor that rural people worry about most. Access to training and education involves difficulties. The range of employment opportunities is limited and there are mismatches between jobs and skills. A lack of affordable housing hinders labour mobility. Why trap single parents and families on low incomes in rural housing that is miles away from the centres where they might find jobs? The high cost of transport is making it increasingly difficult for those who live in rural communities to remain there and for those who want to visit to get there. Tourism is vital in such communities. If people cannot get there, they cannot spend money. If there is no economic base, the communities will collapse.

The bedrock of rural communities is traditional rural industry—agriculture, fishing and forestry. Yet the Executive has failed to provide a level playing field on which those sectors can thrive. If we do nothing else, we must destroy the barriers that hinder rural prosperity. If EU directives are making matters worse, surely we have the right to expect our Government to stand up and say so.

The Executive may have listened to the concerns of our rural communities, but it has singularly failed to act on the advice that it has received. In every instance, it has resolutely refused to alter its own previously decided course of action. The report proves that there is much to be done and much that can be done to help rural communities. The key must be to help rural communities to help themselves. We must not put more hurdles in their path. The Scottish Executive believes that the way to get over those hurdles is by financial support. That is fine, but let us destroy the hurdles and let the rural communities thrive.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

During the inquiry, the Rural Development Committee travelled to all areas of Scotland. Irene McGugan, Cathy Peattie and I held a meeting in my constituency at Laurencekirk in the Mearns. As Richard Lochhead pointed out, our meetings were extremely well attended and enabled us to listen to people's concerns. During our investigations, the committee also listened to expert opinion. We took the views of the ordinary people out there in rural Scotland and of the experts.

The purpose of the inquiry was to make a contribution to understanding how joined-up government can be made to work for Scotland's rural communities. I think that the report is good, although members may say that I am bound to say so, being a member of the Rural Development Committee. I also think that the ministers in the Scottish Executive rural affairs department are doing an excellent job for rural Scotland. However, I was extremely disappointed by the Executive's reaction to the committee's report, which seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the report. Alex Johnstone, in his role as committee convener, apologised to ministers if it seemed that the committee's report was critical of the Executive's actions. That was not its purpose.

I am not happy with two issues that arise from the Executive's response to the constructive and positive suggestions that were made in the report—suggestions that were made unanimously by committee members. The first is the economic remit of Scottish Enterprise. If I were fortunate enough to live across the Cairngorms in Fergus Ewing's Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber constituency, I would be able to tap into Highlands and Islands Enterprise funding for community projects, which has a social remit. I cannot do so for my constituents who live on the other side of the Cairngorms. In evidence given to the committee by experts from Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, it was made clear that the social remit should be expanded in rural Scotland. That was also clear from discussions with people in our constituencies.

I am astounded at the reaction of the Executive, which says in its response that

"the existing powers of SEn are sufficiently broad to address the challenges in rural areas".

I ask ministers to find the civil servant who wrote that for them, as that civil servant needs to be spoken to. I am also critical of the minister who signed off that particular statement. The ministers have rejected the suggested approach, but from all the evidence that was presented to the Rural Development Committee, their decision is wrong. I would have liked to see Wendy Alexander in the chamber today to address that issue.

The second issue is the need for assistance to encourage exit from and new entry to the farming industry. As part of the rural development plan, we need an innovative early retirement scheme for tenant farmers. For the Executive to say in its response that it has not ruled such a scheme out is hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposal. I hope that the minister will look at the decision again, particularly as we all know what a difficult time farmers, and especially tenant farmers, in rural Scotland are facing.

There are many other things that I would like to raise, but time is running out. Overall, I think that the ministers are doing an excellent job. I hope that my criticism of the two issues I have highlighted has a higher resonance because of that.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The point needs to be stressed that the committee's report was drawn up as an academic assessment of the needs of rural communities and of the barriers that they face. The report's aim was to provide information for decision makers at every level—the Executive, local councils, enterprise companies, businesses and the committee. At no point was the report meant to be seen as a criticism of the Executive's work, as the motion makes clear. The Executive's response shows that the issues that concern the Rural Development Committee also cause the Executive concern and the Executive is working to address them.

Creating employment in rural areas and thereby defeating poverty is difficult. There is no one solution; rural Scotland is diverse. An example of the difficulty can be found in my constituency. The community in the Kintyre peninsula, which George Lyon also spoke about, suffered an economic downturn when the Royal Air Force base was closed. The people also lost their links with Northern Ireland and now face the closure of the Jaeger factory. Some years ago, a working group was set up to address the downturn in the local economy. The Kintyre initiative working group brings together agencies involved in development as well as organisations from the voluntary sector. I and my colleague, Maureen Macmillan, have made it a priority to attend the working group's meetings.

The closure of the Jaeger factory will lead to huge job losses in an area where there are few alternatives. The working group has never given up. This morning, it met Alasdair Morrison to seek his assistance to find solutions. I am really pleased that Alasdair Morrison responded so quickly to the request that he meet the group, which came from me, Maureen Macmillan and Peter Peacock. I am glad that the meeting has now taken place.

We all know that there are options in the pipeline, which need to be progressed quickly. This morning, we heard on the news that a major investment is to go ahead. I understand that some fine details are to be tied up, but I hope that that can be done in the next few days and that 150 new jobs will be created in the area. A huge amount of work has gone into attracting such investment to the area, which underlines the fact that solutions are hard to find.

If anywhere should be a magnet for inward investment, Campbeltown should. Although its geographical location gives it the same disadvantage as the islands, its air and sea links are good. Its work force is stable and multiskilled. There is a strong sense of community and people work together for the greater good. Financial support from the Government is not an issue. The local enterprise company has said that its current projects have the support that they require and that it foresees no problem in obtaining more support, should suitable projects be identified.

We need to show companies the benefits of locating in rural areas. We also need diverse industries in rural areas so that a downturn in one industry does not affect large sections of the community. As Cathy Peattie said, the Rural Development Committee's report recognises the advantages of bottom-up initiatives, which allow communities to look for local solutions. That is what happens in Kintyre. We need to support such participation in rural areas and ensure that communities themselves can find solutions.

