Scottish Parliament, 12 September 2002

548 contributions from 99 members. The official report.

Introduction

Scottish Economy

David (None, Lothians)

Good morning. Both of this morning's debates are heavily oversubscribed, so I am going to make a quick start and appeal to the opening speakers to take less than their allotted time. There is no chance that everybody who has asked to speak in either debate will be able to speak.

The first debate is on motion S1M-3376, in the name of Andrew Wilson, on the performance of the Scottish economy, and two amendments to that motion.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Today's debate, as with all Scottish National Party debates on our economy, is about bridging the gap between Scotland's mediocre economic performance and our enormous economic potential. It is a debate that will resonate beyond today, throughout the Scottish general election campaign and on into Scotland's future, as it must if we are to transform our country's long-term underperformance and acceptance of underachievement.

Inevitably, the debate rests upon the key question of whether we have faith in ourselves to show responsibility, self-reliance and to seize the initiative on our standard of living and national success. I know that many in the chamber do not have that faith. They are the doubters and cynics that have dogged Scotland's story for so long. I hope that the Parliament can break through the national self-confidence ceiling, the glass barriers that are breaking us and preventing us from achieving all that we can. Scotland should have confidence because it has all the attributes for success, bar one.

We have an international brand—we are one of barely a dozen countries in the world that means something to almost everyone on earth. We have the reputation for integrity that is so important in the modern, globalised knowledge economy. We have always had great people, but too few of them are getting the opportunities at home that they deserve.

We have a good location, but are inhibited by poor transport links. We have a superb environment and enormous natural resource strength, but so many countries are more successful than Scotland without having the blessings that we enjoy. We have many great industries that are doing well, despite the odds. Our economy is not overheated and it has the potential for rapid growth on the back of the reservoir of emigrants who could be tempted to come back to Scotland.

We have abundant potential, but we lack the leadership and government to secure the means to achieve that potential. Our established political culture remains wedded to addressing the symptoms of our relative decline, rather than to tackling its root causes head on. Palliatives are provided, rather than solutions to the problem.

The national problem is there for all to see. We will hear many economic facts and figures in today's debate, but our core problem and the core measure of our problem is found in the declining and aging population. The average Scot is expected to die two years earlier than his neighbour in England. In independent Norway, people live an extra three years. In Glasgow, a person can expect to die 10 years earlier than if he or she had, by accident, been born in Dorset. It is those health, wealth and life gaps that we need to transform. The giggling of the Liberal Democrat members shows that they do not know what matters in life.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am not interested.

The SNP has been working hard on its initiative to place the Scottish economy at centre stage, as have a host of others throughout the Scottish community. The issue is not about business versus the public services; the truth is that we need a vibrant economy if we are to secure sustainable investment in public services and to reduce dependence—which too many people have—on services.

Despite a few chinks of light from the recent U-turns—I hope that there will be more U-turns to come from the Government today—complacency is rife throughout the Labour establishment and its all too pervasive network of influence. According to The Herald of 6 May, the former—and much-missed—Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning said:

"I can't get the growth issue on the agenda."

She went on to add that

"The First Minister does not consider economic growth to be one of his top priorities".

What are we to make of her successor? On the Sunday on which he was appointed, he declared it was "steady as she goes" for the Scottish economy, just as it was heading steadily from flatlining mediocrity into actual recession. He then reacted to that recession by saying that we were still well placed.

Jack McConnell himself said that the economy was getting better, just as the statistics that were being crunched showed that the economy was plunging into the red. In his statement to the Parliament in Aberdeen, the First Minister said that

"the strong and stable economy that our partnership in the United Kingdom brings"—[Official Report, 30 May 2002; c 12389.]

would see us through. Stability and strength? The reality is mediocrity and growth that is well behind that of our competitors over a protracted period, which is giving us continuous relative decline and unacceptable widening of the wealth gap, the jobs gap and the life-expectancy gap.

Only a few weeks after Jack McConnell made that speech, we were to learn that the country had entered recession for the first time in two decades: back to the bad old days of the Conservatives. What does recession mean? It means a fall in output in two consecutive quarters. That is a technical point, but if one examines the longer term it means an annualised growth gap between us and the rest of the United Kingdom, an 80 per cent fall in inward investment, and research and development rates that are well behind those in the rest of the UK and Europe.

The manufacturing fallout is felt in chemicals, metallics, engineering and textiles, which are all in recession. The fallout has spread to tourism, agriculture, construction, mining, consumer goods and investment goods, which are all in recession. Business start-ups are down and liquidations are up. New-firm growth has slumped by 80 per cent, according to Business a.m. The response of the First Minister and the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning to all that was to reconvene a sub-committee.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No.

In the job market we are feeling the longer-term pinch from mediocrity. In the past four months, unemployment has risen to the third highest level of the 12 UK regions and countries. Our rate is much higher than the UK average. If we bridged the gap, there would be 32,000 fewer Scots on the dole than there are at present. For every 175 net new jobs created in the UK since 1995, Scotland has created only one—that is our employment gap. If we had the same employment rate as the rest of the UK, there would be 42,000 more Scots in employment. Self-employment has fallen by 21,000 in the past four years. In the past three months alone it fell by 6,000, which points to the fact that the problem is long term, deep seated, structural and will not go away.

Behind the headlines—and, arguably, more important—is the long-term picture. Output in the latest quarter was down, having barely got back to where it was 25 months ago, which represents, in effect, a standstill in the Scottish economy over two years. In the even longer term, our appalling trend rate of growth of barely 2.1 per cent, or 1.9 per cent if one looks further out, is at risk of falling further. That is the real picture, and we must acknowledge it if we are to do anything about it.

How do we transform the picture and deliver consensus for growth? Scotland can do better, but we need our political leaders to build consensus of ambition for Scotland that will promote self-responsibility and self-reliance and end our dependency culture. We must win people over to the argument that building for growth and success is not a zero-sum game. We must take decisions now that will reap rewards in the future, and in the short-term future at that, because the prize that is before us is enormous.

Over the past 10 years, if we had kept pace with growth in Ireland there would be £42 billion more in the Scottish economy. The tax revenues that that would release—with no change in current tax rates—would nearly double the Parliament's budget. If we had kept pace with even the relatively slow growth of the UK over that period, we would have £3 billion more in our economy and more than £1 billion more for public service investment. If we had managed to reach our goal of doubling our trend rate of growth even over the past 10 years to a level akin to that of Australia—a country that is populated by immigrant Scots—there would be £16 billion more in our economy, which would yield more than £6.5 billion of new money per year for investment. That more than swamps the alleged and nonsensical deficit that Labour politicians parrot—a deficit that itself is evidence of their failure to get the economy moving.

Of course, no Government can deliver economic success, but it can play a huge part in creating the conditions for success or failure. Our plea to everyone here today is to keep an open mind on the issue, in relation both to the limiting of powers that would enable the Parliament to turn the situation round and, more important, to the potential that we could release were all the tools that we need at our disposal.

In the words of the well-respected journalist Alf Young, who is not known for his SNP credentials:

"Under the terms of the Scotland Act the Executive's economic powers are modestly micro".

With the best will in the world, the best ministers in the world, the best development agencies and the best chief economists in the world, this Parliament and this Executive cannot deliver, because the truth is that, as things stand, the status quo is unsustainable. It guarantees continued relative decline and it guarantees to box in our potential. This Parliament has fewer economic and financial powers than any other parliament on earth. The UK system of government is out of date, centralised and bureaucratic. Although we have devolved political policy, we have not devolved finances. We need to complete the picture.

All the economic growth in Britain is concentrated in the wealthy epicentre of London and the south-east—it has been like that for decades. In a uniform financial system, the metropolitan centre has an immense advantage. It is the centre of political and business power, finance, the media and transport, and it has the greater volume of wealthy consumers. However, it has broadly the same tax position as Dundee or Glasgow, if we ignore the fact that in Scotland Labour-imposed council taxes are twice as high and business rates are nearly 10 per cent higher. That produces a gravitational pull out of Scotland through which we lose talent, headquarters, skills, business and investment. The quid pro quo has been an alleged fiscal transfer. Even if that were true, it has evidently not worked. We need the power to place ourselves at a competitive advantage; we do not need public subsidies to keep us comfortable in our underperformance and relative decline.

I welcome and embrace many of the initiatives that the Government has promoted on the supply side; many are initiatives for which we have called for many years. Scottish Development International is an excellent idea and we hope that it does well. Technology institutes are an excellent idea and are well worth the risk. Regional selective assistance reform is good and overdue, but utterly marginal. Putting skills and science at the heart of our agenda is correct and we support that.

We all acknowledge that we must compete internationally on the basis of knowledge and skills. A consensus about that has existed at the core for some time. However, we must open our eyes to the fact that all such measures will operate at the margins until we have the financial powers to compete that will underpin those measures. Until then, we run the risk of being the victims of our own success through training people to have transportable skills and losing those people to the brain drain; through starting new ventures only to see them taken over and migrated south and through having the commercial benefits of innovations externalised. That has been Scotland's story for decades and, within the current constraints, nothing will turn that around.

Surely we all now acknowledge the problem of underperformance. Our positive plea to everyone is that they recognise the causes of that problem. We all have a responsibility to play our part in transforming the political culture and in delivering ambitious and imaginative leadership. Now that all of us appear to have opened our eyes to the existence of a problem, we must open our minds to the limits of the existing powers and to the potential to achieve much more with the full powers—the complete toolbox, we might say—of independence.

We should place the imperative for economic transformation at the top of our agenda. We should set ourselves an ambitious target for growth and build consensus throughout the nation to achieve it. After that, we can have a focused, mature and open-minded debate about the policies that we need to get the economy growing.

Our position is clear. On the supply side and the limited powers that are at the disposal of the Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning and the Executive, we stand four-square behind the guts of the strategy for a smart and successful Scotland. We will have constructive suggestions to make, but the strategy has the shape of what we and others have wanted for many years. However, for that strategy to chime and deliver, we must equip ourselves with the power to place Scotland at competitive advantage financially and economically. We need to cut the taxes on growth that hamper our ability to close the wealth, health, jobs and employment gaps that exist between us and the rest of the UK and Europe. We need to set our business rates below UK rates, rather than merely announce a headline that we will stop hitting business, as was promised in February. We need to put our taxes on profit on a trajectory that will allow us to compete with the best, so that we can plug the hole in our economic bucket, provide an environment for growth and for new companies to come to Scotland, and so that we can keep and win the headquarters that we need to bring better jobs, research and development and investment back to this country.

More than anything, we need an open-minded debate that suggests new ways in which to use the powers of full financial independence in order to help to build a bridge between Scotland's performance and Scotland's potential. The opportunities exist—it is up to the Parliament to take a lead.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with great concern the latest government figures on economic growth showing Scotland has entered official recession for the first time in twenty years; recognises that this recession is the latest symptom of economic under-performance in Scotland over a protracted period and that Scotland has the potential to perform much better than it has; resolves that the performance of the Scottish economy should be of prime importance to the agenda of the Executive, the Parliament and all concerned with the well-being of the people of Scotland and the sustainable financing of public service investments, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to set an ambitious target for improving Scotland's trend rate of growth and contribute to a mature, serious and open-minded debate about the best policy measures to achieve that target, keeping an open mind about both the limits of existing powers and the potential competitive benefits of properly focussed policies with the full powers of independence.

David (None, Lothians)

I thank the member for keeping his speech under the time limit and I remind members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The SNP's motion seeks to give the impression that the economy and growth are not a priority for the Executive, but nothing could be further from the truth. Not only do the economy and jobs form one of the Executive's key priorities—along with health, education, crime and transport—but earlier this week, the First Minister could not have made it clearer that a prosperous growing economy is crucial to the delivery of the first-class public services and socially just Scotland that we want. That is a given.

It is also a given that growth is our problem; no one argues about that. The latest gross domestic product figures for Scotland were unwelcome, to say the least. However, in many ways they were not a surprise, given what has happened in the global economy and given the fact that, since 1973, the average growth rate of Scotland's economy, at 1.6 per cent, has lagged behind the 2.1 per cent rate for the UK in the same period. That is a given. Lower growth is not a recent feature of our economy, although it is true that our growth tends to be less volatile than that of the United Kingdom as a whole.

It is not all bad news, however. For example, the financial services sector has grown substantially in recent years and makes a vital contribution to enhancing the performance of the Scottish economy. Growth in that sector in the first quarter of 2002 was 1.8 per cent compared to a fall of 0.9 per cent in the UK as a whole. Therefore, although the service sector continued to grow in Scotland faster than in the UK as a whole in the first quarter of 2002, we know that the fall in manufacturing output—significant causes of which were the global slow-down and the re-structuring of key sectors such as electronics—meant that overall output fell. It is wrong to say that this is a return to the days of the Tories because, despite such difficulties, the labour market in Scotland remains relatively strong. That is important. Employment is high compared to all European countries and unemployment is low in historical terms.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the minister concede that that would have been difficult to achieve without the inheritance of what had happened before 1997?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The inheritance was that when the economy faced such difficulties in the years to which Miss Annabel Goldie referred, two or three million people were out of work. Today we have historically high levels of employment in Scotland. They are among the highest of any European Union country. Indeed, only yesterday we saw labour market statistics that show that that position is being maintained and slightly improved.

We are not alone in suffering growth problems. For example, data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows that GDP in the year to the first quarter of 2002 showed a fall of 0.7 per cent in Finland and a rise of just 0.2 per cent in Germany and 0.3 per cent in the United States. That compares to a rise of 0.7 per cent for Scotland over the same period. We are not alone in suffering a slow-down in economic activity. However, no one is arguing that such a low figure for growth is acceptable. It does not meet our aspiration for an enterprising and prosperous Scotland in which our people can fulfil their potential. I think that we can agree on that.

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

Does the minister accept that the poor growth performance has resulted in part over the past three years from the fact that the higher business rates that are paid as a result of Jack McConnell's departure from the uniform business rate have amounted to £450 million more tax being paid by businesses here than they would have paid under the regime that is used south of the border?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

No, I simply do not accept that. If Mr Ewing is willing to wait, I will come to that issue when I refer to the Tory amendment later in my speech.

The challenge will not be met through short-term tactics but through determined implementation of a medium-term strategy. We have three key economic development objectives. First, we must accelerate our rate of economic growth. We also need to close the gap to help areas of lower economic activity in finding new opportunities. There are not only differences between Scotland's economy and that of the rest of the UK; there are significant differences within Scotland, which we must address.

Secondly, we want to provide opportunities for all those who wish to work. That is not just about providing jobs for all, but about closing the gap between those who enjoy high-quality jobs with high incomes and those who seek work or work only in poor quality and poorly remunerated employment. That is part of the productivity increase and the shift towards higher added value in our economy that we need.

Thirdly, our economic development must be sustainable, not just by improving the environment and by better recycling and waste management—important as those are—but by making productive use of our human resources. We must also avoid, as far as possible, those valuable human resources being out of work and requiring further resources to support them. The requirement for a sharp improvement in our productivity is central to that.

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

Will the minister give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I need to make some progress, given the time.

The data and methodology vary, but productivity in Scotland is around, or slightly below, the UK average. However, the UK figure is about 35 to 40 per cent lower than that of the United States and about 20 per cent lower than that of France. We must therefore devote our energies and resources towards the critical determinants of our productivity. That is the heart of our economic strategy and in that—now more than ever—we need to hold our nerve. We have the right strategy and the right policies. We must not be diverted from our path by short-term issues, by debates about powers we do not have rather than about those we do, or by arguments over which arbitrary target to set or pursue.

We should pursue three priorities, the first of which is growing businesses. We must encourage entrepreneurship, support new companies and innovation and translate science directly into commercial activity, while creating a climate of innovation that allows new products and processes to be introduced not only in high-technology industries, but in the manufacturing and financial services sectors, where the companies that are succeeding are fuelling their growth by developing innovative products.

The second priority is to ensure that our companies are connected to global markets and that they can communicate with them either electronically or physically by train and plane.

The third priority is to improve our skills base in relation to the young, those in employment and those out of work, whom we need to reskill.

I stand firmly by "A Smart Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks" and I am glad to hear Andrew Wilson support it this morning. I also stand firmly by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise because they are important to our future.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We take it as read that those organisations are terrific and that they have been terrific for some time, but they have yet to deliver. However, when will the minister realise that the wealth gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK and Europe will not be closed until we equip ourselves with the full powers that we need to compete with Ireland, Austria and everywhere else?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I said that I stand firmly by those organisations because they operate on the structural failures in the markets. Such work does not deal with the symptoms but with the fundamental problems.

We have world-class research in our universities, and there are global markets that want it; however, too often that research does not get out there. We have new businesses looking to expand and capital looking for investment, but too often they cannot seem to get together. Above all, we have skills shortages from construction to financial services and we have people who have the potential to do anything if they are given the chance. We need quickly to match the people with the skills shortages. Accelerating that process has to be our key task and, in recent months, we have worked towards that. We have invested £10 million in further education capital for kit to maximise the relevance of skills training, £10 million on infrastructure improvements and £7.5 million on higher education research. We have also set in motion the Scottish co-investment fund to plug the equity gap growth barrier and we have matched that with a £15 million expansion of the business growth scheme. That represents a real investment in growth from within our own strengths and it will bring benefits.

The past few months have also seen the launch of a comprehensive campaign to build a culture of enterprise and entrepreneurism in our future generations. The primary schools enterprise education programme is already under way and will be mainstreamed into secondary schools next. That is investment in the long term and it holds out the prospect of a cultural shift to the kind of modern aspirational country on which future economic success can be based. There has to be a structural shift to address growth.

I acknowledge that Scotland's population is, at best, stagnant and at worst decreasing. Not only must we ensure that our people aim high and act with enterprise and confidence, but that they stay in Scotland to do so. We can have an open debate in relation to that because more has to be done in that regard.

