Scottish Parliament, 10 May 2001

376 contributions from 76 members. The official report.

Introduction

Tourism

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The first item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-1914, in the name of Mr David Davidson, on tourism. There are two amendments to the motion.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Conservatives have brought the issue of tourism back to the chamber today to highlight the Executive's abject failure to offer leadership and direction to Scotland's largest industry.

On 1 November last year, Wendy Alexander stated that the Scottish Tourist Board's

"main aim is to help maximise the economic benefit of tourism to Scotland".

She then laid out a series of objectives for it. If she was laying down the STB's remit, she must accept responsibility for the board's failure to date. I hope that she will respond on that point. Does she intend to pretend that there is an arm's-length relationship, leaving others to take the blame, or will she be accountable?

On 9 November, the minister stated:

"We have world class assets, world class performance is achievable but it needs world class leadership."

What was her role? She went on to detail a 10-point action plan—presumably that was her notion of assuming command. After laying out the 10 points of the plan, she concluded:

"Scottish tourism has been underperforming and this must improve. Scotland has world class assets and now needs world class performance."

That was a bit of a schoolmistress scolding, as if the matter was not her direct responsibility.

The truth is that the copious press releases by the minister and her predecessor, Henry McLeish, have solved nothing—it was all talk and no action. On 12 October 1999, Mr McLeish stated:

"I am determined that Scotland should have a genuinely world class tourism industry".

What has he done in the 19 months since then? We had a review of tourism—another initiative. We had the famous announcement of three-year funding of area tourist boards by councils. That was a McLeish initiative with no teeth—it was up for review even before the year was out.

The Executive, with its poor record of local government settlements and the new burdens that it has placed on councils, has damaged local authorities' ability to support area tourist boards. It would have been far better if the Executive had accepted our proposal to fund area tourist boards directly via the Scottish Tourist Board. Had Mr McLeish grasped the nettle then, perhaps tourism would have been in a better position to cope with the aftermath of foot-and-mouth disease than it is now. The Executive cannot continue to fiddle while the industry burns. I hope that the minister will say what initiatives she will take to move forward on the issue.

On 25 March, Ivan Broussine of the Scottish Tourism Forum said that

"the tourism industry is increasingly angry at the slow speed of response of the Scottish Executive".

He also complained that, whereas the Prime Minister and other Westminster ministers had met tourism representatives, as had Mr McLeish, the minister responsible had left her deputy to take the flak.

We have seen huge increases in fuel taxation in four years of new Labour. I trust that the chamber recognises our pledge to reduce fuel taxes by 6p a litre. Annual running costs in Scottish business have risen by a staggering £1,500 per employee. The Executive has increased the rates burden on Scottish business by abandoning the uniform business rate, which has caused Scottish business to be less profitable.

Last year, the number of visitors to Scottish attractions dropped by almost 6 per cent and there were reports throughout Scotland of reduced bookings. Henry McLeish, as the minister responsible, presided over a 12.7 per cent fall in the overseas market, as announced in an Executive press release on 7 July 2000. Everyone in the industry agrees that, during the Executive's period in office, the sector has been in decline, whereas global tourism has grown. Since the Executive took power, it has been totally indecisive in reforming tourism support in Scotland.

When the disaster of foot-and-mouth disease struck, the industry was leaderless. The Executive totally failed to take responsibility for that. When the 10-point Executive plan was announced, one of the priorities was to find a new chief executive for the Scottish Tourist Board. Six months on, all we have is an expensive and humiliating failure owing to Ms Alexander's insistence on appointing Mr Rod Lynch without checking thoroughly that he would be a suitable appointee. Perhaps the minister can tell us what abatement she has received of the fees paid to Heidrick & Struggles, the headhunting firm that was used. Is it not time that Parliament received a clear statement of the minister's position and an apology for the fiasco of what was a disastrous but very public episode?

That was on top of the gaffes made by the First Minister during his visit to America for tartan week. Those gaffes were compounded by the abject failure of the Executive and its agencies to mount an immediate rebuttal campaign to the press reports on foot-and-mouth disease, which dominated American television and sent out a totally inappropriate image of Scotland as a tourist destination. Moreover, staff of the British Tourist Authority—another Government agency—misled American visitors about foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland.

When the minister came to the chamber to announce a recovery package, there was universal disbelief at the small amount of resource from the Executive to try to save the £2.5 billion tourism industry. At the time, I welcomed the resource for the area tourist boards and the quality assurance package, but the money was not enough to allow for a UK-wide marketing campaign to attract our home visitors, who account for half our tourism turnover. It is all very well for local enterprise companies to be given money to conduct business advice clinics, but that does nothing to counter the fact that, without turnover, no business will survive long enough to implement any advice that it has been given.

The Executive was extremely slow off the mark in implementing the foot-and-mouth containment exercise. It has failed to recognise the immediate needs of the many businesses affected, especially in the south-west and the Borders. The Scottish Conservative party, with its colleagues at Westminster, called for a hardship fund to provide interest-free loans to allow businesses to survive. I repeat that call today. Before there can be any talk of recovery, we must recognise that the issue boils down to survival.

We called for a deferment package on liability for business rates and council tax and for the Executive to approach the Treasury to seek deferment of payments of national taxation. We asked that the moratorium be dealt with on an interest-free and non-penalty basis. We expect such support to be available to all businesses that have been affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak—not only those that deliver directly a tourism product, but all the local businesses that are suffering a downturn in the affected areas.

At the time, the deputy minister, Alasdair Morrison, talked of deferred tax payments. Today, will the ministers say what response the Executive has received from its negotiations with the Treasury? The SNP called for only a three-month abolition of rates; that is far too short term to help businesses to survive through the summer. I appreciate the relief support that the Executive has given to local councils, but it is too little for too short a period—we cannot agree with the proposed £12,000 ceiling or the period of three months. Many vital businesses, such as small hotels, recreation facilities and even garages, are excluded from the support package by the artificially low ceiling.

It is essential that the Scottish Executive takes a lead in opening up the countryside. It must ensure that landowners carry out risk assessments and it must put in place a mechanism whereby local authorities are given the responsibility of managing the reopening process. It is staggering that no organisation has responsibility for that role. If no organisation has been appointed, the issue must be the Executive's responsibility. I hope that the minister will reply fully on that point.

I have received many requests for support, not only for Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders, but for areas across Scotland that have been affected—whether in Dundee or Inverness, the outbreak has affected tourism. We must ensure that businesses throughout the country are given help to survive.

We are disappointed by visitscotland's eight-point plan, as it merely reiterates activities that have already been announced. It is unbelievable that the organisation has not already met Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the British Tourist Authority. Surely the Executive must have co-ordinated such activity. I look forward to hearing what the Executive has done on that. I hope that the minister will also tell us what part, if any, the Executive intends to play in any future appointment process and what additional resources it has offered visitscotland to market the country.

The Executive has totally failed to respond to the urgent needs of the tourism industry and has compounded that failure with its ineptitude in dealing with its six-month-old plan for reforming the STB. Having the Executive wear tartan underwear and eating McHaggis burgers is not a realistic solution to the crisis.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the failure of the Scottish Executive to complete the restructuring of the Scottish Tourist Board/visitscotland which has undermined efforts to regenerate Scottish tourism following two years of decline; calls upon the Scottish Executive to implement a survival and recovery plan for Scottish businesses affected by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak which includes a hardship fund to provide interest-free loans to supplement the limited measures announced to date, and further calls upon the Scottish Executive to expedite the opening up of the countryside via the risk assessment procedure.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I thank David Davidson for choosing a debate on tourism. No one doubts the importance of the industry and its revitalisation, which is one of the Executive's highest priorities. Consequently, I read Mr Davidson's motion and listened to his opening remarks with some regret.

I am deeply saddened by the condemnation of visitscotland. We should be talking up the industry instead of talking it down. As the SNP motion recognises, the crux of the matter is industry leadership: the future of Scottish tourism needs an industry-led strategy, which means industry leadership for the board. The board needs the support of the Parliament in delivering change. Less than a month ago, the appointments of Peter Lederer and Mike Cantley—both of whom have spent a lifetime in the industry—to the chair and vice-chair of the organisation were widely welcomed. It is truly a small nation that covets grievance when errors are made. visitscotland's board meets today in Dumfries and Galloway to review with the ATB what needs to be done to move forward. It is not just the weather that has turned for the better; we are working with visitscotland on a series of positive steps to aid the revitalisation of our tourism industry.

As people know, Scotland is now over the worst of foot-and-mouth as far as disease control is concerned. Infections have declined from the rate of seven new cases a day at the end of March to fewer than one case a day now. There has been a decline in the epidemic, for which we should congratulate the state veterinary service, the Army and the local authorities. Of course, we must remain vigilant and plan for recovery. To that end, the Executive has been working closely with those affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

We announced an immediate package of hardship relief in March. The Executive is writing today to the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council, setting out our interim response to the recovery plan. We recognise that the area has special needs, as it was the worst affected by the outbreak.

I shall outline the main aspects of the further package of hardship relief that is on offer. First, there will be a payment to Dumfries and Galloway Council of £2 million on account to pay for costs that it has incurred in controlling the disease. Additional funds of £5 million from Scottish Enterprise's existing budget will be allocated to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway to assist economic restructuring and to provide for the kind of small loans support that South of Scotland MSPs have been asking for. There will be further dialogue on the terms of that scheme. visitscotland has also given a commitment to meet the area tourist board and other industry representatives in Dumfries today to discuss additional funding requirements.

On the subject of financial resources, I should note that we have already committed an additional £5 million in Scotland, which is the equivalent of an allocation of £50 million for England alone. The actual allocation in England has been £3.8 million. That is a measure of the Executive's commitment. We are also introducing a grants and loan scheme for small-scale capital investment to provide environmental or landscape benefits. Moreover, Dumfries and Galloway is being given sympathetic consideration under European structural funds schemes and we are appointing a woodland development adviser in south-west Scotland to advise on how woodland development might assist farmers and other land managers in recovering from the effects of foot-and-mouth disease.

I want to move from the specific issue of Dumfries and Galloway to consider the bigger picture. We were asked to take decisive action, which took the form of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on visitscotland. The suggestion in the Conservative motion that the implementation of the report's recommendations has been put on hold is simply not true—since the hour the report was received, the board has put it into practice. I will provide some examples of what has been achieved so far.

The recommendation that visitscotland should secure greater industry involvement has been acted on. Not only have a new chair and vice-chair been appointed, but Norman Murray of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Norman Lauritson—the chair of the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board—and Paul Murray-Smith have all been appointed as advisers to visitscotland's board. An interim chief executive has been appointed to drive forward implementation. The visitscotland board confirmed last week that interviews for the three new senior director posts are in their final stages. As for the ATBs, there have been discussions to develop much better relationships that do not marginalise the role of local authorities.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The point of my speech was not what was happening inside visitscotland, but the Executive's response to the absence of leadership while the organisation was being restructured. I welcome the appointments to the board—I know the men personally and that they have great experience. My point is that, in the six-month vacuum, the minister and her predecessor could have taken an active grasp of the problems.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

That is why, for the first time ever, we appointed a chair and vice-chair from the industry. That was one of the central recommendations on how we should drive things forward. Furthermore, we appointed an experienced interim chief executive and embarked on a worldwide search for a chief executive and other industry leaders. I point out that the appointment of the board's chief executive is visitscotland's responsibility. It is common practice that no minister should be involved in the selection process—the minister's role is simply to approve the appointment that the board has made. We have very much strengthened the board through industry leadership, which was a recommendation that the Parliament supported.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister says that the appointment was not an Executive responsibility. Will she confirm that it is an Executive responsibility to accept or reject visitscotland's recommendations? On her point about Executive involvement, what was the ministerial or Executive involvement in the selection process and the interviews?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

No minister had any involvement in the selection process. That is common practice in the appointment of chief executives—the minister's role is to approve visitscotland's appointment. As I have said on numerous occasions, it is time to move on. Within 24 hours of my being made aware of Rod Lynch's extensive outside interests, visitscotland withdrew its offer. I think that making such a move within 24 hours counts as decisive action.

I want to highlight the impact that the debate in Parliament will have on visitscotland's staff as they face their difficult task. Peter Lederer has assured me that his staff are absolutely committed to the task of supporting our tourism industry, as has been amply demonstrated by their extensive efforts. We must support that industry leadership in order to move forward.

As for the Conservatives' points about access, we share their desire to expedite the opening of the countryside through risk assessment procedures—that is what we are doing. Although an extremely precautionary approach was taken at the start of the outbreak, the situation has moved on and much of Scotland is in the provisionally free area, where the risk of transmission is much lower. The restrictions on access in those areas should be seen in the same light, with a greater presumption in favour of public access.

It is important that, in working through the crisis, we lay the foundations for the longer-term revitalisation of the tourism industry. We need consensus from all tourist operators about building longer-term international competitiveness for the industry. Members have much to contribute to that debate and it is only right that visitscotland and the industry should take the lead.

I note in passing that, although the SNP amendment is interesting, it does not suggest any proposals for VAT reduction. How much VAT should be reduced for which operators and in what circumstances? As for the level of sterling, the problem that people often refer to relates to the euro zone, whereas, in terms of visitors, the United States is our largest market. If the SNP were to make any progress in the upcoming election, would it instantly have Scotland adopt the euro and would the exchange level be based on the level of sterling? I also understand that the Conservatives will propose an extensive reduction in fuel tax, the cost of which will be in excess in £2 billion. The knock-on effect of such a reduction would be a cut in our budget of more than £200 million. It would be interesting to find out what the Opposition parties propose on all those points.

The message from this chamber must be that, as far as tourism is concerned, Scotland is open for business. We must all work with visitscotland and the industry to revitalise tourism and to find a way forward for the future.

I move amendment S1M-1914.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"welcomes the actions being taken by the Executive to assist the tourism industry to recover from the effects of foot-and-mouth disease and supports its commitment to work with the relevant agencies including visitscotland and the industry to prepare and implement an appropriate and effective strategy to ensure the future growth of the industry."

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Tories are right to have lodged the motion: there is a crisis and action is needed. Much of the motion is perfectly reasonable, but the SNP cannot support it for two reasons. First, it fails to acknowledge the Tories' culpability for the sorry circumstances in which tourism finds itself. Secondly, the solutions that it proposes are inadequate both as immediate action and as long-term strategy.

In 1997, tourism went out of the frying pan and into the fire. Whatever fond memories the Tories have of being in government, the reality was not so benign for the industry. I do not seek to underestimate the catastrophe of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. However, it is no famine following feast; it is a disaster following five or more fallow years and it has occurred at the worst possible time in the industry's financial cycle. There should have been an opportunity for replenishment after the winter; instead, the lights are on but no one is about. Many businesses are living on borrowed time and borrowed money, with a shutdown that, to all intents and purposes, will run from winter 2000 to spring 2002.

Had there been previous years of feast, the damage might have been sustainable, but there were not. The culpability for that lies on both sides of the British political divide. A high pound, high VAT and high fuel prices were imposed not under the heel of an iron chancellor, but under the handbag of an iron lady and her successors. No matter how sincere their sympathy is now, the Tories will not be forgiven by the tourism industry for their previous complicity.

What of the current incumbents? Before I address their belated and inadequate response to the crisis, I shall critique their period in office at Westminster and in Scotland. Did they roll back the Tory legacy? Did they invest where there had been shortage? Did they promote where there had been silence? Did they change where change was overdue? No. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. What did they inherit? A high pound, high VAT and high fuel prices. What is their legacy? A high pound, high VAT and high fuel prices. Both Labour and the Tories have conspired to make Scotland a high-cost destination, for which the tourism industry has paid a high price.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Can Kenny MacAskill confirm the VAT level that the SNP supports? What cut in fuel tax does the SNP support, and how would it pay for it? At what level does he suggest that the pound should enter the euro?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We have called for a reduction in fuel prices of 10p a gallon. We have called for interim measures to be taken to reduce VAT on accommodation and visitor attractions from 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. We believe that membership of the euro is in Scotland's best interests, once the appropriate criteria have been met.

Let us consider some examples of the British neglect of tourism. Hardly a family in Scotland does not have a relative in Canada. Much has been made—even by the Executive—of a call to the diaspora, but what action has been taken to promote our country and to encourage members of the diaspora to visit Scotland? I asked the Executive how much the Scottish Tourist Board and visitscotland had spent on marketing Scotland in Canada every year since 1995. In 1995, the Tories—known for their support of the British diaspora on the Costa del Sol—spent the princely sum of £8,000 on marketing Scotland in Canada. In five years, new Labour has reduced that princely sum by 50 per cent; in 2000, its advertising budget in Canada, the place of our diaspora, was a king's ransom of £4,000. One hundred and thirty-six thousand Canadians visited Scotland. To secure those high-spending visitors, the Executive invested the sum of 3p a visitor. Is that speculating to accumulate? Those are only the figures for Canada; we have the figures for other places and we will release them in due course.