Many of the solutions that are proposed by the people and agencies in Kintyre are not small projects. They are not afraid to think big and to use the assets around them to provide jobs and investment in the area. We need to convince all rural communities to follow that example and to support them when they do.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Comments have been made about the Executive's response to the Rural Development Committee's report and recommendations. At Westminster—as members who have served there know well—Governments produce responses to select committee reports all the time. They agree with X and disagree with Y and no one is terribly surprised; such is the nature of the debate. Rather than pick up on the Executive's response, I will concentrate on what needs to be done for the future and which areas need to be challenged and taken forward—issues that many members brought out well.

The Rural Development Committee is to be congratulated on its findings, which, in many areas, challenge the Executive. One of the key recommendations concerns the production and collation of statistical information about poverty and deprivation levels across Scotland.

Ian Jenkins made a good point about how we define rural Scotland—it is too easy to say that such-and-such an area is in rural Scotland. There is a quantum leap between, for example, Alasdair Morgan's part of Scotland and my constituency of Shetland or the areas around Edinburgh that call themselves rural. It would be helpful at times to consider the different spheres that rural Scotland covers.

Richard Lochhead made a fair point about the fragility of the economies in many of our rural areas and the decline in traditional industries. An important point is that many of our traditional industries are hidebound by regulation. As a crofter put it to me at my surgery on Saturday, his croft is defined as an area of land surrounded by law. Many of us would agree that much could be done in both agriculture and fishing to reduce the regulatory burdens. That is why I welcome the red tape review that the rural affairs department has introduced. I hope that it will make significant changes, but more could be done, for example in the fishing industry.

Many members, including Alasdair Morgan, who made his point eloquently, were right about transport. I will not rehearse the arguments about petrol prices, but I hope that when the Executive considers the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's recent report on rural petrol prices, it will produce a solid analysis of the recommendations and that we will have the opportunity to debate the matter in the chamber.

I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland is pushing for an increase in direct flights to Europe from Scotland. That is a laudable aim, but I hope that politicians in the Scotland Office will also concentrate on the need for internal flights, for example between Inverness and Heathrow, and on the cost of flights in Scotland. As I—or rather taxpayers—well know, the cost of flying members from Inverness or Shetland to Edinburgh is extremely high. Members of the Rural Development Committee who have been to outlying areas such as Stornoway know that too. I hope that the Executive works hard on those issues with the carriers concerned.

Many members made the point well about telecommunications. The recommendations of the report are helpful in emphasising that issue. A similar argument to the one about the electronics industry that we have witnessed in the past few weeks applies to call centres. It is said by many in the call centre industry that, as telecommunications move forward and different forms of technology—web-enabled activities—develop, the call centre as we understand it will have to evolve or it will not continue. Those who see call centres as having a great future must consider how that activity can develop, given the way in which the world is changing—it is certainly not standing still.

Many correct points were made on the importance of skills and the skills shortage, not only in urban but in rural and remote Scotland. Ian Jenkins made a good point about further education colleges and the limited number of people who are available to fulfil their needs.

I conclude with a point about joined-up government. I was asked in a former life to consider joined-up government between enterprise and rural development. It would not be offensive in any way for the Executive seriously to consider that. We need joined-up government between Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for the simple reason that the social agenda that many members, and the committee report, have highlighted is important. Joined-up government can deliver that agenda.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Many issues have been raised this morning—I intend to consider only a few of them.

I start by saying that the tone of the Executive's response was unhelpful. The Rural Development Committee's inquiry and its report are important and a good starting point.

As Richard Lochhead, Mike Rumbles and Tavish Scott have mentioned, there is considerable confusion about the roles of the Minister for Environment and Rural Development. The position has been renamed, but we have never understood the meaning of that renaming. It is difficult for members to know on a practical basis what is happening.

There is a similar problem with the enterprise and lifelong learning department. I asked a question last week about funding. I expected Wendy Alexander, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, to answer and up bobbed Mr Finnie. He responded admirably to the question, but I am not clear about what is now happening in the south-west of Scotland and in the Borders to help those areas recover from the foot-and-mouth outbreak. I want to know who is running the show and where individual responsibilities begin and end. Yesterday, South of Scotland members had a helpful meeting with the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, but the conclusion of that meeting was that she would have to speak to Mr Finnie. We hope to have a meeting with Mr Finnie this afternoon, and I hope that the response to that meeting will not be that he will have to speak to Ms Alexander.

We must have greater clarity about rural development, because many of the issues are cross-cutting issues. I am hopeful that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's work on a significant report on the new economy will have a fundamental impact on rural development. As Tavish Scott said, there is a need to bring a joined-up approach to the rural economy. I certainly feel strongly that, when it comes to telecommunications developments and the changes that need to take place to enable our rural areas to benefit from information technology, we need clear leadership to drive those changes through. We therefore need to identify who will do that.

IT offers many opportunities in our rural areas. Many are often talked about, but few have been realised. I was struck by evidence given to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee about people's ability to work from rural locations. For example, we got no satisfactory answer as to why the Bank of Scotland is not drawing on the pool of skills that exist in places such as Stranraer, Duns and Lerwick to work for head office operations here in Edinburgh, while at the same time it is recruiting part-time and agency staff. We have not fundamentally addressed why that great opportunity to use the skills of our people around rural Scotland has not been seized. The other thing that we do not do effectively is measure the social impact of information technology on our rural communities.

As many members have said, there is a need to retain a balanced and vibrant society in rural areas. I very much welcome retired people who come to rural Scotland from elsewhere or who move into rural Scotland, but we must have a balance of people. It is worrying that the South of Scotland has the lowest proportion of people aged between 15 and 24 of any part of the UK. That is a worrying prospect for the future and for the vibrancy of rural Scotland. We must continue to make rural Scotland not only diverse but vibrant. To do that, we need clear leadership from the Executive and a clear identification of where it is going.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It was at its second meeting, on 29 June 1999, with 38 possible topics identified, that the Rural Affairs Committee agreed that the first priority for investigation was employment, housing and poverty. In the face of the undoubted crises facing every sector of the traditional industries of farming, fishing and forestry, that was a significant and imaginative decision. It was also an acknowledgement that a strategic, cross-cutting and forward-looking approach was needed to address the changes impacting on rural Scotland.

