Scottish Parliament, 26 September 2002

452 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Introduction

Rural Business (Sustainability)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3418, in the name of Alex Fergusson, on business sustainability in rural Scotland, and on two amendments to that motion. I invite members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Alex Fergusson to speak to and move the motion.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I draw members' attention to my declaration of interests as registered.

It is good to see that a debate on rural issues first thing on a Thursday morning can still pack them in. I am grateful to those members who have turned up, particularly from other parties, to hear a little bit of common sense spoken on the subject. That was not meant to be a joke, but I shall now get down to serious matters.

Four years ago, Scotland was beginning to buzz with anticipation at the prospect of life with a new Parliament after almost 300 years without one. Although it should be noted that that anticipation was accompanied by varying degrees of eagerness, it was remorselessly led by the proponents of the new constitutional arrangements as being the panacea for all ills, the very greenest of grass on the other side of the political fence, and indeed the answer to all Scotland's problems. That it could never be mattered not a bit, as the electorate was lulled into believing that the new politics that would be on offer would solve issues one at a time in a mature, consensual manner befitting the 21st century and the new political era that devolution would bring.

It is therefore perfectly fitting that, as the build-up to the general election begins, we should reflect on whether those overfed aspirations have been met and on whether the new politics—which, as we all know now, turned out to be exactly the same as the old politics except that it is perpetuated as such by the power-crazed ambitions of the Liberal Democrats—has delivered. The short answer is, of course, that it has not and that fact was even admitted recently by our First Minister. It has not delivered because the hype was over the top, the aspirations were never based on reality and the promises were never deliverable.

As I have said on many occasions, nowhere is that disillusionment more keenly felt than in rural Scotland. Rural Scotland was always more sceptical about this Parliament and it has remained so about the achievements of its first Executive. The reasons for that are not hard to come by and are what lie behind our motion this morning. Our traditional rural industries—fishing, forestry and farming—continue to face real problems. Although we all accept that times change and that economic forces must change with them, we cannot underestimate the value of those industries to our rural economy. They are still the bedrock and will remain so for some time to come. To those great industries we can now add tourism. My colleagues David Davidson and Jamie McGrigor will expand on tourism and fisheries in their contributions.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will Alex Fergusson join me in congratulating the Scottish National Party on boosting tourism in rural areas by having its conference in Inverness, where most of my colleagues are today?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

Inverness is a city. [ Laughter. ]

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am only sorry that Mr Home Robertson beat me to it, because I would not dream of congratulating the SNP on anything, and I certainly cannot do so now, as SNP members do not even know the difference between a town and a city.

Last Thursday, together with John Scott and Jamie McGrigor, I joined a third of Scotland's dairy farmers, who were gathered at Asda's Grangemouth distribution centre to protest at the pitiful share of the end price for milk that they receive. I spoke to three relatively young men from north Ayrshire, who spoke with great clarity but also with great bitterness about what the Executive was, or was not, doing for them. One of them, whose farm borders a town and who has traditionally had a generally good relationship with the residents of that town, who walk on his farm both at his direction and with his blessing, said that no one now bothers asking him. He told me, "They walk all over the farm with two fingers pointing in my direction." That is before the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill is even enacted. His question, which is echoed by many including myself, is why, given all the problems that he faces as a farmer, the Government has concentrated on the social engineering that lies behind the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill and the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. It does not make any difference how easy it is to sell those bills to the urban majority. In most of rural Scotland they are seen as irrelevant, damaging and driven by political dogma rather than practical reality.

Even where the Minister for Environment and Rural Development has turned his hand to practical measures, they have usually ended in shambolic failure. For proof of that shambles, one need only look at the agricultural business improvement scheme, the rural stewardship scheme, the less favoured areas support scheme in any of its various guises or the 121 farmers caught up in the double payment of sheep annual premium. Farming, whether the Executive recognises it or not, feels let down and unwanted and the blame for that lies squarely in the hands of the Executive.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Does the convener of the Rural Development Committee recognise that, between 1995 and 1997, farm incomes fell by 56 per cent, so that is not something new? Does he also realise that the Scottish Executive has just announced that the average amount of money given to all farmers who claim a subsidy has risen to £19,000 a year?