So much for the Executive's past failures. What of its current inadequacies? The tourism industry does not want advice on receivership or debt counselling; it wants interest-free loans and hardship grants, assistance in its marketing budget and a credible rates relief package. The Scottish Tourism Forum has put forward its proposals, some of which have been met, but all of which must be implemented.

Finally, what about a future strategy? The tourism industry needs a marketing budget that will allow Scotland to compete not just in Canada, but worldwide. We must ensure that, once interest in Scotland has been ignited, access to our country is reasonable in both time and cost. That must mean the expansion of direct air links to destinations not only in Europe, but in the USA. Fewer than 3 per cent of visitors from the US to the UK arrive at a Scottish airport. We need to be an international gateway not just to Scotland, but to the UK. If we cannot secure the same access to Scotland that there is to Ireland, we will never be able to compete.

The tragedy in Scotland remains that, although the natural product is unsurpassed anywhere else in the world, current and past Labour and Tory Administrations have let down the tourism industry. Only the SNP stands for tourism and for Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-1914.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"believes that policies being pursued by successive Westminster Governments, in particular a high pound, high fuel costs and high VAT, have been damaging to the tourist industry; further believes that the aims of visitscotland/the Scottish Tourist Board should be sharply refocused so that it is a marketing rather than a regulatory body; notes the relief package as proposed by the Scottish Tourism Forum and calls for its full implementation, and believes that direct transport links between Scotland and Europe and Scotland and America are essential."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome this opportunity to debate the recovery of tourism in Scotland. It is worth pointing out that the predictions of disaster and ruin for Scotland's tourism industry have not come true, although one would not know that from the previous speeches. Indeed, there is some good news. Reports that I have received over the past few days from industry operators suggest that the industry had a reasonable Easter weekend and a good May bank holiday. There have been problems in the interim period, but the number of day trips and short-break holidays in Scotland has increased. Much of that increase has been facilitated by the good weather, but the television marketing campaign to persuade Scots to visit our countryside has also worked. A landlady in Oban told me yesterday that she has enjoyed her best-ever start to a season.

It is not all good news, however. The Dumfries and Galloway area still has major problems to overcome—I welcome the minister's announcement of the measures that are to be taken there. There are still serious problems to overcome in our overseas market. I would appreciate it if the minister with responsibility for tourism, Mr Alasdair Morrison, could give us an update in his winding-up speech on what progress has been made in recovering the markets in America and Germany.

The marketplace has a soft underbelly, as long-stay bookings are still well down and there are grave concerns about the summer, which is the long-stay season. Will families book for a full week rather than take the day trips and short breaks that have been a feature of the past four or five weeks? Although much of the hard work of visitscotland and the Scottish Executive has been effective, much more needs to be done. We must build on the work that has been carried out, in which context the measures to help Dumfries and Galloway are welcome. I hope that the Executive will introduce measures to help the Borders as well, as that area has also been affected by foot-and-mouth disease and is stigmatised in the same way as Dumfries and Galloway.

The Tory motion mentions access to the countryside. There are still serious access problems that require to be addressed. In Mull, for instance, there is a major access dispute at the south end of the island, the Ross of Mull. Landowners and tourism operators are unable to resolve the issue. Can the minister tell us what action can be taken in such situations when agreement cannot be reached? Both sides have taken entrenched positions. I understand both sets of arguments: farmers and landowners are still nervous about letting people on to their land but the tourism operators feel that, as the restrictions have been relaxed and animals can be moved freely, the presumption should be that access exists unless a high risk can be proven. I ask the minister to suggest how we can tackle that issue. I have been involved in trying to resolve it, but the problem is difficult.

Another outstanding issue is, as has been said, visitscotland's lack of a chief executive and the fact that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report has not been implemented. There is no doubt that the Rod Lynch affair and the lack of leadership have done immense damage to the credibility of the Scottish Tourist Board and the industry in general. The barrage of media reports that followed the Rod Lynch affair did nothing but undermine the Scottish Tourist Board and the confidence of the industry. The industry is in a fragile state. It needs leadership from the top of visitscotland. The morale of the 200 people who work for visitscotland is on the floor. We are relying on them to rebuild our market abroad and we are trying to encourage—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

If the member is brief.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

On the subject of morale, I have tried to make it clear that responsibility for the problems lay not with the staff of visitscotland, but with the Scottish Executive, which had control of visitscotland when the organisation did not have a firm leader. We have to make that clear and I support Mr Lyon's view on that point.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am trying to make the point that it is in everyone's interest for us to stop kicking the organisation that we hope will lead Scottish tourism to a reasonable recovery from this summer. The last thing that the tourism industry wants is for visitscotland to be turned into a political football, evidence of which we have seen in this debate. It is regrettable that the Tory motion has little to do with the future of Scotland's tourism industry and everything to do with the general election campaign.

Who might we get as a new chief executive of visitscotland? Yesterday, we saw evidence that suggested that a certain man might fit the job. Perhaps the minister will investigate the matter. The man is currently unemployed and word has it that he is likely to continue to be available for work. He is well travelled and has an excellent knowledge of marketing, particularly poster advertising. Given yesterday's display of his expertise in this field, I respectfully suggest that Sir Malcolm Rifkind might fit the bill.

The tourism industry faces serious challenges in its attempt to rebuild confidence and market share over the summer. The 200 people who work for visitscotland want support to come from all the political parties to ensure that the good work that they are doing to turn the industry around succeeds. I appeal to everyone not to turn the Scottish Tourist Board and visitscotland into a political football during the election campaign. The parties must get behind the attempt to rebuild an industry that is vital to Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Some years ago, I wrote an article for a local newspaper entitled, "What Do You Do With an Empty Countryside?" It was not intended to be prophetic, but if one drove from Stranraer to Gretna tomorrow, a virtually empty countryside is what one would find. The land is almost denuded of livestock and, in empty field after empty field, there is mile after mile of lush grass that no one is yet quite sure what they will do with.

Just as most of Dumfries and Galloway has lost much of its livestock, so it has lost most of its tourism industry, which is every bit as important to its prosperity as is agriculture, if not more so. One of the stark lessons that has come out of the dreadful outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease is how inextricably linked in rural Scotland are the agriculture and the tourism industries.

As we begin to see beyond the immediate impact of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, we must not overlook the inescapable fact that our rural tourism industry was facing severe problems before the cataclysmic virus struck and that those problems will remain after it has gone. While Dumfries and Galloway breathed a collective sigh of relief that its Easter trade was only 20 per cent below last Easter's average—although that is a strange definition of relief—we must remember that the base numbers were already in decline. That decline is hitting the whole of rural Scotland and needs to be addressed across the whole of rural Scotland. There is much that we need to do.

We need to examine the structure, remit and effectiveness of visitscotland. For the benefit of Mr Lyon, I stress that I am not using visitscotland as a political football when I say that; the need for an examination of those elements is a fact. It is unacceptable and unbelievable that the visitscotland board contains not one representative from the south of Scotland. Ministers will no doubt reply that the quality of the individual is much more important than the question of where they come from. However, that is tantamount to an accusation that no one in the south of Scotland is good enough to serve on the board, which is blatant rubbish. Perhaps the current shambles from which the board is trying to extricate itself will provide an opportunity to correct that discriminatory omission from its make-up.

We also need to examine the role of the local tourist board—we should not be frightened to do so. A recent survey that my colleague David Mundell and I carried out showed that the tourist board in Dumfries and Galloway does not enjoy the level of confidence among its members to which it no doubt aspires. I blame not the individuals involved, but the remit of the board, which has to become more promotional and less police-like.

It is no coincidence that many communities seem to be bypassing their local tourist boards by setting up their own websites and promoting their own areas. Examples of such initiatives can be found in Sanquhar and Glenluce. That development points to a failure in the system from which valuable lessons can and should be learned. Those within the industry need constantly to monitor their standards. Top-quality service does not have to be expensive. A smile costs nothing, yet it can make a stranger's day. We have much to learn from our continental neighbours about the delivery of service. Service means simply giving our visitors what they want and expect, rather than what we think that they should have.

We all agree that we have to rebuild an industry that is facing a disastrous year through no fault of its own. That must be an opportunity as much as it is a challenge and we have the advantage of the perfect base from which to start: Scotland itself. It will be harder to rebuild the industry in the south of Scotland because of the foot-and-mouth outbreak, but I have no doubt that that challenge will be met. I broadly welcome the measures that the Executive has intimated to the convener of Dumfries and Galloway Council this morning but I stress that they must be a first step. On their own, they are not enough. I am glad that the minister accepts that point.

As a resident of Dumfries and Galloway, I am somewhat disturbed by recent ministerial statements that seem to suggest that the current coterminous status that is shared by agencies such as the local tourist board and the local enterprise company in Dumfries and Galloway could be altered. I strongly reject such a move as being unhelpful in the extreme. I suggest that those agencies require considerable support under the current circumstances. There is a need to have their remits made more flexible, but they do not need to be either amalgamated or disbanded. By giving the tourism industry that support and flexibility, we will discover what can be done with an empty countryside as the phoenix of our tourism industry rises from the ashes of foot-and-mouth disease.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

The Conservative motion talks about the efforts to regenerate the Scottish tourism industry being undermined. It is important that politicians do not undermine efforts to promote Scotland and its regions in the wake of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. There is a temptation, particularly during a general election campaign, to create headlines, but we and the media must beware of talking down the industry and contributing to its considerable difficulties.

The problems created by the foot-and-mouth outbreak for the economy of Dumfries and Galloway will be debated later today and, obviously, tourism must be part of that discussion. I am concerned about the efforts that are being made by the local tourist board which, as Alex Fergusson just said, has had problems. However, we must give credit to the chief executive and the chair of the board for their sterling efforts to turn around the situation. Last week, for example, they made an effort to rebrand the region. We must not lose sight of those important initiatives due to the fact that the media likes to concentrate on personalities and problems within visitscotland. Many of my constituents who are struggling to survive at the moment feel that such matters are an irrelevant distraction from the issues that face us.

Tourism is worth £82 million a year to Dumfries and Galloway. It provides around 8,000 jobs and attracts 700,000 visitors. I should point out that few of those visitors are from the diaspora—I, too, have a dictionary, so I know what the word of the day means. Most of the visitors to the region are from the UK and Europe. The foot-and-mouth crisis is estimated to be losing the tourism industry around £2 million a week.

Last week, the area tourist board launched Operation Azalea to try to counteract the damage that has been done. That project was funded through the £300,000 that was allocated to the region's recovery plan by visitscotland. I know that £300,000 is not really enough—I do not think that any of us feel that it is—but it was a start, and was allocated for a particular purpose. That funding enabled the ATB to commission the services of experts, who already had experience in the regeneration of tourism in the Shetlands after the Braer oil spill disaster, for example.

I note from today's speech by the minister that discussions between visitscotland and the ATB are under way on the subject of the additional resources. I can tell members that the ATB wants £7 million over the next three years and is prepared to approach a number of funding sources for that, including the EU and the UK Government. That may seem a lot of money, but, compared to the £82 million a year that tourism in Dumfries and Galloway is worth and to the £2 million that is being lost each week, that is a reasonably small investment to try to turn the situation around.

Clearly, much ground has to be made up in tourism in Dumfries and Galloway. Alex Fergusson mentioned that the figures were down by 20 per cent on the previous year, which was itself a poor season. However, the reduction varied across the region and across sectors. The self-catering sector, for example, suffered worse than some others. I understand that preliminary data from the recent holiday weekend show a similar variation, with very poor returns in the east of the region—in my constituency—but rather better returns in the west. In fact, Threave gardens were busier over the May holiday than they have ever been. The ground still has to be made up in the parts of the region worst affected by the foot-and-mouth outbreak. That is why it is so important that we project a positive image of the region, and that that is not obscured by the political badinage that inevitably accompanies a general election campaign.

We should bear in mind that 85 per cent of tourist attractions in Dumfries and Galloway are open. That figure is increasing. Forest walks may be reopened; the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development was in the area on her bike last weekend; all the golf courses and all the beaches are open. In my view, the region still possesses, despite the lack of animals—which is a very sad sight—the greatest variety of beautiful scenery in the whole of Scotland. I did not see a single pyre all weekend, except for some smoke across the Solway firth, near Silloth.

The Conservative motion calls for a number of actions to be taken. I think that the Conservatives are somewhat pre-emptive in doing so, because we have received only this morning the announcement of further interim measures in response to the recovery plan that was put to the Executive by Dumfries and Galloway Council, the area tourist board and Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. As the minister has told us, the plan includes a small amount of loan support to the affected businesses.

I was pleased to hear today's announcement, but I look forward to further announcements about more long-term measures. I am convinced that tourism in Dumfries and Galloway, like many other industries, has a future. I hope to see the tourism industry rise like a phoenix from the pyre of the disaster that has taken place over the past couple of months. I look forward to support from the Executive and the Parliament on that.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

If I was in any doubt about the extent of the problem facing our tourism industry, it was confirmed to me and my parliamentary colleagues during our visit to Washington DC for national tartan day last month. Everywhere we went, the perception was the same: that of a country in crisis, with the stench of burning animals and the countryside closed to visitors. More worryingly, there was a commonly held belief that our meat was unfit for human consumption.

In the minds of many Americans, foot-and-mouth disease has been confused with BSE. How did that public relations disaster take root? Quite simply, through the media. Night after night, news and documentary programmes such as CBS's "60 Minutes" and programmes on CNN and the other main news channels ran with pictures of funeral pyres and "No Entry" signs. They indulged in what was, frankly, sloppy reporting, which scared their viewers about what to expect if they were to visit this country.

The question has to be asked: what was being done by our Government to inform the overseas media of the facts? Was nobody monitoring how the situation was being portrayed overseas? We in the tartan day delegation took every opportunity to right the wrong. However, it was clear to us that huge damage has been done. It will take a great deal of effort and ingenuity to restore American confidence in Scotland as a tourist venue.

Foot-and-mouth disease has indeed been a catastrophe for tourism, particularly for tourism from overseas. But let us not kid ourselves: the fact is that Scotland's global market share has been steadily falling for the past five years. That problem will still be with us when foot-and-mouth is no more. It is the steady drop in visitors that must be addressed now, before it is too late.

A couple of steps must be taken. One is to do with how we sell Scotland. We need only look across the Irish sea to see how it is done. Not a night goes by on American television without a well-produced advert extolling the pleasures of a vacation in Ireland. I have yet to see a single similar advert urging people to visit Scotland. Scotland continues to be seen, and advertised, as an add-on to a visit south of the border.

As Kenny MacAskill said, a mere 3 per cent of overseas visitors fly directly to Scotland. That situation is exacerbated by the fact that only one airline, Continental Airlines, flies year round with direct flights to and from Scotland. Grateful as we are to Continental, those flights are in small-capacity aircraft of the type more usually used on domestic and European routes. Again, we need look only to Ireland or to other small European states such as Belgium and the Netherlands to see the difference that direct flights can make to the tourism industry.

Tourism employs 180,000 people, which is 8 per cent of the entire work force of Scotland. It accounts for 5 per cent of our gross domestic product, and we have to take it seriously. Tourism is not a hobby. It is time that we invested in the future of the industry. Let us get our act together once and for all, and leave the Mickey Mouse tourism to Disney. I urge members to support the SNP amendment.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

One thing that has come home to us all over the past months is just how important the tourism industry is to Scotland's cities and countryside. That is a step forward because, before the foot-and-mouth outbreak, I was concerned that the significance of the industry often went unnoticed in the wider country. I do not think that the same can be said now. The images of burning animals that were flashed across our TV screens made us realise how fragile a country's reputation can be, and how important it was and will be to counter those images. The Executive's commitment to the tourism industry and the swift release of money for marketing has been crucial to achieve that.

The £100,000 campaign run by the Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board brought visitors north for Easter in greater numbers that we had dared hope for. The number of visitors was not quite as high as last year, but was on a par with that for 1999. HOST informs me that the level of UK inquiries for holidays in the Highlands is continuing to hold up. The overseas market, which we depend on in August, will be harder to revive. I would like to know what plans are in hand to market for the main summer months.