The main conclusion of this detailed and well-researched piece of work is that the combination of poverty and the decline of the traditional industries is threatening the sustainability of rural life. Let us not underestimate the gravity of that statement. The 21 recommendations for action are aimed at eliminating poverty and encouraging regeneration in all Scotland's communities. I am therefore disappointed that the Executive has displayed little enthusiasm for some of the recommendations, and I commend them again to the Executive for urgent consideration and implementation. The report is an accurate reflection of the situation as we found it in rural Scotland.

The intention was not to pass comment on the Executive's performance, good, bad or indifferent. Our remit included consideration of

"the effectiveness of current policy responses."

I accept that the findings might be uncomfortable for ministers. The fact is that transport was the single issue about which concern was most frequently expressed; it was the only common factor at every consultation meeting. Members have heard many examples of its impact.

A straw poll was taken at the Dingwall meeting, which established that every person who attended the meeting had come by car, because there was no suitable public transport. Despite the measures that the Executive has taken to address the issue—I accept that it has taken some—and despite the many times that fuel prices and the high cost and general lack of public transport have been raised in the chamber, ministers have still not properly and adequately taken on board the impact of those matters on the lives of rural residents.

Rural poverty is widespread in Scotland, for reasons that have been highlighted in the debate. It is still the case—I have been saying this since the establishment of the Parliament—that we urgently need to develop systems for the identification and measurement of rural deprivation. That would be vital information for ensuring fair and equitable allocations of funding and effective targeting of scarce resources. The Executive gave a commitment to a much-needed index of rural deprivation following the publication of "Rural Scotland: A New Approach", but that was a year ago, in May 2000, and we have heard nothing on it from the rural poverty and inclusion working group.

Rural areas are under-represented in all the key growth areas in the economy. Even the performance of the sectors mentioned positively by the Executive, such as the food sector and tourism, has been disappointing. Since 1991, food processing employment has fallen by 9 per cent in rural Scotland. Employment in hotels and restaurants has fallen by 10 per cent, yet tourism was reported as one of Scotland's growth industries by the Scottish Tourist Board, as it was then, in evidence to the committee.

It is a welcome and long-overdue development that local enterprise companies have now made a commitment to rural employment. It is important that that new commitment by Scottish Enterprise is supported by a strong team at its headquarters, because the committee noted that Scottish Enterprise chose to send no one from its HQ to give evidence to the committee, in contrast to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Neither was it able to supply data for the rural areas that are within its remit.

The focus of the report and the debate is on rural Scotland's economic future, but I am pleased about and very supportive of the recommendation on an increased focus on soft economic measures, which was outlined by Cathy Peattie. Social accounting is important. Such initiatives foster a sense of community and ownership of enterprises and developments and will ultimately contribute to the sustainability of rural life.

Those findings and the report form a vital baseline for the committee's future work. We hope that they will have a wider benefit in taking forward, at the highest level, the crucial debate on rural Scotland's economic future.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am grateful that we have this opportunity to discuss the committee's "Report on the Impact of Changing Employment Patterns in Rural Scotland".

I was interested to hear about the consultation meeting that the committee held in Dingwall. Had it taken place a few years ago, I might have participated in it, as I lived in the Dingwall area for several years.

The Executive is dedicated to supporting and enhancing rural life, rural communities and the rural economy. The subject of the report is therefore especially relevant to the work that is being done to deliver that commitment. While I welcome the report, we had some initial concerns about its focus and coverage. As has been mentioned, we were disappointed by the lack of recognition given to the work that the Executive and others are taking forward. I accept Alex Johnstone's statement that that was not the intention. I am pleased, however, that today's debate has been used to discuss several difficult issues that we face.

I will mention at the outset what has been happening in Campbeltown. The debate is timely, because of the announcement from Jaeger about the loss of jobs there. We recognise that the number of jobs being lost will have a huge impact on such a small community. As we have heard, Alasdair Morrison met the Kintyre initiative working group to discuss the impact of the Jaeger closure and how the Executive could help with the broader issues facing the Kintyre economy. Our top priority is to create new employment opportunities, and the Executive and Argyll and the Islands Enterprise are already in discussion with a number of companies about various promising possibilities. The Kintyre peninsula is eligible for investment support at the maximum permitted rate and we will continue to promote the area vigorously as an attractive location for new investment.

We must be very cautious about the possibility of an inward investment project by Vestas Wind Systems, which has been reported in the press. Matters still have to be resolved. If the investment happens, it will be excellent news for the Kintyre economy and rural Scotland, particularly at a time when the local economy is being very hard hit. It should also prove excellent news for the Scottish renewables sector, as it will bring a major manufacturer to the country, and indeed endorses the Executive's policy to promote renewable energy. However, I must urge caution at this stage, because no final decisions have been taken.

I emphatically deny the suggestion that the Executive's response paints a totally rosy picture of rural Scotland. Actually, the media coverage at the time of the report's publication at the end of January and, in some cases, the report itself paint an unnecessarily bleak picture of our rural areas. Given what is happening in Dumfriesshire, the Borders and Argyll and the impact of foot-and-mouth on the whole of Scotland, I would certainly be the last to say that we do not face major challenges. However, we cannot afford to talk down the expectations and aspirations of rural communities. Jamie McGrigor was particularly guilty of doing so.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I will give way to the member later; I want to get into my speech.

As the Executive response stressed, even against that background, rural Scotland is a dynamic area; it is not a single entity and there is considerable variation within the area. In the past, it has consistently enjoyed unemployment rates below the Scottish average, population growth, and underlying employment strength. Although that does not apply to all parts of rural Scotland, it applies to some, and we must be careful about generalising.