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yet the problems continue every year. The situation has continued to decline on an annual basis, and it is probably one of the longest sustained depressions that agriculture in Scotland has known for some considerable time. I shall give some figures later that will address Mr Rumbles's point.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Does Alex Fergusson accept that Mike Rumbles's point is erroneous? The average may be £19,000 per farmer, but too much of the money goes to too few farmers, and we must cap the amount of cash that goes to the bigger farmers to spread the cake more widely.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Lochhead knows as well as I do that the problems with capping do not come from this Parliament or from Westminster, but from Europe. That is something that can be addressed only at European level.

I want to move on to forestry, if I may.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I am not surprised.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I shall come back later to figures that will address Mike Rumbles's problems.

Yesterday marked the opening of International Forest Fest 2002 at Lockerbie. It is a magnificent celebration that receives worldwide recognition of which I hope all Scotland can be proud. I believe that the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development will be there tomorrow in the company of the Princess Royal—probably counting his blessings that it is not her brother.

That event is a worthy recognition of a vital industry which, as I highlighted in my members' business debate in Aberdeen, is in some peril and will remain so if the Executive does not engage with the industry to solve the transport problems that currently beset it. Given that the industry was founded with considerable help and assistance from the taxpayer, it is surely criminal that the same industry should now be almost paralysed in some areas by the lack of public funding in its transport infrastructure. Following my members' business debate in Aberdeen, at which the deputy minister agreed to join the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and representatives of the industry to discuss those problems, I wrote to him in early July requesting further details. I only hope that he has implemented his meeting rather more urgently than he has treated my letter, as I have yet to receive a reply.

Over the past three and a half years, we have constantly been told that, as traditional industries decline in overall importance, new industries and businesses will take their place in the rural economy. It would be lovely and wonderful to think that they had, but the truth is that they have not. That is why my motion

"notes that rural business start-ups remain at an unacceptably low level".

Although I welcome the significant successes that occur in the Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise areas, there are just not enough of them. Despite the upbeat report given to us two weeks ago by Dr Jim Hunter of HIE, there were fewer business start-ups in the Highlands and Islands during the first five years of this Labour Government than in the last four years of the previous Conservative one. Mr Rumbles will be interested to note that there were 350 business start-ups per annum under the Conservative Government, but that figure has been reduced to 275 under Labour. Why is that? It is quite simply because the Administration has no understanding of business and no sympathy with business needs, and has led this country to the pitiful situation in which we have seen a decline in company creation from 10 per cent to 1.7 per cent in just one year. That is unsustainable and must be addressed.

The way to address the problem is through infrastructure, both for transport, which is the subject of our next debate, and for information technology. Only when some meaningful Executive attention is paid to those matters will we be able to address the fact that rural Scotland has to play what the chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway Council recently referred to as catch-up in the jobs market.

Only then will we be able to unleash the potential to which the SNP's new snappy little slogan refers, but which the only policy on which all its members agree, independence, will hold back and stifle—not unlike the new SNP colour scheme. Only when the Executive realises that it must differentiate between urban and rural transport, schools and health issues and in all other service provision will rural Scotland again begin to prosper.

Almost four years, 328 agricultural publications, 100 fisheries documents and 816 environment and natural resources papers have passed, yet rural Scotland has little to show for that other than an increase in the number of shelves that are required to hold 1,244 reports, strategies, leaflets, reviews and studies with which our Government has busied itself. The problems remain, the fires continue to burn and the Government continues to fiddle. Last weekend, more than 400,000 people took to the streets of London to show their displeasure. The people of Scotland will undoubtedly show equal displeasure at the ballot box next May.

I move,

That the Parliament deplores the failure of the Scottish Executive to arrest the decline of our rural industries; notes that rural business start-ups remain at an unacceptably low level; regrets and deplores the Executive's continued lack of investment in rural transport and information technology infrastructure and the over-regulation which has resulted in barriers to the regeneration of the rural economy, and calls on the Executive to devolve decision-making powers to a local level while reversing policies which are damaging to rural communities in Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I thank Alex Fergusson for his less than inspiring address, but I must correct him. When I was last in royal Deeside, I was in the company of HRH Prince Charles rather than his sister. The delightful Camilla Parker Bowles was also there. Prince Charles was a charming dinner host and we discussed the future of aquaculture in Scotland. I do not believe any of the recent press reports.