I confess that I had thought that the Scottish National Party would have something new to offer today. Mr Wilson has tried to have Parliament recalled and, on the first day after recess, he made a point of order demanding this debate. Now he has it, however, we hear nothing new. We have read in the press that the SNP has said that full fiscal freedom is now going to be economic independence. However, that is not news because we always knew that full fiscal freedom was about only two things: the SNP's love of alliteration—

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I think that I must wind up.

David (None, Lothians)

Yes, you are over time.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

And, indeed, the SNP's love of alliteration— [Laughter.] Well, I am speaking to two people at once while I try to make a speech.

The call for full fiscal freedom was always about independence because it is a political rather than an economic strategy. Mr Wilson says that he wants to talk Scotland up, but his speech was, in the main, a catalogue of despair.

I will close by addressing the Tories. It is true that investment in infrastructure is important and, who knows, perhaps we will hear more of that later today. However, is that to be accomplished by Murdo Fraser's suggestion that we pay for it by the abolition of all business support and work-based training, or by Brian Monteith's fiscal-autonomy magic fix? Do they not acknowledge that business rate comparisons depend on rateable value as well as rate poundage, and that the United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of business taxation in Europe? Whatever the answer, David McLetchie said clearly on television a couple of weeks ago that the Tories do not have an economic policy. He was right—the amendment does not add up to an economic policy.

Meanwhile, the Executive will continue to focus on what it can do, is doing and—above all—must do, because we are determined to create a growing, aspirational, highly skilled and prosperous Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-3376.2, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:

"endorses the Scottish Executive's aim to increase the sustainable growth of the Scottish economy over the long term, using the powers available to the Parliament, thus providing resources for first-class public services and a more socially just and sustainable Scotland; supports the work undertaken to improve the long-term performance of the Scottish economy as set out in the Framework for Economic Development and Smart, Successful Scotland, and notes the progress in implementing measures to help businesses grow, build Scotland's global connections and improve Scotland's skills base."

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We are in a challenging time for the Scottish economy. Recession has hit us for the first time in 20 years. That the SNP should choose to debate the economy at this time is a welcome initiative. It is welcome because—I cannot help but notice—the debate is only the second on the economy that the SNP has called since 1999.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

That is not true.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

If Mr Wilson wants some rather depressing statistics, I will read them out to him, although I would rather not waste the time. The depressing statistics are that the SNP initiated a debate on tourism and the economy, which was led by Mr MacAskill, on 28 March 2001 and it has initiated today's debate.

Perhaps it is surprising that a motion that is so lengthy says so little. Indeed, it reads more like a university debating society motion than a serious attempt to present constructive proposals to address problems in the economy that confront business. I listened to what Mr Wilson said about growth and, of course, growth is important, but business is pleading to be relieved of some of the obvious burdens that repress growth.

Mr Wilson referred to Ireland. I do not know to whom he speaks in Ireland, but I spoke within the last fortnight to two people there. One, who is in the banking sector, said that there are very serious concerns in Ireland about growing inflation, lack of skills and the non-recurrence of substantial European funding. There are real fears that the Irish economy is heading for crisis.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Annabel Goldie give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am sorry. I want to make progress.

To suggest that we should at this time emulate Ireland is somewhat disingenuous.

The explanation for the motion is that the SNP is on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, it is under a political imperative to argue a convincing economic case to support independence. Indeed, the motion is taken pretty much word for word from a paper entitled "Economic Policy and Positioning" that Mr Wilson prepared for discussion at his party's national assembly. On the other hand, it is clear that popular support for an independent Scotland is limited and that business community interest in an independent Scotland is minimal. That is part of the dilemma. Perhaps that explains why the SNP's motion has nothing constructive or specific to say about the economy in the devolution settlement. That is a pity, because it is not for want of the business community asking. Mr Wilson's party colleague, Mr Jim Mather, recently confirmed in an article in Business a.m. that when he goes round businesses, he is asked repeatedly not to talk about independence but to restrict his comments to the devolved settlement. That presents the SNP with a political paradox and a pressing problem.

Whatever Mr Wilson's views, his colleagues' views clearly centre on a left-wing political agenda that is more interested in spending money than in allowing the economy to generate revenue. Mr Wilson paints an intriguing vision of a tartan Valhalla—a land flowing with Celtic milk and honey—but is completely oblivious to the various proposals, commitments and suggestions that his colleagues have made during the life of the Parliament, all of which involve the expenditure of significant sums of public money.

The reality is that the SNP has no natural interest in, or distinctive understanding of, Scottish business. The SNP has, as is evidenced by its attitude to the private finance initiative and public-private partnerships, a profound suspicion and distrust of the private sector.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will bring Miss Goldie back to reality. Will she reflect on the fact that, despite her statements on growth and business rates, during 16 of the 18 long, painful years of Conservative rule, Scotland had higher business rates than England? Will she also reflect on the fact that, under the Conservatives, the growth gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK was even wider and grew faster than under the current lot?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I concede that, as everyone knows, under the previous Conservative Government the economy of the United Kingdom—not just of Scotland—experienced a watershed. No responsible politician would deny that. The Conservative Government was realistic enough to address the problem that existed and to turn around the Scottish economy, so that it became a modern economy with all the benefits to which Mr Gray was happy to refer. Without the inheritance of 1997, it would not have been possible for him to do that.

Mr Wilson raised the issue of business rates. I was in business when the uniform business rate was imposed and as one of many hard-pressed business people in Scotland, I regarded it as an answer to a prayer. It is ridiculous to suggest that the absence of the uniform business rate is in any way beneficial to Scottish business.

Before I took Mr Wilson's intervention, I referred to the Scottish National Party's profound suspicion and distrust of the private sector. Despite everything that Mr Wilson said, one would have thought that the SNP motion might pay lip service to some of the concerns that the business community has expressed recently. Mr Wilson says that we should get back to reality. What planet does he dwell on? The business community to which he refers is not the community with which I engage and that I meet. The chairman of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, Mr Jack Perry, said at the recent CBI dinner:

"We need—

he is talking about now—

"increased investment in transport—both public transport and the long long overdue completion of our motorway network. Business rates is a classic example of public policy conflicting with a shared business and political agenda of supporting enterprise and growth."

If the business community is looking to the Scottish National Party for succour or support, the SNP motion is about as comforting as the throwing of a lifebelt made of cement would be to a drowning man. The amendment that I have lodged is intended to address the void in the motion. Since the Parliament was established, the Conservatives have been the only party to champion the uniform business rate and improved investment in transport infrastructure. Those two issues can be addressed now.

If the Scottish National Party has nothing to say, the Scottish Executive has no cause for complacency. New Labour at Westminster and at Edinburgh has presided—with its Liberal Democrat colleagues—over recession, poor GDP growth, poor business profitability and higher unemployment in Scotland relative to the rest of the UK. Most recently, it has imposed a tax on jobs, through the national insurance contribution hike. It is very troubling that since 1997 Scottish business has paid an additional £3.3 billion in tax, which amounts to a staggering £11,225 for each enterprise in Scotland. There has also been a steady decline in business start-ups since 1997. If we add to that the abolition of the uniform business rate by Mr McConnell, the neglect of our transport infrastructure and the imposition by the coalition Executive of almost 500 new regulations that affect business, we will have no difficulty in identifying Labour and the Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh as a nightmare proposition for business.

The Scottish National Party has nothing to say that would help. The coalition Executive says repeatedly that it will help, but it does nothing. I have a challenge for the minister. He should not pretend—as has been trailed in today's headlines—that not increasing business rates is a tremendous triumph for the Executive. By the same logic, the Executive would argue that its promise not to use the Parliament's tax-raising powers is a great prize for business. I challenge the Executive to do something meaningful and to announce today in the comprehensive spending review that the uniform business rate will be restored, which would mean a cut in business rates for many businesses. The Executive should also announce that it intends to embark on extensive road and motorway improvements.

Sir David, I move amendment S1M-3376.1, to leave out from "this recession" to end and insert:

"economic growth is the key to raising personal living standards, providing opportunity and security for all and the means by which we improve our public services and quality of life; further recognises that this prosperity can only be created on a sound entrepreneurial base, and therefore calls on the Scottish Executive to increase investment in our transport infrastructure and to return Scotland to a uniform business rate poundage throughout the United Kingdom, these being two essential factors in providing the right framework for the creation of wealth and jobs."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Sir David is very grateful, and so am I.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I welcome this debate on the economy and on growth. Andrew Wilson deserves credit for emphasising the need to focus on the Scottish economy. We cannot ignore that, and this morning's debate gives the Parliament an opportunity to address it.

Mr Wilson referred to the residual strength of the Scottish economy, and his motion concentrates on that to some extent. However, it is bizarre to criticise the limitations on the Parliament's powers and in the same breath to criticise ministers for exercising the powers that they have. That is not a consistent position. It will not help us to achieve Mr Wilson's objective: a long-term analysis of the Scottish economy.

Miss Goldie did not explain in her eight-minute speech what the Conservatives would do on any subject relating to the Scottish economy. We had 18 years of cuts in taxes and no investment in our public services or skills. That policy approach was rejected by the people of this country and I am sure that it will be rejected again in future elections here and in the UK.

What is desperately needed is not a fixation on statistics that relate to two quarters of one year, but an analysis of what needs to change in the long term. We need an analysis of the changes in patterns and trends that affect Scotland, and of the difference that Government can make through strategic investment and that Parliament can make in scrutinising the role of Government.

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

Tavish Scott talked about the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Does he agree that we desperately need power over taxation on oil and gas? Does he agree that the recent decision that the Westminster Government took to increase petroleum tax by 10 per cent was disastrous?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

We made clear our position on that decision in London, where we can do something about it, rather than here, where we can do nothing about it.

In establishing areas in which the Liberal Democrats contend that improvement needs to be made, we do not need the sterile argument that Fergus Ewing has just made about the powers that the Scottish Parliament does not have. If MSPs want to debate macroeconomic policies, they can be elected to the palace of varieties on the Thames.

By holding the Executive to account, the Parliament has an important function in considering growth and productivity issues in Scotland.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would like to make progress first, but then I will be happy to give way.

First we need to understand what is happening in the wider world, as Iain Gray rightly pointed out, but I noted that Andrew Wilson and Annabel Goldie did not relate their arguments to globalisation and the natural circumstances of the international situation that affects Scotland and the whole global economy. It is impossible to insulate or separate ourselves from the international context, which, dare I say it, includes England as much as it does the United States of America.

A lack of foresight is apparent in that the UK trails the US economic cycle by six to 12 months and Europe follows six to 12 months later. It is therefore imperative to keep an observing eye on what is happening in the USA. The USA has recently revised its GDP numbers to illustrate that it was in recession in the first nine months of 2001. The Federal Reserve has cut interest rates time and time again. No country has more fiscal freedom than the USA, yet it has an impending double-dip recession. There is no global recovery. Jeremy Peat of the Royal Bank of Scotland stated recently in a report that

"serious growth would have to wait for global recovery."

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The world economy is not in the best of shape, but Tavish Scott should acknowledge reality. America's latest figures show that it has moved out of recession and the forecast for world growth this year is 3 per cent. There is a slow-down and there are problems, but why does Scotland always feel the brunt of those situations? Why cannot we take control and get ourselves out of our position?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Andrew Wilson made a number of points there, but I am not wholly convinced by his arguments about the economy of the United States. There is more difficulty to be faced and we should be aware of that, rather than insulating ourselves. Jeremy Peat's recent analysis illustrates the worrying figures that there are on output and jobs. He commented eloquently on the problems of too much dependence on the service sector. Much good can be done in our domestic performance in the service sector and tourism.

A downward trend in trading in the technology and telecommunications sectors has had a severe impact. Previous generations of Scottish politicians begged companies in those sectors to come to Scotland as part of an inward investment strategy. That short-term fix, which was the Tory approach throughout the 1980s, was based on the decline of the manufacturing industry. It was not about building our indigenous economic performance from within. Screwdriver plants offering low-skill jobs were never the success story that they were cited to be at the time.

It is vital that our approach is based on improving our entrepreneurial activity and encouraging the growth of businesses. The enterprise networks have an important role to play in that. The enterprise network must also recognise the views of Scottish Engineering, which represents 400 companies. Just the other week, Scottish Engineering said that this is the worst year on record for the electronics sector since records began. We must take a co-ordinated approach to those issues in both the long and medium term.

Through the capital and investment priorities that may be announced later today, the Scottish Executive could consider making changes to infrastructure in the areas of transport, training, skills, the environment and energy. I hope that, in the spending announcement to be made later today, the Minister for Finance and Public Services will concentrate as much on the medium and long-term investment that the Scottish economy needs as he does on the short-term issues that face Government when it makes policy.

There is a deep reservoir of talent in the commercialisation of research, on which the Scottish economy needs to build. We must take and tap into the best of Scotland's intellectual capital, in relation to which I believe two areas are particularly important. The first is the life sciences industry. I had the opportunity to visit Dundee recently, where I talked to a number of companies that are engaged in that area. High-risk and long-term investments, involving a significant amount of money, are being made at an early stage in order to drive forward exciting new advances in life sciences. That hugely important area for the enterprise network does not produce short-term outcomes and, to that extent, it does not attract the attention that it needs. We should support that industry because it involves not only Scottish brawn, but Scottish brain.

The second area is the renewables sector. Scotland lost the opportunity to lead on wind power—Denmark captured the lead in that sector. However, we could take the lead on wave and other renewable energies. Those are important opportunities for Scotland, and the proposed energy institute could be part of that work. I am frustrated by the lack of drive on renewables, but it is important that the sector is constantly pushed forward, as it is an area of Scottish success.

I conclude with the observation that the strategy, "A Smart, Successful Scotland", is about medium and long-term investment in the future of the Scottish economy, and the same applies to work that is being done on enterprise and education within the education sphere. Those medium and long-term steps are appropriate and strategic—they are not part of an utterly pointless rush at the issues. Mr Gray's amendment also deals with the medium and long term and, on that basis, I commend it to the Parliament.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I cannot possibly call all the members who have requested to speak, but I will get through as many as I can. I ask members to limit their speeches to four minutes.

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

It is absolutely essential for the future of the Scottish economy that we give our businesses a competitive advantage, rather than giving that advantage to our competitors.

The Parliament has limited powers in relation to the economy. It has no power over the taxes on fuel, the oil and gas industry or the whisky industry. Those taxes apply in the UK, and we should ask ourselves whether it is an accident that they are either the highest or among the highest such taxes in Europe. For decades, the Scotch whisky industry has tried to dismantle tax barriers in other countries, such as Japan and India, only to be told by those countries, "You should start by practising what you preach at home by reducing the level of taxation on whisky." No Scottish Government would tax our national drink to such an extent—to do so is a disgrace and an indictment of successive Westminster Governments over the decades.

I will concentrate on what was indubitably, in my opinion, the Executive's worst decision—amidst stiff competition. When the First Minister was merely the Minister for Finance, he decided to scrap the uniform business rate, which was introduced in 1995 by the Conservative Government and which ended the discrimination that Scottish businesses faced of having to pay higher business rates. Annabel Goldie was sparing in her praise for the efforts of the Scottish National Party during the campaign to end that discrimination. However, I think that she would agree that many of us—including Gil Paterson and me—were very active during the 80s and 90s in that campaign.

What Annabel Goldie was slightly coy about in saying that in 1995 the uniform business rate was an answer to her prayers, was that from 1979 until 1995—a period of 16 years, as Andrew Wilson has pointed out—there was no response to the prayer. One can only assume that the Tory deity was somewhat hard of hearing over that period. The calculation carried out by Craig Campbell of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry was that the amount of extra tax paid by Scottish businesses from 1990, when rateable values were harmonised, to 1995 was £1,200 million. That is Tory over-taxation—an average of 20 per cent higher business tax a year under the Tories. We take no lessons from the Conservatives on the need to provide Scottish businesses with a fair deal.

Let us go back to Mr McConnell, who introduced the policy that has resulted in Scottish businesses over the past three years paying business rates 10 per cent higher than in England. The Labour ministers seem to be in a state of denial about that. They try to say that there is no discrimination because following the revaluation in 2000, rateable values in England rose by 25 per cent and in Scotland they rose by 15 per cent. Somehow that is presented as an answer. However, that is not an answer because rateable values were harmonised in 1990. The departed Henry McLeish and other former Scottish Office ministers have admitted that.

Unless we scrap Jack's tax—named after the First Minister—which imposes a burden of 10 per cent extra a year, the Labour party will reap a sour reward in next year's elections.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

In view of the self-imposed time constraint, I will pass up the opportunity to reflect on some of the depressing untruth and rhetorical flights of fantasy that we have heard this morning. It was suggested that the deficit is—to quote Andrew Wilson—"nonsensical" and that the Parliament guarantees "decline". Every federal nation in the world was dismissed as economically unsuccessful and it was said that "nothing will turn us around." That is a point to which I will return.

Let us take the SNP at its word and assume that it is genuinely interested in improving the Scottish economy. Most of the people watching the debate in Scotland want to see our growth performance improve. What is the answer? We got to the answer in the seventh minute of Andrew Wilson's speech: taxes on profits to compete with the best. We heard that that is the key to success. Let us lay aside the fact that we are already in the lowest quartile in Europe, because taxes on profits is the key to success. Therefore, the only question for people of good will in Scotland is whether that is the right prescription for growth.

In this month's edition of "Scottish Business Insider", I note that the answer to the question of what is keeping us back is: number 1, skills availability; number 2, regulatory requirements; number 3, cost of materials; number 4, sterling exchange rates; and number 5, technological capability.