Although foot-and-mouth has presented real difficulties, I am confident in the ability of rural businesses and communities to respond, and the Executive is absolutely committed to supporting the recovery process.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Although I accept what the minister says about talking the situation up or down, does she accept that—as Irene McGugan pointed out—the report's truth lies in its reflection of the situation that we found on the ground and at the public meetings we attended?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I accept that the committee conducted a detailed consultation to produce its report. However, I re-emphasise that it is very difficult to make generalisations based on a number of meetings.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

No—I want to finish my point. We must recognise that there is considerable variation throughout rural Scotland.

I must carry on now; I am aware that I have been asked to finish as quickly as possible.

I take this opportunity today to highlight three broad areas where the Executive is undertaking important work that will play—and indeed is already playing—a vital role in supporting employment and the financial and social economies of rural Scotland: first, the enhancement of our statistical information base; secondly, the development and implementation of a series of initiatives and frameworks through which to tackle rural issues; and thirdly, the devotion and targeting of new resources to key areas. Those are not new priorities and reflect the commitment accorded by the Executive to rural areas since its creation.

I am pleased to say that the Executive response was able to report some common ground between the Executive and the committee. For example, we have been seeking to address the issue of data availability for some time. As "Rural Scotland: A New Approach" stressed, once we have acknowledged rural problems, we need to understand their nature before we can tackle them. Statistical information plays a vital role in the development of rural initiatives. In particular, the Executive has recognised the need for local data. I am sure that the committee will welcome the fact that we have work in hand to produce the data in the form required to allow us to monitor progress in rural performance. We have already announced funding of £7 million over the next three financial years to support the needed development of local data. That work is being carried out with the community and the voluntary sector, and I look forward to seeing the results.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am stunned, as the minister does not usually give way to me. I thank her for doing so. She says that no local data are available. How, then, did the Executive reach its decision that the rural picture is fairly positive overall? Exactly what criteria is she using to reach that conclusion? When she talks about low rates of unemployment, is not she, rather than the committee, guilty of generalising, given the fact that what employment there is in those areas is low-paid, seasonal and part-time work?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Let me correct Mr Lochhead. I did not say that the overall picture is rosy. What I said is that there are considerable variations and that we must be cautious about making generalisations.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The Executive response uses the word "overall".

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

No; I am sorry. I have to carry on.

We must be careful not to make generalisations, and we must ensure that there is better data collection to inform the decisions that we make and to enable us to monitor the progress that we are making. The committee will welcome that step, as it identified data collection as one of the key areas for action.

Our new approach has also been highlighted by last December's "Services in Rural Scotland" report. We commissioned the Scottish national rural partnership to produce that report to investigate innovative approaches to service delivery in rural areas and determine how those might be replicated in other areas. Additionally, the Executive is carrying out work on specific issues in a rural context. I expect the report of the rural poverty and inclusion working group to provide some useful recommendations on the way in which we might better address the needs of those who suffer poverty and social exclusion in our rural communities.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We do not understand why the Executive is not willing to extend a social remit to Scottish Enterprise, such as Highlands and Islands Enterprise has, so that it can address issues of social exclusion.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

This is the policy. I shall deal with that specific issue later.

Irene McGugan criticised the Executive for not releasing the report from the rural poverty and inclusion working group. She will understand that, recently, we have had to deal with some very difficult situations. The rural poverty and inclusion working group itself recommended that its work be suspended because of the work that was going on—in which departmental officials were involved—to deal with the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak.

The Executive has signalled that it is committed to ensuring that those who live in rural Scotland enjoy a high quality of life. We are already beginning to deliver on that commitment, as can be seen from the significant new resources that are being made available for rural schools, the health service in rural areas, rural transport and rural housing. Through the new deal for schools, we are supporting the provision of new and refurbished schools, and through the excellence fund, we are providing help for specialist schools. Further, our proposals for investment in broadband connections for schools will give rural and remote areas access to the best educational resources and support.

We are investing substantial resources in improving health services in rural Scotland. For the first time, the formula through which the NHS in Scotland is funded fully reflects the excess costs of delivering services in the less populated parts of the country. We are also providing support for a variety of new initiatives. For example, we have made £8 million available to establish a remote and rural areas resource initiative, to develop innovative ways of providing rural services. We are investing heavily in primary care services, and we recently announced that £18.5 million would be provided over three years, to allow trusts to employ GPs directly, thereby helping to ensure that a GP is present wherever one is needed. We have also provided capital totalling more than £12 million to build a new hospital for the Uists and Barra and to upgrade the existing general hospital in Orkney.

As the committee's report highlighted, transport is one of the key issues in rural Scotland. The early creation of the rural transport fund has brought new investment of over £14 million. Furthermore, the spending review for 2000 allocated an extra £60 million to enhance transport in the Highlands and Islands.

Rural housing will benefit from extra investment by Scottish Homes in rural areas. It is anticipated that that will result in the construction of about 1,650 new and improved homes for families in rural areas, mostly for social rent. In addition, £4 million will be devoted to rural local authorities through the rough sleepers initiative.

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

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am on my last minute.

We also share the committee's wish that those least able to participate in rural life be given the necessary help, and that investment include support for individuals and communities.

The benefits of the approaches to rural issues that I have outlined are now clear from the way in which we have reacted to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis, particularly our recognition that this is not solely a problem for the agriculture sector, but a problem for other people in rural areas and for sectors that rely on agriculture.

The architecture that we have put in place since devolution to address rural issues is currently facing the heat of battle. The ministerial committee for rural development has created a sub-group to draw together the Executive's response to foot-and-mouth disease and to put in place measures to help alleviate the worst effects of foot-and-mouth disease on individuals and businesses. Those measures fall within the remit of departments across the Executive and are the result of in-depth liaison and discussion with the UK Government and the private sector.

That approach is working well and builds upon our experience of treating rural development in a joined-up way. We are working closely with the enterprise networks—among others—in identifying imaginative and effective ways of providing short-term relief and long-term recovery. That builds on the way in which we have worked with Scottish Enterprise to make it aware of rural needs and priorities.