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

Will the minister confirm how many times HRH Prince Charles has written to him?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

He wrote to me after the dinner. The note was personal and I do not wish to share its contents with the chamber.

Scottish Labour and our trusty friends and allies, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, are committed to ensuring that our rural areas develop and thrive in ways that leave no one behind. We are committed to closing the opportunity gap. We must find radical solutions to problems in our farming and fishing industries—I agree with Alex Fergusson that there are many problems in our rural areas.

We should support a diverse rural economy that provides opportunities for local people, aim to reproduce what is best in rural communities and spread benefits to those who have previously been excluded.

Supporting sustainable rural economic development is a key priority for us. We want to help rural Scotland to capitalise on its strengths, many of which members know about. There should be an adaptable and entrepreneurial work force, a reputation for quality and an excellent environment and quality of life in rural areas.

While Labour and our partners are investing to help people in rural areas to get jobs and tackle rural poverty, what are the Conservatives doing? They seem to be more concerned with fox hunters and landowners. The Tories have called the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill a right-to-rob bill. In fact, it will mean that tenants will have first refusal in buying land that comes up for sale. Labour is empowering tenants while the Tories want to protect the vested interests of landlords. The Conservatives and the SNP support a right to rob. We command the centre left, which is where the vast majority of the people of Scotland are.

The Executive's commitment to rural development is firm. We take an integrated and holistic approach to the issues and needs of our rural areas. We embrace economic development and the development of communities, skills and learning, transport and infrastructure, communications and connectivity. Specific responsibility for rural development at Cabinet level ensures that rural issues are correctly prioritised and there is a co-ordinated approach through the Cabinet sub-committee on rural development to tackle particular concerns and problems.

However, we recognise the scale of the challenges that rural businesses face and the significant variation in economic challenges that are faced in different parts of Scotland. We recognise that local flexibility is required. Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise, together with their networks of local enterprise companies—on whose boards significant representation is drawn from local business communities—provide the right mechanism to deliver economic development activities in rural and urban areas.

We firmly believe that a strong economy provides the foundation for robust and sustainable rural development—that underpins our political strategy. A strong economy also helps to meet our objectives for social justice, which are as important in rural Scotland as in urban and suburban Scotland. It also helps to meet our objectives of increasing opportunities for all and first-class public services and infrastructure to help rural businesses and communities to grow and prosper.

Like their urban and suburban counterparts, rural businesses first need a climate of macroeconomic stability. Scotland's position as an integral part of the UK economy brings us substantial benefits in respect of macroeconomic stability. Interest rates are at a 38-year low.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Not a single member and neither of the two people in the gallery would dispute that we want a strong economy, but will the minister concede that we are in recession? On delivering for rural businesses, the minister mentioned information technology infrastructure. He will remember that Wendy Alexander, the previous Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, wanted a strategy that included a pilot scheme in the Highlands and Islands to roll out broadband. Has anything been done about that project? When will it be delivered?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I intend to deal with connectivity in my oration. We do not deny that there are problems in the economy, but the member should listen to what I say. Macroeconomic stability—whether in urban or rural Scotland—is absolutely fundamental to the ability of the Scottish economy to pull its way out of recession. The member must share that objective with Scottish Labour and its Liberal Democrat colleagues.

Inflation is at a 30-year low and unemployment is at its lowest for a generation. I say to Duncan Hamilton that each of those achievements would be jeopardised by economic independence. Irrespective of how economic independence is packaged or the colour that is used to disguise it, it jeopardises such stability. Inflation is at a 30-year low, interest rates are at a 38-year low and unemployment is at its lowest for a generation.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No, the minister is over his time already.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I must make progress.

With such economic stability, we are delivering unprecedented resources to growing the Scottish economy. Recently, the Executive unveiled significant and far-reaching expenditure plans, which mean that, by 2005-06, public spending in Scotland will be more than £4 billion higher than in 2002-03.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister should wind up.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

That is a huge investment in every aspect of Scottish life—in growth in the economy, improved transport infrastructure and in increasing opportunities for all our people. The investment will be throughout Scotland.