Access problems are lessening. Although that staunch Conservative, Lord Burton, still refuses access in Glenshiel, the Cuillins are, thank heavens, open at last. More than half the Munros are accessible, as are 80 per cent of formal footpaths.

Crofters still need a lot of reassurance before they allow informal access over inby land, and we can understand their concerns, considering the unfenced nature of the ground, which does not quite fit in under "The Comeback Code".

It is good that people are working together, including councils, area tourist boards, local communities and tourist businesses. In Glencoe, in Ullapool and in Badenoch, for example, they are working to promote their areas in the face of their difficulties.

We cannot deny that the tourism industry has faced difficult times for several years now, and we should not make the mistake of thinking that the foot-and-mouth outbreak is the single cause of problems in the industry, as problems existed before that need to be addressed now if the industry is to have a secure, stable future.

The first need is for strong, effective leadership from the centre. In spite of all the difficulties with the appointment of Rod Lynch, it is important to acknowledge the job that is being done by Peter Lederer and his team. Theirs is not an easy task, and I believe that they can provide the effective and strong leadership that the industry needs until the appointment of a new chief executive. It is important that they are given every encouragement by the Parliament and are not constantly sniped at.

Obviously, strong marketing is needed. The Executive's strategy for tourism places a lot of emphasis on niche marketing. Although that is important and there are opportunities for it in the Highlands and Islands in particular, there are other areas that do not have niches to market but rely on the general holidaymaker. It is essential that businesses in those areas are not ignored but are given guidance on how to improve and modernise the product that they offer and on how to attract visitors back.

Longer-term issues that were raised in the Executive's strategy for tourism need to be acted on. It is essential to show that tourism is an attractive career option for young people. Investment in employees is necessary to raise morale and esteem in the industry. The strategy says that the uptake of 1,000 modern apprenticeships by 2003 will be encouraged. Perhaps the minister will inform us what progress is being made toward that target.

Achieving quality is perhaps the most important long-term issue. Word-of-mouth marketing is the best way of advertising the Highlands. When people come to visit the Highlands and Islands and other parts of Scotland, we must offer top-quality, fast and efficient service. Visitors expect no less. That is particularly important for foreign visitors, who in many cases are prepared to pay a bit extra for higher-quality service. The remoter Highlands will never be a cheap holiday option due to our distance from the centres of population, so we must become a quality holiday option.

It is important to debate the future of the tourism industry. The industry makes an important contribution to the Scottish economy and cannot be ignored. It is very sad that the Tory motion indulges in gesture politics by appearing to offer solutions to the tourism industry that either are unworkable or are measures that are already being enacted.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

In common with other MSPs, I recently received a short-breaks package from the Scottish Tourist Board, enclosing a sample of the board's promotion material and details of the current £2.3 million marketing campaign, which focuses on attracting visitors to Scotland during May and into the summer. visitscotland tells us that the campaign is its biggest-ever assault on the domestic market. I believe that the initiative is very much welcomed throughout the industry. The board informs us:

"For every £1 the Scottish Tourist Board spends on promotion £6 is generated in return on behalf of Scotland's tourism industry."

The financial help that the Executive has given to a hard-pressed tourism industry is welcome.

In our previous debate on the tourism industry, I asked the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning whether she would consider refunding this year's membership subscriptions to all tourist board members. I was pleased that she replied that she would encourage visitscotland

"to examine the £5 million package that it has received to ensure that some refunds of subscriptions are made to the most affected businesses."—[Official Report, 28 March 2001; Vol 11, c 978.]

I was very pleased to receive a copy of a letter from Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board advising its members that 50 per cent of their membership fees and quality assurance fees would be returned to them. All the refunds would be funded out of the Executive's package. In addition, £104,000 would be spent by Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board on recovery marketing plans, which would help to gain additional funding from the European rural development fund. That represents real help.

I have been contacted by many businesses in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that are suffering the effects of the foot-and-mouth crisis. Whether they are large hotels or small one-person businesses, many tell me that bookings are down by 50 per cent and that they face real difficulties. That is why I am so pleased that, with the help of the Scottish Executive funding on which I have concentrated this morning, the marketing strategy is in place and action is under way to give help to businesses in my constituency.

However, once the emergency relief is over, a more effective, longer-term funding mechanism is needed to help the tourism industry. We cannot continue with our somewhat ad hoc approach to the funding of this important industry. We have an ineffective system at the moment. It is no wonder that so much criticism has been levelled at Aberdeen City Council over its refusal to pay its fair share to the tourism industry in the north-east. That refusal resulted in the closure and movement of the area tourist board's office, which affected not just the city of Aberdeen but the whole of the north-east, including Deeside and the Kincardineshire coast in my constituency.

The system whereby local councils are left to decide their own contribution levels cannot continue. We have a national industry, which needs a guaranteed level of funding. We cannot go on funding our tourism industry through our hard-pressed councils. We need a minimum of direct funding from the Scottish Executive. We must reform the ridiculous system of funding now.

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

On listening to the radio this morning, I was pleased and relieved to hear that, rather like Baldrick, Mr William Hague is in possession of a cunning plan. That cunning plan is to reduce the level of fuel tax. I commend Mr Hague, the former putative leader of the Opposition, for developing that cunning plan, but I fear that, as with Mr Baldrick's efforts, it will go awry because of one fatal flaw. The flaw is that it is clear to everyone except Brian Wilson and Helen Liddell that Mr William Hague has about as much chance of being in a position after the general election to implement his cunning plan as Mr Ronald Biggs has of becoming a High Court judge.

At least the Conservatives have recognised their sins of the past. We must always welcome the occasion when a sinner repents. However, I offer the advice that when they make a confession, they should make it a bit more fulsome and perhaps a bit longer. It was the Conservatives who introduced the fuel duty escalator. That policy was introduced in the guise of helping the environment.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

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

Certainly, once I have moved on a little.

While the Conservatives' motives were ostensibly of green and greenery, we know that the real motive was greed—the greed of successive chancellors.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

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

I will take the lady first, as I am sure that Alex Fergusson would urge me to.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Which is greater: Mr Ewing's figure, which refers to gallons, or the Conservatives' figure, which refers to litres?

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

You must address the motion, Mr Ewing.

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

Certainly. I think that I am addressing the amendment, which relates to high fuel costs.

We certainly have a shining example of the highest fuel tax in the world, which has been imposed by Maureen Macmillan's party following the Conservatives' example and which is deeply damaging to our tourism industry. The figure that the Labour party is putting to the people of Scotland is zero, as it will not even recognise that the problem exists. Our figure is 10p per gallon as an immediate cut.

Members will recall from my previous speeches that we are committed to reducing the level of fuel tax in Scotland to the European average. That is where the Conservative proposal is flawed, even if it were not a cunning plan that is bound to go awry. The Conservatives must recognise that the problem is the competitive disadvantage that affects tourism and other areas.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

rose—

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

I must move on to deal with the point that the minister for tourism, enterprise, lifelong learning and general election campaigns made, which was that we talk down the tourism industry. That argument is the last refuge of a minister who has no coherent criticism to make. It is incoherent and meaningless waffle.

I take the opportunity to praise the efforts of David Noble and Delia Holland of HOST, which covers a massive area of Scotland, as it is important to praise the people who are delivering on the ground. However, their hands are tied by a dreadful rates relief package and "The Comeback Code", which leaves decisions in the hands of the landowners whom the Labour party is supposed to bring into line.

The survival workshop is a complete waste of money. It provides up to £2,000 for legal advice for people who know well that their problems are lack of market and loss of business, about which no lawyer or accountant will be able to do anything.

The Scottish Licensed Trade Association pointed out the fatal flaw and the reason why we lodged our amendment. The SLTA states that the problem is that decisions taken by successive chancellors

"are making the cost of taking holidays in Scotland prohibitive, even to Scots. VAT at 17.5% on accommodation and meals, the high cost of fuel, the exorbitant commercial rates and"—

I stress this point for the minister—

"the strong pound have made Scotland too expensive for both British people and for visitors from abroad."

That is the real problem, but the Labour party has no appetite even to recognise that it exists.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

As many members have said, we now recognise that tourism is a key part of the Scottish economy and generates substantial revenue—about £2.5 billion, or about 5 per cent of Scottish gross domestic product. That key role has been recognised over the past two years, with the substantial new strategy for Scottish tourism that acknowledges the many challenges that face a successful tourism industry in Scotland and identifies clear paths for the way forward. The strategy identifies key niche marketing areas, such as golf, culture, genealogy and activity tourism. Business tourism is another area that is of particular importance in Aberdeen and Scotland's other cities. The tourism strategy has been backed up by substantial investment, such as the £11 million that was announced last February.

The current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has undoubtedly put the tourism industry under pressure, particularly in areas such as Dumfries. Swift action has been taken to support tourism businesses, both in Dumfries and throughout Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does Elaine Thomson, who represents part of the city of Aberdeen, agree with my call for area tourist boards to receive direct funding in future? That would help us to get away from situations such as the one that occurred when Aberdeen City Council did not provide the required amount of money for the tourism industry.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

During its recent inquiry, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee considered funding for area tourist boards. I know that the committee will come back to that issue. A successful meeting involving Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board, Aberdeen City Council and the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic, Alasdair Morrison, was held recently at which the way forward in Aberdeen was discussed. Many different contributions are made to support tourism in Aberdeen and the north-east, such as the Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre, which is supported entirely by Aberdeen City Council. The situation is not as straightforward as it might appear.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What about direct funding?

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Discussions on that issue are under way, but I repeat: in supporting tourism, many contributions are made—the issue is not just about support for Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board.

One of the most useful activities that any member can pursue is that of not talking down Scottish tourism. There has been quite enough gloom and doom and pessimistic prediction. The Tories' motion is not helpful, particularly given the way in which it undermines visitscotland, which is working hard to restructure itself.

Ministers have taken many steps to support Scottish tourism, such as their visits to America, which is one of our key overseas markets. It has been made quite clear that Scotland is open to visitors, contrary to the sometimes over-dramatic pictures of burning farm animals.

Other measures that have been taken include the provision of £5 million to support visitscotland and of another £5 million for the enterprise network. Rates relief has been provided, with the Scottish Executive funding 95 per cent rather than the usual 75 per cent. Other industrial sectors, such as the paper industry and the fish processing sector, are quite envious of that support.

Today, the minister offered further help for Dumfries, through Scottish Enterprise, which I welcome. While we shall have to wait to see the full impact of foot-and-mouth disease on Scottish tourism, we know already that the figures for Easter were higher than predicted.

I note from television advertisements that visitscotland is heavily targeting the home market. Sixty per cent of the Scottish tourism industry's revenue comes from within the UK and I think that visitscotland's campaign will be productive. I hope that many more people will take short breaks in Scotland this year. I am a firm adherent to the belief that Scotland is a great holiday destination, so I am off to visit Orkney for the first time this summer. I hope that others will take this opportunity to go on similar visits.

Many of the problems that affect Scottish tourism are deep seated and existed well before the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The Scottish tourism strategy is designed to address those problems and I believe that they will be addressed clearly over the next few years.

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

This morning, we have heard Dismal Dave and Kenny and the Moaners talking about tourism. We also heard a bit of fantasy from Fergus Ewing.

Helen Eadie (Labour, Dunfermline East)

Does Ian Jenkins agree that Fergus Ewing, who raised the issue of fuel taxes, failed to acknowledge or to agree that Britain has the lowest income and business taxes in the European Union? We must consider taxation policy in the round, rather than concentrate on fuel duty.

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

I am happy to agree that tax is a complicated issue. Fergus Ewing's comments about William Hague's chances of being able to make decisions about taxes might have resonance for Alex Salmond and others.

The Rod Lynch episode was a bad start, but the Tories will hope that a bad start to a campaign does not preclude recovery. I hope that they will be sympathetic and recognise that the Rod Lynch affair should not condemn visitscotland to failure for ever.

The tone of today's debate has been negative and unhelpful. It is neither fair nor right to kick an organisation when it is in difficulties, given that it is doing the job that we want it to do in difficult circumstances. At a time of crisis, it is absolutely wrong to lodge critical motions that sap the organisation's morale.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

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

I am sorry, but I will not give way just now. Helen Eadie's intervention took up about half my time.

Yesterday, I spoke to the chief executive of the Scottish Borders Tourist Board. He assured me that tourist board chief executives and visitscotland are determined and committed to working together professionally in a way that clarifies their roles and prevents the overlap that existed previously. We ought not to decry the work of the STB, which introduced standards of professionalism. No one can deny that, broadly speaking, quality in Scottish tourism has risen hugely over the past few years. It must continue to rise and, as Maureen Macmillan said, we must get to the stage where Scotland is seen to be a quality destination.

The second part of David Davidson's motion refers to the recovery plan. The recovery plan has two aspects, one of which is getting people to Scotland. That is a chicken-and-egg situation—we must ensure that when people arrive, the infrastructure and quality businesses are in place to greet them. I welcome the recovery plan announced by Ms Alexander, which attacks on both those fronts and will help businesses survive. The trouble is that some of the best businesses are those that have invested most and that are in the greatest difficulty when there is a lacuna in their funding. We must ensure that those businesses are able to survive, so that they can cater for visitors when they come back.

When George Lyon welcomed the announcement on Dumfries and Galloway, I was pleased to hear him say that similar consideration should be given to the Borders, which has been stigmatised by the outbreak of foot-and-mouth in the area. I saw Ms Alexander nodding when he said that and I hope that she will convert her agreement into action shortly. It is crucial that, when the Borders economic forum meets Mr McLeish shortly, those things are treated positively. Of course the Scottish tourism industry has been affected nationally, but the areas that have been infected with the disease must overcome a psychological barrier in trying to attract visitors.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Liberal policy is quite interesting this morning. Two years ago, when I introduced in the chamber our policy of direct funding for area tourist boards, the Liberals talked it down and voted against it. Do Mr Rumbles and the Liberals now agree with our policy?

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

I am sure that Mr Davidson is mistaken. I may recall imperfectly, but I spoke in favour of direct funding and do so again now. I support Mr Rumbles in that aspiration, which may take time. I welcomed three-year funding through the councils, but direct funding would be better.

The third strand of Mr Davidson's motion is on the opening up of the countryside. Yesterday, I was at a meeting of the cross-party sports group. We were made aware of the difficulties that are caused by the mixture of open and closed areas for people with tourism businesses and those who are trying to run events such as the great Caledonian run.

It is vital that we send out clear messages. The Executive has done so positively with the gradings of infected, at-risk and provisionally free areas. That policy should be hardened up if it can be. Publicity and moral pressure should be directed towards people who have areas and estates that are closed to the public to open them whenever that is possible without risk. We live in a democracy and so cannot always order people to do things. There are clearly difficulties in the Borders, where farming people are really nervous about that. We must accept that there are limitations.

On an optimistic note, hundreds of visitors came to Peebles last weekend. They did not need to go into the forests. They could walk on Tweed Green, listen to silver bands or go shopping. Much of the Borders is as good as it can be for tourists.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Again I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on the future of the tourism industry. I want to concentrate my remarks on three issues that have been raised: the position of visitscotland and ministerial responsibility; consequential compensation, which seems to have slipped off the agenda; and the wider aspects of tourism and the urgent action that needs to be taken now.

In her opening speech, the minister said that it is a small nation that covets grievance when errors are made. That was apparently a cover suggesting that no one is to blame. I am not seeking a scapegoat for the crisis in the tourism industry or for the complete mess in the appointment of the chief executive. Believing in parliamentary accountability is not seeking grievance and does not make us a small nation. As she is the minister, the minister is responsible. We were told by the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning and Gaelic at the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that she is responsible, so it is not uncharitable of MSPs to call her to account. That does not belittle us.

I want to ask some of the questions that remain unanswered. We were told that no minister was involved in the debacle surrounding the chief executive and that no minister was available to go to the interview panels. The minister did not say that a civil servant represented the Executive. At no point has it been denied that there was an Executive representative. If there was no representative, what was the civil servant doing there? Were they there to keep out the cold? Were they there to represent the Executive or were they just lost? Did they just wander in and wonder where they were? They were there to represent the ministerial interest. Did they ask pertinent questions of the candidates? Did they ask the candidates how many jobs they had? Did they even bother to check whether the person was available to give 100 per cent commitment to the industry in its time of need? If they did not, why not? Why did the minister not demand that those questions were asked? What was the point in having a representative there if those serious questions were not to be addressed?

Despite the fact that ministers are trying to put the problem at arm's length, the decision about whether to appoint the new chief executive was ultimately for the minister responsible for tourism. Before the contract was signed off, it was the minister's responsibility to ensure that all the details were right. Rather than hiving off to Tuscany, perhaps it would have been more useful if he could have done so. Perhaps his deputy could have given the matter some of his close attention.