All those issues are addressed through "A Smart, Successful Scotland". There is no mention of the conclusion that the SNP has reached.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

No. Let me come to the most important point, which was touched on by Annabel Goldie. The SNP may have called only two debates on the economy, but every Opposition debate is about the same thing: "It's no our fault, we cannae do anything about it, because the power resides elsewhere". It is always somebody else's fault. The SNP's sine qua non is that we cannot stay in the United Kingdom and succeed and that the only way to take responsibility and end the dependency culture is to leave the UK. I want to get rid of the dependency culture and I want our country to grow, but I do not insist that that requires us to walk out of the United Kingdom. The SNP can never concede that it is possible for Scotland to succeed under the current constitutional arrangements. The key to the SNP's economic policy is not what Scottish business says, but to find the silver bullet—not the right silver bullet; that the SNP currently does not have—and to label that the problem. The SNP says, "England took our ball away—that is the problem."

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Let me answer the central point, Andrew. I want to get to it, as it is absolutely critical to the debate that will take place in the next six months. You said, Andrew, that the answer to economic success is for us to have the complete toolbox. I have to say that that would be news to every single member nation of the European Union. Not just to the nations that signed up for the European single market, but to all the countries that signed up to the single currency. In those circumstances people say, "I don't want do everything myself because, economically, sometimes having the full toolkit is not the right thing to do." The logic of the argument in favour of having the full toolkit is that full fiscal freedom is right for Fair Isle.

The real question for us and for people who want to see how we get Scotland to grow again is, "What is the key to getting Scotland growing again?" Let us look at the small nations that the SNP talks about. In Ireland, population growth was important, as was the role of the EU and getting the fiscal incentives right for the 1980s and early 1990s, before the accession countries arrived. A different set of considerations applied in Norway and in Catalonia. In Finland, the main consideration was technology. If we are serious about growth, we should not be debating how to find a silver bullet, when we are already in the bottom quartile. The SNP has chosen that bullet because it is the only thing that it can find that it thinks that we do not control. The real debate is—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Please close, Ms Alexander.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The real debate concerns the advantage that this part of Europe has over other parts of Europe. My view of the long-term success of Scotland, as set out in "A Smart, Successful Scotland", is that the Scots have been innovators, teachers and healers to the world for more than 300 years. We have done that successfully from within the position of the union and we can succeed on that basis again. That is where growth and success will come from.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the Deputy Presiding Officer for bringing that rant to an end.

I will begin by explaining to the minister some of the events that took place at the London Stock Exchange at the beginning of this year, when a number of flotations took place. Owing to global economic conditions, out of the handful of flotations that were successful, two involved Scottish companies: the Wood Group and Venture. The companies had those successes in common and also the fact that they are successful oil and gas businesses, started by Scots in the north-east of Scotland and with company bases in the north-east of Scotland.

Instead of rewarding that success story, a decision was taken elsewhere—outwith Scotland, which is the home of the oil and gas industry—in London. The decision that was taken undermined the success of that industry. Scotland does not have that many successful economic stories at the current time, but the oil and gas industry is one.

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

Does Mr Lochhead recall that, when he and I were in Norway some days ago, one of the stories that we heard loud and clear was that the taxation regime on the oil and gas sector is far worse than that of the United Kingdom? Mr Lochhead and his party go on about how wonderful Norway is, but perhaps they should think twice about that.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I was going to mention that all of the Scottish companies that I spoke to at the various stands at the exhibitions we attended complained about the 10 per cent oil and gas tax that was introduced by the Westminster Government and the impact that that tax is having.

One of the companies that I spoke to was quoted in an article yesterday. The chairman of Paladin Resources, one of the independents, which is managed by Scots, said that the 10 per cent tax is

"'ill-conceived' as it led to fiscal uncertainty, which would erode stability vital for the industry and investors in a mature hydrocarbon province".

He went on to say that the tax would

"make it more difficult for new entrants to secure finance and would also accelerate the demise of the North Sea."

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Will the member give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No. The debate is about trying to persuade ministers that they need the powers to help Scottish industries to develop and take Scotland forward. To do so would allow us to create the wealth to invest in Scotland's social services. That is what is important and that is what we are trying to get across to ministers today.

The 10 per cent tax is extremely important. It was not a decision that was taken by the Scottish Parliament, despite the fact that the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning is supposed to be responsible for promoting enterprise in Scotland.

He should be banging on doors in London and trying to persuade UK ministers, who are taking such anti-Scottish decisions, to help him to promote enterprise in Scotland. The 10 per cent tax is already having a devastating impact. It has not even been introduced yet and has already dented confidence in the North sea. Heaven knows what will happen when it is actually introduced.

In his opening remarks, the minister said that he wanted to promote Scottish manufacturing and engineering. In the quarter before the oil and gas tax was announced, orders in the oil and gas sectors were up by 38 in Scotland. However, since the tax came onto the agenda, they have fallen by 23 in the last quarter. That is a direct impact of the tax.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member is in his final minute.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

We are seeing a resource flight from the North sea. Because it is more profitable to work in other parts of the world, people and equipment are leaving Scotland and going elsewhere. The minister said that we must create a skills base in Scotland. However, I should inform him that, because the tax is slowing down exploration in the North sea, people, particularly those on the rigs, are going to work in countries such as Mexico and India. We need those skills to boost the Scottish economy, but the young people who are going into the industry are finding it more attractive to work elsewhere.

This issue is a perfect example of why the Parliament needs more powers. We need to help the Scottish economy and secure our future. Although the oil and gas industry is essentially Scottish, decisions are being taken in London. That is where civil service jobs and the headquarters of some oil companies are based and where taxation decisions are being made. Although the minister must secure more powers to help the Parliament to deliver for Scotland, in the meantime he should use what influence he has to fight the Scottish case. Indeed, he should go down to London and try to help the Scottish economy by getting the oil and gas tax removed.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

When debating SNP motions, I often find that I can agree with approximately two thirds of it. Their preambles are usually quite acceptable, sometimes reasonable and occasionally sensible. However, their conclusions are only occasionally acceptable, and are rarely reasonable or sensible. This motion proves no exception to that rule.

As soon as the motion begins to talk about "targets" and

"mature, serious and open-minded debate",

it begins to lose touch with economic reality. After all, targets and debates are only words. Because actions speak so much louder than words, the debate needs largely to focus on the actions of the Scottish Executive.

We have all seen the figures and the headlines. Indeed, one of the starkest headlines appeared in last Monday's Business a.m. It read:

"Growth in Scottish company start-ups down by 80%".

The article explained that, with start-up growth down from 10.2 per cent to 1.7 per cent, we could face a fall in the number of companies created in Scotland next year. Although that is a terrifying prospect, it is also a stark and probably accurate pointer to an economy in decline. Nowhere is that situation shown more clearly than in rural Scotland, and particularly in the South of Scotland region that I represent. Incidentally, that area is now suffering depopulation as a direct result of Scottish Executive policies.

According to the Executive's amendment, the answers to those very real problems lie in

"providing resources for first-class public services and a more socially just and sustainable Scotland",

supporting

"the work undertaken to improve"

our "long-term performance" and noting

"the progress in implementing measures to help businesses grow".

However, the answers do not lie there. Quite simply, in rural Scotland at least, they lie with the need to make meaningful and rapid improvements to two aspects of infrastructure and, as Annabel Goldie so ably argued, with a return to a level playing field on business rates.

During its recent round of evidence-gathering meetings throughout Scotland, the Rural Development Committee found that, alongside planning restrictions, one of the most strongly perceived barriers to rural development was the roads infrastructure. Nothing would do more for business development and new start-ups than for the Executive to recognise that fact and to take some practical action to do something about it. I suspect that, instead, we will be fed the usual mealy-mouthed soft soap about the Executive's investment in a properly integrated sustainable rural public transport system. Although I concede that that investment has done something for rural employment by creating the need for more bus drivers, it has done nothing to get more passengers on to those buses. Although I hope that the announcement that will be made later today will prove me wrong, I am not optimistic.

I have said many times before that we simply cannot replace the car in rural Scotland. It is time that the Executive realised that by implementing a comprehensive road improvement programme that will not only allow people to access the workplace more easily but, more important, help rural business to get their primary or processed products to the marketplace.

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

Will the member give way?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sorry—I am in my last minute.

The information technology infrastructure is in much need of attention and access to it is paramount in diversifying rural Scotland's industrial base. Last year, when I mentioned the lack of access to IT in rural Scotland, Jim Wallace suggested that I must be living on a different planet if I could not recognise the significant benefits of the pathfinder project in the south of Scotland. If he were here, I would say to him that I do not because there is none. Successful small and medium enterprises are having to move from rural Scotland to more urban areas in order to access better IT facilities.

I contend that the Executive's policies are failing because they are the wrong policies. They will continue to fail until ministers realise that they must differentiate between rural and urban policies. Despite the failure of those policies, however, I can think of no policies that would cause business confidence and start-ups to collapse more quickly than that called for in the SNP motion this morning. The thought of an SNP-led Executive four years ago caused several companies to move their headquarters south of the border in total panic. Independence—the SNP's answer to everything—is the answer to nothing. I am sure that on 2 May next year, we will discover that the vast majority of people in Scotland will decisively reject it once again.

If the Parliament is serious about taking proactive measures to improve Scotland's economy, it will follow my example and support Annabel Goldie's amendment.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

Our Executive is committed to the creation of a strong, diverse and thriving economy. We have enjoyed the benefits of working in partnership with Westminster, which has achieved economic growth and, important for May, the reduction in unemployment, coupled with a strong labour market.

As usual, the SNP is selective in its choice of statistics to score political points at the expense of business and investor confidence. That is an important point. The SNP has picked on negative statistics over a short period. Nobody says that we have not faced problems, but we have managed to maintain our share of total UK inward investment. Scotland's performance in the period in question reflects well in the post-11 September era, when foreign investment saw a dramatic fall worldwide, allied to the severe contraction of the electronics sector and output throughout the world.

Earlier this week, Jack McConnell spoke to the Institute of Directors. He made clear the Executive's commitment to a strong economy that creates jobs and prosperity. In his speech, he outlined our key economic objectives. The minister has repeated them this morning. Acceleration of our rate of economic growth is a key task, as is improving opportunities for all who wish to work. I hold that very dear. Improving the skills of our work force is a top priority of the Executive—and, indeed, for the Parliament and the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.

An important point about which we have not heard much from the SNP is that our economic development must be sustainable. Closing the gap—not only within Scotland but within regions such as my own—is very important. I believe that we can all sign up to the objectives. In "A Smart, Successful Scotland", we have the correct strategy to accelerate our economy and create opportunities for all. However, we must ensure a correct balance between central strategy and local flexibility and innovation.

In my constituency, we recently experienced the withdrawal of a large multinational company—Alcan. However, I am encouraged by the Executive's commitment to the development of indigenous business and I congratulate the work force, the trade unions, Fife Council, Scottish Enterprise Fife and the minister and his team for their support in seeking a local solution.

Business creation is vital. We have seen 12,100 new companies in the past year—a new high. A total of £40 million has been invested in supporting small businesses throughout Scotland, through the co-investment scheme that seeks to utilise the expertise of private sector fund managers in the venture capital process, and through the extended business growth fund and additional grant support within the investor readiness programme. A total of £11 million has been awarded to Scotland's most innovative firms through the SMART: Scotland award—the small firms merit award for research and technology—and £33 million has gone to the proof of concept fund, which aims to turn innovation into new businesses and to give a competitive edge to existing firms. All those ideas have been successful.

The industrial development renewal report for the year ended 31 March showed that projects in Scotland benefited to the tune of more than £100 million, thanks to grants administered by the Executive. Labour is clear in its belief that a strong, vibrant business economy can generate growth and promote social well-being. Unlike Conservative members, I think that that is important.

I hope that, later today, we will hear about innovative projects to help training infrastructure. I agree with Tavish Scott that it is not just a question of short-term fixes; we must consider a medium and long-term strategy. We must remain firmly focused on building for long-term economic strength. I believe that the Executive's policies to increase competitiveness and boost productivity are the way forward. We want an economy that achieves the correct balance, supporting business and enterprise while promoting social and regional development.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The first thing to understand is that the Lib-Lab Executive is neither smart nor successful. For 39 years since the rate of growth was first recorded in 1963, the Scottish economy has grown at a rate consistently below that of the UK economy. There is consistently a 28 per cent gap between performance in Scotland and performance in the rest of the UK. If we compare the performance of the Scottish economy with that of the south-east of England, we see that the gap is not 28 per cent but nearer to 75 per cent. If we had had anything like the growth level of the south-east of England, Scotland would indeed—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Alex Neil accept an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Unfortunately, I do not have time, because of the stupid four-minute rule.

Iain Gray's amendment mentions the long term, but we have been through the long term for the past 40 years. The same speeches were made in Westminster over those 40 years, during which we have had 16 years of Labour Government and 24 years of Tory Government. It did not matter which party was in power; the result was the same. The Scottish economy has been in continual relative decline.

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

Come the day of a Liberal Government.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The Liberals will never get another shot. They have had 80 years to rest.

The potential wealth of Scotland in natural resources probably makes us the richest country per head in the whole of Europe. As Jim Sillars used to say, Scotland is the only country to get poorer and poorer as the oil flowed faster and faster.

The coalition parties try to ridicule the case for independence, but they should consider what a London-based accountancy company said only two weeks ago. It said that we in Scotland should at present have interest rates of 2 per cent less than that set by the Bank of England, because of the state of our economy. Wendy Alexander should note that that London-based accountancy group admits that we have a set of economic circumstances in Scotland that are different from those in the south-east of England. In my view, the Bank of England should be renamed the Bank for England, because it has done nothing for Scotland.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

rose—

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member cannot take interventions; he is in the final minute of his speech.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I did not mean to tempt everybody up at the same time.

Of course, we are all united on the need for a science and skills strategy. The SNP manifesto in 1999 envisaged VisitScotland and Scottish Development International. We envisaged making Scotland the science capital of Europe. I know those manifesto commitments word for word because it was I who wrote them into the manifesto. We stand four-square behind that strategy, but as long as interest rates and fiscal policy are controlled in London we can have as many strategies as we like up here and it will not matter a toss. I said toss, not tosh, Presiding Officer.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I still know what it means, though.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

A 1 per cent difference in interest rates would wipe out Scottish Enterprise's budget at a stroke. That budget is worth about 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product in Scotland. A 1 per cent increase in interest rates would more than make up for Scottish Enterprise's budget. That is the scale. That is the difference. That is the vision. That is why we need control of our own economy in an independent Scotland.

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

It is great when we hear the i-word—independence—spoken here, because that shovels thousands of votes in any direction other than the SNP. I felt sorry for Bruce Crawford and my SNP opponent, Rob Gibson, when they were trailing around Dounreay and Thurso the other day, trying to drum up votes. All that Alex Neil says plays into our court. If they chapped at people's doors and asked, "Do you want independence? Do you want to say cheerio to England? Do you want to say goodbye to the Queen, the Black Watch, the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority?" the answer would be, "No, thanks." That is why Caithness will never vote SNP. I dare say that Inverness will also vote out Fergus Ewing, who will be no more the Perry Mason of the Parliament. The more the nats talk about independence, the better it is for the rest of us, because it does not work.

What would happen to the local economy of Caithness if we went independent and the UKAEA was not there to pump millions of pounds into it? Instead of the likes of Bruce Crawford selling the whole thing short by saying, "The AEA is secretive and won't tell us what it is doing"—which is the gist of the press release that he unwisely issued before he visited Dounreay—we should be standing squarely with the authority. It is at the cutting edge of decommissioning and is the state of the art of taking apart nuclear facilities. Instead of being miserable about it, we should view it as a chance of being the best not only in Britain, but in the world, and of getting back in industry. If the nats wonder why the votes are not there when the fat lady sings and the black boxes are opened, perhaps they should know that.

We should be playing to our strengths and looking to the future, building on what we have got, not whingeing about London or the UK and blaming somebody else. We should be developing and maximising our environment, the country's tourism potential and our skills. In her good speech, Wendy Alexander was right to make that point. We should get in there and back our industries.

I shall conclude my remarks there. It was perhaps a bit naughty of me to have a go at the nats, but it is fun.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Having heard that today's debate was going to be about the Scottish economy and knowing the number of times that Andrew Wilson had appeared in the media over the summer talking about recalling Parliament to debate the economy, I hoped that we might have a bit of fresh thinking from SNP members. However, what we got was their usual ploy of talking Scotland down and—surprise, surprise—the revelation that the SNP believes that independence is the answer to all our problems. That is probably one of the biggest revelations that we could have expected in the debate.

We have also heard from SNP members that the SNP wants to cut business rates, reduce taxation on profits, reduce duty on whisky and reduce tax on the oil industry. However, in other debates on the health service, education and transport, they ask us to increase the level of expenditure to levels comparable to those in Scandinavia. Where does the balance lie? What level of personal taxation do they propose?

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I will decline. In the course of his 12-minute diatribe, Andrew Wilson refused to give way to any other member. If he wants to engage in a proper debate, he should give way when he is speaking.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Who asked me to give way?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Three members asked him, including my colleague Rhona Brankin and one of the Liberal Democrat members.

The obvious conclusion to be reached from Mr Neil's speech is that the SNP is against joining the single European currency. If the SNP does not want Scotland to remain part of a single currency in which interest rates are decided at a UK level, how could it want us to be part of a single currency in which interest rates are decided at a European level? The SNP leadership may disagree with that idea, and it is clear that the party is split on the matter.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does Bristow Muldoon agree that West Lothian, which he represents, could be a cockpit for development, but that our problem lies in the need for infrastructure? Does he agree that transport, infrastructure and skills are crucial if we are to grow the economy not just in West Lothian but elsewhere? Will he get to the point and argue the case for his constituents instead of knocking people in the Parliament?