The Executive is committed to promoting a vibrant rural economy, building on existing strengths, encouraging new opportunities, supporting inward investment and developing a skilled work force. We are providing significant additional resources to deliver growth in the Scottish economy, supporting rural businesses and delivering our top five priorities for the whole of Scotland—health, education, transport, jobs and reducing crime.

I move amendment S1M-3418.2 to leave out from "deplores" to end and insert:

"endorses the Scottish Executive's significant plans for investing in Scotland over the next three years to support economic growth, including sustainable rural development; notes that a strong economy provides the foundation for meeting social justice objectives in respect of increasing opportunities for all, first-class public services and infrastructure, and further endorses the key priorities and long-term actions set out in A Smart, Successful Scotland, the enterprise strategy for urban and rural areas, of helping businesses and communities grow, building global connections, and improving Scotland's skills base."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I call Richard Lochhead to speak to and move amendment S1M-3418.1. I ask members to stick to the time limits.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I welcome the debate, which is on a very important subject, although I lament Alex Fergusson's woeful performance in his opening speech for the Tories.

The best thing about the Tories today is the colours worn by Annabel Goldie. It is good to see the impact that the SNP is having on setting trends. I commend her for wearing a lovely shade of heather.

The SNP will support the Tory motion, but the striking thing about it is that it could have been lodged and supported by the SNP in any of the 18 years when the Tories were in power, because it is as relevant to the 18 years of Tory Government as it is to the three and five years of Labour Government in Edinburgh and Westminster respectively.

The Government's record on making progress in rural Scotland in the first three and a half years of the Scottish Parliament has been appalling. Despite the fact that the budget is apparently going up to £26 billion in a few years, I do not think that anyone in Scotland, particularly in rural Scotland, would trust the Government to spend any of the cash wisely in rural Scotland or to make the blindest bit of difference. That is why it is so important for rural Scotland that we change the Administration at next May's elections to the Scottish Parliament.

One of the difficulties about the debate is in defining rural businesses. When I made an inquiry at the Scottish Parliament information centre, I was told that

"it is very difficult to provide information about the status of 'rural' businesses"

and that

"the Executive said that 'there is no official measure of rural businesses'."

One thing that we have to get right at the beginning is information and statistics about the health of the rural economy and the number of rural businesses. All of us who represent rural constituencies know fine well that our rural communities face enormous challenges. In recent years we have seen a downturn in the agricultural and fisheries sectors. The manufacturing sector has taken hits because of the strength of the pound and tourism has taken hits because of foot-and-mouth disease and other issues. We know that a challenge that faces the Parliament is to stimulate economic growth in the rural economy if we want to create jobs and build our rural economies in the future.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I referred in an earlier intervention to the Scottish Executive's announcement, in response to my question to a minister, that the average amount of money given to all farmers who claim a subsidy is £19,000 a year. In Richard Lochhead's intervention on Alex Fergusson, he indicated that he wanted to cap that level. At what level does he want to cap the subsidy to farmers?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mike Rumbles clearly does not understand the situation, which is that some farmers get up to £300,000 while other farmers get almost nothing. The SNP supports family farms and believes that they should get more support. The point that we are making is that support should not go only to the big farmers.

The Rural Development Committee has run two important inquiries into the state of the rural economy. The first one was on changing employment patterns in rural Scotland and the second was on identifying obstacles to rural development. We have heard woeful stories from around the country from our rural communities. The submission from Argyll and the Islands Enterprise indicates that the population in that part of the world is declining. It states:

"All areas are depopulating other than North and Mid Argyll, Mull and Cowal."

That story is replicated throughout many rural communities in Scotland. It is worrying that even when the population is increasing the number of young people in those communities is decreasing, because they are going to the cities to get a future and to get jobs.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Richard Lochhead give way?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I want to move on.

We are finding out from the evidence that is coming in from rural communities that small businesses are closing down and collapsing. Boarded-up shops litter the high streets of our rural towns and villages. Supermarkets are taking a big share of all the business and no one is doing anything to protect the high street shops. Aberdeenshire has lost 181 shops over the past 20 years. The situation is going from bad to worse under the Executive. All our communities have lost their banks and post offices.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will Richard Lochhead take an intervention?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No. He is in his last minute.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The message that we are getting from all rural communities is "Infrastructure, infrastructure". If we get the transport infrastructure right the rest will happen naturally. Broadband is a huge issue. We must do more to improve broadband infrastructure in rural communities.