Before I deal with consequential compensation, I want to put in the Official Report that the Executive has not made one attempt to contradict any of those details or to answer any of those questions. Perhaps the minister will do so in his closing remarks.

Henry McLeish is another minister who seems to have had a lot of trouble. On 22 March 2001, the current First Minister—we do not know for how much longer—told Parliament in answer to John Swinney:

"We are working on every front. Over the next few weeks, we hope to be able to develop consequential compensation."—[Official Report, 22 March 2001; Vol 11, c 877.]

What have we seen since then? Total inertia. Businesses still do not know whether consequential compensation will come, what it will mean or how to qualify for it. That is another example of the First Minister promising something that he later realised he could not afford to promise, or did not understand. I would welcome from the Executive today some clarification of whether the First Minister was misleading Parliament, whether he was misled by his advisers, or whether he did not understand the terms that he used.

Mr Lyon asserted that we should not turn visitscotland into a political football. He said that we should not use visitscotland to highlight Executive failings. Is that the same George Lyon who used visitscotland and the debacle surrounding it to do precisely that? Is that the same George Lyon who told the nation in a burst of unparalleled publicity for him that he was the person to call the Executive to account for fighting like ferrets in a sack and for its members looking at their own promotion before the industry's needs? Mr Lyon is losing credibility by the minute.

I welcome the debate because it is a chance to put in context the current role of the tourism industry. Before she left the chamber, Elaine Thomson made the point that, before the industry's immediate difficulties, there were problems from the strong pound, the high cost of fuel, poor marketing and two years of consecutive decline in the number of overseas visitors. After the insufficient package of measures that has been implemented—if I had time, I would say why it is insufficient—and after the immediate crisis has passed, let us remember that the systemic problems that existed before the crisis remain and remain unanswered. Once we are out of this particularly dark period, it is time to refocus our efforts not on getting people re-elected but on getting the Scottish tourism industry back on its feet.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I am happy to respond on behalf of the Executive. My colleagues, Maureen Macmillan and Elaine Thomson, were absolutely right when they said that Scotland now appreciates the importance of the tourism industry. Maureen Macmillan was correct when she dismissed David Davidson's motion as a vain attempt at gesture politics.

Mr Davidson spoke of the Executive's abject failure over the past two years. In the past two years, we have taken tourism from the fringes of political thinking and placed it at the heart of the Executive's programme. Mr Davidson said that the Executive had totally failed to respond to tourism. Last week, I met a former member of the Scottish Tourist Board. She spent two terms on the board under the Tory Government and she said that, in the six years that she served, she did not once meet or have any contact with a Tory tourism minister. That shows the way in which the Tories treated tourism.

When we last debated tourism—in the final statement and debate in this chamber before the Easter recess—Mr Peter Lederer's appointment as chairman was endorsed as an inspired choice by people from across the political spectrum. We should again put on record our recognition of Mr Lederer's undoubted skills and talents.

David Davidson launched into an unwarranted attack on the British Tourist Authority and came out with a spurious claim that BTA staff are misleading American visitors. I have seen and heard for myself the work of BTA staff in their call centre in New York. They are doing an excellent job; they have been doing an excellent job all through this very difficult episode. Mr Davidson would be well advised to establish the facts before so roundly criticising staff who are doing an excellent job.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I have only five minutes and I want to respond to as many members as possible.

Kay Ullrich made a valid and pertinent point when she talked about the American media hysteria surrounding foot-and-mouth—or hoof-and-mouth, as they call it. I am happy to reassure Kay Ullrich that ministers—both UK and Scottish—have been working with the American media to get the message across. Our ambassadors and consuls general have also been engaging aggressively with the media.

George Lyon rightly began with a positive picture of tourism across Scotland. I am happy to say that, in my constituency over the Easter weekend, the numbers on ferries sailing to Barra, Lochboisdale, North Uist, Harris and Lewis were all up on last year. Numbers on the Ullapool to Stornoway route increased by a staggering 28 per cent. Mr Lyon asked what we are doing about recovering the American market. A great deal of work is being done on that market and similar efforts are continuing in other important markets in Europe. I will deal with the matter of access that Mr Lyon and other members raised in few minutes. I can certainly endorse what he said about it being in all our interests to stop kicking visitscotland.

Alex Fergusson raised concerns about the enterprise company and the tourist board in Dumfries and Galloway. I reinforce the points that have already been made: they have been receiving support and, as was announced by Wendy Alexander this morning, they have now received additional support.

Elaine Murray was absolutely correct when she said that we must avoid the temptation to talk down the tourism industry. I recognise the efforts of tourism leaders in Dumfries and Galloway. Everyone appreciates the need for co-operation between Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders.

For example, I believe that the southern upland way has the potential to become one of the jewels of Scottish tourism. However, before it is properly developed, it will require a lot of co-operation between the councils and area tourist boards in Dumfries and Galloway and the Borders.

The contributions from Kenny MacAskill, Fergus Ewing and Duncan Hamilton can be summed up by words, written in 1943, that I read in The Herald yesterday. The article mentioned a report on the Scottish nationalist movement, which was studied by MI5 in 1943. It said that MI5's view was that

"while individual members are mischievous and potentially dangerous, the organisation itself, albeit full of sound and fury, is of little consequence."

I will move on to the issue of access. In responding to last night's debate congratulating the Scottish Youth Hostel Association on its 70th anniversary, Allan Wilson referred to the difficulties being created in some parts of the country by unofficial closure of land. That is causing significant economic harm to some in the tourism industry. I take this opportunity to support fully what Allan Wilson said. Many landowners, farmers and crofters in the provisionally free area have followed our advice, carried out risk assessments and reopened their land where advised that it was safe to do so. However, others have refused to co-operate with local authorities and have kept in place unofficial signs saying that the countryside is closed. That is not acceptable behaviour. It came as no surprise to me to learn that Lord Burton of Dochfour is one of the landowners who is not taking the wider view. He is indulging in the selfishness that has been his hallmark over the years.

In closing, I will reiterate what my colleague Wendy Alexander said in her opening remarks. The message from this Parliament needs to be that Scotland is open for business. Our real task with visitscotland should be to revitalise our tourism industry.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

This has been an important debate because tourism is Scotland's most important industry. Many people say that often, but rarely are the words backed up by action and deeds. The vulnerability of the industry and the fact that we cannot take it, its income or its jobs for granted have been underlined by the foot-and-mouth crisis. I welcome, as a first step, the package that has been announced. Interestingly, it was Ross Finnie rather than Ms Alexander who announced it.

I especially welcome the additional £5 million from Scottish Enterprise to Scottish Enterprise Dumfries and Galloway. That is a start. I hope that in the welcome debate that we will have this afternoon on the specifics in Dumfries and Galloway, we will get some more detail. As the minister knows from her various meetings and from the people's protest last week, the priority is to provide some form of survival loan to businesses. That must be included in the detail, otherwise the package will disappoint and cause genuine anger. I look forward to hearing that the detail is in place so that, as we have done today, all in Dumfries and Galloway can move forward positively to overcome this crisis.

It was interesting to have a debate in which Ian Jenkins turned nasty; and if there is anyone in this chamber who can lecture us with gravitas on incoherent and meaningless waffle, it is Fergus Ewing. As Duncan Hamilton so well pointed out, George Lyon did yet another volte-face and, rather than blaming the Labour party for all the problems in the Scottish tourism industry, he proposed that Sir Malcolm Rifkind could lead the industry. I am afraid, George, that Sir Malcolm will be otherwise engaged.

I agree with Elaine Thomson, Maureen Macmillan and others who pointed out that the tourism industry was in serious difficulty before foot-and-mouth. The high value of the pound and the cost of fuel were major disincentives to come to Scotland. The chaos—or what we thought then was chaos—that prevailed at the Scottish Tourist Board, leading to the departure of the chairman and senior executives; the PricewaterhouseCoopers report; the curate's egg that is the area tourist board structure; and the lack of clarity between the tourist boards, Scottish Enterprise and local government, existed before. Now, they have been compounded by the foot-and-mouth crisis.

I accept that the Executive did not bring the crisis about, but it caused the fiasco surrounding the appointment of Rod Lynch. I make no apology for criticising those things. As Elaine Murray mentioned, Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board is now well led by a new chairman and a new chief executive. I had no difficulty in calling for the resignation of the previous chairman, who had led in a most incompetent fashion. If people do not highlight such difficulties, they go on and on and on. It is the duty of the Opposition parties in this Parliament—and even the duty of Mr Lyon, on occasion—to highlight genuine difficulties that exist in the visitscotland organisation.

In restoring confidence, Peter Lederer has a big job to do. As the minister knows, he has a big job to do in Dumfries and Galloway, where there is genuine concern that visitscotland is unable to represent all our tourism businesses. I am very pleased that Alasdair Morrison, the minister with responsibility for tourism, gave an undertaking last week to take up that very issue with the acting chief executive. I am pleased that the board of visitscotland is in Dumfries today. We need to see some action, with the south of Scotland being properly represented on that board.

As my colleague Alex Fergusson said, much needs to be done. Interestingly, our survey of more than 1,000 tourism businesses in South of Scotland, asking them what the Scottish Parliament could do, highlighted lobbying of the UK Government on the cost of fuel as being the single most important thing for the tourism industry.

Tourism businesses and other electors will have their opportunity to influence the UK Government on the cost of fuel over the next four weeks. As David Davidson said, our promise on that is very clear: a 6p a litre reduction in the cost of fuel. By my calculation—Mr MacAskill should note this point—that is more than 10p a gallon. Given the SNP propensity for foreign figures, I am sure that Mr MacAskill will be using the US or Canadian gallon. Today, as ever, Mr MacAskill gave us figures for Estonia, Lithuania and Canada, but did not give us a budgeted figure for Scotland.

The other plea that I would make to ministers is to end the mishmash and lack of clarity between the respective roles of Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and visitscotland/the Scottish Tourist Board. Who is responsible for tourism? We know that it is not ministers. Who is there to support businesses and help them to develop? The current area tourism structure is a mess. In many cases, good people operate it, but there is a lack of clarity about what they are doing.

The fact that the area tourist board is a membership organisation leads to increasing exclusion of hundreds of tourism-related businesses. That must be reviewed. I am very concerned to find myself agreeing with Mike Rumbles, but I am reassured by David Davidson, who tells me that Mike Rumbles is agreeing with us when we call for the direct funding of area tourist boards and local organisations, rather than funding through local authorities. Local authorities and area tourist boards must work in partnership, but it must be a partnership of equals and that cannot exist where the tourist board is dependent on the council for funding.

Tourist boards must take issues forward and lobby the council on behalf of their members. As members, particularly those who represent rural areas, will know, there are many important issues in relation to changing councils' development and planning policies and signage. The tourist boards must be able to have an arm's length relationship with the councils.

I want to draw attention to yet another shambles, which in previous debates was heralded as the future of Scottish tourism yet failed to get a mention today: Project Ossian. How many times did we hear that Ossian was the future and that thousands of people would use it to book their holidays in bed and breakfasts, hotels and self-catering accommodation across Scotland? In reality, Ossian was another shambles. It was the wrong system—all too reminiscent of the computer system used at the Scottish Qualifications Authority. Some measures are in place. For example, I have met the people who are developing the website, which will be an important element of the Scottish tourism industry, but we cannot have shambles after shambles in our most important industry. It is time to stop saying that tourism is Scotland's most important industry and to have some action instead.

Holyrood

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is a Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party debate on motion S1M-1918, in the name of David McLetchie, on Holyrood, and two amendments to that motion.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The motion seeks to reaffirm the resolution passed by the Scottish Parliament on 5 April, which placed a £195 million cost limit on the Holyrood project, and to call on the Scottish Executive—conspicuous by the absence of its members this morning—to confirm that no more public money will be wasted on that project.

It is more than a year since the Parliament debated the subject. In the meantime, there have been numerous reports indicating that the £195 million cash limit may well be breached and that the project will not be completed on schedule by the end of 2002. Indeed, according to Mr David Black—author of "All The First Minister's Men", which was published today—the eventual cost of the Parliament building will not so much breach the £195 million limit, as drive a coach and horses through it. In his book, Mr Black predicts a total cost in the order of £300 million.

What is not in doubt is the duty of the Holyrood progress group, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Scottish Executive to advise the Parliament whether the £195 million figure is going to be exceeded and, if so, how the cost overrun is to be financed. It is a serious matter. The Scottish public expect the building to be built for that amount. To fail to do so would further undermine the reputation of the Scottish Parliament and public confidence in it.

The last thing that we need is for people to start trying to wriggle out of the £195 million figure by claiming that we should take account of inflation. That is what the amendment in John Home Robertson's name seeks to do. Of course, we are being asked to take account, not of bog-standard inflation with which we are all familiar, but of super inflation, which apparently affects only building projects in Edinburgh and London. Let us not forget that the Spencely report estimate, which informed the decision that the Parliament made in April 2000, included an element of £9.4 million for inflation, covering the period from March 1998 to completion of the tender process.

We must also knock firmly on the head the idea—again to be found in the amendment in Mr Home Robertson's name—that by sticking to the £195 million figure we will somehow end up with a substandard building. That idea should be treated with the contempt that it deserves—it simply reinforces the damaging perception that politicians inhabit a completely different planet from the rest of the population. Nothing has done more to tarnish the reputation of the Scottish Parliament than the handling of the Holyrood project. The chain of deception that has characterised the project from beginning to end has rightly angered people in Scotland. The project has also been characterised by incompetence, mismanagement and misinformation.

In the white paper published before the devolution referendum, less than four years ago, the Scottish people were promised a Parliament for between £10 million and £40 million. Since then, there have been attempts to suggest that the £40 million figure was not realistic. That is not true. In a letter to me, the permanent secretary, Muir Russell, confirms that we could indeed have had a Parliament building for around that figure. He writes:

"The £40m figure related to a new build (at Leith) on a brownfield site to a reasonable modern standard. The costings for this were obviously on a notional basis rather than being built up from detailed design elements, but, having checked our records, I can say that this figure was intended to include not only construction works but also fees, fitting out, furniture, VAT and land acquisition."

As befits our most senior civil servant, Mr Russell is a man who measures his words with care. Would that the same care had been exercised by his political masters.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I want to underline the fact that Mr McLetchie's claim of incompetence stretches back to the very time that he describes, when the original specifications were drawn up. At that time, the assumption was that there would be 250 people working in and around the Parliament. Five months after Parliament opened, however, 1,200 people were working here. The advice tendered to the then Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong and the people who tendered it should have walked.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I could not agree more with those sentiments. That is one adminicle in the case against both the Executive and the Scottish Office ministers who were initially responsible for this misbegotten project.

The £40 million economical option was rejected by the Scottish Office in favour of a new Holyrood Palace and the desire to build a monument to the political egos of the architects of devolution. Ever since, the cost of the project has escalated out of control.

However, instead of doing something about it, the Scottish Executive—and the Labour party in particular—has spent its time trying to evade responsibility. The problem has been exacerbated by the spin and misinformation that has surrounded the project from the beginning. Gaining information about the cost of Holyrood has been like pulling teeth. When the public was told that the cost had gone from £40 million to £50 million, that was accepted at face value.

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

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

However, thanks to Mr Stone's assiduous colleague Donald Gorrie, we established that when the extras were added on, the real cost was going to be £90 million. Before the debate in June 1999, we were told that construction costs had risen to £62 million and that when all the extras were added on the cost was going to be £109 million, a figure to which the Executive committed itself in that debate—a commitment, I remind the chamber, that was given by both the late First Minister and the present one.

In keeping with the misinformation that has clouded discussion of the issue, the figures trotted out at that point excluded landscaping into Holyrood park and the cost of new roads. We now know that those things will cost an additional £14 million—another charge on the taxpayer, another dent in the Scottish block grant. Thanks to the Spencely report, we also know that the £109 million excluded design risks and other costs amounting to £27 million. That information was withheld from the then First Minister, albeit with his retrospective approval.

I have no doubt that the rot finally set in with the decision to transfer responsibility for the project to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. That is not to denigrate the efforts of our colleagues, but it was the moment at which ministers were allowed to pass the buck and evade direct responsibility for the project. Without responsibility there can be no accountability. That lack of accountability is acknowledged, I am pleased to see, in Michael Russell's amendment.