I do not want to sound blasé as this is not an easy time. However, our reaction to the current crisis for rural areas is built upon the work that we have been doing over the past two years and on the lessons that we have learnt over that period about the needs and aspirations of rural society and rural businesses.

I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to discuss the enhancement of rural life, rural communities and the rural economy and the work that the Executive and others are doing to promote rural economic development. The Executive is dedicated to helping the rural economy face the current challenges and maximise its potential. That will benefit not only rural areas but the rest of Scotland.

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

I am conscious that I am closing the debate as the deputy convener of the Rural Development Committee and that I joined the committee on 23 November 2000, when the vast majority of the work had already been completed. I am aware that I did not participate in all the meetings that were held around the country. With those caveats, I believe that the conclusions of the report merit serious consideration. Today's debate has contained a number of useful speeches, through which has run the common theme that the Executive must give more serious consideration than it has done so far to the serious body of work that has been produced on the subject.

Tavish Scott mentioned the need for the internal flight from London Heathrow to Inverness to be the subject of a public service obligation. That is a cause in which I am very interested. However, I do not know what the Executive's response to that suggestion might be. I wish that we could find that out.

The need for a social remit for the Scottish Enterprise network is demonstrable. The arguments against it in the Scottish Executive response that we have read do not stand up to examination. I hope that the issue will be revisited, as members of many parties have indicated that it should be.

The threats to the sustainability of rural life have been referred to by many members, including Irene McGugan, Alex Fergusson and Alex Johnstone, the convener of the Rural Development Committee. I agree with the vast majority of what has been said in that regard. I am not suggesting that the minister and the deputy minister have no regard for that matter—of course they do—but I am not persuaded that the report has been taken seriously enough.

I would not go as far as Mike Rumbles, who generally goes pretty far—

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Not far enough.

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

I was not speaking in terms of spatial distance.

Today, we heard from Mike Rumbles that he was astounded. I have heard Mike say that he is appalled, and that he is astonished—today he was astounded. I am looking forward to the day when he is merely mildly surprised. Although I agree with the spirit, if not the wording, of his expression of astonishment that the response to the committee report was less than positive, I found his adroit but swiftly executed U-turn, which showed him to have a tighter turning circle than a Hackney cab, less than impressive, and I say that from the point of view of criticising his contribution in a rational way. David Mundell's comment, that the tone of the response was unhelpful, was nearer the mark.

I will make two points of my own, which arise, I stress, from the committee's work. The starting point is that the Executive's response has misrepresented the fundamental conclusion that the committee reached. The committee did not conclude, as the Executive response purports it to do, that

"most rural employment is in decline".

The conclusion of the committee's work was:

"Employment in most rural sectors is in decline".

If the minister and deputy minister look at key finding 1 under the summary of key findings, they will see that it states that there have been some areas, such as the service sector, in which there has been growth, not a decline. However, the report goes on to spell out in great detail, in paragraphs 17, 19 and 20, that there has been a

"decline in employment in agriculture."

That was before the dreadful foot-and-mouth outbreak, which has obviously made the situation much worse. Employment in forestry has declined by 40 per cent, to 7,000, and, over the past 30 years, employment in agriculture has declined from around 68,000 or 70,000 to 32,000. I hope that no one is denying that the traditional sectors are in decline. What is unhelpful about the Executive's response is that it highlights the committee's having stated that all or

"most rural employment is in decline".

In fact, we did not say that. I do not think it helpful in a serious debate such as this if such a blatantly false representation is made in response to one of the longest, most serious reports that we have considered so far in the Parliament.

An even more serious matter, which relates to an issue highlighted by Alasdair Morgan and Tavish Scott, is the price of fuel. As members will know, that is a topic in which I take an occasional interest. I notice that the word fuel—perhaps because it contains four letters—is not one that the deputy minister chose to mention in her closing speech, but the committee did make recommendations on the matter. They were made by the committee on a collegiate basis, and therefore merit serious consideration. Recommendation R16 states

"that mechanisms be investigated for bulk-buying petrol in rural areas and passing on the discounts to petrol retailers and to customers".

What was the Executive response to that proposal?

"It has been suggested that the proposed Highlands and Islands Integrated Transport Authority might operate a bulk-purchasing scheme. The recently published report by Deloitte and Touche on their study into the setting up of a HIITA found little support for this."

I say to the minister that the reason why the HIITA

"found little support for this"

was that it was not asked to consider it. The remit of the HIITA is to

"Encourage the establishment of regional transport partnerships".

If members read further in Deloitte & Touche's report, for which, incidentally, it was paid more than £100,000—which, if I may use the John Farquhar Munro device of offering a personal view when speaking on behalf of the committee, is money down the drain—they will find that the specific aims of the study, although no doubt worthy, did not include anything to do with considering the bulk purchase of fuel.

Why, then, when a suggestion was made on a cross-party basis by the committee, that the matter should be investigated, did the Executive respond in what I can only describe as a disingenuous way? There is a word that one hears from time to time, called spin. That is slightly misleading. There is an old-fashioned word that is more accurate: obfuscation. That is what we have seen in the Executive's response.

As I approach the conclusion of the speech that I am making on behalf of the committee, I hope that I speak genuinely on behalf of the majority of the committee in urging the Executive to revisit its response to the 21 recommendations. There is an appetite for more work on many of the recommendations. I believe that that is the mood of Parliament and that it has not been met with the response that we would expect from the Executive when a committee produces a serious and worthy report—I see the Liberals almost imperceptibly nodding as I close. I hope that on this occasion the Executive will agree with me and accept the invitation to look again very seriously at those matters.