Bob Downes, from BT Scotland, wrote yesterday in Business a.m. that broadband will not help many rural communities because of the costs and the lack of infrastructure. We must ensure that geographical location is not a factor for businesses. We can do that only by making sure that we have a modern economy.

Regulation is a huge issue. Who on earth would want to work in many of our rural industries? I am holding up a summary of the fisheries regulations, which the Executive issued a few weeks ago. I challenge anyone to understand 27 pages of the most complex fisheries regulations. It is no wonder that people want to leave that industry. I also have a 70-page document that outlines one scheme and it is accompanied by a 17-page leaflet. That is for only one of the many farming schemes. It is no wonder that the farming community has to divert valuable resources to employ people to fill in the forms for them. That cash should be staying in the pockets of the farmers.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It is time for the member to wind up.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It is not only about infrastructure. We must ensure that we have powers in the Parliament to deliver for our rural communities. The aggregates tax and other macroeconomic matters, which are damaging our rural communities, are reserved to Westminster. There is nothing that the Parliament can do about them.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The member is launching into a lot of new material. Can he wind up, please?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

There is also the issue of European representation. Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, apologised recently to the people of Scotland because Margaret Beckett, the UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, turned down agri-monetary compensation for Scottish farmers. We lost £11 million for rural Scotland because we do not have our own representation.

I conclude by saying that our message to the Executive is to deliver the infrastructure to take rural Scotland forward and to ensure that the Parliament acquires powers so that we can represent our rural communities in Europe and elsewhere. Perhaps then we will be able to release the potential of rural Scotland.

I move amendment S1M-3418.1, to insert at end:

"and recognises that Her Majesty's Government has ignored the plight of our rural communities and calls for the many powers that it currently has to be transferred to the Parliament in order to boost the rural economy."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I declare my interest, as in the register of members' interests.

I congratulate Alex Fergusson and the Tories on lodging the motion. Alex Fergusson suffers from the widespread complaint that seems to afflict all Tories—they have no memory of what happened before May 1997. Once again, Alex Fergusson demonstrated that in his speech.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will Mr Lyon take an intervention?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I want to make some progress. I will let Alex Fergusson in later.

The Tory motion criticises the Executive for its continued lack of investment in rural infrastructure and rural public services. Alex Fergusson failed to notice that last week Andy Kerr announced a £4 billion increase in new spending by the Scottish Executive over the next three years. That is a 4.6 per cent real-terms increase. Rural Scotland's hospitals, schools, houses and roads all stand to benefit from that massive increase in investment by the Lib-Lab coalition.

That investment comes on top of the real-terms increase that has been delivered in the first three years of the coalition. That investment is starting to rebuild our rural infrastructure after 18 years of neglect under the Tory Government.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Can George Lyon tell me of one rural businessman, farmer or land manager who was operating five years ago who would rather be where they are now than where they were then?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

George Lyon. [ Laughter. ]

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

As I make progress through my speech, Alex Fergusson will realise that that is all down to the Tory legacy.

Our rural economy is in such a state because of 18 years of Tory misrule. The Tory motion claims that the Executive has failed

"to arrest the decline of our rural industries".

The facts do not support that premise. Farming will this year receive a record high of £60 million in less favoured area support. The average figure under the Tories over 18 years was 50 per cent lower than that. There has been a 50 per cent increase since the Executive came to power. This year there has been a 30 per cent increase in the sheep annual premium that goes to our hard-pressed sheep farmers and £25 million of help is going into the fishing industry, under the decommissioning scheme, to bring the catching effort into balance.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

rose—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I will make some progress, because I am limited for time. Calm down, boys. I have more points to make.

The sum of £1.8 billion is going into cleaning up our beaches and improving Scotland's water quality. We have increased spending on promoting Scottish tourism. I have named but a few areas of investment.

That record of investing in rural Scotland is head and shoulders above the Tories' disgraceful and appalling record of mismanagement and failure to invest in our rural infrastructure, health services and schools.