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I was going to turn to West Lothian later in my speech, but I will do so now. The Scottish economy—specifically electronics—has recently experienced problems as a result of both local and global factors, and one of the worst-hit areas has undoubtedly been West Lothian, with the closures of the Motorola and NEC Semiconductors plants. The story of West Lothian also gives us a degree of encouragement about the future of the Scottish economy. In spite of those major closures and of the fact that thousands of people in West Lothian have been through the trauma of redundancy in recent years, unemployment in Livingston stands at only 4 per cent.

The SNP wants to create the picture of a Scottish economy in the same state as in the early 1980s. As Ms Hyslop probably knows, unemployment in West Lothian was in excess of 20 per cent then. Ms Hyslop might also wish to know that, in the most recent report of the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, Livingston had the fourth-highest rate of business start-ups in Scotland. There is an underlying strength to the economy both in West Lothian and in Scotland as a whole. That strength has been delivered by the actions of the UK Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, which have given Scotland the lowest level of unemployment for three decades, the lowest interest rates for decades and the lowest inflation rates for decades. We should welcome those statistics. That underlying stability was never seen in the 18 years of Tory misrule in the UK.

What are we doing to improve the economy in Scotland? We are investing in the transport infrastructure, as evidenced in the transport delivery report, which was launched by my colleague Wendy Alexander. I expect that we will hear more later today when Andy Kerr makes his spending announcements, which will be translated by Iain Gray into further investment in the transport infrastructure.

We are investing in the skills of the people of Scotland through the success of the modern apprenticeships programme and the record number of people in further and higher education. The only alternative that SNP members have to that platform of policies is independence. They have the simplistic innocence of children who still believe in Santa Claus delivering Christmas presents. Independence is their only answer. We are living in uncertain times in a global context, but the stable economic circumstances that we have put in place at UK and Scottish levels will deliver an improved growth rate in the Scottish economy in years to come.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Like my colleague Tavish Scott and others, I welcome the chance to debate this serious issue. All parties in the Parliament share concern about the fact that Scotland's economy has officially dipped into recession for the first time in 20 years. But let us face it: given the economic background of collapsing output around the world, a nine-month recession in the American economy—and no guarantee that the United States, the main engine of growth in the world economy over the past 10 years, is coming out of recession—and months of falling output in the euro zone and the G7 countries, it is hardly surprising that Scotland has not escaped the fallout from world events.

Given Scotland's narrow economic base and an industrial policy over the past 20 to 30 years that has been based on using huge financial inducements to lure big, multinational companies to set up screwdriver operations, some might argue that we have got away lightly with only two quarters of negative growth.

I suggest to SNP members, especially Andrew Wilson, who called for this serious debate, that no degree of fiscal autonomy could have prevented the current situation. To suggest otherwise detracts from the real debate around how we tackle Scotland's record of relatively poor economic performance. The issue should indeed be top of the political agenda, and I agree with Andrew Wilson that all parties must engage in a mature, serious and open-minded debate on how we tackle it. However, Andrew Wilson and his colleagues did not contribute in any serious way to a mature debate on how we should deal with the issue. There are no quick fixes and the suggestion that constitutional change is the answer to all our problems is irrelevant.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Presiding Officer, could you add the time on?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

George Lyon will appreciate that agriculture plays a crucial role in the Scottish economy. He recently complained that Margaret Beckett makes anti-Scottish decisions when she is in Europe. Does that not show the case for a change in constitutional arrangements so that we can take good economic decisions for Scotland in Europe and elsewhere?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Thankfully, Scotland has a very good Minister for Environment and Rural Development who champions our cause in Europe. Indeed, nine months ago the Scottish fishermen said as much during the debate on the common fisheries policy. I remember Richard Lochhead praising Mr Finnie for his good work.

There are no quick fixes and anyone who suggests that there are is misleading the Scottish public. The first key issue that must be tackled is the widening of our economic base. Our reliance on the electronics industry as one of our main employers has been shown to leave us in a very weak position as soon as there is a downturn in that sector.

The need to improve and develop our skills base has been mentioned by many speakers in the debate. Growing indigenous businesses seems to be crucial for the future. It is no surprise that two or three years ago, Ireland realigned its economic development agencies to go down the same road. Ireland knew when its days of relying on inducing big screwdriver operations into the country were coming to an end. It is also crucial that we commercialise knowledge that is produced in our universities. We have an excellent research base and we must learn how to use it to grow jobs and companies.

Above all, if we are going to enjoy economic success, it is a fundamental requirement that we value enterprise and the people who take risks to create jobs and wealth. The Parliament has to take a strong lead in championing enterprise risk and success in the private sector. Too often, the message coming out of the Parliament—especially from the SNP—denigrates private enterprise and the profit motive. That does not help to encourage those in private enterprise who want to create wealth and jobs. The Parliament should be a business-friendly Parliament. We must work harder to ensure that that happens.

Addressing Scotland's fundamental problems will take time, but through the strategy of "A Smart, Successful Scotland", the Executive has started down the right road. However, I re-emphasise that there are no quick fixes.

Despite calling for a mature debate on the economy, the SNP offered nothing but platitudes, soundbites and the usual argument that constitutional change is the answer to every ill that confronts Scotland. Andrew Wilson even went so far as to link the longevity of the Norwegian people to their country's independence. That is not a solution; it is an irrelevance, and I will support the amendment in the name of Iain Gray.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As I wind up this morning's debate for the Conservatives, there is a strong sense of déjà vu. On the two previous occasions in the past year when the Conservatives instigated a debate on the economy, the Executive said how important the issue was—but of course parliamentary time is far too valuable for the Executive to bring forward a debate on the economy.

The difference today is that last week Mr McConnell announced that the economy was his top, top priority ahead of all of his other top priorities. Of course, that was because the sustained criticism of the Scottish Executive's handling of the economy and Scotland's economic performance had moved from the business pages to the front pages of the newspapers. The immediate knee-jerk media defence response had to be adopted. Mr McConnell was deployed to talk to business and, in the Sunday press, officials trailed a pro-business outcome to the spending review. Business will be the top priority until next week, when the next top priority will hit the front pages of the papers and the full weight of the Scottish Executive counter-spin machine can be deployed on that subject.

Scotland's economy is a long-term issue for the future and it requires sustained and focused attention. However, undermining Scotland's economy is relatively straightforward. It is not done, as the Executive often suggests, by debating the issue or by highlighting Executive inadequacies and the failings of agencies such as Scottish Enterprise; it is done by the stroke of Mr McConnell's pen. As Minister for Finance, he effectively scrapped the uniform business rate that the Conservative Government introduced. Now, rather than put up his hands and admit the mistake and the damage, we get the usual weasel words on business rates. No one knows what they mean, but it looks as though the best that we will get is an assurance that business rates will not rise. In the hour or so that Mr Kerr has before making his statement, and if it is not already the rabbit in his hat, I ask him to adopt the one policy that business says time and again would make the most difference—the reintroduction of a uniform business rate in Scotland.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member's ambitions are limited. Does he acknowledge the fact that, during the Conservative era, growth in the UK was a third faster than it was in Scotland? How does he explain that?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I recognise the importance of growth and I welcome the fact that we are debating it. I will return to that issue, but at this point I wish to examine transport.

We are told in the media that there is a spending bonanza round the corner for transport. All I can say is that it is about time. In the five and a half years that Labour has been in power in Scotland, it has systematically cut transport budgets. It has needlessly delayed key projects that are vital to Scotland's economy, from the M77 extension—for which not a sod has been cut—to the M74 extension to the equally vital M74 south between Gretna and Carlisle. Those projects have been delayed by the UK Government for no good reason.

How can it have taken as long as this to realise the damage that the Executive has done with its anti-car dogma, which has been so detrimental to our economy? It is not as if the money that has supposedly gone into public transport is producing improved services—just ask rail commuters from Fife or even Glasgow—nor is it as if all rural transport issues have been resolved, as the much-lamented Miss Alexander once claimed. On the subject of Miss Alexander, it was good to hear some Latin in the chamber for once. The reality is that, over the past five and a half years, our transport infrastructure has declined and public transport has got worse, yet today we are all supposed to be grateful for Mr Kerr's largesse in finally beginning to produce the investment in Scotland's infrastructure that is so badly needed. However, if that investment is to be effective, it must be sustained and focused.

The SNP instigated this debate and, as I indicated, I am grateful for that, but however well intentioned Andrew Wilson is—I note his contribution to the Scottish economy; he is keeping Business a.m. going by filling half its pages—he continues to fail to deliver what Mr Swinney said, when he unveiled his talking independence campaign, would be

"the most sophisticated economic presentation on independence ever devised."

We are still waiting.

Scotland's economy is in trouble. The statistics are legion, but independence is not the answer. The Scottish Executive can, within the devolved powers, do a great deal and it should begin that process today by announcing the reintroduction of uniform business rates. I support Miss Goldie's amendment.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As Iain Gray said, we welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that economic growth and jobs remain two of our top priorities, along with transport, health and education. Economic growth is at the heart of our economic and social strategy. Fundamental to our prosperity is a buoyant and dynamic economy. I welcome the SNP's ringing endorsement of our economic framework strategy and "A Smart, Successful Scotland: Ambitions for the Enterprise Networks", which aim to achieve our objectives.

Andrew Wilson spoke of other areas of consensus on economic policy. There is a clear understanding and wide agreement that our future economic success and prosperity depend on raising our game. For too long, our growth rate has failed to match the UK average. That is true and, as has been said, it has been true for almost 30 years, but it is not the whole story. Take this week's report on business start-ups, which was quoted during the debate. Yes, the percentage increase in the business birth rate was lower than in the previous year, as the report states, but the total number of start-ups was the largest ever recorded in Scotland, at 12,100 in 2001-02.

We have heard much about business rates and the perception that an unfair additional burden is placed on Scottish business. To talk about poundage without dealing with rateable values is to miss half the picture. The rise in rateable values at the most recent revaluation was 15 per cent, compared with 25 per cent south of the border. That is what determines the rates that businesses pay.

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

What would the minister say to Neil Menzies of the Chemical Industries Association, who revealed that two pipelines that cross the border have the same rateable value but attract 10 per cent more in rates on the Scottish side?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Of course business has concerns about such issues and of course we listen to those concerns. It is inevitable that the impact on some industries, including the chemical industry, is different. We are listening to those concerns and we will reflect on them and propose policies in response to them.

We have set out clearly our expectations and aspirations for the Scottish economy and the big picture from which all our detailed economic policies follow, whether pan-Scotland or more locally. Those policies are being implemented.

The vision that was set out in "The Way Forward: Framework for Economic Development in Scotland" when it was published two years ago was to raise Scottish people's quality of life through increasing economic opportunities for all on a socially and environmentally sustainable basis. That vision still holds.

Stimulating actions to secure economic growth and sustainable development is central to our economic vision. To put it another way, we want to restore and accelerate economic growth, but we are also fundamentally concerned about the quality of economic growth. Growth must be socially just and sustainable by embracing all the people of Scotland. That is why it is important that such solid progress has been made on employment and unemployment in recent years. The labour market remains relatively strong, with a high level of employment and a low level of unemployment historically and in a European context. As Iain Gray said, yesterday's figures confirmed that the employment rate in Scotland continues to grow.

Andrew Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am delighted that the minister accepts that a growth, employment, wealth and life expectancy gap exists. Which of his measures—if any—will close that gap, and by when?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Our challenge is to take every opportunity to boost our sustainable growth rate and to close the gap in economic growth. That is why we have set out a strategy. Some of the strategy for addressing economic growth lies with the UK Government at a macroeconomic level. It must be noted that the UK Government's prudent handling of the macroeconomy in the past five years has provided the stable economic environment in which we can make progress. Andrew Wilson seems surprised that our economic position is stable, but he need cast his mind back only five or six years to appreciate what the Scottish economy's position would be without that stable environment.

We must build on the platform of a stable UK economy and we must do that principally and centrally by enhancing productivity. That is the most critical element in stimulating economic growth and in closing the gap. Improved productivity is the key source of international competitiveness. By raising productivity and improving our competitiveness, we can raise the level of employment and raise living standards.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister refers to productivity. Does he agree with the oil and gas industry's view that the new tax will reduce productivity in the North sea? If so, what will he do about that?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I enjoyed Richard Lochhead's speech, in which he said that Scotland should have control of oil taxation in order to invest more in our social services, but in the same breath demanded that oil taxes be cut. That did not show much coherent vision. The Executive has a coherent vision. To overcome the growth deficit, we need policies that will stimulate increased productivity. That is why the strategy in "A Smart, Successful Scotland" is important and why it is important that the SNP warmly endorses and supports that strategy.

Clearly, the priorities of growing businesses, improving learning and skills and growing global connections are the way for us to move forward. We must embrace learning at all levels and promote a culture of enterprise and a can-do approach that will support those important structural changes. However, we do not underestimate the size of that task. We recognise that it cannot be achieved overnight. To pretend that the performance of our economy can be transformed overnight or by constitutional change is simply disingenuous. As Wendy Alexander described so eloquently, the SNP's prescription for full fiscal freedom is based entirely on its political rejection of the United Kingdom.

We do not pretend that we can determine the strength of the Scottish economy on our own. We will seek to generate the conditions to encourage growth and enterprise. We will do that in partnership with the UK Government and all the other actors in the economy who see the need for a productivity-based growth strategy for the years ahead.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Later this morning, the chamber and the press gallery will be full for a ministerial announcement on how an extra £100 million that we are to receive from the UK Treasury will be spent. Does anyone really believe that a few extra million pounds spent here or there will make any significant difference in solving our deep-seated social and economic problems? I suggest that the priorities of our devolved system of government are seriously askew when it takes the main Opposition party to stimulate a debate on Scotland's economy when that economy has moved into recession for the first time in 20 years. The problem lies, of course, with the nature of the financial arrangements whereby the Scottish Parliament has little or no power to raise the money that it spends.

There is no link to the real economy, apart perhaps from business rates. Even in that case, a peculiar perversity is built into the system. Economic logic dictates that rate cuts should be the order of the day to boost business growth. However, that will be countered by the Executive's reluctance to forgo revenue that it cannot make up by raising taxes elsewhere. Those arrangements are plainly unsustainable in the long run and the question of powers will have to be addressed whether the Executive parties like it or not.

Iain Gray (Labour, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I welcome a certain note of realism in the debate on business rates, because the cost of the measure that the Tory amendment calls for would be somewhere between £150 million and £200 million, which would mean less resources for spending. Mr Ingram implies that the SNP solution to that would be to raise other taxation. I am interested to know which other taxes would be raised to reduce the business rate or which public services would be cut to pay for that change.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is the same old story. The whole point about stimulating an economy is that that increases economic activity and the tax base. Taxes can be lowered and there can be a bigger tax-revenue take for the Exchequer.

In the past, Labour was not so shy about talking about extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. Do members remember Scottish Labour Action, which included Jack McConnell and Wendy Alexander? That group wanted the Scottish Parliament to have the power to collect all Scottish taxes and, indeed, it wanted 20 per cent of oil revenues to be distributed by the Parliament. We do not even have that power.

Perhaps the perversity of the system that we have explains why the ruling coalition has until now turned a blind eye to our underperforming economy. It seems to have tumbled somewhat belatedly to the fact that "It's the economy, stupid." All our aspirations for a prosperous, socially just Scotland are predicated on our need to sustain economic growth. Any Scottish Government worth its salt needs to create conditions in which our best and brightest—those with get-up-and-go—do not have to leave Scotland to pursue careers and lifestyles that they want for themselves and their families.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, sorry.

Perhaps the Executive has finally also woken up to the reality of the Barnett squeeze. The Treasury handouts, also known as funding consequentials, are beginning to look meagre compared with public spending increases in the rest of the UK. Depopulation is beginning to bite. I also believe that, as David Mundell suggested, the Executive has been forced to change tack by political pressure, not least from Andrew Wilson and Jim Mather, who is in the public gallery today. They have been ramming home the truth about Scotland's economic decline and the need for the Parliament to assume fully independent financial powers to fulfil its fabulous economic potential.

The Scottish public seem to be convinced by our arguments, with the opinion polls showing 70 per cent support for financial independence. They do not seem to share the unionists' disdain for constitutional change. As Andrew Wilson outlined, Scotland has all the attributes for economic success: an international brand recognised the world over; a priceless reputation for integrity and reliability; top-quality people; a superb environment; and abundant natural resources. However, we have lacked the policies that would bring those attributes into play. Unfortunately, what we have heard today and what the First Minister said in his speech to the Institute of Directors on Tuesday show that the Executive is as stubborn and misguided as ever in the development of its policy.

Bill Jamieson, the director of an Edinburgh-based independent think-tank, said:

"In so far as there is any coherent economic policy in Scotland, it is one of piecemeal and reactive submersion in micro-policy activity, with problem avoidance and denial at the macro level."

The First Minister and his colleagues will have to change their tune on the so-called benefits of the macroeconomic policy that is pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No.

As we have heard again today, the Executive stresses the importance of stability without twigging to the fact that it is possible to have a stable economy that is dead in the water. Interest rates might be low, but they are not low enough to prevent the Scottish economy from going into recession. Low inflation in the south-east of England can turn into stagnation or deflation in Scotland. The chancellor's policies are designed to manage the main economic engine of the UK, which is the south-east of England and London in particular. More of the same policies, uniformly applied across the UK, will simply maintain the Scottish economy's competitive disadvantage and do nothing to stop the wealth gap between Scotland and England continuing to grow.

It is about time that the penny dropped that maintaining a level playing field across the UK or competing internationally requires greater incentives in Scotland for businesses to start up and expand, a different tax regime that will promote research and development and different patterns of public expenditure. More needs to be spent on transport and communications infrastructure and on the promotion of Scotland abroad.

Our aspirations must be for a high-productivity, high-wage economy that can compete internationally and that will stop our brain drain. It is desperate that, on graduation, 37 per cent of all graduates from Scottish universities leave Scotland.