The Parliament has had two opportunities to stop, take stock of the process and look again at the available options. Donald Gorrie's amendment on 17 June 1999 proposed just such a move, but was narrowly rejected by the combined weight of Labour and Liberal Democrat votes, with only a few honourable exceptions, such as Mr Gorrie himself. On 5 April last year, a similar amendment, calling for delay so that we could make an informed choice based on consideration of all the options, was rejected in favour of Gordon Jackson's motion, which was bulldozed through with the votes of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

David McLetchie should be aware that, unlike in his party and the SNP, there was no whip. Jim Wallace made that clear in the debate that day. David McLetchie should acknowledge that fact and accept it.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The Liberal Democrats may not have needed a whip, but they certainly exercised very poor judgment when they voted for Gordon Jackson's motion. They should make a better job of representing the interests of the people of Scotland than they do.

Last April's debate gave some cause for optimism, given the Executive's apparent determination to stick to the new limit of £195 million. It looked as if the Executive had finally acknowledged its responsibility for containing costs, but that hope was short-lived. It soon became clear that the Executive had no intention of putting a minister on the Holyrood progress group, which was established at its own behest, pursuant to Gordon Jackson's motion. We have argued consistently that, without a minister on it, the Holyrood progress group is simply a device to shield the Executive from its responsibility, which is why we have refused to appoint a Conservative minister—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

In your dreams.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I meant a Conservative member. Conservative ministers are coming, just wait. We have refused to appoint a Conservative member to the group until the First Minister is prepared to accept the Executive's responsibility as custodians of the public purse and put a minister in charge. Michael Russell's amendment asks us to end our boycott. We will do so, immediately the Scottish Executive ends its boycott and stops abdicating its responsibility.

The Holyrood progress group has suffered from the fact that it keeps losing members. First Tavish Scott, then Lewis Macdonald abandoned ship for the ministerial Mondeo. I used to think that that meant that the progress group was a fast track to the top, but that theory was scuppered by the appointment of John Home Robertson. In fairness to members of the group, they initially determined to work within the new budget figure, but from February onwards warning signals have been sounded and one member, Linda Fabiani, has had the honesty to acknowledge that the final bill could be £250 million. Would that everyone else was so frank and honest.

Frankly, it is about time—if it is not already past time—that the First Minister finally accepted responsibility for the mess that we now find ourselves in. I fear, however, that the chances of that happening are sadly remote. The very least that we have a right to expect from the Scottish Executive is that it spends our money with due care and attention. Instead, money is being thrown around like confetti and the most glaring example of that financial profligacy has been the building of the new Parliament at Holyrood. That fact that, in less than four years, the cost of the Parliament building has increased by nearly six times the original estimate is nothing short of a national scandal. That is money that should have been, and could have been, spent on our hospitals, schools and roads.

My motion urges the Executive finally to get a financial grip on the project. It may not be too keen on taking responsibility for overseeing the project, but let us not forget that it is still entirely responsible for funding it and that every extra pound squandered on Holyrood is a pound less for our public services. The farce of Holyrood has gone on long enough. It is time to put a ceiling on the Holyrood project. It is time to cut our coat according to our cloth. It is time for the Executive to say unequivocally, "Enough is enough; not a penny more." It is about time that the Executive gave us a categorical assurance that it will not pour any more taxpayers' money down the Holyrood money pit, and that no more blank cheques will be written. I invite the Parliament to ensure that that is the case by supporting my motion.

I move,

That the Parliament notes its resolution of 5 April 2000 which approved expenditure of up to £195 million on the Holyrood Project and now calls on the Scottish Executive to advise the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body that this figure is a cash limit within which the building is to be completed and that no further sums of public money will be allocated towards the project.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

One is tempted to say, "Here we are again." This is the third occasion on which the Parliament has debated the Holyrood project in the context of an actual or expected cost overrun. In June 1999, the Parliament came within a few votes—a few Liberal votes—of halting the project and considering, as we should have done, the alternatives to a scheme that was conceived in haste and political panic, and of which we have now to repent at leisure.

At that time, the Parliament was assured that the cost would be £109 million. That was not true. In April 2000, in the light of the Spencely report, the Parliament returned to the project. Gordon Jackson—I am glad that he is here—displaying the eloquence which, according to Scotland on Sunday last week, makes him one of the top earners in the legal profession, persuaded the Parliament, indeed promised the Parliament, that the cost would be no more than £195 million. That also was untrue. I note that in David Davidson's report to the Finance Committee—and I do not often quote Mr Davidson with approval—he says that

"the motion put to and passed by the Scottish Parliament, known as the 'Jackson motion', which was for a fixed cash sum at current prices of £195 million, was somewhat optimistic and, in light of the complexity of the tender and control process ... naïve for such a complicated and indeed unique design."

The Tory motion today is also optimistic and naïve, which is why I seek to amend it.

Now we are told—or rather not told, because at the heart of my amendment is the concern that we do not have the figures—that the final figure will not be £109 million; neither will it be £195 million. Still less will it be the £40 million with which we started, or even the £10 million that was put about before the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, and it will not be less than Spencely's upper estimate of £230 million. David Black has estimated the total cost, including the cost of the Calton hill plan, of all the reports that we have had, of all the consultants, of answering 150 written questions to the Presiding Officer before October 2000—only 100 of which came from Margo MacDonald—of refurbishing the premises that we are in and the knock-on costs on traffic, including traffic circulation in the old town. Members will remember the architect's promise at the beginning of the project that the project would have no effect on the old town, which now turns out to be nonsense. If all those things are taken into account, the cost of the project is certainly £300 million, and is probably rising.

This is a farce. It is also a tragedy, and it would have been easy to avoid if, at the beginning, the Labour party had listened, instead of insisting on getting its own way because it wanted to dish the nats. It could have been avoided if Labour and the Liberals had put reason and common sense to play instead of backing ministerial reputations and if this Parliament, not Westminster, had made the first decisions. As David Black convincingly argues, the root of the problem lies in the way in which the project was conceived and presented from Westminster by Westminster ministers.

Fortunately, we know who was responsible. Parliamentary committees have worked on that. Spencely uncovered some of the information, and David Black has uncovered more. However, the shambles has victims as well as villains. Scottish taxpayers are the victims and will continue to be mugged for cash. The people who are trying to bring some order and probity to the sorry tale will have a heavier and heavier burden. I pay tribute to the progress group, which is trying to bring sense, probity and some vision to a misbegotten project. The reputation of the Parliament is also suffering.

It took something approaching genius from the Government to create the situation. What should have been the most significant public building in Scotland in a century, or certainly in a generation, has become a byword for profligacy, political obduracy and sheer folly.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Whose fault is that?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

That is the fault of those who conceived the project and of the way in which the project was introduced.

It is most tragic that the project affects the reputation of the Parliament and our nation. I pay limited tribute to the Conservatives for bringing the matter to our attention. In typical Tory style, they spoiled a good idea with a silly solution. In April 2000, Mr Jackson persuaded the Parliament that it was possible to cap Holyrood costs at a fixed figure. That was not true then and is not true now. The Tories are trying to fit the same cap to a project that is costing well beyond £195 million. If the Tories succeeded, we would have holes in the ground. Those of us who are old enough to remember Edinburgh under the Tories—which was a long time ago—will remember those holes, which represented buildings that were started and never finished. The Tory motion would result in another useless hole in the ground and would be a wasteful solution. The motion is political posturing and would be awful value for the taxpayer.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

How much more is the SNP prepared to spend on completing the Holyrood project, above the £195 million and above the £14 million on landscaping works?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will address that issue in just a moment.

My amendment would make the best of a bad job. Reluctantly—and for the first time—I accept that Holyrood will have to be built. To misquote Macbeth, we are now so steeped in debt that to return would be as tedious as to go o'er. My amendment would find the tightest and most responsible way in which the Parliament—the project client—can control events and bring them to fruition.

The amendment asks the Parliament to accept its joint responsibility. All parties—including the Tories—have so far failed to accept that responsibility. The amendment also deals with the fair point that Mr McLetchie made. It says that the Scottish Executive must take its share of responsibility. With the greatest respect to the Minister for Parliament and the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, it is a disgrace that the front bench is not full. It is always full when good news is being trumpeted, but never when problems are being discussed. The Executive should respond to the debate, and a minister should join the progress group. The amendment calls for that.

The amendment would build into the Parliament's structures the proper relationship between the progress group and the Parliament—a direct relationship. The Scotland Act 1998 makes it impossible for the progress group to take ultimate legal responsibility for Holyrood, but nothing stops the corporate body from proposing a small change in standing orders that would allow it to establish a sub-committee to which it could give powers. We should tie the progress group into the Parliament's structures.

The amendment would ensure that the Parliament was fully involved and fully informed and would take decisions relating to cost. To answer Mr McLetchie's question, I say that the difficulty is that the Parliament still does not know the final costs. They must be provided now and the Parliament must debate and decide on them with the progress group.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Michael Russell give way?

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Russell is over time already.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We could go further. My SNP colleagues want the corporate body to explore with the Executive the creation of a public service trust to pay for the building. It is daft that an Executive that will not spend capital on schools and hospitals insists on spending capital in short order on the Parliament. A public service trust, as proposed by my friend Mr Wilson, would be ideal for the project.

There were and are better sites for the Parliament. There were and are better designs for the Parliament. I would rather welcome those than buttress the wrong choice, but that is not the real world. In the real world, foolish decisions were made for all the wrong reasons and were tenaciously supported by those who should have known better. Tragically, those people have won a form of victory, but we can still prevent the logical conclusion of their foolishness, which David Black says would be the endless escalation of cost, public opprobrium and the private anguish of many members. If the Parliament tightens control of the project and takes responsibility, if the Executive takes responsibility and the Conservatives join in, we may be able to make a difference. We could act responsibly—and together—to control the project. It should not be in the mess that it is in, but it is not too late. I ask the chamber to support my amendment.

I move amendment S1M-1918.2, to leave out from "and now" to end and insert:

"; expresses considerable concern that this figure is likely to be exceeded and therefore calls upon the Corporate Body to ensure that any revised costs above that figure, as well as any changes to quality standards and completion dates that affect that figure, are laid before the Parliament for debate and approval; further calls upon the Conservatives to cease their boycott of the Holyrood Progress Group so that all the principal parties in the Parliament supervise this Parliamentary project together; asks the Scottish Executive to nominate a Minister to the Group, and expresses the wish that the Progress Group should become a sub-committee of the Corporate Body and that, following such a change, the Progress Group itself should report regularly and directly to formal meetings of the Parliament, rather than to informal meetings of members as at present, thus strengthening direct Parliamentary accountability for the project."

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Everyone in Scottish politics must have been struck by the finesse of the Tory party's Tesco launch in Edinburgh yesterday. I am afraid—

David (None, Lothians)

Sorry, I think I have a point of order.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is Mr Home Robertson's amendment from an individual member, a member of the progress group or a member who represents the Executive? I am not clear about why John Home Robertson is moving the amendment.

David (None, Lothians)

I invite Mr Home Robertson to respond. Is not the amendment on behalf of the progress group?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I speak as convener of the Holyrood progress group.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

On behalf of the group?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

May I have some assistance from the chair? I have not yet started my speech. This is injury time.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Does Mr Home Robertson speak on behalf of the group or as its convener?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I speak as convener of the group.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Thank you. Not on behalf of the group.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sure that everyone was struck by the Tory party's confusion at yesterday's poster launch, and I am afraid that they have hit the wrong target, at the wrong time, again today. The motion is an attack on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, including the Tories' own John Young. I realise that William Hague has positioned himself on the far, far right, but even he might recognise that the motion suggests a constitutional monstrosity. David McLetchie has proposed that the Scottish Executive should control the Scottish Parliament's budget. I hesitate to lecture him about the basic principles of parliamentary democracy, but briefly, the general idea is that Parliament should control the Executive, not the other way round.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Once.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The Executive controls the public purse. The motion simply says that the Executive should tell the corporate body that not a penny more than £195 million should be spent on the project. That is not a constitutional outrage; it is common sense.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am afraid that Mr McLetchie is wrong. The Parliament funds the Executive, not the other way around. However, why let the small matter of parliamentary supremacy get in the way of a good rant against Scotland's new Parliament building? The Tory party has reverted to type. It has always been the principal opponent of democratic devolution in the United Kingdom—it ran the "Vote No" campaign during the 1997 referendum. Tory members told us that they were reformed characters when they took their seats here, but they were never very convincing. Now, they try to rubbish the Holyrood Parliament building project.

The decision to establish the Parliament was taken by a majority of three to one in the 1997 referendum. As Secretary of State for Scotland, before he became our first First Minister, Donald Dewar considered alternative sites and set up the competition to select an architect to design the new Parliament building. That led to the choice of the Holyrood site and of Enric Miralles's design concept. I appreciate that opinions differ about the site and the architect. Mike Russell repeated that today. However, there is nothing to be gained from endless girning and griping by politicians, pundits or even architects about those decisions.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

No, I am short of time.

Scots in general—and Edinburgh people in particular—have an unfortunate habit of talking down their own successes. After 300 years we have at last achieved our Scottish Parliament. We commissioned one of the best architects in Europe to develop a magnificent new Parliament building that is generating hundreds of new jobs and adding to Edinburgh's prestige as a capital city and as a tourist attraction. In any other city on the face of the earth that would be a cause for celebration. Here in Edinburgh, David McLetchie, Margo MacDonald and the Evening News condemn the whole enterprise as a scandal, a conspiracy and a disgrace. I hate to spoil a good moan, but the Holyrood project is very good news for Edinburgh and for the whole of Scotland.

David McLetchie's motion refers to the £195 million figure in the resolution that was passed by the Parliament on 5 April 2000.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Definitely not, Dorothy.

The Holyrood progress group is determined to achieve good value for money, but we must also live in the real world—a point that Michael Russell acknowledged. In the real world, major construction projects include unpredictable factors such as Historic Scotland and cost inflation in the building industry. We should welcome the fact that most tender packages have come in at or below cost plan. However, one very big package—for the east frame, which includes the main debating chamber of the Parliament—has run £4.5 million over cost plan. Obviously, we are taking that very seriously indeed.

I have not time to depress members with Historic Scotland's eccentric stipulations about the restoration of Queensberry House, but I must say a word about the market environment in the construction industry in this part of Scotland. Building cost inflation is running at over 10 per cent. Contractors can afford to pick and choose which jobs they tender for. There is some evidence that some contractors may have shied away from the noisy, negative publicity that has surrounded Holyrood—we have had some more of that today. Malicious talk costs money. The fact is that this internationally important building will bring great credit to the contractors who build it and I hope that we will see some competition for the remaining construction, engineering and finishing packages.

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

Will the member give way?

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry, but I have not time.

The Holyrood progress group constantly strives to contain costs. We have authorised savings worth £2.5 million in recent months and we are determined to achieve value for money. David McLetchie's motion could compel us to offset inflation by cutting the specification of the building, either by reducing provision for the public and for people who work in the Parliament, or by leaving out quality materials such as Aberdeenshire granite or Scottish oak, or by making short-term savings that would lead to greater costs in the long run. After 300 years without a Parliament, we would be mad not to make a wise, long-term investment in the new Scottish Parliament building to serve our new democracy into the next century and beyond.

Like you, Presiding Officer, I have spent most of my career in the House of Commons, which is part of the new Palace of Westminster that was constructed 150 years ago. I note that The Times of 18 June 1849 criticised the fact that that project ran 350 per cent over budget and called for substantial savings. Thank God that Mr McLetchie's pound-saving predecessors did not get their way in 1849. If they had, the world would have had to do without Big Ben or some of the other magnificent features of the United Kingdom's Parliament building.

I appreciate that it may be difficult for the Tory party to get anything into perspective nowadays, but I will put it this way: the Holyrood building will be a one-off, once-in-a-century cost of about £40 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is the sort of money that I spent at my local garden centre last weekend. It is the sort of price that most of our constituents regularly spend on a night out. For the benefit of David McLetchie, it is equivalent to the cost of two tickets for Scottish premier league games at Tynecastle—which must make Holyrood seem an absolutely excellent investment, not least because it is quite near to Easter Road.

I acknowledge the constructive approach that the nationalist Opposition has taken in today's debate, but I must advise Mike Russell that the Holyrood project must remain the responsibility of the whole Parliament, not of the Executive. That is why I respond to the debate in my capacity as convener of the Holyrood progress group. I pay tribute to Linda Fabiani and Jamie Stone, as well as to our professional colleagues on the group. I also pay tribute to Lewis Macdonald, who was my predecessor as convener. It is a pity that the Conservatives have decided to boycott the group, but that is their problem.