Business Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The final item of business this morning is consideration of business motion S1M-1893, which is set out in the business bulletin in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Before I move the motion, I inform members that Conservative business at 9.30 am on Thursday 10 May will be debates on tourism and Holyrood. I express my appreciation to the Conservatives for indicating those subjects in advance.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 9 May 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Executive Debate on Impact of European Union on Scotland followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1829 Mr Kenny MacAskill: 70th Anniversary of Scottish Youth Hostels Thursday 10 May 2001

9.30 am Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on Urban Regeneration followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1742 Dr Elaine Murray: Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Dumfries and Galloway Wednesday 16 May 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 17 May 2001

9.30 am Education, Culture and Sport Committee Debate on its Report on Special Educational Needs followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Stage 1 Debate on Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and, (b) that Stage 1 of the Scottish Local Authorities (Tendering) Bill be completed by 17 May 2001 and Stage 1 of the International Criminal Court (Scotland) Bill be completed by 14 June 2001.

David (None, Lothians)

The word "Holyrood" covers many things. What exactly is the minister telling us?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am only advising members of what I have been told. I imagine that the debate will be on the Holyrood project, but I do not yet know the distinctive title of the debate.

David (None, Lothians)

The question is, that motion S1M-1893, in the name of Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to bring forward legislation to reinstate the crofting counties roads scheme. (S1O-3330)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Although the scheme produced benefits in the nearly 60 years of its operation, we take the view that local councils are the appropriate bodies to determine local road spending priorities.

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

I thank the minister for his answer, which was not completely unexpected. I pay tribute to the minister's researchers, who had some difficulty in checking out the scheme, which went back to 1932. Does the minister agree that the scheme was extremely useful? Does he also agree that some roads in the remoter parts of the Highlands are below standard and that it would be useful if the Rural Development Committee examined the scheme to see whether it could be re-established?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Just as it is not for me to tell local authorities how to determine their spending allocations, it is certainly not for me to tell committees of the Parliament what they should examine. All I will say is that, as Jamie Stone pointed out, the scheme went way back to 1932 and was designed for a different purpose. I can only repeat that, although the committee may choose to examine the scheme, local authorities are the appropriate bodies to determine the spending priorities.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive when Glasgow Housing Association will publish its business plan on the proposed Glasgow housing stock transfer. (S1O-3325)

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

That is a matter for discussion between Glasgow Housing Association and Glasgow City Council, in line with the Executive's "Housing Transfer to Community Ownership—Guidance for Local Authorities".

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Can the minister confirm or otherwise that, in the business plan following stock transfer, the cost of modernising transferred stock will be 17.5 per cent more than under the council, through the imposition of VAT, which is effectively zero rated on council housing? Can she also confirm that that will mean that, of the £1.8 billion that is currently touted as the cost of modernisation, £268 million will go into the bloated coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and thus be lost to Glasgow? If so, how will she ensure that that money is returned to the city?

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

First, it is clear from what has happened in Scotland over the years that money that is given to the chancellor is not lost to Scotland. On the specific question about Glasgow Housing Association's business plan, Mr Gibson is guessing at things that he does not know about—the VAT implications will depend on the specific details of the transfer proposals and, as he knows, we have yet to see those proposals.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Does the minister agree that, on the specific question, this matter has dragged on for far too long? It is more than high time that the question of the Glasgow housing stock transfer was resolved in, I hope, a satisfactory manner.

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

I firmly reassure the Parliament that I have encouraged all the parties in the process to keep their eye on the prize, which is increased housing investment in Glasgow and improved stock for the tenants of Glasgow. We are deeply committed to tenant involvement. That takes time. We are putting in place measures to make sure that tenants are involved. That is now happening. We are on target and we will make sure that matters proceed accurately.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether sufficient funding is in place to reinstate passenger and freight rail links to Alloa. (S1O-3355)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The completion of funding packages for those links is the responsibility of the promoters of the links, which are Clackmannanshire Council in the case of the passenger link and Railtrack in the case of the freight link. I understand that Clackmannanshire Council is meeting Railtrack again this week to discuss the cost of the project. We expect to be kept fully in touch with the result of those talks.

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister reaffirm the Executive's commitment to the project? Will he confirm that the Babtie Group, which is one of the original two consultants, is examining closely Railtrack's revised figures? Can he give an assurance that the Executive will work closely with Clackmannanshire Council to make up whatever the final shortfall proves to be?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The reports that we have received from Clackmannanshire Council and Railtrack show the gap between the funding estimates that the council initially submitted and those that Railtrack later submitted. That is why we are calling for both parties to meet urgently to discuss those costs, close the gap and show that a viable, value-for-money project remains for us to support.

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

Only a few months ago, the Minister for Transport and Planning walked the track and committed the Executive to giving the go-ahead to the line's reinstatement. I ask the deputy minister to give a similar commitment. Will he commit the Executive to reconnecting Clackmannanshire to the rest of Scotland through the reinstatement of the rail line?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I will not make commitments before the parties that proposed the project produce firm, agreed and costed proposals for the project. Members will be aware of our commitment from the public transport fund to support the project as it was initially designed and proposed to us. There is a serious difference between the figures that were approved at that time and attracted our support and the figures that Railtrack has produced. It is for those bodies to get together and sort out the difference. When they have done so, we will study closely the viability of the project. If the project remains viable, it will receive our support.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

Will the minister further clarify the answer that Sarah Boyack gave last month when I asked her whether the funding shortfall was caused by a miscalculation by Railtrack or by Clackmannanshire Council?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

We are not in a position to clarify that. That is why we asked those bodies to talk to each other and examine—together—the basis of their figures. They are to produce a clear and agreed package with which we can proceed. We expect both parties to recognise the difficulties that their failure to agree on figures at the outset has caused. Sarah Boyack will meet the director of Railtrack in Scotland shortly. We expect Railtrack to give us assurances about the basis on which it will assess and respond to future bids from third parties such as Clackmannanshire Council.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to review the exemption from prescription charge categories. (S1O-3335)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We have no plans to do so.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That answer was not as bright as the minister's jacket. In recent weeks, many health support organisations have contacted me about reviews of the exemption scheme. The most recent contact was from Aberdeen mental health reference group, which seeks exemption from prescription charges for people with mental health problems. I remind the minister that the scheme was originally targeted at those with long-term conditions that required medication. To that end, will she agree to a review to appraise the needs of all those who suffer from long-term medical conditions?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We are aware of many different and often conflicting views on the policy that governs exemption categories. Relatively recently, the United Kingdom Government conducted a review of the categories and concluded that it would not make further changes. We, too, do not identify the issue as a priority at this time, but we are well aware of the many views that people with a range of conditions express on the issue.