Our core problem is that Scotland lacks the political and financial powers to turn around our poor economic performance. That is the fundamental structural weakness of the Scottish economy. Our message to the Executive is that it must face the facts and respond positively to that analysis or face the consequences. Our arguments will only grow in strength as the Executive fails to take them on board.

Acute Services Review (Glasgow)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3375, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the acute services review, and one amendment to that motion. As we prepare to start, the indication is that many more members wish to speak in the open part of the debate than we will be able to accommodate. We will do our best. I ask all members to stick as closely as possible to the advised speaking limits.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The debate is not and should not be party political. It is about the future of the national health service in Glasgow. There has been remarkable cross-party consensus in Glasgow on the issue over the past three years. For the sake of the thousands of people in Glasgow who look to the Parliament to listen and act, I sincerely hope that that unity can be maintained in the debate.

Glasgow's hospitals desperately need investment. With that investment must come modernisation. Health care today is not delivered as it was when the Victoria infirmary was built. Any plans for future hospital provision must reflect that.

Those of us who oppose the proposals that were put forward by the Greater Glasgow NHS Board and endorsed by the Minister for Health and Community Care are not neanderthals who are wedded to the old ways of doing things. We welcome the proposed £700 million that is earmarked for investment in Glasgow's hospitals and want the modernisation programme to start as quickly as possible. However, it is absolutely essential that we get that right. The proposals will affect not only our generation or the next; the hospitals that get the go-ahead now will serve the people of Glasgow for decades to come.

The health board's current plans are fundamentally flawed. In my view—and in that of the thousands in Glasgow who have made their views known again and again over a period of years—they are unacceptable. Three aspects of the acute services plan do not command any public confidence. The first is the proposal to centralise all in-patient services for the north and east of the city at Glasgow royal infirmary and remove all in-patient services from Stobhill hospital. Stobhill will become an ambulatory care—or day—hospital.

My colleague Fiona McLeod will cover the Stobhill issues in more detail later in the debate. It is worth noting that 43,000 people in the catchment area of that hospital signed a petition demanding that in-patient services be retained there. Their concerns are both practical and principled. They do not believe that Glasgow royal infirmary can cope with the increase in acute admissions that will result from the removal of in-patient beds from Stobhill. Stobhill regularly admits patients who cannot be admitted to Glasgow royal infirmary because of a shortage of beds. It is reasonable for the public to ask how Glasgow royal infirmary will cope with increased demand when it so often struggles to cope now.

Those who oppose the downgrading of Stobhill also raise a point of principle—local access to health services. I will return to that principle later, because the tension between local access to health care and the specialisation of clinical services is central to the debate.

The second bone of contention that arises from the acute services review is the proposal to close the Victoria infirmary, replace it with a day hospital and centralise all in-patient services at the Southern general hospital for the 350,000 people who live in south Glasgow. If that proposal goes ahead, the Southern general, with around 1,500 beds, will become the biggest hospital in the United Kingdom.

Concerns have been expressed about the sheer size of a redeveloped Southern general, but the real problem is with its location. For years, people in south Glasgow have argued that, if there is to be only one in-patient hospital for the whole area, it must be in a central location. The health board went through the motions of considering building a brand new hospital at Cowglen, but at no time was that a realistic option. The health board decided on day one of the acute services review that it wanted the Southern general to be the site of the in-patient hospital in south Glasgow. From then on, the process was skewed to achieving that end. The sham that masqueraded as a consultation exercise has left people in Glasgow feeling alienated from a decision-making process that impacts profoundly on their lives but does not listen to a word that they say.

It is important to put on record the fact that the Southern general is an excellent hospital. It serves patients in Govan and the surrounding areas extremely well. It has tremendous expertise in a number of areas. Recently I visited its spinal injuries unit, which treats patients from all over Scotland. The specialist care that it provides is second to none. However, the Southern general is entirely unacceptable as the site for the only in-patient hospital serving south Glasgow.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Is the member suggesting that the Southern general should close and that the care that it provides should be transferred to a new site? The board's view is based on the fact that the Southern is not an old hospital, but one in which huge investment has been made. The debate is about choosing where investment should be made.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am not suggesting that the Southern general should close. In a moment I will address the point that the member makes.

The Southern general is on the absolute periphery of the proposed catchment area. For people living in areas such as Rutherglen, Shawlands, Pollokshaws and Castlemilk it is totally inaccessible. There are no bus or rail links. From parts of Ken Macintosh's Eastwood constituency, it can take up to an hour to get to the hospital by car at certain times of the day. The Southern general is at the mouth of the Clyde tunnel, which means that access will frequently be impeded by traffic congestion. It is situated right next door to a sewage works—hardly the right environment for sick or recuperating patients.

What is the alternative? I will now address the point that Johann Lamont makes. Some people would prefer a new hospital in a central location. I, along with others, support a two-hospital option, with in-patient services being retained at a rebuilt Victoria infirmary.

Earlier, I mentioned the tension between local accessibility and clinical specialisation. The health board—and, no doubt, the ministers responsible for health—argues that keeping in-patient services at Stobhill and at the Victoria would stand in the way of greater specialisation of services. I recognise the benefits of greater clinical specialisation, but I dispute the claim that specialisation can be achieved only by the centralisation of hospital services. By integrating clinical services between different hospitals within managed clinical networks, we can have the benefits of specialisation without losing local accessibility to hospitals. New technology makes the solution that I propose more possible.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member give way?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I want to make some progress. If I have time, I will take an intervention from the member later.

The Scottish Executive press release that announced approval of the health board's plans cited

"difficulties in transferring information like lab results and x-rays between sites"

as an argument for centralising services. That beggars belief. Surely by the end of the 10 years that it will take to complete investment in Glasgow's hospitals we will have mastered electronic transfer of X-rays and lab results.

In short, I do not accept that the only way forward for Glasgow is to centralise in-patient services. I know that there are others—even in the chamber—who disagree. That is one reason why my motion calls for an independent review of the health board's proposals.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I share some of Nicola Sturgeon's concerns and am pleased that she does not regard the issue as party political. I hope that we will have a chance to debate it properly.

The member appeared to indicate that she supports the retention of five in-patient sites in Glasgow—which is the status quo. Will she elaborate on that and clarify her position?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I said that I favour a two-hospital option for the south of Glasgow. I have called for an independent review because I believe that there are issues that still need to be considered. Some issues on which the people of Glasgow have expressed views have not yet been considered. My basic point is that we cannot go ahead now with proposals that the vast majority of people in Glasgow—including Glasgow MSPs—regard as unacceptable.

The Executive amendment refers to the retention of "named services" at Stobhill and the Victoria over the next five years. Perhaps this morning the minister will outline exactly what services he has in mind. Whatever those are, promising to keep services at the two hospitals for five years does not address people's concerns. After that period, the proposals that are so unacceptable to so many people now will go ahead, even if public opposition remains. What comfort is there in that?

My third reason for opposing the health board's plans is that they entail the reduction of accident and emergency departments from five to two. A city of the size and complexity of Glasgow should not be served by only two accident and emergency departments. Since 1991, the number of people treated in accident and emergency departments has increased steadily year on year. As we saw only a couple of weeks ago, waiting times are increasing. However, Greater Glasgow NHS Board believes that the 175,000 people who are seen every year in A and E at Stobhill, the Victoria and the Western infirmary can now safely be seen at the GRI and the Southern general. It believes that it is okay for people who live in the north-west of the city to have to travel through the Clyde tunnel on a journey that can take more than an hour at peak times or when Rangers Football Club is playing at home.

The Executive's amendment promises a review in two years' time, even though most people in Glasgow know that the proposals are wrong. What confidence can anyone have in that review? It is all very well to say that the review will include staff, patients and community groups, but the decision will be taken by the same health board that, over the past three years, has not listened to a word that any of those groups have had to say, despite the appearance of consultation.

The Executive's amendment offers nothing to allay the fears of the people in Glasgow, as I am sure every Glasgow MSP knows that in their heart. The people of Glasgow believe that the proposals are unacceptable. They have said so repeatedly, but the health board and the Minister for Health and Community Care have ignored them. Today they are asking Parliament to listen. I ask all MSPs, regardless of their party or position, to follow their conscience, put Glasgow first and support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the proposed £700 million investment in the modernisation of Glasgow's hospitals; considers, however, that the plan by Greater Glasgow NHS Board for the re-structuring of acute services in Glasgow is unacceptable in its current form; is particularly concerned about the proposed number and location of in-patient hospitals and the reduction of accident and emergency departments from five to two, and calls upon the Minister for Health and Community Care to suspend his approval of the board's plan and to establish an independent expert group to conduct, within six months, an impartial review of the plan, with a view to identifying proposals which command greater public acceptance and which can be implemented within a rapid timeframe.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I invite Malcolm Chisholm to speak to and move amendment S1M-3375.1. He has seven minutes to speak.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

During the nine months for which I have been the Minister for Health and Community Care, I have devoted a great deal of thought to the matters before us today. I have discussed them many times with MSPs of all parties and others in Glasgow, including local campaigners at Stobhill and in the south-east health forum.

I recognise the strength of feeling around particular services in particular hospitals, but I have to take a view about what is right for greater Glasgow as a whole. My conclusion, which is shared by many but by no means all in Glasgow, is that we should press ahead with the necessary and long overdue process of modernisation and investment while at the same time setting in place a continuing process of monitoring and review.

I remind members that the investment is £700 million—the largest ever in the history of the health service in Glasgow—and it comes on top of the £75 million that I announced earlier this year for the new Beatson.

The status quo is not an option, but the SNP motion before us today asks us to freeze the status quo for another half year or so. It sounded from Nicola Sturgeon's speech as though she wants to freeze it forever. The motion asks us to consider yet again the issue of three in-patient sites, when groups as diverse as the area medical committee and the Greater Glasgow Health Council tell us that three hospitals will be best for improving the quality of care.

Increased specialisation has clinical benefits for patients and such specialisation requires larger clinical teams and fewer in-patient sites. It will also mean more one-stop access and more consultant-delivered care, including, crucially, consultants on the floor of accident and emergency departments 24 hours a day.

However, it is not just three in-patient sites that are proposed but £120 million of investment in a new Victoria and a new Stobhill, which will carry out 85 per cent of current activity. There will be local access in every case where that is best, but there will be a better environment for a redesigned, more patient-friendly service. The hospitals will carry out all out-patient services, radiology and one-stop diagnosis, medical day care, day surgery, ophthalmology, renal dialysis, elderly day care, cardiac rehabilitation, dental services, treatment of minor injuries, medical oncology and so on.

I want to do everything to accelerate the development of those ambulatory care and diagnostic units with the full involvement of local people at every stage. However, even with that acceleration, the plan is long term and it must be flexible enough to take account of changing service demands and developing medical practice. That is why I support a continuing process of monitoring and review that creates a check at every stage to ensure that service moves are wise.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

I welcome the minister's commitment that services will be retained for five years, but we have heard many times that services will be retained at particular facilities. Will the minister assure me that no services will be removed from Stobhill hospital during the five-year period and that the Auditor General for Scotland will conduct an independent review during and after the period?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will describe the role of Audit Scotland in a minute. My amendment states that local people must have a role in continuing monitoring and review at Stobhill and Victoria hospitals and that any changes over the next five years will have to be monitored by them.

I think that Paul Martin will accept that changes that were made for clinical safety reasons would be acceptable to local people. I give him my assurance that in no other circumstances should the services that Greater Glasgow NHS Board has already named be moved in the next five years.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I do not have time to take another intervention at present.

I continue with the theme of monitoring and review. Greater Glasgow NHS Board is already committed to an annual review mechanism that will allow the board to see whether the key assumptions that underpin the strategy are valid each year or whether material changes are occurring that might require an overhaul of the planned strategy. I hope that members will welcome the role that Audit Scotland will play as an external independent auditor in that process.

Over and above the local monitoring that I described to Paul Martin, I also support a strong role for patient and community groups in the review of accident and emergency services, which I propose should take place in two years' time.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the minister give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

If I have time, I will take an intervention from Bill Butler, but I must continue for a moment.

The decision about whether there should be two or three accident and emergency departments was the hardest for Glasgow and the most difficult for me. It is right that the assumptions that underpinned that decision should be looked at again when we are a bit nearer any changes to accident and emergency services. However, in the overall context of new developments in emergency care, the proposal to have two accident and emergency departments is reasonable. I will describe those developments after I take a brief intervention from Bill Butler.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I agree with Ms Sturgeon and with others who have said that people are concerned about the reduction in the number of accident and emergency departments to two. I believe that we should have three departments. The amendment in the minister's name says that the review will take place in two years. Will the minister accept the outcome of the review if it says that there should be three accident and emergency departments?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am certainly open-minded about that. As I said, that decision was the most difficult to take. Obviously, I would have to listen carefully if a review process produced the outcome suggested by Bill Butler. That is why we have set in place that further check.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

indicated disagreement.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am answering the point raised by Bill Butler.

I would certainly pay close heed to a review that said that there should be three accident and emergency departments. There will be no changes to accident and emergency services in the next two years. That is why it is far more important to have the review at a more appropriate time that is closer to the introduction of the proposed changes.

I will have to curtail my comments on new developments in emergency care. In the Glasgow proposals, emergency care is separated into different elements. The 90,000 people who attend accident and emergency departments with minor injuries will be dealt with in dedicated minor injuries units that will have shorter waiting times. There will be three new rapid access services for general practitioners to make emergency referrals to hospital, which will streamline arrangements for managing tens of thousands of patients. The new proposals will allow patients who have already been assessed by a GP to bypass accident and emergency departments entirely and get faster access to appropriate specialist teams.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I am afraid that I am out of time as far as taking interventions is concerned. I have a lot to cover and I think that I have about one minute left.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You have about half a minute left.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I will have to curtail a lot of my material.

Under the proposals for Glasgow, we will have two accident and emergency departments, three acute receiving units, five minor injuries units and one children's accident and emergency department. That is the full picture of emergency care, but it is often not described.

Changes in the way in which ambulance services are delivered are also fundamental to the proposed configuration. I will have to cut my comments drastically, but I point out that by 2005, the number of paramedics working on front-line ambulances in Glasgow will almost double from the current 78 to 147, with a paramedic in each front-line ambulance crew.

I refer in passing to the work that has been commissioned to assess the broader transport implications of the proposals for staff, patients and visitors, about which members have asked questions. The results of that work will be available by mid-October. Local people will have to be involved in the necessary changes to transport arrangements.

More generally, I have made it clear to Greater Glasgow NHS Board that I expect local people and local representatives to be fully involved in the detailed planning that will be required to turn all these proposals into reality. This is not the end of the debate, but it is time to move on and make change happen. Glasgow cannot wait any longer.

I move amendment S1M-3375.1, to leave out from "considers" to end and insert:

"accepts that the status quo is not an option and that improvements and modernisation must be progressed as soon as possible in order to enhance the quality of care; recognises that this is a long-term plan which must be flexible enough to take account of changing service demands and developing medical practice; supports an on-going monitoring and review process that includes external independent audit by Audit Scotland on an annual basis; endorses a commitment to keep named services at Stobhill and Victoria over the next five years and to have this locally monitored; gives high priority to the acceleration of ambulatory care and diagnostics developments in consultation with local communities; recognises the particular concern over the number of accident and emergency departments and supports a review of this in two years time that involves staff, patient and community groups, Glasgow Health Council and the Scottish Royal Colleges, and welcomes current developments in the Scottish Ambulance Service which will include the near doubling of paramedics in Glasgow by 2005 and one paramedic in the crew of each front-line ambulance."

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I intimate that, because of time strictures, I will not take interventions, which is unusual for me. I do not think that the content of my speech is such that it would provoke interventions.

It goes without saying that the proposals in the review are quite unacceptable. Let me make it clear that I am not of the view that Glasgow's health services could remain preserved in aspic for perpetuity. I suspect that anyone who has had any input into the discussions and consultations that have taken place shares my view.

Of course there will have to be changes and we welcome the additional resources that are being put in, but that is hardly the issue. Let me be equally clear that the proposals create as many problems as they resolve, particularly in relation to services south of the river. To suggest that there could be that level of centralisation without a reduction in service is naive. In particular, to suggest that the only accident and emergency provision for the south side of Glasgow should be on the extremity of the hospital's catchment area is plain daft. The problem is that it is also potentially very dangerous.

It is clear that a reduction in emergency services, so that they are available on only two sites, is unacceptable and is causing considerable public alarm. I am particularly concerned about the lack of confidence in the basis of the decision making. The consultative process should have been transparent, but it was not. Some information that was provided has been found to be inaccurate and that is worrying.

There is alarm and bitterness about the way in which the consultation process has been run. It has been a sham. As Nicola Sturgeon said, in regard to the south side of the city, it is apparent that the Southern general option had been pencilled in in biro from the inception. The so-called consultation exercise was cosmetic. I have little doubt that those who were involved were determined to drive through that option. All through the process we have been bedevilled by lack of information and wrong information. We have received scant or wrong information on bed numbers, the availability of land for a possible new build at Cowglen, transport studies and costs. That is unacceptable.

The purpose of the SNP motion is to ensure that the review that is carried out is totally independent. Someone must consider the issue with a fresh mind and a clear eye. It is necessary to demonstrate that those decisions, which could affect the lives of people in Glasgow for the next 50 years, are taken on the basis of correct facts. There may be disagreement—it is inevitable—about the number of emergency units that there should be. Three would have to be regarded as an absolute minimum.

We must look into all the aspects more deeply and widely. Is the Cowglen option viable? Could a revamped Victoria hospital be built on the Queen's Park recreational ground site? Are ACADs a good idea where there is no emergency facility nearby to cope with the inevitable mishap that will occur from time to time? Are the figures for Stobhill and the royal infirmary accurate? Has the desirability of transferring the Stobhill patients to the royal been considered with the appropriate intensity? We need to know accurate bed requirements. As John Young will say, we must consider demographic changes.