Of course, responsibility for the mess in which our primary industries, such as agriculture, find themselves falls squarely on that appalling record of mismanagement. Many of the problems that face our farmers and crofters can be traced back to the Tory years. For example, over the past six years, Scotland's beef industry has been locked out of its export markets and Scotland's sheep industry has been constantly threatened by the export ban on lamb that is more than six months old. Our livestock industry has been strangled by regulation, all of which was introduced by the Tories, and small abattoirs have been put out of business by that same Tory regulation.

Scotland's reputation for the quality of its livestock's genetics has been ruined. We were once regarded as the livestock yard of Europe, but now we are seen as the diseased man of Europe. In 1995, the beef industry in the UK produced 110 per cent of UK consumption, but today the figure is 65 per cent. That is all down to Tory mismanagement. The Tories, in their complete mismanagement of BSE and their dealings with Europe, put electoral survival ahead of the interests of Scotland's farmers and crofters. We see the result today.

Alex Fergusson and John Scott claimed that they lobbied with their milk producer friends, who are suffering from a price for milk that is one of the lowest in Europe. Milk producers are in danger of bankruptcy and are unable to stand up to the power of the supermarkets and processors. I will tell members why they are in that position: in 1993, the Tories, in pursuit of their ideological dogma, deregulated the milk marketing boards and banned our producers from forming a single co-operative to take on the power of the supermarkets. [Interruption.]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Please close, Mr Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

That left the producers powerless to extract a decent price for their milk.

I hope that Alex Fergusson and John Scott reminded their milk producer friends that the Tories destroyed the milk marketing boards.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Please conclude, Mr Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I will do so, Presiding Officer.

The Tories' attempts to portray themselves as the champions of rural Scotland are nothing more than shameless hypocrisy and should be exposed as such. The Lib-Lab coalition is championing the interests of rural Scotland. We are seeking to rebuild a vibrant, prosperous rural Scotland after a disastrous 18 years of Tory failure. [Interruption.] I support the amendment in the name of my colleague, Allan Wilson.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Such excitement so early in the morning. [ Laughter. ]

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

For the purposes of the debate, I declare my interests.

By anyone's standards, Scottish agriculture is one of the mainstays of Scotland's rural areas. Total farm income in Scotland was £519 million in 1996 but £273 million in 2001—virtually half the total of five years earlier. I hope that that answers Mr Lyon's question.

Since 1997, we have had a Labour Government that knows little and cares less about rural areas. Since 1999, we have had a Lib-Lab coalition in power that chooses not to address the real issues and that, in the words of Iain McMillan of CBI Scotland, needs to be less "self-indulgent" and to "grow up". After Mr Lyon's performance, who could disagree with that?

Let us look at some of the problems. Business rates in Scotland put off would-be entrepreneurs in urban areas. The difficulties of starting up a business in rural areas are far greater, given the lack of skilled people and connectivity. It is little wonder that the rate of business start-ups in Scotland is 40 per cent below the figure for England and Wales, or—as David Ross said after 1,000 days of devolution—that people are discouraged by the fact that the Scottish Executive has delivered 1,000 new laws and 500 new regulations. Coincidentally, over the same period, the Scottish Executive has produced 1,244 reports, strategies, leaflets and reviews, none of which has contributed one penny to rural incomes.

After the extra burdens of regulation, reporting and additional taxation, is the outlook positive or negative? Has the framework to deliver a prosperous rural Scotland been put in place? If one were to ask those questions of any thinking person from a rural area, the answer would be a resounding no. Of course, the farmers' markets co-operative has been a success, given that, from a standing start in 1999, it now turns over £12 million to £15 million a year. Sadly, although that is a valuable model of how to create new small rural businesses without putting at risk a significant amount of capital, and however proud I may be of the co-operative, it will not solve the problems, because they are much deeper. The difficulties that rural Scotland faces are no longer the strong pound and the lack of access to export markets because of disease. The problems that we must address are much worse, and they are of the Parliament's making.

Allan Wilson referred to the importance of macroeconomic stability, but we face macroeconomic instability. We also face land reform legislation that promotes tenants' rights to buy and unfettered access to land, coupled with the impending unquantifiable cost of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill. The stock market is at its lowest level for almost a decade and the value of land, which underpins Scottish agriculture's indebtedness to the bank, is at risk.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

No.