John McAllion (Labour, Dundee East)

I congratulate the minister on what looks like a lovely red jacket. I ask her to confirm that students who are aged 19 or over are means-tested to assess their eligibility for free prescriptions and that the means test assumes them to be receiving their full entitlement to student loans, whether or not they do. Given the levels of student poverty and debt, has not the time come to review the decision not to include students in the exempt categories for prescription charges?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I never realised that I could be responsible for provoking so many fashion statements in the Parliament. John McAllion accurately reflected the way in which students' incomes are treated for the purposes of exemption. However, I put that in a wider context. Prescription exemptions are granted on a range of medical and income grounds. About 90 per cent of all prescriptions are dispensed free of charge. As I acknowledged in answering David Davidson's question, a range of views will always exist about how exemptions should be granted and how forms of income should be treated, but successive Governments have decided to target resources as effectively as possible to those in the greatest need. We will continue to deal with the issue sensitively.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to promote the use of reusable nappies in maternity hospitals. (S1O-3353)

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The use of reusable nappies is a matter for individual national health service trusts to determine.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

Does the minister agree that, given the huge savings that the use of real nappies brings—£600 per child in personal costs to families and £40 million in landfill costs to the public purse—encouraging the NHS to introduce new mums to the benefits of real nappies would be a useful piece of leadership by the Scottish Executive?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am aware of the cost and environmental implications that Nora Radcliffe refers to. I am also very much aware of the fact that parents have a key role to play in exercising choice in this matter. Environmental concerns must be balanced with the decisions that individuals take regarding convenience. That said, I congratulate the Women's Environmental Network on recently organising real nappy week and on its efforts to raise awareness of the issue. Increased awareness promotes informed choice.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Are there health concerns for babies from the use of disposable nappies? I refer in particular to the product tributyl tin, known as TBT. I also ask the minister to respond to the claim, made by environmental groups, that it takes more than 200 years for a disposable nappy to decompose.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

My understanding is that it takes more than 20 years for disposable nappies to decompose. The subject raises real environmental issues. That is why I consider it to be a legitimate area of debate and expect environmental questions to be raised on it. I am happy to respond in writing to the specific point that Mary Scanlon made.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that there is practically no difference in efficacy and convenience between the two types of nappy? The reusable nappy is a modern contrivance. [ Interruption. ]

David (None, Lothians)

Order. There is an awful lot of noise. Can we please hear the answer?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I find it difficult to know whether to answer that question as the Minister for Health and Community Care or as the mother of a toddler.

Having had some fairly recent experience of nappy changing in various forms, I repeat the point that I made earlier, which is that personal choice is very important.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will give the same assistance, proportional to the number of jobs lost, to work forces and communities in urban Scotland as has been made available to the fishing and farming industries. (S1O-3354)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Assistance is currently provided to all those who lose their jobs across Scotland in accordance with the principles set out in our partnership action for continuing employment framework. We are very conscious of the devastating impact that job losses can have on local communities. We are seeking to ensure that, as we create sustainable economic growth, employment opportunities are available to people in all parts of Scotland.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Many of us recognise that problems in fishing and farming communities need to be addressed. However, does the minister agree that companies such as Compaq and Motorola should be held responsible for the problems that are caused by their actions? Will she further guarantee that urban Scotland, where the majority of Scotland's population, poverty and problems are to be found, will be given the same proportionate support that has been given to the fishing and farming communities?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Hugh Henry's point—that companies are in a position to contribute to outplacement costs—is certainly true. We are encouraging companies to do that and I know that Compaq has agreed to do so. I am not sure that depleted fish stocks or slaughtered sheep can contribute in the same way as multinational companies can to clearing up the destruction that they have wreaked. It is true that a number of instruments—such as regional selective assistance, some European funds, including the urban fund, and social inclusion partnerships—are predominantly available in urban areas. The judicious use of such moneys, which has led to successes in the cases of Mitsubishi and Continental, is what we are looking for in response to the Motorola and Compaq situations.

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

At a time when many industries in rural and urban Scotland are suffering serious problems, does the minister agree that it is unfortunate, not to say crass, that a question should have been asked that tries to play off one area against another?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I did not understand the question to be one that tried to play off areas against each other. I was trying to reflect the importance of our responding to the specific needs of specific situations in urban Scotland. Where an exiting company can contribute to outplacement costs, we should encourage it to do so. Where we can claw back money, we should do so. Similarly, in areas where crises are a result of factors beyond the control of any one of us—for example, the depletion of fish stocks or disease in animals—a different response is required. The Executive is showing that flexibility.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The minister will accept that, in her constituency and that of Mr Henry, millions of pounds of public money have been spent in recent years. Does she acknowledge that the communities of Dumfries and Galloway, which have received a mere £800,000, would give their eye teeth to get their hands on even a proportion of what has been made available to those urban communities?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In the spirit of my previous response, let me say that it is important that members from all parts of the chamber try to do what is best for each community in Scotland. Earlier today and over the past few days, the Executive has been considering the Dumfries and Galloway recovery plan and the need to respond to the specific needs of that community in the face of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister assure us that the Executive will not be deflected from addressing the crises in our fishing and farming industries? As a rider to that, would she consider extending the social remit of Highlands and Islands Enterprise to Scottish Enterprise so that we can address some of the issues in our rural areas?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

One of the strengths of the Parliament is that we have the opportunity to address all those issues—be they fishing, farming or Scotland's industrial future—with a degree of detail, intention and public accountability that was not possible before the Parliament came into existence. With respect to the response of Scottish Enterprise to the crisis in Dumfries and Galloway, I have recently discussed the issue with Scottish Enterprise. The crisis has provided an opportunity for its rural team throughout the network to kick into action; it is presenting proposals to its board on how to drive forward the rural agenda, especially in the light of the impact of the foot-and-mouth crisis.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to address the increase in the number of children being prescribed Ritalin. (S1O-3318)