It is the unanimous view of the Glasgow MSPs who have been involved in the issue that Greater Glasgow NHS Board's plans are wrong—wrongheaded to the point of being dangerous. It is disappointing that despite the considerable representations that have been made to him, the Minister for Health and Community Care feels unable to support the MSPs and the vast majority of the Glasgow public. He is even prepared to fly in the face of considerable medical opinion. That is a very dangerous thing to do. I pay tribute to MSPs of all parties—and those who are independent—and their efforts to achieve a review of the situation. There has been a mature and measured debate.

A failure to support the amendment calling for an independent review would be inexplicable. The proposals have the potential to be immensely damaging to the people of Glasgow. Any Glasgow member who fails to resist them would be complicit in causing that damage. The issue must be considered again in a detached manner if public confidence is to be restored. Even at this, the 11th hour, I ask the Minister for Health and Community Care, for the benefit of the people of Glasgow, to consider the review in more detail and allow an independent review to take place. [Applause.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order. I must ask members of the public in the visitors gallery to desist from applauding. This is not a public meeting, but a meeting of the Parliament. We want to proceed as smoothly as we can.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am the first Glasgow member of the Executive parties to speak in the debate. I thank Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP for allowing its time to be used for this debate.

The future of hospital services in greater Glasgow has been the most difficult issue that I have had to face since I entered the Parliament in 1999. At that time, at my instigation, a number of MSPs formed a cross-party group to deal with the matter, in particular how it would affect Rutherglen and Cambuslang in the south-east of Glasgow. Since that time we have had scores of meetings of all kinds on the subject.

Matters have been clouded by a background of years of poor decisions and no decisions on Glasgow's deteriorating Victorian hospital estate. They have also been clouded by the strongly founded belief that the health board's consultation, although it devoured forests of paper and mega litres of hot air, was at heart a charade, designed to obtain a pre-ordained outcome. Other members have echoed that point.

The legacy of that is a significant democratic deficit in support for the administration and planning of our national health service and our hospitals. Campaign groups have done a signal service in articulating concerns and analysing the proposals. However, today's debate is essentially about whether to proceed with modernising Glasgow's hospitals, in greater collaboration with local communities, or whether to throw matters back into uncertainty.

I was attracted by the idea of an independent expert review. I suggested such a review at several stages of the process because it would be a way of having external appraisal not only of the procedures, but of the merits of those complex decisions. It would also help to tackle the democratic deficit that I mentioned.

At the end of the day, I am inclined to the view that the independent expert review would delay the process not by six months but by two years or more. There are no other worked-up proposals to hand and any significant changes would require renewed and extensive consultation and would be likely to produce a different balance of public forces against it. A major window of opportunity in funding terms would also be lost.

A review would harm and not help our shared objective of moving as rapidly as possible to a position where modern and attractive facilities are in place. I am not attracted by the suggestion of managed clinical networks as a way around the dilemma, as they would go against the grain of the comments that have been made repeatedly about the difficulties of split-site working and all that sort of thing.

In The Herald today, Dr Roger Hughes, chairman of the area medical committee, lays out the reasons for the concentration of in-patient services, which are increasing specialisation; major pressures on medical manpower because of the long-overdue working time directive requirements; and the increasing national shortage of doctors and nurses, about which we are all aware. It is for those reasons that all parties accepted the need for a single south side hospital until, nine tenths of the way through the process, the consensus ultimately fell apart because of unhappiness over the chosen site.

I remain of the view that the choice of the Southern general hospital as the main south side centre was wrong. The hospital is located at the extreme tip of the south side and is subject to unpleasant smells from the Shieldhall sewage works. The location will be a building site for some years.

The nub of the matter is the fear over the loss of one of Glasgow's busiest accident and emergency departments at the Vicky. The Executive has gone some distance to meet those fears by promising a review of A and E in two years' time. I seek the minister's assurance that, building on what he has said to us already, no irrevocable decision will be taken before that time or before alternatives are in place so far as accident and emergency provision across Glasgow is concerned.

I have never been against the ACAD. I consider the view of the friends of the Victoria infirmary committee on that matter to be more realistic than the view of some members of the south-east health forum. The five-year commitment to the Vicky and to Stobhill, monitored by local groups, is long overdue and it must be given the financial backing to make it work. The paramedic commitment is also vital, and I say that against the background whereby no one spoke to the ambulance service before formulating the proposals in the first place. Will the minister put his head absolutely on the block on those two vital matters?

The current plans envisage that the board will not be able to afford the revenue consequences of these long-overdue plans for at least 10 years. That is not acceptable for a community that has long been proven to have the greatest health needs in the UK and which has an established historic underfunding on health in respect of the Arbuthnott formula. It is vital that the minister looks closely at the figures and considers the injection of say £100 million free capital to ensure that Glasgow hospitals can join the rest of the civilised world. He has to do that on a much quicker time scale—the present plans are leisurely, to say the least.

This is a serious debate, not an occasion for party point scoring. We must consider the issues realistically and urgently. As the minister pointed out, greater Glasgow cannot wait much longer. Although I am moving towards the Executive's position, I have not made up my mind which way to vote. I require significant assurances from the minister on the questions that I have raised, which I am sure will be followed by other questions from my colleagues.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I welcome aspects of the Executive's amendment. Of course the status quo is not an option, and we must make progress sooner rather than later. I welcome on-going auditing; the commitment to retain services; the review of accident and emergency provision; and of course the massive investment in my constituency. However—and it is a big however—I also agree with the motion that the present plan for acute services is unacceptable. I am particularly concerned about the proposed number and location of in-patient hospitals.

The present proposal is to establish a massive hospital on the site of the Southern general hospital. However, it is a mistake to focus all the south side of Glasgow's acute services in that one location. The experts tell us that the best solution for the south side of the city is to concentrate everything in one site. That might or might not be the case. Perhaps we want one hospital. Perhaps it would be better to retain the Southern general at roughly the existing level and rebuild a facility at the same sort of level near the Victoria infirmary. I have an open mind on that issue. I tend to favour the two-hospital option, but I might be wrong about that. However, having closely examined the evidence and the arguments, I am extremely unhappy at the recommendation to build a massive hospital on the Southern general site. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that location is important.

I do not have the time to elaborate the reasons for that. We could talk all day about transport; the complexity of creating such a hospital on top of an existing working hospital; the fact that we have really no experience of managing such a project on such a scale; the accident and emergency implications; and other problems. Although there is a host of such reasons, the bottom line is simple: the present proposal is not right. It would be better to pause for a comparatively short time and reconsider the issue in a fresh and impartial way. Obviously, I very much want the investment—after all, I am talking about my constituency—and we need to make progress. However, it would be better to take a little time to reflect on the matter and get it right.

I know that we have had a consultation process. Indeed, that is part of the problem. The people of the south side of Glasgow feel that that process has been a sham, and they are not far wrong about that. It is increasingly clear that the health trust and its predecessor have had a very definite agenda and have always intended to reach the conclusion that has been reached. Having examined the matter over the past three and a half year, I have found that there has been no openness of thinking.

The people of the south side want a genuine opportunity to make a very compelling and impressive case. They believe that if they were given such an opportunity, the proposals would be seen for the mistake they are. They might or might not be right that that would change minds, but at the very least there should be a willingness to carry out that review.

This is not about narrow parochialism or about trying to save a local facility. The Vicky itself is past its sell-by date. Instead, this is about the future long-term health care of the people whom I represent. I do not want us, 10 or 20 years down the line, to say that we made a mistake. It is better to pause now.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I reiterate the point made by Nicola Sturgeon about political point scoring, but not by the SNP.

We are talking about delivering the best possible health service for Glasgow and the people of Glasgow. We know modernisation is needed and we welcome the £700 million, but we do not believe that two accident and emergency hospitals are sufficient for Glasgow.

Much has been said about the consultation process. Greater Glasgow NHS Board spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on the so-called consultation process. It hired the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre, Hampden football ground and another football ground and it produced a video. What did we get from that process? We got the original proposals and a quotation from a document dated August 2000, which says:

"Our aim is to create two adult Accident and Emergency Departments/Trauma Centres—at the GRI and on the Southside."

Hundreds of thousands of pounds were involved as well as hundreds of members of the public. Doctors, clinicians and nurses gave of their time. People have said that the consultation was a sham and I agree with them: it was a deliberate sham to present proposals that were presented originally in 1999-2000. We have not advanced one iota.

Transport links have been mentioned today. Gordon Jackson said that the hospitals were difficult to get to. I refer to the west end and the north of the city. I presume that some members have tried to get through the Clyde tunnel and city centre at peak times or at weekends. Believe me, even at off-peak times, the roads are congested and the tunnel is often closed or only one lane is open. We cannot afford to deal with people's lives under such conditions.

Two accident and emergency hospitals for Glasgow are not sufficient. That is why I support the motion.

The Glasgow royal infirmary is already under great pressure, as we all know. During the consultation process, doubts were raised about whether the GRI could cope with the projected number of patients it would receive. The consultants and nurses told the health board that they did not think they could cope. A letter that I received from west Glasgow hospitals says:

"The Health Board and Trust have yet to provide any sensible reasons for this plan or indeed any evidence that it is workable. Despite the lack of evidence neither the Board nor the Trust have ever seriously considered a proper option appraisal between one or two sites for North Glasgow."

That says it all. Hundreds of people have given of their time, as I said before, for the consultation process. What about the ACADs? It is insufficient to have an ACAD that is not attached to a hospital. The public know that and we agree with them.

As I said, the SNP motion is not about political point scoring. The amendment, however,

"endorses a commitment to keep named services at Stobhill and Victoria over the next five years"

and

"recognises the particular concern over the number of accident and emergency departments and supports a review of this in two years time".

There has been no political point scoring from this side, but there certainly has been from the minister's side. The amendment is a cop-out and would lead to the worst possible scenario, with Glasgow left in limbo for five years—and perhaps for a further five years after that. This is all about saving Lord Watson's skin and the Lib-Lab coalition in Glasgow. I am glad that I have said that. This is a cop-out. If any Glasgow MSP votes for the amendment, they will have to answer to the people of Glasgow.

I remind the minister that, if we close down hospitals in two years' time, and if we remove commitment, we will not get those hospitals back. Please, members, support the motion and get rid of the amendment.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Because of time constraints, I suspect that my senior colleague, Paul Martin, may not get to speak. Since my election, having the co-operation and solidarity of Paul Martin and other colleagues has been a help to me in serving my constituents.

I welcome the £700 million of much-needed investment in greater Glasgow's hospitals. I will say that figure again—£700 million. I acknowledge and welcome the £75 million on top of that for the Beatson clinic. Malcolm Chisholm knows that I take a particular interest in that.

The sum of money is colossal by any reckoning. It reflects the need for sustained rising investment in our NHS—including investment in our acute hospitals. Of that money, £60 million is destined for Stobhill. I repeat, £60 million. Paul Martin will not mind me saying that he has never seen £60 million spent on his constituency, never mind on the hospital. The same would go for my constituency. That monetary investment reflects our guarantee of a long-term future for Stobhill hospital.

I recently attended a meeting at Stobhill hospital to hear theatre and support staff reporting uncertainty and concern about their future. Those are the very people who make the hospital tick. I want the minister urgently to interrogate the measures that are being taken and that are to be taken to inform and to involve staff, patients and local communities about the future secured for them at that hospital.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will Mr Fitzpatrick accept an intervention?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am sorry, but I do not have time. I agree with Alex Neil that a four-minute time limit is daft.

I want the minister to be specific about what is being done and what will be done to make early progress on the ACAD unit at Stobhill hospital, and I do not just mean ditching the daft abbreviations. Stobhill's ACAD unit is not the health board's baby. The proposals for an ACAD unit at Stobhill came from the medical and support staff at Stobhill. The ACAD unit enjoys near unanimous support across the north of the city. I know that a different position obtains in the south of Glasgow, and I am sure that people in the south of the city will make their case. However, I strongly urge the minister to ensure not only that we get a green light for our ACAD unit, but that we get a kick start for the works. Since I was elected, I have sat through many meetings where we seem to go round in circle after circle about the ACAD unit. Please let us get round to the hospital with the builders and let us do so as soon as is practicable.

We need to speed up investigations for patients, we need to cut waiting times and improve treatments, and we need to do as much as possible in one single attendance, continuing the move towards day care. Those are things that I hope we all agree on and want to see. Delay fuels uncertainty and stalls progress.

I hope that the Parliament will also consider the nine-month consultation that was undertaken by the board. There were lots of meetings and I attended nearly all of them, but I do not feel that there was true public participation. We need to ensure that NHS boards properly reflect the views of staff and patients. I welcome the independent monitoring and review guarantees that were conceded today by the minister. Paul Martin and I have been pushing hard to get oversight from outside the board over what we know will be a long haul. I take it that the amendment means that the Auditor General would report annually, publicly and to the Parliament.

I welcome the prospect of getting the ACAD unit on site with in-patient beds at Stobhill. I do not want to mislead the minister, so I shall be explicit. I will use the presence of the ACAD unit at Stobhill to continue to make the case for in-patient provision at Stobhill. As has been mentioned, we know the position in relation to rising emergency admissions and in relation to transfers into Stobhill from the royal infirmary. I also want assurances from the minister that he will insist on flexibility from the board on accident and emergency services. On the commitment to retention of services, local monitoring will be absolutely crucial, as Paul Martin said. It needs to be independent and seen to be independent. The minister knows that in any hospital there is a critical mass of services that can be upset by removing one or another.

We have a wide range of excellent services at Stobhill, including general surgery, general medicine, the day surgery unit and, I hope, the coming ACAD unit. There is a range of first-rate specialties at the hospital, and it is a highly attractive site for other specialties that are looking for a location. I shall be coming back to the minister on that point.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am pleased to speak in a debate on an issue that has for many years caused great concern and frustration to many in the Greater Glasgow NHS Board area. I begin by paying tribute to my Conservative, Liberal and Labour colleagues in the unofficial cross-party group, which was formed in 1999 to address the provision of hospital services in south Glasgow, for their hard work and dedication to the issue over the past three years.

I would like to ask for a point of clarification from Bill Aitken, who made an absolutely excellent speech today. He urged that we vote for the amendment. Did he mean to say the motion?

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I am so used to having to vote for amendments that I did, in fact, erroneously state that. However, Mr Gibson can rest assured that the Conservatives will be supporting Ms Sturgeon's motion.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank Bill Aitken for that clarification.

Last Saturday, I attended the annual forum of Glasgow's community councils. Many of the 140 delegates were angry and frustrated that consultation is devalued by the frequent refusal of the council, the health board or even the Scottish Executive to take any notice of the views—often passionately held and well researched—of community groups, staff and members of the public. The acute services review is a prime example of that.

In the Glasgow Evening Times last Tuesday, under the heading "90 minutes to save hospitals", the minister's spokesperson stated:

"The process has been discussed in Glasgow for 20 years and the proposals were based on extensive public consultation."

Does anybody really believe that? On 17 January 2001, in response to the debate on acute service provision in greater Glasgow, Malcolm Chisholm, then the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care, said:

"The reviews offer an opportunity to assess strategically and objectively how the location of services balances local access with the scope and delivery of specialist services."—[Official Report, 17 January 2001; Vol 10, c 323.]

That has not happened. It is clear that Greater Glasgow NHS Board has paid not a blind bit of notice to the views of the public, community councils, health forums and the like. Certainly there has been no objectivity on the part of the health board.

Bar some minor tinkering around the edges, the proposals that have been submitted by the minister for approval are the same as those that were made a decade ago. As a result, confidence in the health board has been lost. On 13 August, the Glasgow health service forum south-east unanimously passed a vote of no confidence in a health board that it believes has treated the people of south-east Glasgow with contempt.

Unfortunately, the minister has swallowed the health board line and supported plans that Gordon Jackson MSP described at that meeting as "an absurdity". Although, on Tuesday, the minister appeared unwilling to reconsider, his amendment is more flexible—but what guarantees can he offer that, this time, the consultation will be genuine? Will people throughout Glasgow be given ownership of the process and be offered real choices, or will they be confronted with the take-it-or-leave-it attitude that has recently prevailed?

As we all know, the carrot of a new hospital at Cowglen was previously dangled by the health board—as, it now seems, a sop to those who were opposed to centralisation at the Southern general site, which was intended to kibosh the prospects of establishing a new Victoria infirmary. We now know that Cowglen was not a serious proposal, as the health board did not even get the basics right. It overestimated the site size by an incredible 36 acres and took more than two years to find that out. Specialisation is important, but why not have complementary services? Not all services have to be provided at one site: there can be complementary services at two locations. This time, we must get it right.

Nicola Sturgeon's motion recommends that an impartial review be carried out within six months. That is a sensible suggestion that we all can and should rally round. We must get it right, not just for this generation, but for future generations. A review would mean that correct decisions can be made sooner rather than later and that much-needed improvements to acute services can be made at an early date. The minister's amendment would prolong the agony; it is, regrettably, a fudge. I therefore urge all members to support the motion.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I acknowledge the strong feelings that exist on all sides in this matter. It is important to recognise that serious people on all sides have taken different views and come to different conclusions. There is no monopoly of concern for the health of the people of Glasgow, either here or elsewhere. It is therefore not helpful to imply that those who seek to modernise the national health service or the national health service board do so out of malevolence or a reluctance to recognise the problems that the motion suggests. We all take a serious position, having considered the issues. I do not believe that any member will vote out of cowardice; they will vote because they are convinced one way or another by the arguments.

We must also acknowledge the fact that the proposed investment is massive and that the potential impact of it, if it is properly directed, would be a huge difference in the lives of ordinary people. The question is how we spend that investment. Like many things in life, there is no black-and-white answer to that, only varying shades of grey. The conundrum in the south side is as follows.