The Holyrood progress group will continue to make regular reports to the corporate body and to the Parliament. We are determined to get this important project completed to the highest possible quality standards, on time, and with the best value for money.

I urge the Parliament to reject the Tory party motion out of hand and I move amendment S1M-1918.1, to leave out from "and now" to end and insert:

"and notes the good progress of the construction of the Holyrood Parliament Building; welcomes the fact that most of the tender packages have come in at prices in line with the cost estimates but recognises the effect of an above-average inflation rate in the construction industry in the Edinburgh area; further notes the identification of possible savings by the Holyrood Progress Group, which has led to unanimous decisions by both the Progress Group and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to authorise savings of £2.5 million, but endorses their firm commitment not to compromise the quality of Scotland's new Parliament Building; acknowledges the rigorous work of the Project Team and the Holyrood Progress Group to achieve good value for money, and directs them to continue to work towards the completion of the construction of the building in December 2002 as an internationally recognised home for our new democracy which will be a source of pride for people throughout Scotland."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

This is the third non-debate that we have had on the subject. In the two previous debates, it was quite clear that the vast majority of members voted one way or the other out of loyalty or opposition to Mr Dewar. The merits of the case simply did not enter into the heads of most members. That is beyond dispute and is demonstrated by Mike Watson in his excellent book.

Today, we are again having a non-debate. The Conservative motion is premature and foolish and we have just heard from the convener of the group that is meant to be organising the new Parliament building. As I understand it, there will be a shoot-out at the OK Corral—or whatever the right metaphor is—some time in the next month or two. Options will be presented to the Parliament about costs and what we will get for the money and we will then make a decision. We were not promised that by Mr Home Robertson, which I found deeply disappointing, but I understand that that will happen.

It is worrying that, throughout the whole history of this thing, Parliament has been deceived—quite honestly. Go back further. I spent yesterday clearing out my office at Westminster and brought home a lot of old press cuttings. Many of them relate to the project's earlier stages, when it started to go wrong, which was long before the Parliament was set up. The deceit in the answers that were given at that time—I complained officially but was told that there was no deceit—is now absolutely apparent.

The successive figures for the costs that were given during the two previous Parliamentary debates were simply stitched together to ensure that Margo MacDonald and I lost the vote. They had no credibility. I am not sure whether I am allowed to say it, but, frankly, we were lied to—not by individuals, but certainly by the establishment. We were seriously misled on the costs.

Did anyone who gave the matter two minutes' thought reckon that £195 million was in any way a realistic figure? It was not. It was highly optimistic and it was based on crossed fingers and wish-fulfilment. As for the figures before that, one cannot get a public lavatory for £10 million, let alone a Parliament. The £50 million figure was absolutely absurd. The plans that were put out were—to use the favourite Labour phrase—for a bog-standard Parliament building on an alleged site in Leith. Throughout the history of the project, we have consistently been deceived about the figures.

I do not blame the people who are currently grappling with the problem. I differ from the critics in the Tory party, because I think that those people are honest and are genuinely doing their best. However, they are at the mercy of the information that they are given. One gets all sorts of information from other sources, and in my view the official sources of information consistently mislead the members who are trying to put things right. When the facts come out—which must happen sooner or later—if we have been consistently lied to, some people will be in severe trouble.

The Parliament now has a problem. Our ball is in a very deep bunker because of past errors. We cannot get out of that by imposing a £195 million cap. It takes me back to the time when, 20-odd years ago, the Conservative's budget for the City of Edinburgh District Council would have left the council with half a lift.

That is what will happen if we have such arbitrary figures. We will be unable to roof the building, or we will enter it and there will be no desks. An absurd figure in the past was a big mistake, but to hitch a new policy to that figure is even more absurd. We must consider the options and work out what the costs will be.

Mike Russell's amendment tries to be sensible, and, therefore, I will support it. In all honesty, I find Mr John Home Robertson's amendment remarkably complacent.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is appropriate that we debate the spending commitment to the Holyrood project because, although—as David Black has made clear—the responsibility for the choice of Holyrood rests with another place, this Parliament is now responsible for the completion of Holyrood.

Holyrood is often described as Scotland's dome, but that is wholly unacceptable—London's dome was a mere financial hiccup compared with the appalling scandal of what has happened here in Edinburgh. As I have often remarked, the story of Holyrood is even worse than that of Sydney Opera House—another conceptual architectural design whose costs escalated well beyond the financial boundaries. At least our Aussie friends have the satisfaction of having the 10th wonder of the world.

The dome was a UK project on behalf of 60 million people, which was funded by voluntary lottery contributions and corporate sponsorship. Labour's Holyrood heresy is a Scottish project on behalf of 5 million people, which is being funded by taxpayers. The cost of the dome rose from £9.66 per person throughout Britain to £12.63 per person; the cost of Holyrood has risen from £8 per Scottish person to £39 per person. While the cost of the dome rose by some 30 per cent, from £580 million to £758 million, the cost of Holyrood rose from an initial £10 million to £20 million, to £40 million and then from £40 million to £195 million. We all know that the cost will continue to grow to anything between £250 million and £300 million. Those are conservative figures—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Conservative party figures.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Members may misinterpret the meaning of the word conservative. If they look at the Scottish Office documents, they will see that the conservative figures were £10 million, £20 million, £40 million and £195 million. Those are the figures the public understand.

If we compare the original estimate with the worst possible outcome, we would have an overspend of 2,900 per cent. An equivalent overspend on the dome would have meant that the dome cost £17.5 billion. This project is not the dome; it is a Holyrood disaster of our own making.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I appreciate the passion with which Mr Monteith argues about conservative figures, but will he answer a simple question? From what we have heard Mr Home Robertson say, it is possible that, at the end of the day, it will not be possible to cut the figures to £195 million without leaving the roof off or something. In those circumstances, what would we do?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is quite clear what we would do: we would put a ceiling on £195 million. [ Laughter. ] There would be no difficulty in reining back the expenditure—if one takes the trouble to look at the designs and the architecture, one can see that that can be achieved. Difficulties with costs are strongly associated with the site. The Parliament did not choose the site, despite the fact that it would have been possible to wait until members were assembled before launching this great folly. We could have met in the Royal High School or gathered here before deciding which site was most appropriate. I have never believed that the Royal High School could have become the Parliament building—its supporting facilities were inadequate—but it would have been sufficient as a stopgap and, eventually, as part of a wider campus.

We could have considered doing Edinburgh a favour by knocking down the St James Centre. We could have taken the Greenside Place plot. There were Haymarket, Leith and—my personal choice—Donaldson's College for the Deaf. It was not to be. As a result of the Labour Government's haste and the aversion of the likes of Tony Blair, Brian Wilson and Donald Dewar to using the Royal High, we were left with only the Holyrood option.

Why it was ever thought that the Royal High was a nationalist shibboleth defeats me. The Royal High produced sons of Scotland who went on to build the British empire. Its foundations were laid following the Scottish enlightenment, which was itself born out of the union. A wee vigil outside its sad gates was not a nationalist demo; it was a non-party, all-party manifestation that haunted Labour, guilty from its failure to deliver devolution in 1979. This new devolution thingie had to be presented as something different, something modern, something new Labour. We are now faced not only with an appalling growth in costs from £40 million to £195 million, but with a debate on whether Parliament should breach that limit.

Did we ever expect the disgrace of a Parliament budget to escalate so much? The Conservatives voted against it; some voted for it. If the motion fails today it will be because Labour MSPs will not vote against the project before or during a general election. Their views will begin to change after that day.

Where is the new politics of Scotland now? Where is the moral high ground now? I will tell members: it is in opposing the growth of this monument to the vanity of the Scottish political establishment.

I support the Conservative motion.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Given the limited number of opportunities for the Opposition to initiate debates, I find it quite extraordinary that the Conservatives have chosen to debate this topic at this time. On reflection, there could be three reasons for the motion. First, I suppose, the Conservatives had to search for a topic on which they are reasonably united—not an easy task. Secondly, they had to search for a topic on which they take a similar line to the UK Tory party or, as in this case, in which the UK Tory party probably has no interest. Thirdly, the party has to be allowed to plough its own line without too much embarrassment and it will want to score some election points.

I congratulate David Davidson on his interim report to the Finance Committee—at least he is prepared to get involved. The interim report is sober, rational and well balanced. It shows where the project team and the progress group are succeeding, where there are problems, where the outcomes are known and where there are still difficulties. I hope that David Davidson does not support his party's ludicrous motion. It is safe for David McLetchie to lodge the motion—no one will be interested in it south of the border. Brian Monteith made a ridiculous comparison to the dome—the Scots have greater confidence in their future than that.

What about the cost? Well, £195 million is the cost at 1999 prices—Mike Russell acknowledged that. There is the cost of construction inflation.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No.

The success of the economy and the construction boom in Edinburgh—one has only to look around to see that all the holes in the earth are being filled up—mean that the construction costs will be much greater than the amount allowed for them in the original budget. I hope that we will hear from the progress group about that.

I congratulate the team on the savings that it has achieved without detriment to the design and the building's appearance. Brian Monteith suggests that the solution to our problems is to stop at the ceiling and leave the roof off—that is where the Tories stand on the matter. They have not come up with one serious suggestion about what we should do. We have committed £90 million in costs already—do we leave the site as a sort of folly?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No.

I congratulate the team on bringing in the first £50 million of tenders at the predicted cost and on ensuring that Scottish materials, such as Kemnay granite, Caithness slab and Scottish oak, are used. The building has to be a showpiece for Scotland.

I raise a note of caution in relation to Historic Scotland, which John Home Robertson alluded to.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I do not have much time.

Queensberry House was not such a unique building that it should have been retained. Its state of disrepair when discovered makes it clear that it should have been demolished and replaced by a replica. I am concerned, if the rumours are correct, that there are some serious problems.

I gather that the stump of a tower has been discovered and that Historic Scotland is insisting that it be restored. I gather that it has been discovered that the roof was raised some 200 years ago to make the top floor of greater use and that now, according to Historic Scotland, it must be lowered at great cost and with loss of space. I understand also that Historic Scotland wants the building to be finished with limewash, which went out 150 years ago because the maintenance costs were too high. If those three rumours are correct, Historic Scotland is really hysteric Scotland and should, as a quango, be brought under greater control. I encourage the progress group to take seriously those utter stupidities and to go against Historic Scotland. Let us control costs where we can.

Brian Monteith referred to Sydney Opera House. The same carping by Opposition politicians nearly destroyed the construction of Sydney Opera House. The subsequent costs of refurbishing it are such that they outweigh the original costs of the building, because the politicians cut, curtailed and ate into the internal design. Only now have they apologised to the architect for fiddling around with his original design.

We are creating something that Scotland can be proud of. The Tories should stop carping, come on board and help us to control the costs and to create something of which Scotland can be proud.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I thank the Tories for putting this motion on the agenda before the general election. If they had not done so, we would have had to wait until the election was out the road before we heard the true cost and state of progress of the building. We owe them that debt of gratitude.

I came here today—even though it is the third time round—in the expectation that a bit more truth would out. After hearing John Home Robertson, I am sadly disappointed. I have heard what are now shibboleths repeated by Richard Simpson, a man whom I respect, who says that Queensberry House should be knocked down—that was the clear implication. It was vandalised after the project started. We should not allow such things to go unrecorded and unreported.

I used to believe that the Parliament had been misled inadvertently. Having heard John Home Robertson, I believe that it is no longer inadvertent; I believe that systematic deception is being practised on this Parliament by the people associated with the project team and I am prepared to back up that claim if anyone asks me to. If I am wrong, let those concerned come to the Parliament today with the true costs to which they are now working. I do not believe that they do not have a bottom-line figure.

I want to know whether it is true that we now expect to pay £15 million for landscaping. If we are, where will the extra £4 million come from? It will have to come from the health, education or local authority budget. We have a duty and a right—on behalf of the people who sent us here and who believed that we were going to spend £195 million on the building—to find out how much more is to be spent.

Let me say to anyone who is interested in the facts that I have never, ever carped about the cost of the building; people can go through the records and will see that. What I have carped about are the aesthetics and the siting of the building and whether it represents value for money. The same is true today, which is why I will not support the Conservatives' motion, although I thank them for bringing it to the Parliament.

The rubicon of £195 million has been passed; we cannot now go back on that. I may be the only person in the chamber who believes that the project need not become a hole in the ground. Michael Russell mentioned that and it is true that there is a history of that happening in Edinburgh. However, the same council that was responsible for such projects is now looking for a new place to roost. Perhaps the City of Edinburgh Council should try Holyrood; Eric Milligan said it was a great site. There are a number of uses to which the site could be put and many millions of pounds could be recouped from the sale of the MSP block, such as it now is.

A number of architects do not concede that we must go forward as planned rather than take another route. However, I accept that I have probably lost that proposition, so there are two things we must get straight today on behalf of the people who have sent us here: how much will the project now cost and does that represent value for money? When will we be told?

We must also establish the principle—perhaps the most important principle of all—that, if the Parliament votes for an amount of money to be spent on its behalf by a minister of the Parliament or a group appointed by the Parliament, that minister or group must come back to the Parliament, if they go above the budget, to explain why they have done so and to seek permission to go ahead. That is what the SNP amendment seeks to establish. I am thankful to see Labour members who agree with what I have just said. Members should support the amendment.

I accept that we are never going to agree on the aesthetics of the building. As far as I am concerned, it will ruin a very beautiful part of Edinburgh. We are never, ever going to hear the admission we should hear that misleading information was given to Parliament about the exact state of Enric Miralles's health. I do not expect ever to have an apology from where I ought to have one, to say that I was right in saying that the poor man would be unable to see his concept fulfilled and that anything following that would be a hotch-potch job.

It is nonsense to say that we have gone down the same route as the politicians in Australia who objected to Sydney Opera House. Sensible people realised that the architect was a signature architect who had been chosen for his vision and that, when he was no longer there to see the project through, that vision should perhaps be reassessed in the light of reality. We were misled.

As this is probably the last chance that I will have to say this, I urge the Parliament, please, to do away with the lies, to do away with the people who have given misleading information to the chamber and to demand to know what the budget now is.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I begin by reminding Brian Monteith and Michael Russell that today's debate is not David Black's book launch. We are discussing the future of the Scottish Parliament building. I wonder whether Michael Russell has declared his complimentary copy of David Black's book, which he is promoting today, in the register of members' interests.

I want to promote the report of the Auditor General for Scotland, which is an independent report and is not based on promotional or personal interests. It sets out a number of reasons for the way in which the Parliament's costs increased. Page 22 of the report states that one of the reasons for the increase in expenditure was the client's requirement for additional office space. The corporate body raised the issue of all the political parties requesting more space in the building.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Paul Martin is repeating the same deception that Gordon Jackson tried to use in the previous debate. The Conservative party asked for space for one more member, because we had one more member elected—the Labour party has one member fewer. That is the truth.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

It would be helpful if we could clarify that. Perhaps the corporate body could bring its minutes before the Parliament to clarify that point.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Paul Martin give way?

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I am afraid that I do not have time to hear an intervention. I would like to continue.

The Parliament is about serving the needs of the Scottish people and I will focus on access for the disabled. Ashcraig Secondary School for children with special needs and severe disabilities is in my constituency. I am appalled by the difficulties that the children experience in trying to access the Parliament. If it were not for the security staff, the children would not have the opportunity to be introduced to their local member of the Scottish Parliament and they would not be able to access the chamber. I want a new Scottish Parliament that will be accessible to those children, who take time out of their curriculum to access the Parliament. I am assured by the chief executive, Paul Grice, that the new Parliament will serve the needs of the visually impaired, the hearing impaired and all sections of the community. It is important that we deal with that point.

We must put into perspective the fact that new buildings and capital projects such as this one will always be complicated. John Young and Bill Butler will remember the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall, which cost us £30 million and went well over its original budget. Following the concert hall's completion, a Tory conference was held there, despite John Young's opposition to its construction, and many other events have been held there. I do not hear people raising concerns now about the increased costs of the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall. It is part of our heritage in Glasgow and Glaswegians are proud of it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I appreciate that members from outside Edinburgh might not be familiar with the number of newer buildings in Edinburgh and how much they have cost. The Scottish Widows building, which has a complicated IT system and is a sophisticated building, cost £60 million. A great number of people have questioned whether what we are about to construct represents value for money.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

This is the new Scottish Parliament: it is a Parliament that will be recognised worldwide. It is not an insurance building; it is our heritage. Future generations will look towards the Parliament as their future.