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Later this month, the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network—SIGN—will publish evidence-based guidance for health professionals on the diagnosis, assessment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. The guidance will be made available to all relevant health professionals.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Given the lack of convincing evidence that Ritalin has no long-term damaging effects, does the minister share my concern and that of professionals in the field at the dramatic, tenfold increase in the past five years in the use of the drug, which is prescribed to control the behaviour of children with hyperkinetic disorders?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am aware that this is a controversial area and that a number of people have expressed concerns—I spoke to the Scottish Association of Mental Health on the subject last week. However, I would prefer to wait to see what the SIGN guidance says. SIGN will be considering a lot of the research evidence and taking account of best practice. I am told that it will cover non-pharmacological treatments as well as the issue to which the question refers.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the interests of the South of Scotland are adequately represented on the board of visitscotland. (S1O-3322)

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Appointments to the board of visitscotland are made on the basis of the expertise that an individual can bring to the work of the board and not because they are a representative of a particular area.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I note the minister's answer and welcome the fact that he has visited the area several times recently and listened directly to the concerns of local tourism businesses. However, on the basis of those visits, does he accept that there is a lack of confidence in Dumfries and Galloway that visitscotland can represent the area's interests and has its interests at heart? That was especially underlined by the allocation to the area of only £300,000 from the £5 million provided for dealing with foot-and-mouth. Will he ensure that he takes steps to restore confidence in visitscotland among tourist businesses in the South of Scotland?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Obviously, visitscotland has a very important role to play as far as the South of Scotland is concerned. On my visit to the area at the beginning of the week, I found that, despite the enormity of the challenge facing tourism businesses and other rural businesses, people were positive and forward-looking. I will certainly convey the concerns that I heard in Dumfries and Galloway from Mr Mundell and Elaine Murray to the interim chief executive of visitscotland, to whom I will be sending a minute as a matter of practice.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the minister acknowledge that there are concerns in constituencies such as mine that tourism in those areas is disadvantaged compared with tourism in Glasgow? Does he agree that the rural areas of the South of Scotland should also be highlighted through the tourist agencies, just as urban areas are?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

There is no doubt about that. I am well aware of the challenges facing the South of Scotland. I was greatly encouraged by a plan to promote the South of Scotland as one entity, instead of breaking it up into Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders area. There is real potential to do something special for the South of Scotland and to promote it as one entity.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Would the minister consider persuading visitscotland to change its fatuous name, which is just confusing people and making it more difficult to find Scotland? He is aware that there are demonstrators from Dumfries and Galloway outside the chamber today. They are demanding that, in view of the recent catastrophes, an entirely new tourist board be set up.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

Unlike John Swinney, I and all my colleagues in the Scottish Executive are doing everything that we can to encourage people to visit Scotland.

David (None, Lothians)

I call John Farquhar Munro in the expectation that his question is about the South of Scotland.

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

In order to support the excellent work that the Executive and visitscotland are undertaking to bring visitors to our countryside, will the minister encourage landlords who persist in displaying restricted-access signs to remove them with immediate effect from the areas of the countryside that are considered to be provisionally free of foot-and-mouth disease?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

That issue is relevant to the South of Scotland and to part of the area that John Farquhar Munro represents. For many weeks now, I have been telling private landowners that there is no room for selfishness. They must engage with the wider community and take cognisance of the issues that tourism businesses are facing. The message is: get those unnecessary signs down.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps are being taken to encourage higher and further education institutions to enter into partnerships with private enterprises in order to encourage business growth which benefits the wider community. (S1O-3347)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The Scottish Executive's approach to knowledge transfer, innovation and business development is set out in two reports: "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks" and the knowledge economy cross-cutting initiative report. Both documents highlight the successful role that can be played in productive partnerships between higher and further education and the business community.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Does the minister agree that an area such as West Lothian would make an ideal location for the commercial development of knowledge generated in Scotland's universities? Will she agree to discuss with Scottish Enterprise the promotion of West Lothian as such a location?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Very much so. As Bristow Muldoon will know because of his constituency interests, the Alba Centre, which is the first attempt to see Scotland as a centre for the next generation of electronics design, has a hub in Livingston. That is a unique collaboration between Scottish universities, the business community and Scottish Enterprise, and we hope that it is the first of such research-and-development-intensive projects to signal where the future of the Scottish economy lies.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

In some cases, one of the obstacles to progress in that direction is that universities and colleges need more accommodation in the way of laboratories and workshops to carry out the research that will very soon lead to economic benefits, but they cannot afford to provide those facilities out of their existing budgets. Will the minister consider using some of the economic development money to assist the universities and colleges to provide those facilities, which would soon have a spin-off?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I have to put on record the fact that, over the past four years, an additional £1.5 billion has been put into university research; Scotland has been the recipient of more than its population share of that money.

On the more general point, we are certainly encouraging the enterprise network to look creatively at how it can support the work of universities. That is reflected in, for example, the proof of concept fund, which is administered by the enterprise network, and by the recent proposal to spend £10 million over the next three years on developing e-institutes. Those are collaborations between higher education institutions in Scotland and those overseas.

BSE

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the Scottish Executive why it is safe to burn cattle over five years old yet not safe to bury such cattle due to the risk of contaminating either the ground or the atmosphere with BSE. (S1O-3324)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee recently considered a BSE risk assessment on the burning of cattle and the risk from burying cattle. SEAC's view was that burning cattle carcases remains the preferable option, as burning can destroy as much as 90 per cent of any BSE infectivity whereas, with burial, none might be destroyed. The committee estimated that the likely BSE infectivity in cattle born before 1 August 1996 would be about 400 times higher than that in cattle born on or after that date. Based on that information, older cattle in Scotland are either rendered or burned.