It is agreed that the best medical care can be provided by having one centre of excellence in the south side. If someone is ill, the key factor in their survival is the immediate, effective attention of paramedics. The next priority is getting them to a centre of excellence as quickly as possible. Logically, there should be one centre of excellence in the south side to provide such care, but that centre is not in the centre of the south side—and nor is the Victoria infirmary. Furthermore, the development of a new hospital in the south side would eradicate the significant investment that has already been made in the south side. It would therefore be a waste of investment.

That hospital provision for Glasgwegians is probably as good as that for people anywhere else in Scotland weighs heavily with me; local access to a hospital in Glasgow is better than the access my relatives in Tiree have. Local access is, of course, relative.

Nevertheless, the health statistics for Glasgow remain shocking. We are the sickest, unhealthiest people in Britain. Sadly, the sickest and most ill Glaswegians will, in all likelihood, be living in the shadow of a local acute hospital. While geography, transport and access are all important, we recognise that Glasgow's health problems cannot be solved through bricks and mortar alone.

If this debate is about choices, my choice is for money to be used to change the poor diet of many of our children and to drive care and good health into our communities, where health workers can reach out to families and address the inequality that develops in the early stages of life. I want to maximise efficient, effective service in hospitals. It is logical that the more we spend on buildings, the less money will go into delivery of the service. We need to consider transport links to hospitals and within hospitals and to listen carefully to what people say about them.

The acute services review has generated serious debate. The key themes voiced by people who talk to me about the national health service are the time it takes to be seen, how they are treated by those with whom they come into contact and the extent to which they are kept informed about their health care. My recent involvement with the health service raised concerns not about the hospital supplying the treatment but about the ability of those providing the service to deal with us with any compassion. We have to invest in staff and systems as well as in buildings so that people are not frustrated or insulted by the treatment they receive and so that their health needs are met speedily and properly.

I support the Executive's position because it moves matters forward. I am encouraged to see that it has written reviews into the process at every stage. As the service's needs and the demands on it change, the systems must change too. For too long the health service has done things because that is how they have always been done and it has not addressed people's health needs in their communities. I seek an assurance from the minister that any commitment to moving forward to address health inequality in Glasgow will be matched by a capacity continually to reflect on and review what is actually being delivered locally.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Brian Fitzpatrick mentioned ambulatory care and diagnostic—ACAD—units. I remind him that the surgical sub-committee of the area medical committee for Glasgow was completely opposed to isolated ACAD units. It is worth bearing that in mind in any discussion on this subject.

I wish to quote from another sub-committee, which has made quite a telling statement. Accident and emergency consultants on the accident and emergency sub-committee of the area medical committee for Glasgow submitted evidence to Greater Glasgow NHS Board in June. They stated:

"A more recent concern about the two A&E model is that the city's acute medical receiving workload will not fit into two and a half medical units safely. All five of the receiving sites are struggling to accommodate medical admissions at present and failure to process these patients in a timely matter leads to A&E exit block or trolley waits. There has been consistent advice that planning three balanced A&E departments for the city represents the lowest risk strategy. Running a service from two very large departments is theoretically feasible, but runs a high risk, in terms of medical emergency overload, of leading to catastrophic system failure. It also remains our firm view that the safest hospital front door is an A&E department."

I repeat that that statement comes from accident and emergency consultants.

Greater Glasgow NHS Board's proposal runs a high risk. A high risk for whom? The risk is faced not by the board but by the citizens of Glasgow who, as Johann Lamont has just described, live in the sickest, unhealthiest city in Britain. Although politicians cannot agree a strategy for replacing the Greater Glasgow NHS Board's proposal, we can agree that the current plan is unacceptable. What we are asking for is not some time-delayed idea that we can somehow fumble and fiddle until we come up with a plan that is accepted by everybody; we are looking for a six-month time-limited review.

The board has lost the confidence of the people of Glasgow. Let us be clear about that. It has failed to consult properly. It has failed to deal with the problem of transport to the south side accident and emergency hospital and with the worries about standalone ACAD units. It has failed to deal with the loss of in-patient services at Stobhill, which is an environment that the medical profession recognises is a model environment for recuperation. That is a failure of the board that will be compounded if the politicians are not prepared to recognise it.

It is rare—even unique—for me to applaud the likes of Bill Aitken and Gordon Jackson for speeches they have made in the chamber, but we have a rare situation. We have an opportunity for the members of Parliament for Glasgow to seize on an issue that means so much to the people of Glasgow. It is a cross-party issue. It is about ditching party priorities and putting Glasgow first. That is why the proposal cannot be accepted today. Let us have the six-month time-limited review and let us make sure that we do not subject the citizens of Glasgow to any more high risks.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

For the record, the following members were present throughout the debate but were not called because of time constraints: Dorothy-Grace Elder, Paul Martin, Pauline McNeill, Janis Hughes, Kenny Macintosh and Mary Scanlon.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We are deciding the future of Glasgow hospitals for the next 100 years. Many Glasgow and west coast MSPs have not managed to speak. Can I move that we extend the debate for another 20 minutes at least? We do not need our lunch as much as we need to debate this issue.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Although I am sympathetic to the view you have expressed, there is significant business to deal with this morning and we must make progress.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am well aware that I am not a Glasgow MSP and I have a lot of sympathy with the point that Dorothy-Grace Elder has raised. I say that before I speak with a great lack of knowledge in comparison with many of my colleagues who have already spoken today.

We have had an important and very good debate this morning. The issue is complex, not only in terms of Glasgow's hospitals but in terms of the services available to people across the west of Scotland. It also echoes concerns raised by patients and others across Scotland, as well as those raised in my constituency when we lost our accident and emergency department at the Western general hospital under the Conservative Government in 1991.

One of the most important things that has been touched on today is the point made by Johann Lamont: that Glasgow's and Scotland's health problems are about much more than brick and mortar and hospital buildings. We can live in the shadow of the most wonderful hospital in the world, but if we do not address the fundamental health problems that come from poor diet, smoking and poverty, we will not gain any ground on dealing with Glasgow's and Scotland's health problems.

The balancing of accessibility to health services against clinical specialisation has been at the heart of the debate. The clinicians will often say that what is required is a critical mass. I will mention Lothian in passing. Today, I am again being told that we cannot open our accident and emergency department because the colleges will not allow Lothian NHS Board to provide major accident and emergency cover because the training will not be accredited. Time and again, clinicians are backing the centralisation of services.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with both sides of the argument. Clinical standards boards, guidelines and key shortages of personnel are all pushing us towards centralisation of services, but when we centralise services we have to ensure that patients' needs are taken into account. If patients and paramedics will be caught in traffic jams and therefore unable to get to the unit in time, we have to take that on board.

The most important thing that the Minister for Health and Community Care agreed to today is a review of accident and emergency provision after two years. However—and the Health and Community Care Committee will address this when it questions representatives of Greater Glasgow NHS Board next week—there is a perception, if not a strong belief, on the part of members of all parties in the chamber that Greater Glasgow NHS Board has not listened to the people of Glasgow and that the consultation exercise has been a sham. Time and again, the Health and Community Care Committee has heard that view expressed. We have heard it about Fife, Glasgow and Tayside. That is not good enough. We have to get to grips with the fact that consultation exercises in the NHS in Scotland are a sham. We must get to grips with that not only in Glasgow, but throughout Scotland.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mike Watson is the author of a book called "Rags to Riches". If he votes the wrong way later today, come 2003 his second volume could be entitled "Riches to Rags". I urge Mike Watson to bring honour into politics and to vote the way his thousands of electors want him to vote.

Malcolm Chisholm and his predecessor, Susan Deacon, faced considerable difficulties in meeting the representatives of Greater Glasgow NHS Board, who had a plan that they wished to implement: neither had intimate knowledge of the localities. We, our constituents and delegations made representations but, as others have said, were ignored. In my 39 years as a councillor and MSP, I have never known a consultation to be swept aside in that manner.

Neither Malcolm Chisholm nor Susan Deacon were told that no major new hospital had been built south of the River Clyde since 1890—112 years ago—when the Victoria infirmary was built. The health board started to sabotage the Victoria infirmary several years ago. In addition, prior to any decision being taken, building started at the Southern general hospital, which is in a packed, inaccessible location next to a sewage works, and the original structures of which were built in the 1880s. For the large population in south-east Glasgow and the large population from East Renfrewshire that is in the catchment area of the Victoria—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

No, time does not allow me to do that.

As Nicola Sturgeon and others said, for people in the south-east of Glasgow, bus journeys to the Southern general could take up to two hours and require a change of buses. Nicola also mentioned the population of 350,000 people in that area.

For two years the health board conned us by talking about a brand new hospital at Cowglen. That turned out to be a smokescreen. In fact, it was more than that—it was an utter betrayal. The board also banned MSPs from meeting staff on NHS property on several occasions. Will that glorious health board include helicopter pads at the Southern general and the Victoria infirmary ACAD? Incidentally, the Victoria infirmary ACAD will be built on the site where Stan Laurel went to school. One can draw one's own conclusions. I understand that ACADs originated in California and were for the poor who could not afford medical insurance.

In April 2000, Greater Glasgow Health Board had five main aims. First, it sought modern facilities for a better patient experience, whatever that means. That was a joke. Secondly, it aimed to create large specialist teams of doctors for continuous availability. How? Thirdly—and this is the cardinal insult for many people in Glasgow, in particular those in the south-east—it aimed to maintain local area access for as many people as possible. Fourthly, it aimed to create a pattern of hospitals that made sense across Glasgow as a whole. That was a sick joke. The fifth aim was to lever in major capital investment in a way that was affordable.

In my opinion, 51 per cent of health board members should be elected by the electorate.

Before I finish, I will take an intervention, if the MSP is willing to take—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, you must not solicit interventions. We are running out of time anyway.

John Young (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am advised that Brian Fitzpatrick previously indicated that he would resign if Stobhill hospital were closed. Is that correct?

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

rose—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You may respond if you are brief.

Brian Fitzpatrick (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I am happy to deal with that question. John Young must not misrepresent the position in relation to the future of Stobhill hospital. It will remain open. The real argument, as anyone who knows anything about the issues knows, is about in-patient beds at Stobhill. John Young must not mislead people by saying that Stobhill is closing. A sum of £60 million does not represent a closed hospital. John Young is being ridiculous.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Like many, I am disappointed that the debate has not had as much time as many members would have liked. That was the result of the main Opposition party's choice to hold two debates this morning.

Anyone who speaks or purports to speak for the people of Glasgow has a responsibility to say not only what they disagree with, but what they agree with. The world is simple for any member who knows what they oppose but does not argue and fight for what they support. Many folk claim that they know what they support, but the debate has lacked clarity.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

rose—

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

No, because I have five minutes to describe the key issues for the Executive in the acute services review.

No members who have spoken—particularly those of us who care passionately about the city of Glasgow and who live there and will continue to live there for the foreseeable future—want anything other than the best hospital services. It is insufficient to cry alarm or to say that any reconfiguration of acute services will result in some of the more alarming claims that have been made and which have been repeated by some members today.

In the past two or three years, many folk have said that we need to move to three in-patient sites. Unfortunately, some people seem to have argued for four or five, depending on the dance they wanted to do for the public. The issue is whether we want to address longer term in-patient development.

Members have identified issues that relate to the present locations of services. The ministerial health team has listened to them. We want to work on monitoring and bed planning with communities, which have been fractured by some of the consultation processes in the past couple of years. We must rebuild trust. Along with Malcolm Chisholm and Mary Mulligan, I give a commitment to work with communities.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I do not want to hear from Nicola Sturgeon, because her views on the issue in the past two or three years have been inconsistent.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the minister give way?

Ben Wallace (Conservative, North East Scotland)

rose—

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The three points that I will stress are clear. Do we accept that we need three in-patient sites with more clinical support? I think that we do. Do we need to take people with us on that journey? Of course we do.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

You have not.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am sorry, Mr Sheridan. Nothing that anyone who is involved in democratic politics could provide would make Mr Sheridan happy, so let us not mess about in the debate.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Rise to the debate.

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

Order.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Show your level. Rise to the debate.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am trying to. I would love to finish my points. [Interruption.] I will take Ken Macintosh's intervention.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank the minister for taking my intervention and I thank the Presiding Officer for acknowledging the deep frustration of the constituency MSPs who could not speak in the debate.

I welcome the commitment to local consultation, but will the minister describe one Greater Glasgow NHS Board proposal that has been affected by the views of residents? Has one change been made to the plan that was proposed two years ago because of the views of residents on the south side of Glasgow?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The debate is about the Executive's position on the acute services review. [MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Presiding Officer, I would like to make my points clearly without being heckled. It would be helpful to have protection from that.

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

On you go—that is my judgment.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The health team has listened. Ken Macintosh asked what has changed. We gave a commitment this morning to hold a review in the next two years of the board's accident and emergency recommendation. Those who are—rightly—concerned about some of the implications of that recommendation have a responsibility to submit views to try to address those concerns. In addition, we have given a commitment to consider sustaining services in present hospital locations, depending on clinical observation and judgment.

The fundamental issue is that we will work with the health board and patients to address how such services are sustained in the next five years, which will deal with many of the concerns that have been raised.

Two facts have been missing from the debate. The capital investment figure is more than £700 million.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Look at the motion.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am sorry, Mr Sheridan, but such a level of investment has not been delivered for Glasgow's health services for decades. The people with whom Mr Sheridan has aligned himself—the Tories—underinvested in Glasgow's health service for a long time.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Look at the motion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the minister give way?

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

Order.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am trying to rise to the level of the debate.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

You are failing.

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

Order.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I would be happy to have a debate, but I am hearing a monologue instead.

The fundamental issue is how we move forward for the future of Glaswegians. We also have the issue of the £130 million investment differential between the single-site options for Cowglen and the Southern general. That substantial amount of money could deliver two more ACADs to the city of Glasgow. However, more important is the revenue implication, which no Opposition member identified. There would be £10 million a year, which would be a substantial investment for staffing. It would certainly result in 500 more nursing staff and 160 more consultants. We must consider those issues in our deliberations.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Every member who spoke in the debate welcomed the investment of which the minister speaks. I ask him to address the special role that Glasgow has always played and which has never been recognised: I mean the special service that Glasgow delivers well outwith its boundaries to health boards such as Argyll and Clyde NHS Board and Lanarkshire NHS Board. It is about time that the service that is delivered outside Glasgow's boundaries is recognised and reflected in funding.

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

You are over your time, Mr McAveety, but I will allow you a further two minutes.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We are in place to have developed a regional planning framework that will address many of the issues Pauline McNeill raises. The funds will follow the location to provide people with a regional or national service. That point identifies a key challenge facing the health board and anyone making decisions on future health provision: the Southern general already provides much of that regional and national provision. That was one of the calculations that were factored into the assessment by the Greater Glasgow NHS Board.

The important aspect to stress is that representations were made about accident and emergency issues. We have considered them and plan to have a review over the next two years to address those points.

Robert Brown addressed the issue of capital investment and revenue streams. We will be happy to have a dialogue with Robert Brown to address that issue. It is not just about whether there is capital over a shorter period, but whether capital can be drawn down for staff, for their support and for investment in the time for which we would ideally aim. We are certainly happy to discuss that issue.

The fact is that there will still be five sites in Glasgow that will meet much of the health need of communities there. That fact was not brought out in the debate by many Opposition members. The two ACADs will service 85 to 90 per cent of the service needs that are presently provided for those communities or needed by them. That is in partnership with the modernisation of primary care investment and the commitment to invest in the acute services. This is about trying to get a total package that addresses the long-term future health needs of the people of Glasgow.

No one said that that would be easy or that it would not require painful decisions, but any suggestion that a delay of six months will make decisions easier is only trying to prevent inevitable decisions. We believe that we need to crack on. We also need to address many of the sensible concerns that were raised by members who did rise to the debate, Mr Sheridan. We are happy to address those points.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The debate has been interesting. Every MSP who spoke welcomed, as does the motion, the £700 million investment in Glasgow's health services. Every MSP who spoke asked pertinent questions about whether the Greater Glasgow NHS Board review meets the needs and aspirations of the people of Glasgow. Did we get any answers? Well, Frank McAveety summed it up when he almost refused to take interventions from his back benchers. The Executive has not listened to MSPs and does not appear to listen to its ministers. The Executive has also refused to listen to the 43,000 people who signed the "save Stobhill" petition. It is about time that that ended. The Executive must listen.

I would like to pick up on one of Mr McAveety's opening comments. If the Executive is serious about listening, perhaps it will give time to the debate during its time in Parliament. I am sorry that so many of the members with local and constituency interests in the issue were unable to get into the debate. I am especially sorry that Paul Martin, a doughty fighter for Stobhill, was unable to take part.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Springburn)

The SNP had three hours available for debate this day but decided to split the time between different debates. Was three hours available for this debate? I want a yes or no answer.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As every member is aware, the SNP has three hours for debate each month while Labour controls every other hour. Paul Martin is a member of the Labour party, which has accepted the review. The matter should have been debated in Executive time.

The Executive's amendment gives

"a commitment to keep named services at Stobhill and Victoria over the next five years".

I was going to ask the minister to name those services but he told us that the services have already been named by Greater Glasgow NHS Board in its health improvement plans. If there is no change there, what is the point of mentioning it in the amendment?

For the minister's benefit, I will name the services that Stobhill has already lost and which it will not be able to hang onto for five years: in-patient orthopaedics, in-patient renal medicine, vascular surgery, respiratory function services and laboratory services for bacteriology and pathology. Three weeks ago, we learned that Stobhill is to lose medical illustration. What is going to be left at the end of the five-year period?