Quite simply, the successful businessmen and women—let us not forget the gender balance— who invest in land and houses in Scotland have sustained land values for the past 100 years or so.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

You have one minute, Mr Scott.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

That source of investment is about to dry up as stock market values and company profits crash about our ears and as the self-inflicted and damaging legislation sinks in to the minds of would-be investors in land in rural Scotland.

The proposed land reform legislation is bad enough in itself, but it will have the effect of bringing significantly more land on to the market at the exact time when would-be buyers have neither the funds nor the inclination to invest. The value of land will fall—who can say whether its fall will be as dramatic as that of the stock market, but fall it will, as a result of the Scottish Executive's legislation. What then? As land prices fall, the security that banks hold will become less valuable and more land will need to be sold as the ratio of security to borrowings slips into imbalance.

In the worst-case scenario, land prices will no longer be sustained by their profitability or by investments and profits from the south. They will be burdened by needless legislation from the Parliament and will fall to the value of land in third-world countries. [Interruption.] I see the Presiding Officer signalling me to wind up—I will do so now.

The Lib-Lab, politically correct coalition will be to blame for that fall in land prices. Make no mistake—the Parliament's land reform and access legislation is a wound that is being inflicted by the politically correct Scotsman on the unsuspecting rural Scotsman.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Please close, Mr Scott.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Within 10 years of the Parliament's inception, it will deliver third-world status to its rural dwellers. The solution lies in less regulation, taxation, reporting and interference.

The Executive still—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Mr Scott, you must close. I do not have five minutes to give to everyone who wishes to speak.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

All right.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

As always, I listened carefully to Richard Lochhead's enlightening speech. I put it into the context of the Nationalists' latest mantra, which is "Release our potential", and it has just dawned on me exactly where they have been keeping their potential for all these years.

For the purposes of the debate, I will confine my remarks to the part of rural Scotland that I know best—my constituency in the Western Isles and other parts of the Highlands and Islands. Alex Fergusson's singularly depressing motion betrays a staggering ignorance of the real success story of the Highlands and Islands. There is continuing revival and regeneration of that region, which, for one and a half centuries, was synonymous with economic contraction, social collapse, cultural decay and, above all, depopulation.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I cannot.

The Highlands and Islands is no longer synonymous with those things—we are on the way back up and well on the way to becoming one of the highest-quality economies and societies in Europe. Business start-up rates are higher than the national average and are continuing to rise.

The Tories speak of barriers to regeneration, but where are those barriers? In my constituency, we are witnessing a transformation as we continue to invest in new ferries, causeways and bridges to link islands. We are turning the Western Isles into an ever-improving single economy. For the record, this year was our best-ever tourism season.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I cannot, as I have only four minutes. [ Interruption. ] I will not take an intervention.

I do not deny that we face challenges, but we continue to make progress. Duncan Hamilton, in an intervention, raised the issue of broadband technology. This morning, I was happy to learn from the BBC's Radio nan Gaidheal's news service that the Western Isles is closer to securing that technology, which is an important development. Delivery of that infrastructure is just around the corner. In Lewis, we continue to retool the Arnish yard, which will become a multipurpose industrial facility and a centre of excellence for the renewable energy revolution. All that work is being done with the support of the Executive, the UK Government and their agencies.

I remind the chamber of George Younger's visit to the Western Isles 20 years ago, when the unemployment rate sat at an incredible 40 per cent. Today, the unemployment rate is 5.5 per cent. In Lochaber, which for years was blighted by high levels of unemployment, unemployment sits at 1.6 per cent.

The Tories trumpet their rural and countryside credentials. Let them align themselves with the people of North Harris, who, as we speak, are negotiating a purchase price for 50,000 acres of their island. The Tories will not do that, nor will they support our Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which will empower people and communities. They will not support the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill, which is another piece of legislation that will help to redistribute rights.

There is no doubt that the Tories will support their friends—the gentrified land-owning classes. Rather than helping the people of North Harris to secure the land and to set their own priorities, the Tories would prefer the island to be bought by some faceless millionaire absentee landowner. There is no doubt that the Tories will fight for the countryside; they will go to the barricades and march in our streets to sustain the systems of privilege that are being dismantled by the Executive and the UK Government.