We must be ambitious; we do not want the Poundstretcher Parliament that David McLetchie has suggested. We do not want a cheap and nasty version that will be the laughing stock of the world.

Some members have allowed their personal aspirations regarding where the Parliament should be located to get in the way. Personally, I would like us to consider Springburn Public Halls, in my constituency, but I appreciate that the whole of Scotland must take the decision. We should get away from parochial issues.

We should reflect on many aspects. We should see that the Holyrood project is creating a good building. I hope that we will portray our ambition for Scotland in the new Scottish Parliament building.

Irene McGugan (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Notwithstanding the SNP's reservations about the project, which have been so eloquently expressed by my colleagues, we should not forget that the building will be not just a working environment for politicians, but should be an internationally recognised symbol of our new democracy and a source of pride for all the people of Scotland.

I suggest that that could be achieved, to a large extent, by ensuring that the building becomes a showcase for the very best of Scottish materials, Scottish design and Scottish craftsmanship. I welcome the use of Scottish oak and Kemnay granite. I hope that we can go further.

We have not even begun to have the debate about an arts strategy for the building, because we are still tied up in discussion about revised costs, completion dates and the like. I understand that a consultant will be appointed soon to advise on the best use of public spaces in the Parliament and to suggest appropriate pieces of artwork.

My regret is that no budget is currently assigned to that, which might mean that all the artwork in the Parliament will have to be gifted or loaned. Disappointingly, there would then be no opportunity to commission pieces from the vast number of talented artists and craftsmen in Scotland.

Contrast that with the Flemish Parliament, which houses the largest collection of Flemish art, or the European Parliament in Strasbourg, which gives opportunities, on a rotating basis, to each member state to make use of the vast public space to exhibit the best of their talents. We want such opportunities for the Scottish Parliament and I urge the project group to consider making them available.

Many of us will know that artists throughout Scotland have been enthused by the new Parliament and have suggested many varied and imaginative exhibits: from murals to political cartoons to tributes to our late First Minister.

The languages of Scotland also need their rightful place in the building. There should be Scots and Gaelic signage, plaques, poems and whatever would enhance our new Parliament.

The building and its costs currently dominate the discussion. It is right that those issues should be addressed and that the costs should be brought under control. The SNP amendment states that that should be done by enhancing parliamentary accountability for the project.

I suggest that making outstanding examples of Scottish design and talent an integral feature of our new Parliament would have a lasting impact on the people of Scotland and our many visitors. That would give a clear message about our heritage, our identity and our future. We must find ways of making that happen.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I take the opportunity to say that Irene McGugan's speech was excellent. I agree with most of what she said.

The Holyrood project has been used as a political football from the start and it is about time that that stopped. We all have responsibility for the outcome. It is nonsense to think that we will not all be judged on the final outcome.

As Paul Martin pointed out, future generations will not thank us if we get this wrong. It is nonsense to say that the blame for the situation lies with the coalition Government; all of us will be held responsible and just because they have remained outwith the Holyrood progress group, the Tories will not escape criticism.

A mediocre or temporary home for a Parliament would assist the political outlook of some parties, and—as John Home Robertson mentioned—would serve to undermine the devolution settlement. Unlike David McLetchie, I have been committed to devolution since I was a member of the campaign for a Scottish Parliament. I am not ashamed to say that I want the project to be completed. I want a proper, well-designed and accessible Parliament building that is fit for purpose and that allows ordinary Scots to feel part of the first Scottish Parliament in 300 years.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No.

There are many legitimate concerns about what has happened to the project in the past two years and there are certain issues that the Parliament rightly demands should be discussed as a matter of democracy and which are not for anyone else to decide. To that extent, I do not disagree, largely, with Margo MacDonald's speech. Labour members were nodding in agreement because we believe that any justified case for lifting the ceiling of £195 million will be brought before Parliament for MSPs to decide.

It does not help to keep looking back with hindsight at the history of the project; at some point, we have to move on. I support the call in Mike Russell's amendment for the Tories to return to the Holyrood progress group and to be part of the project once and for all. We should not allow the Tories to play games with the future of our legislature.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No.

Mike Russell talks as though we have lost the opportunity to make a great Parliament building. I do not believe that. Indeed, I am not clear about what Mr Russell meant in response to David McLetchie. Is he saying that there is no absolute upper ceiling of £195 million? Perhaps he might want to return to that point.

Although it is only correct for the Parliament to make its views known on the project costs, it is for the SPCB and the Holyrood progress group to make the case. If there is a justified case for a reasonable increase in the budget, we should not dismiss it out of hand.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No—I do not really have time.

Our job is to ensure that we move out of this temporary home as soon as possible. As Irene McGugan pointed out, we have promised the Scottish people a Parliament with the space to incorporate their needs; we are talking not just about our needs. The current accommodation militates against the democratic process. The lack of committed facilities to allow ordinary people to walk in and see their MSP hinders democracy—I am sure that members of the public, too, have that perception.

Are David McLetchie and others saying that, no matter what, they will not agree to an increase in the £195 million? Are they saying that they will not agree to that increase, even if that means no crèche facility, a smaller public gallery and fewer committee rooms than necessary?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Is the member asking for a blank cheque?

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

No one is asking for a blank cheque, but we are asking the Conservatives to think sensibly for once and to be part of the project.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

David (None, Lothians)

No; the member is winding up.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Tory motion is irresponsible. I honestly believe that the party is out of touch with the public, who want us to oversee a Scottish Parliament fit for the 21 st century. The tables have turned. The members of the public I have spoken to want us to get things right and if we can justify the cost, I know that they will back us.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I support the amendment in the name of the convener of the Holyrood progress group. Like Richard Simpson, I will begin by supporting the crucial and important work of Linda Fabiani, Jamie Stone and John Home Robertson on this issue. As Pauline McNeill pointed out, the Conservatives should support and take part in that work.

Although last April's motion was less than perfect, the fact is—as the business pages and the Evening News constantly report and as everyone except David McLetchie can accept—that the building trade in Edinburgh is buoyant. There is a Holyrood factor, which has a bearing on tender prices. However, those are points for another day.

Donald Gorrie rightly said that, if the budget requirement is greater than the figure that is stated in the motion, the matter should return to the Parliament. Other members have echoed that suggestion, and that is what should happen at the appropriate time.

There is a different motive for the Conservative's motion, which was not hard to find. On Radio Scotland this morning, Brian Monteith—who has left the chamber—said that this is a general election issue. That sums up the Tory approach to the issue. David McLetchie confirmed that it is not just the building that the Tories oppose, but the philosophical principle behind it. They are against devolution—they always have been—and the Parliament is a manifestation of that, which they take every opportunity to run down. The principle that they would follow—in effect, to leave the roof off—illustrates how they would demean, demean and demean again not just the Holyrood project, but devolution itself.

I imagine that there are moderate, sensible Tory MSPs who would support the project if they were given the opportunity to do so.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention from a moderate, sensible nationalist?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

In two seconds.

However, those members will not be given that opportunity because, as Brian Monteith confirmed, this is a general election issue. The Holyrood progress group has saved money without compromising quality—that was the purpose of the group—but the Tories cannot claim one cost saving. Their petulant and destructive determination to avoid the Holyrood progress group has been predictable. Members will notice that a Tory member, John Young, is a member of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and receives monthly reports from the Holyrood progress group. The Tories want access to information without responsibility, so that they can engage in sheer, unadulterated political opportunism.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

My question is about responsibility. The Minister for Finance and Local Government may discover that more will have to be paid for the frame for the east wing of the Parliament building—I think that that is what John Home Robertson called it—and that the money for that will have to come from the education budget or the teacher training budget. Should not the Minister for Finance and Local Government therefore be part of the decision-making body that decides the Parliament's priorities? That is what the Tories are trying to establish.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have every faith that, if the necessity arises, the Holyrood progress group will produce a report for Parliament, via the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and explain how such matters will be dealt with. That is the way in which Parliament should handle such issues.

As Mike Russell rightly stated, the project has gone too far for it to stop completely. On the radio this morning, John Spencely said that the budget in the brief that was published in June was achievable. It is important to remember that that brief was not confirmed until June. Much has been made of David Black's book, but, as Mr Spencely observed, Mr Black has become very excited by the opportunity to sell it.

Once again, the Parliament has heard nothing constructive from the Tories, just a general election rant—which they need, as they are desperate. Are the Tories seriously saying that the project should be abandoned if unforeseen costs mean that the budget will exceed £195 million? Yes, that is what we heard today. Did they propose closing the millennium dome that they initiated when they were in office? Yes, but only when they were out of office. Was it not the Tories, when they were in office at Westminster, who allowed the building of Portcullis House—the most expensive office space, per square foot, in the UK? Did they ask to put a minister on the parliamentary authorities that were dealing with that building? I do not recollect that.

All that the Tories do is lodge parliamentary questions. This is gesture politics from David McLetchie. There is no Tory member on the Holyrood progress group, and a Tory MSP abdicated responsibility despite being on the corporate body. Even by Tory standards, this is cheap, facile gesture politics at its worst, and the Parliament should have nothing to do with it. We should support a Parliament building for Scotland.

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

What a miserable debate, with everyone carping and whingeing about money. I regard that as a disgrace to this Parliament. People from all over Scotland are saying to us, "Get on with it and do it well." The situation is as simple as that.

In The Herald today, Ruth Wishart said that some of those who are involved with the Holyrood progress group have

"huge enthusiasm bordering on real passion for the project".

Perhaps she was talking about me. Each Wednesday, when the Holyrood progress group meets, I take great pleasure in seeing how the project is coming on. To the critics, however, I say that I take my responsibilities seriously. I also resent the accusation that I am a big enough mug to be lied to, misled and deceived. That is a straightforward insult to our hardworking team and it should be withdrawn immediately.

One thing needs to be said loud and clear: I am damned if I will compromise on quality. There will be no rubbishy jerry-building coming from my direction, although that is what David McLetchie and his cowboy outfit on the Opposition benches want. "To be sure, Mr Holyrood Progress Group, we can do it on the cheap"—I can say that in an Irish accent without offending anyone, because I am quarter Irish.

We can be like something out of "Fawlty Towers" and take the Monteith option of having a fresh-air roof, but if we build the Parliament on the cheap, all the walls will fall in at some stage.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

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

No, I will not.

I will give two examples of precisely the kind of thing that we should not be doing. Members of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body will well know what I am on about. One of the money-saving proposals was that we should do away with the solid concrete vaulting in the public foyer of the Parliament and replace it with some sort of cheap alternative using plaster on chicken wire. We considered that seriously, but everyone knows that if David Steel was to lean against a wall that had been built in that way, he would fall through it. That is not the sort of saving that we are going for.

Another suggestion was that we have some kind of prop to support the building that juts out on to the Canongate. That is the kind of saving that David McLetchie wants—a scaffolding structure to hold up the walls of the Parliament. We will not cut corners for the sake of the silly cash limit that the Tories are on about.

People, MSPs and—dare I say it—Governments come and go, but buildings are here for far longer. As John Ruskin put it:

"when we build, let us think that we build forever".

I never thought that the strange life of being a back-bench MSP would lead me to become involved in anything as fulfilling as the Holyrood project. Unlike those who seek to play a negative role, I shall take great pride in taking my children and my grandchildren—if I am spared, as we say in the Highlands—to the building and saying to them that I am proud to have played a small part in the project. The Tories' motion is an electioneering stunt and, like so many of their stunts, it is sadly misguided. Like their stance on asylum seekers and Europe, it is, to coin a phrase, so much tosh.

The Scottish people are in favour of the Parliament and want the best for it. Once again, our Conservative friends have misjudged the mood of the country. As has been pointed out, were it not for the Scottish Parliament, David McLetchie would still be doing a bit of conveyancing down the bottom of the Corstorphine Road. He owes everything to the establishment of this Parliament; without it, he would not exist.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order.

David (None, Lothians)

I hope that it is a real one.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

It is. I think that I am correct in saying that it is not in keeping with the standards of the Parliament, or with the standing orders, for one member's probity to be questioned by another during a debate.

David (None, Lothians)

I heard no member's probity being questioned.

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

We have heard a lot about lies and deception, so I will ignore that remark.

Let us keep our eyes on the horizon and raise ourselves above this squalid little debate. Let us see our way to finishing our wonderful new Parliament building.

Recently, somebody went to Enric Miralles's grave in the Igualada cemetery in Barcelona, which he also designed. They found a note on the grave, which read:

"Your building for the Scottish Parliament is growing beautifully. Thank you for your gift".

The note was signed, "Edinburgh students".

The Conservatives have got this one wrong. They are not in keeping with the mood of the Scottish people. I ask them to support the amendment in the name of John Home Robertson.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I find myself in a strange position today. I am speaking on behalf of my party's amendment, but I also have a certain sympathy with the amendment in the name of John Home Robertson. I have listened carefully to what has been said and have agreed with points on both sides of the argument. I will not reiterate the history of the situation, but I have to say that I also sympathise with the Tory stance on the incompetence and the element of deception at the start of the project to build our new Parliament. I certainly make no apologies for the Scottish Executive or for Westminster in that regard, and I feel that it was a bit disingenuous to pass on all the responsibility to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body.

Having said that, I also feel strongly that we now have a job to get on with. As Mike Russell said, the Holyrood progress group was established in response to the need to crisis-manage a project that had been badly handled, in political terms, from the beginning. If we had done what the SNP sought to do a year ago and stopped for a period of consolidation, I believe strongly that that would have strengthened the project and saved a lot of what has gone on since then.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will Linda Fabiani take an amendment?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

An amendment?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I mean an intervention on the subject of the SNP amendment.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Yes.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I want to ask about three lines in the SNP amendment. It says:

"asks the Scottish Executive to"—

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Excuse me—I will come to the SNP amendment a bit later, if Mike Rumbles does not mind.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Well, all right. I will vote against the amendment in that case; I was thinking of voting for it.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

How childish—but that is what I would expect from Mike Rumbles.

When my party agreed that, despite what had happened during discussion of the project, the important thing for Scotland was to move ahead and get a building worthy of Scotland, I had a certain motivation for accepting a place on the Holyrood progress group. The project has been referred to as the best of a bad job, but my first motivation for accepting the position was that I loved the design of the building. I said that right at the beginning. Even when I agreed—almost two years ago—that we should stop and look again at the whole project, I stated that I loved the design. I still love the design of the building, and believe strongly that design integrity has been maintained. Despite the farce and controversy that has shrouded the project from the beginning—courtesy of, among others, Westminster, the Executive and the Conservative party—I still believe that the uniqueness of the design shines through, and that it must be protected. I feel privileged to be part of the group that has been charged by the Parliament with protecting the integrity of the design and moving forward with the project.

Another reason for my wanting to join the group was that I have some experience of the construction business—albeit on a much smaller scale—and I felt that that would be usefully brought to bear in monitoring the project.

Above all, it is my fundamental belief that honesty, openness and accountability are aims that every one of us who is privileged to be elected to this Parliament should aspire to and uphold in every single project with which we are involved. I am involved with this one.

I thank David McLetchie for saying that he thinks I am an honest person. I am not sure where he got his quotation from—

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

The Mail on Sunday in Scotland , on 22 April.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Was it? Yet another misquote—that happens all the time about the Parliament building project.

I assure everybody in the chamber that I am honest and that I believe that, in this project, we must be transparent and honest. There is no doubt that the progress group's full intention was to report to the Parliament if and when we believed that the cost was likely to go over £195 million. Note what I have just said: "if and when we believed that the cost was likely to go over £195 million". The cost has not broken that barrier yet. We are flagging up the fact that we think it is likely to do so. We are doing what is set out in our remit and approaching the corporate body. We fully expect the corporate body then to report to Parliament.

I have never been naive about my position on the progress group. There have been accusations that we just sit there, listen to what we are told, swallow everything that we hear and then report. As well as being very honest, I am not daft, and I know when I am getting fed lines. I will not pretend that I sat down with the civil servants, immediately struck up a rapport with them and believed everything that they told me. I did not. In the beginning, it was fairly difficult to strike a balance between what Parliament and Executive staff thought that we should know and what we felt that we had to know. We have now achieved that balance and the group is working very well.

There appears to be some naivety in the chamber. There are members who think that one can deliver everything, for everybody, all the time. That is impossible. Part of Scotland's growing up through the Parliament lies in recognising that fact and dealing with it. We do so by determining our priorities and deciding what is sustainable and which of all the competing demands is worth fighting to deliver.

It is easy to stand apart from something. It is easy to carp and criticise from a base of limited knowledge and the odd piece of leaked information. All politicians are good at doing that—some are better than others.