This is a piece of masterly spin but it will not be believed by anybody in the greater Glasgow area. I hope that Glasgow's Labour MSPs will not accept that spin and, when they come to vote later today, will listen to their constituents rather than accept the whip. While all this spinning is going on, staff morale at Stobhill is plummeting. Stobhill is finding it difficult to attract junior consultants. The minister has offered a five-year moratorium, but what is a five-year career path for a junior consultant? Nurses are leaving Stobhill and others are not applying for vacant posts in the hospital.

Robert Brown mentioned managed clinical networks, which are important in relation to Stobhill. Managed clinical networks can work, as has been clinically proven, and Stobhill makes them work. The hospital should get the chance to keep showing that they work.

On the issue of the end of the accident and emergency review in two years' time, in reply to Bill Butler the minister said that he has an open mind on whether there should be three accident and emergency sites rather than two. If the minister has an open mind now and will have an open mind in two years' time, why has he accepted Greater Glasgow NHS Board's proposal to have only two accident and emergency sites?

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Independent, Glasgow)

Fiona McLeod mentioned the whips. As a total of 250,000 Glaswegians and people from the west of Scotland have opposed the plans—including the 43,000 who oppose the Stobhill plan—does Fiona McLeod agree that some members are more frightened of their whips than they are of the will of the Glasgow people and that they are putting themselves in a difficult position?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I have already said that I believe that, today, we should be voting for our constituents and I hope that every MSP will do so.

The minister has already heard that my constituents from Milngavie and Bearsden are going to get stuck in the Clyde tunnel. When a constituent of mine who can go into anaphylactic shock if she cannot get to a hospital gets stuck in the Clyde tunnel, will the minister tell her that that is all right because it does not happen often? How will the minister tell my constituents from Kirkintilloch and Bishopbriggs that, on the way to Glasgow royal infirmary, they will be stuck in a traffic jam and that, upon arrival, they will be unable to park, thereby adding another hour to their journey to accident and emergency? Will the minister make freely accessible the transport study that we have been told has been done for the Southern general hospital?

This is all fantasy, like the standalone ACAD, which is a fantasy and a fig leaf. The minister talks about building an ACAD at Stobhill and at the Victoria infirmary. There are no standalone ACADs in the United Kingdom, so where is the long-term future for hospitals in having standalone ACADs?

Brian Fitzpatrick said that he wants the ACAD at Stobhill to be built soon. I alert all members to the fact that, to build the ACAD at Stobhill as currently configured, we would have to start demolishing wards 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4a and 4b. That would be the beginning of the end of Stobhill hospital. That is not acceptable.

The minister should stop kidding around. He should start listening. He should listen to MSPs and to the people of Glasgow. I also say to all Glasgow and West of Scotland MSPs that we should stop kidding around and ensure that we vote for what our constituents have clearly told us they want—the SNP motion.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, a number of members from the other political parties said that the SNP should have chosen to use its time today to debate Iraq. This morning, they said that we should have chosen to use all the time for the debate on the economy and then they said that we should have devoted it all to the acute services review. Given the overwhelming view of the other political parties that the SNP should have more time to debate the subjects that they avoid, will you consider giving us more than three hours debating time a month?

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

That is not a point of order.

Business Motion

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

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S1M-3381, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out the business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business— Wednesday 18 September 2002

2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Stage 1 Debate on Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 19 September 2002

9.30 am Stage 1 Debate on Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution in respect of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motion

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive Debate on the Role of Culture in the Educational Development of Young People followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Wednesday 25 September 2002

2.30 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Education, Culture and Sport Committee Debate on the Committee's Report on proposed Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members' Business Thursday 26 September 2002

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

2.30 pm Question Time

3.10 pm First Minister's Question Time

3.30 pm Executive 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 20 September 2002 on the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Fees) (Scotland) Order 2002 (SSI 2002/389) and the Births, Deaths, Marriages and Divorces (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2002 (SSI 2002/390).— [Euan Robson.]

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

No member has asked to speak against the motion.

Motion agreed to.

Spending Review 2002

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a statement by Andy Kerr on the spending review 2002. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am pleased to present our spending plans, which focus resources on achieving growth and opportunity in Scotland for the next 20 years. This budget—the budget of our Labour-Liberal Democrat partnership—is a budget for the long term. The spending plans will cover the total resources available to us over the next three years, which will rise to £25 billion. That is an annual average real-terms increase of 4.6 per cent. Over the next three years, we will invest over £70 billion in Scotland.

I want the focus of the debate to be on what those plans will deliver and the impact that they will have on growth and on opportunity, but I suspect that I need to take a few minutes to put the record straight on what I am announcing today. I am not reannouncing increases to our budget; I am setting out our plans for using that budget. Those plans are published today. A copy for each member is available in the Scottish Parliament information centre.

The outcome of the United Kingdom spending review in July confirmed the resources that are available to us over the next three years, taking into account the impact of SR2000, the increases to the health budget announced in April and increases that flow from SR2002. The announcement in July set out how much those increases are compared to this financial year. From the baseline of 2002-03, the increases are £1.5 billion more next year, rising to £2.6 billion the following year and yet again rising to over £4 billion in the last year of the three-year settlement.

I am sorry if that sounded like an introduction to Government finance, but I am afraid that some of our colleagues in the Opposition need that introduction, as they have never been in government and, I have to say, are never likely to be in government.

Today's announcement is about our spending plans, which cover the resources that are available to us and reflect the significant increases to our budget that result from increases in public expenditure across the UK.

The increases in our spending are significant and present a major opportunity in our drive to build a better Scotland. This is a budget for growth and opportunity. Growth will be secured by investing in Scotland's infrastructure to ensure that we have more competitive businesses and better public services; by prioritising investment in skills and enterprise to open up opportunities and create the foundation for Scotland's future; by investing in our children and Scotland's young people to give them the best start in life, more choices and the opportunity and confidence to build their future; and by taking action to improve radically the quality of life in communities across Scotland.

We are concerned less with how we divide up what we have and much more with how we use all that we have to secure growth and prosperity for Scotland. We want growth that will promote and sustain improvement in the daily quality of life in towns, cities and villages across Scotland, and that will protect the environment of our land and improve the environment of our streets. That is what devolution is about. This announcement is about how devolution delivers. We seek real debate about the real choices that we need to make about how we use the resources that we have to generate more resources, to improve lives and to build a better Scotland.

The level of investment that I outline today is made possible by the sound economic management of the UK Government. Devolution—our partnership with the United Kingdom—guarantees Scotland a fair share of UK resources. The agreed formula delivers for each person in Scotland—pound for pound, person for person—the same increases as in England. Those come as of right.

Over the first six years of devolution, resources for Scotland will have grown by more than 25 per cent. The nationalists, with their constitutional wrangling and drive for separation and divorce from the UK, could never match those resources. The Conservatives would neither raise those resources nor use them for the good of Scotland's people.

In every speech that I have made in this chamber as Minister for Finance and Public Services, I have said that the money that we spend is the people's money—money raised from business and hard-working families. Every day they try to get the best out of the money that is available to them. In the same way, we must ensure that every pound of their money that we spend brings direct benefit and produces the right results.

Today we are setting out a new approach. There will be written agreements for delivery. We will set out and publish targets, and we will harness expertise. That approach is part of our drive to secure best value and improved performance across the public sector.

My job as Minister for Finance and Public Services is not finished today. My job is to secure best value from every pound of public money. The proposals that we set out today confirm our commitment to delivering on the promises that we have made.

The scaremongers said that we would not be able to afford our ambitious agenda. We can. We were told that there would not be enough money to deliver on student support, to modernise the teaching profession or to provide free personal care. There is. The plans that we set out today confirm the funding for our key policy commitments. However, they go further—much further. They will provide resources to unlock the potential of Scotland's people, to give support when it is needed, and to offer life choices and chances at every stage. This is a budget for every man, woman and child in Scotland.

Building on the free nursery place that is available to every three and four-year-old, we will deliver the largest ever school-building programme to start a step change in the quality of our schools. There will be a £1.15 billion investment package to build or refurbish 300 schools across Scotland by 2008-09, benefiting more than 80,000 children. We will deliver an improvement in the quality of school life—additional resources to increase the nutritional value of school meals, to tackle behaviour issues and to improve the school environment. We will deliver healthy and active children through new resources for the active primary schools programme. We will implement the next phase of the 21st century teaching agreement, meeting our commitments in full.

We are also investing in opportunities for our young people. By 2005-06 we will invest an additional £300 million per year in their opportunities and futures. Over the next three years there will be a new £40 million package of investment in vocational training and enterprise education in our schools. We will increase the number of modern apprenticeships to more than 25,000.

The pilot of education maintenance allowances has been one of the most successful ever. Members have asked when it will be extended. Today I confirm that there will be new money to extend the education maintenance allowance scheme across Scotland. That will ensure that every young person can continue to learn and improve their prospects and it will benefit directly around 40,000 young people in Scotland.

We will invest £40 million over the next three years in integrated children's services and an additional £110 million in early years intervention. That will deliver an integrated package of support from local authorities, voluntary organisations and health services to at least 15,000 vulnerable children under the age of five. Resources for Sure Start Scotland will increase by more than 150 per cent by year 3. There will be resources for outreach facilities, family centres, nurseries and playgroups, childminding and support for parents.

Along with thousands of pensioners throughout Scotland, we are looking forward to the introduction of free off-peak travel for pensioners in only 19 days' time. We are delivering on our commitments to improve the lives of our older citizens, not least our commitment to free personal care, which is benefiting 75,000 older people in Scotland.

I am delighted to announce that we will make additional investment in the central heating programme, which will benefit the over-80s and improve an additional 4,000 homes.

We are using Scotland's resources for all Scotland. For our rural communities, we will deliver additional support for our forestry strategy and our fishing industry. Our investment in infrastructure and public services will bring direct benefits for rural communities.

Our cities are central to the quality of life and well-being of Scotland. We are committed to ensuring that our cities are able to exploit fully their economic potential. Our spending plans will benefit cities through investment in the infrastructure and transport priorities that are required to support successful and dynamic city regions. There will be resources to tackle the economic, social and environmental blight of vacant and derelict land and we will invest further in public housing.

Investing in Scotland's health is an investment in Scotland's future; it is one of our key priorities. This budget delivers for health. There will be record levels of investment, which, as we have said, will rise by the end of the spending review period to more than £8 billion. That will deliver much needed improvements directly to front-line services. It will improve the treatment of coronary heart disease, strokes, cancer and mental illness. It will provide 1,000 community places for people leaving hospital; it will train more nurses and midwives; and it will increase the number of national health service consultants.

As I said earlier, the spending plans are targeted to make a difference now and for a lifetime. We are making a major investment in our national health service. Our commitment also extends to making a major investment in the national health of Scotland. We will use this step change in health expenditure to deliver a step change in health improvement. Our objective is to deliver a 20 per cent reduction in the number of deaths from cancer and a 50 per cent reduction in the number of deaths from strokes and heart disease.

We will double the money that we spend on health improvement, injecting more than £170 million into our new health improvement plan. That will be different from what has gone before. New resources will be ploughed into new initiatives and new approaches. Investment now will deliver benefits over a lifetime that are fundamental to a good quality of life.

Also fundamental to a good quality of life is freedom from the fear of crime. We will continue to invest in the fight against crime. We will invest £270 million over three years to maintain the front-line police effort and we will make policing more effective by investing £25 million in a modern communication system.

We have made good progress because, overall, crime is going down and detection rates are going up. However, we need to do more to tackle violent crime and drugs and to make our streets safer. We are matching our investment in front-line police services with significant new investment to improve our prosecution and court services—detecting crime, catching criminals and speeding up prosecution and punishment.

We will invest an additional £33 million over the next three years to deliver our agenda on youth crime. There will be action on youth courts and secure accommodation and there will be investment to secure a reduction in the number of persistent young offenders. We will invest an additional £30 million over the next three years to tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour.

We will create more opportunities for people of all ages to take part in sport, which will encourage a more active lifestyle and improve the quality of people's lives. We will double our spending on sport over the spending review period, with money for school sport and a major new sporting facility.

Our commitment to improving the quality of life means taking decisive action on the environment. For too long, we have consigned most of our waste to landfill and our position at the bottom of the recycling league tables is unacceptable. Our firm commitment, which we will achieve, is to change that situation, but, in doing so, we need significant investment and a change of culture. As part of our commitment to sustainable development and environmental justice, we have provided for an unprecedented increase in spending on waste management. We will invest an additional £170 million to implement our national waste strategy over the next three years.

We will do even more to improve the quality of everyday life. We recently provided additional resources to make a major impact on the local environment, and communities throughout the country warmly welcomed those additional resources. Local authorities responded to the opportunity magnificently—our partnership with them proved itself in action. We were asked whether that investment would continue or whether it was just a one-off. I confirm today that over the next three years we will invest an additional £180 million in the quality of life programme. Our three-year commitment is to make our streets safer and cleaner, to reclaim our parks and open spaces and to tackle vandalism, graffiti and dog fouling. We will improve the quality of life for our people and our communities. Many people may not consider those issues as matters of high politics, but they matter in the daily lives of people in our communities, whose priorities are our priorities.

We know that the strength and growth of the Scottish economy are central to achieving our ambitions for Scotland, which means investing in skills and increasing access to opportunities for learning. We are making that investment. We will invest an additional £120 million for further education over the next three years. In higher education alone, we will invest an additional £60 million over the next three years for science and research.

We are supporting all our key industries. Over the next three years, we will provide an additional £23 million for the tourism industry, which employs nearly 200,000 people in Scotland. That money will include investment in a new major events strategy to make Scotland one of the top events destinations in the world.

An effective transport system is central to a thriving economy and strong communities. We will increase the level of investment in transport to over £1 billion per annum by 2005-06. With that massive investment, we will let a new 15-year Scottish passenger rail franchise and deliver our top-priority rail projects. We will invest in new rail lines across the country, including the development of connections to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. We will begin construction of the final part of the M74 into Glasgow and deliver public transport improvements across central Scotland, easing congestion and promoting more sustainable transport. We will begin preparation on the A8 and A80 motorway upgrades, which will complete the motorway network in central Scotland. We will continue to improve the existing trunk road network and tackle the congestion problems in Aberdeen.

Over the next three years, we will see massive investment in Scotland's infrastructure—in transport, schools, hospitals, housing, the water industry, waste and prisons. That investment will not only improve services but create opportunities and support thousands of jobs. Scottish business will benefit from our investment in skills and learning, science and research and modern transport links.

There has been much debate about business rates. Let me be clear that, since devolution, we have frozen rates at the 1995 level in real terms and kept the rates burden at the same level as in England. That is a good deal for business in Scotland, but we want to do even better. For next year, we will freeze the business rate poundage at the current level, which will reduce rates by £35 million a year in real terms. For the rest of the spending review period, we will stick to our commitment to limit rate increases to the rate of inflation, with, as I have said previously, the obvious caveat that there are no dramatic changes in our economic circumstances. Therefore, the rates responsibility for Scottish business for the next three years will be lower in real terms than it is today, and lower than it has been since the early 1990s. We are using the levers of government to create the conditions for growth and the opportunities for enterprise.

The proposals that I have outlined will create a healthier Scotland, a wealthier Scotland, a safer Scotland and a growing Scotland in which there is opportunity for all. We believe in better public services, not constitutional wrangling; stability in devolution, not risk from separation; and investment in growth, schools and hospitals, not tax increases to fund divorce. The results that will count will be the growth in Scotland's economy and ambition. I commend these plans to the Parliament.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement.

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

I thank the minister for his statement. I welcome any increase in expenditure if it delivers real benefits for the people of Scotland. I also welcome his climbdown in ceasing to claim that all the money that he is spending is new money from the spending review.

Will the minister confirm that he accepts that the SNP was right this weekend when we said that of the £1.5 billion increase for 2003-04, £1 billion had already been announced by the minister's predecessor's predecessor—now the First Minister—in the previous spending review in 2000 and already included in the budget and that another £224 million was already announced in the Scottish budget statement in April as coming from the health consequentials of this year's UK budget? Could the minister get the people who brief on his behalf to cease the practice of counting, double counting and triple counting, which results in announcements—no doubt welcome to the minister—such as those in Sunday's papers, that £8.3 billion extra would be his to dish out today? That figure bears no relation to any reality and demeans not only the minister's office, but the whole political process.

Finally, given that the Labour manifesto for the 1997 election said that

"The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government",

will the minister tell us when we are going to hear less about figures, which get larger as they get less credible, and more about real results on the ground? The Labour party has been in power for five years. The minister claims that he is spending record sums, yet the reality on the ground is a failure to deliver. When will the Government deliver?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

That was the full checklist of SNP whingeing. That shows its inability to welcome new resources for Scotland and to recognise that our spending statements focus on the purpose of the money. The SNP simply talks about the delivery of big numbers.

I want to point out to the SNP—I am slightly confused as to what its policy is these days—that this is a spending review. We spend the money. That is the purpose of a spending review. Yes, it happens every two years and yes, it is a three-year spending review. Oh my goodness, in year 3 there is an overlap. Are SNP members really surprised about that? Do they understand the basics of economic management? [Interruption.]

The SNP compares the Executive and its work to a fiddle and a diddle and all that Enron nonsense. John Swinney is surrounded by people who spend Scotland's money hand over fist every week.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Answer the question.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

He cannot stop me, because he said at the start of his leadership that he would cost all— [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will finish on this point. It started with fiscal autonomy, and it became full fiscal freedom, then independent financial control, then financial independence, then economic independence— [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Order.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

It is still financial independence. I think that it is a lot of rubbish.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I ask members to calm down and let members ask their questions. We cannot have any answers unless we have the questions.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I hope that Mr Kerr keeps taking the tablets.

What we heard today was very interesting. At the beginning of the statement we were told about money that was coming from the wonders and the wonderful performance of the UK Government. Then the minister slipped in a minor acknowledgement that all the money comes from the working people. The statement is a failed opportunity. There is so much to spend, but the minister spreads it around without any detailed targets. For example, the minister talks about police—