David (None, Lothians)

Wind up, please.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not pretend for one minute that the politicians on the progress group are running the contract. We are monitoring it. That is very important.

With the Presiding Officer's indulgence, I will respond to what was said about the SNP amendment. The amendment mentions cost concerns, which we always wanted to be reported to the Parliament. It also calls for there to be a Tory member of the progress group; I ask the Conservatives to come on board and play their part—I can cope with that. Having a minister on the group may sound horrendous, but there should be accountability. I do not think that a minister should have a vote on the group, because it is a parliamentary body, but a minister should certainly attend in order to be able to report back and be accountable for what is being spent.

David (None, Lothians)

You need to wind up.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Parliament will stand as a testament to Scotland. I want a brilliant Parliament building and I think that we will get one. I want it for the independent Scotland that this country will be.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Today, the Executive has been conspicuous by its absence and, more significant, strangely silent. This has been a lively debate, from which two principles arise, each of which relates to the integrity of parliamentary democracy. The first principle is that people should be told the truth about the costs of building the new Parliament. Secondly, in an area where costs have escalated by leaps and bounds, extra costs should not arise without the full approval of Parliament.

In practice, there has been disinformation. Anybody who knows anything about construction suspected that, even if providing a parliament at a cost of £40 million or £50 million were theoretically possible, it was extremely unlikely on a site outside Leith, but that is what the people of Scotland were asked to believe. We now learn from David Black's book that the eventual cost of the Parliament could conceivably rise not just above £195 million, but to £300 million. Mike Russell described that as a farce and a tragedy. On any view, it is an extremely serious matter, because every time that there is extra capital expenditure on the Parliament, less money is available from the Scottish block for other capital projects, such as improvements to hospitals, extensions to schools, road building, and improvements to public sector houses below tolerable standard.

If the Scottish Executive is to govern in Scotland's best interests, its requirements for capital expenditure should be kept under strict control. That reasoning could also be applied in cutting down the army of special advisers and countless ministers.

I remind Tavish Scott, who seems to be unaware of the fact, that he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is no use for the Executive to try to wash its hands of the issue. I will press the minister on how much extra spending will be involved for road and transport improvements, such as traffic-calming measures, for landscaping, and for Queensberry House. As Margo MacDonald rightly said, the public have a right to know. We have a duty to find out the facts and to see whether they amount to value for money.

Holyrood will be remembered as one of the most glaring cases—if not the most glaring case—of public sector capital costs spiralling out of control, as David McLetchie and Brian Monteith have pointed out. Enough is enough. If a man or woman built a house, they would not allow the cost to escalate by more than five times. We should be no less careful with funds that could greatly benefit the Scots in other ways.

On page 1 of "All The First Minister's Men", David Black wrote that Holyrood even

"eclipses Sydney's notorious Opera House, and might yet turn out to be the building with the highest budget overrun in recorded history".

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Earlier in Lord James's speech, he made a point about the Executive's responsibility. Does he agree with his colleague, Ian Davidson—[MEMBERS: "Who?"]—who compiled the report that is available all members today, that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has responsibility for the project and is the contracting client? Does he agree with the report produced by Ian Davidson—[ Interruption. ] It appears that David Davidson—that Tory person who is sitting over there—produced the report.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

The Executive will provide the funds and therefore it has a duty to be involved in the project. The fact that not one member of the Executive was prepared to stand up and speak in this debate speaks for itself.

It is noteworthy that David Black, on page 105 of his book, refers to

"stitch-up politics, personal ambition and deceit."

Donald Gorrie said in his excellent speech this morning that Parliament has been deceived and that that deceit is now "absolutely apparent". Such obfuscation must cease.

The test that should be applied is that parliamentarians should have sufficient facilities to be of maximum service. Of course we want a good building that is worthy of Scotland, but surreptitious increases, without the knowledge and whole-hearted approval of Parliament, should not and must not take place. Such matters should be for democratic decision in the Parliament.

The Executive's competence is at stake and it is up to parliamentarians to press the Executive to keep the Parliament's capital costs under strict control. John Home Robertson's speech contained nothing that indicated that he would keep those developments under strict control. He mentioned the case of Big Ben, but I remind him that Big Ben was constructed at a time when Britain was arguably the most powerful country in the world. The circumstances today are not identical and it is no use for him to imagine that the circumstances of over 100 years ago could be replicated exactly.

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

rose—

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

rose—

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will not give way to John Home Robertson, because he refused to give way to Dorothy-Grace Elder and Brian Adam. However, I will give way to Jamie Stone.

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

How terribly nice to see that very acceptable face of Scottish Conservatism. Does not Lord James realise that we have made savings over the past few months? In view of that fact, is he seriously accusing John Home Robertson and me of being irresponsible over the way in which we oversee the Holyrood project?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

My point is that there have been surreptitious increases and a spiralling of capital expenditure since the beginning of the project and its plans. Those increases must be brought under strict control. That would be in the best interests of the people of Scotland. Jamie Stone must appreciate that the project is taking funds away from other capital projects that could be of the utmost service to the people.

I believe that the electorate will see this issue as a litmus test of our good faith. I support the motion.

Business Motion

David (None, Lothians)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-1919, in the name of Tom McCabe.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees:

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 16 May 2001

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Executive Debate on Architecture and the Built Environment followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business - debate on the subject of S1M-1897 Tavish Scott: Rural and Islands GPs 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 - debate on the subject of S1M-1859 Elaine Smith: National Breastfeeding Awareness Week Wednesday 23 May 2001

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

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 24 May 2001

9.30 am Scottish National Party Business followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Business followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business and (b) that the Justice 1 Committee reports to the Justice 2 Committee by 14 May 2001 on the draft Sex Offenders (Notice Requirements) (Foreign Travel) (Scotland) Regulations 2001—[Euan Robson.]

Motion agreed to.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

David (None, Lothians)

My opening words this afternoon may be thought by some to be an example of the triumph of hope over experience but, now that the elections to another Parliament have been announced, I hope that we do not spend question time over the next three weeks fighting that election in this chamber.

Question 1 has been withdrawn, so we move straight to question 2.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has had any discussions with Her Majesty's Government about the continued devolved status of any currently devolved matters. (S1O-3369)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The Executive has regular discussions with Her Majesty's Government about a wide range of matters. However, any proposals to add to the list of reserved matters set out in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 would require the agreement of both Parliaments by way of an order under section 30(2) of that act. The Executive has no plans at present to seek the Parliament's agreement to any such order.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am pleased to hear the minister's positive reply. However, if new Labour wins the election, will he and his Executive colleagues take action to counter proposals made by John Prescott's Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to remove Scotland from policy making on key environmental issues by taking powers from the Scottish Executive and handing them to an new all-Britain quango, the UK nature advisory council? Will he stand for Scotland or bend the knee to Whitehall?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr Gibson can be absolutely certain that my party and the partnership Executive will stand for Scotland, as we have been doing for the past two years. His question is purely hypothetical. I do not wish to trespass against what the Presiding Officer has said, so I will not speculate on the outcome of the election and on who might be in a position to make any proposals about the environment. The Executive has no plans to present the Scottish Parliament with any order for any transfer of functions under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the most up-to-date position is in relation to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak. (S1O-3401)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

As at 10 am today, there have been 182 confirmed cases of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland. That means that no new cases have been reported in Scotland since 4 May. The absence of new cases is encouraging, but vigilance needs to be maintained.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

Is it any wonder that people are confused when they hear the First Minister telling America that Scotland is open for business while the reality is that much of the Scottish countryside is still closed? Why is it that, in disease-free areas, the Executive continues to tell ramblers and hillwalkers to obey official "Keep Out" signs and to respect other such signs, when it should be telling public bodies and private landowners to get the signs down unless the state veterinary service has assessed the risk as being too great in a particular area?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I do not think that there is any inconsistency in our position. What the First Minister said in America was absolutely right. However, Mr Canavan has pointed out that inconsistencies have arisen due to private landowners and others taking a disproportionate response, even though the access code has been published and the Executive has made available to a variety of bodies an assisting guide on how they should assess risk. In respect of the provisionally free area, I agree entirely with Mr Canavan. We hope to issue further guidelines. Local authorities, landowners and everyone in those areas should recognise that the risk is very much reduced and that there are very few parts of the provisionally free area where the country should not be open for business.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I have two questions that relate to the provisionally free area. When can the collection centres be used for store cattle? Can we expect a resumption of exports before the autumn lamb sales and, if not, what plans does the minister have for those sales?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

We have opened collection centres but not yet for store cattle. I hope that that will be the next move and that it will happen relatively soon. In respect of exports, we are engaged with the Standing Veterinary Committee in Europe to establish what will be required to determine that Scotland is disease-free. I regret to say that those discussions are proving to be prolonged. We know that extensive testing will be involved and, as a precautionary measure, the Scottish Executive has started a series of tests to facilitate that process. I am unable at this stage to give any guarantee of the date when exports might be resumed. I assure the member that I am more than well aware of the danger if that market is not available for the lambs in the autumn.

Nick Johnston (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What plans does the minister have to review the status of the provisionally free area so that the provisional tag may ultimately be removed? What is the likely impact of the removal of that tag on the movement of stock and animal products into the area, should it be declared completely free of the disease?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Taking into account the epidemiological evidence that is available to me and in the light of the changing pattern of disease, I continue to review all the current regulations in conjunction with the state veterinary service, including the point that was raised on collection centres.

As I have explained to the chamber previously, I face two conflicting difficulties with the status of the PFA. The current area is satisfactory but, as the member will be well aware, a substantial proportion of our slaughtering and processing capacity is placed in that area, which has a dislocating effect on the rest of the meat industry, especially in the at-risk area. If I were to declare the area completely risk-free, I might put at risk the difficult process of trying to move animals out of the at-risk area into the PFA for the purpose of continuing the meat trade. We are wrestling with that balance. I assure the member that we will continue to consider the matter on a regular basis. Our objective is to dismantle the restrictions as quickly as possible, consistent with the control of the disease.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the publication of the chief social work inspector's first annual report, what its priorities are for social work services in the future. (S1O-3413)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our priorities are to improve service outcomes and quality of life for children, adults and older people. To achieve those goals, we are developing better-integrated services for children, breaking down barriers between health and social care and focusing criminal justice services on results. We are establishing a new commission for the regulation of care and a new council for staff. The chief inspector's report provides a basis for judging progress year on year in each authority and throughout Scotland.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I thank the minister for that answer and that comprehensive list of priorities, but I draw his attention to the report, which states:

"Overall, there are not enough social workers to meet current needs. Worryingly, too, the number of people applying for courses in the Diploma in Social Work have fallen."

Given that statement, what practical measures does the Scottish Executive propose to take to improve morale in the profession, increase the status of social work and cut the stress levels facing social workers, especially in the area of child care?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Initiatives are under way in a number of authorities, particularly Glasgow, to recruit new social workers to deal with the case-load backlog. The Executive and the Parliament will, I hope, shortly establish the new Scottish social services council, which will raise the status of the profession and ensure that there is consistency of standards throughout Scotland. The council will ensure the professional recognition of those who work, not necessarily under the title of social workers, but in social services, which will ensure that we can raise standards.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The report also recommends the promotion of enlightened entrepreneurship in the social services. Is that a new Scottish Executive initiative? Who will train the social workers in enlightened entrepreneurship and how will it benefit those receiving the service?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The phrase used in the report was an interesting one, which I intend to discuss with the chief inspector when we consider his report in more detail.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to tackle the level of litter across Scotland. (S1O-3376)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The Executive pays core grant to Keep Scotland Beautiful, which runs anti-litter campaigns to encourage communities to take pride in their local environment.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that Scotland has the cleanest bins in Europe because no one seems to put their litter in them? Will the Executive ensure full implementation of existing litter laws and consider new laws where existing laws are deemed inadequate? Will it further consider a Scottish anti-litter task force to draw together public agencies to deal with the scourge of litter, which is causing frustration and anger in communities throughout Scotland?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We recognise that there is a problem with litter in Scotland. That is something that we are keeping under review with the local authorities. In view of the proliferation of litter that is likely during the general election campaign over the next few weeks, I take this opportunity to remind colleagues to ensure that any unwanted leaflets and large posters are removed expeditiously.

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

The minister knows my beautiful area of Easter Ross well, so she will be aware that Tain Royal Academy in my constituency has recently done some pioneering work on the litter front. Does she agree that, during the next few weeks, similar schemes should be pursued with other secondary schools in Scotland to pick up all the posters and leaflets?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Absolutely, but I hope that colleagues will take part in such schemes as well.

David (None, Lothians)

In view of the minister's remarks about unwanted posters, I had better call Phil Gallie.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Given the wish of the Scottish Executive to widen the use of community service as opposed to imprisonment, will the minister consider using community service programmes on roadside clean-ups? I believe that that would help to beautify Scotland's image and, at the same time, get offenders to pay back a debt to society.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As I said, we are fully committed to keeping Scotland as beautiful as we can. We recognise that Scotland is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. I am sure that, if Mr Gallie writes to the appropriate minister, he will receive an appropriate response to his proposal.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The minister will be aware of my constituents' concerns about increased litter along the M74 corridor. What steps will the Scottish Executive take to clean up our motorway sides?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am aware of concerns that the outgoing trunk road operating companies may have neglected the clearing of litter from motorways during the final months of the old contracts and left a legacy for the new operating companies to address. That is far from satisfactory, but the backlog is being tackled.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive in what circumstances it would consider not taking the necessary steps to return a person to a foreign state that had requested their extradition. (S1O-3412)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Scottish ministers are able to refuse an extradition request where one or more of the statutory bars to return under the Extradition Act 1989 applies or where the Scottish ministers decide to exercise their discretion.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Does the minister agree with Lord Milligan, who gave a judgment on 16 July 1992 that Antanas Gecas, a citizen of Edinburgh, was guilty of the killing of innocent Soviet citizens, including Jews in particular, in Belarus during the last three months of 1941, and in so doing committed war crimes against Soviet citizens who included old men, women and children? Will the minister tell the Parliament when the extradition order that was granted by the Lithuanian Government, and transferred from the Home Office to Scotland, will be applied and when Mr Gecas will be sent to stand trial in Lithuania for his crimes?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As members know, it is not normal to discuss extradition requests, because of the risk of individuals absconding. However, as the Lithuanian authorities have made the matter public, I am prepared to make an exception. An extradition request was received towards the end of March, but the Scottish Executive has asked the Lithuanian authorities for further details, which are still awaited.

Lloyd Quinan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

That is a somewhat disappointing reply, but I have a further related question. Will the minister agree to reconstitute the police war crimes unit in Scotland to initiate investigations into former members of the 14 th Waffen SS Galician division who are living in Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As someone who voted for the War Crimes Act 1991, I treat alleged offences under that act very seriously indeed. With regard to Lloyd Quinan's question about that specific unit, I would not wish to give an undertaking without giving the matter further consideration.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what direction and guidance it has given to the interim chief executive of visitscotland. (S1O-3370)

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The interim chief executive has received the direction and guidance that chief executives of all non-departmental public bodies receive about their role—the management statement, the NDPB guide and the accountable officer memorandum.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister will be aware that the marketing budget for visitscotland in Canada has gone from the princely sum of £8,000 in 1995 under the Tories to the veritable king's ransom of £4,000 under new Labour in 2000. That is a spend of approximately 3p per visitor. Who is responsible for that absurd situation in the homeland of the diaspora? Does the blame lie with visitscotland? If so, does it lie with the current chairman, the past chairman, the current interim chief executive, the past chief executive or the chief executive who was appointed but was subsequently not appointed? Alternatively, does it lie with the Executive, which has underfunded and neglected Scottish tourism?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I will take each of those points in turn. The chief executive—past, present and future—of visitscotland, like all other chief executives, operates under the direction of the board by which they are employed. I hope that that clears up their employment status.

We have made £11 million of additional funding available to visitscotland over recent years; the funding is associated with some of its important new responsibilities and with information technology, for example.

It is appropriate that visitscotland has the opportunity to decide how its marketing budget is best spent. This morning, members from all parts of the chamber welcomed the fact that, in the past week, visitscotland launched the largest-ever short-breaks campaign. It is appropriate for members to take up with visitscotland the spending of its marketing budget, but it would be a poor show if we were looking to individual MSPs to carve up marketing budgets for individual nations through the auspices of this chamber.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

How many individuals are being interviewed for the job of chief executive of visitscotland, now that Rod Lynch has withdrawn from the post? How long will that process take? Is the interim chief executive willing to continue after June until a replacement is found?