As for Scottish National Party members with their tartan variation of Toryism, they traverse our country blowing their tartan bugle, which makes a different sound according to which part of Scotland they are in. Although they profess a desire for a publicly owned Caledonian MacBrayne ferry network, one of their spokesmen in the Western Isles welcomed a buyout bid by a private operator. They proclaim their support for the people of north Harris, but another island-based nationalist destabilised and undermined the people's efforts.

It must be admitted that the SNP has come a long way from the days of its fiery slogan, "Free by 93", to today's mildly rabble-rousing, "Release our potential." Both slogans are absolute nonsense, but at least Alex Neil had the good sense to demonstrate that he has a sense of humour.

Today's motion could have been spawned only by representatives of a party that is firmly wedded to the past, to an age when privilege was the religion and avarice was God. Let us give the Conservatives' depressing motion a resounding no vote.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I congratulate Alasdair Morrison on telling us the blindingly obvious—that the Western Isles is closer to getting broadband. It is closer to getting broadband only in the sense that the Western Isles is closer to the United States than Edinburgh is. That does not mean that broadband is round the corner or that broadband will come tomorrow.

I want to concentrate on broadband, because although farming defines the geography and topology of the countryside, increasingly the economic life of the countryside must lie elsewhere. Future generations must have access to future industries. The infrastructure that is delivered by broadband technology is an essential component of the countryside's access to the future.

The Executive's strategy is not a broadband strategy at all; it is a narrow-band strategy. Ministers have indicated in replies to me that delivery of the aggregated public sector demand for broadband will start in the second half of 2003, some two years after the announcement of the strategy.

Let me read a quotation:

"Broadband is crucial to the success of the ... economy, public services and the drive to raise people's skills and knowledge."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I do not have time.

"Bringing broadband within reach of more areas ... will help ... companies to become more competitive, open up opportunities for online learning and help deliver services more effectively."

I apologise to Andrew Davies, the Minister for Economic Development in Wales, for omitting the words "Welsh" and "of Wales" from that quote. Wales is an example of a country with significant rural areas that is engaging in a real broadband initiative, which receives £100 million. The rate of take-up of broadband in Wales is between 20 and 30 per cent higher as a result of the measures that have been taken.

In Scotland, we have universal access to broadband via satellite technology. How many people have taken up a system that is expensive and has some technical limitations? The answer is 182. Countries that are similar to Scotland are in a very different position. The UK is 22nd out of 28 countries in an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development survey of the most connected countries. The rate in Scotland is half the UK's rate. Finland is 10th in the OECD survey, Sweden is fourth, Norway is 14th and Switzerland is 12th. Those countries all have financial independence. Although that might not be the only reason, it certainly helps when one can control everything that one does in an economy.

We are expected to welcome the fact that 67 of our telephone exchanges are capable of supporting ADSL, but we should remember that there are 1,100 exchanges in Scotland. The figure of 67 represents a tiny percentage of that total. Scotland will be left behind unless we can bring broadband to the whole country, on a level playing field and at uniform cost, as is being done in Wales. We must not restrict the new technologies to city centres.

The next generation of broadband is SDSL—symmetric digital subscriber line—which is being piloted in Glasgow. SDSL will present a further disadvantage to rural areas, which will not have access to the technology. This week, we have learnt that things will get even worse.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am finished.

The fact that the new Office of Communications has no Scottish representation will mean that broadcasting and communications will have no voice where the decisions are made. The Executive's partners in Government are responsible for that.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a couple of constituency points. Roxburgh and Berwickshire has benefited from European structural funding since 1994, in the form of the objective 5b programme until 1999 and under the south of Scotland objective 2 programme from 2000. Over the six years of that programme, the total investment available will be £44 million, of which about 45 per cent has been allocated. That represents a considerable success story.

Investments have included the business centre at Ettrick Riverside, the Border Union Agricultural Society showground at Kelso and the rural resource centre at Tweed Horizons. There have also been investments in tourism and in business support, growth and promotion, which are particularly relevant to today's debate.

The point of the European funding programmes has been to invest in such areas to the benefit of the rural economy. Unfortunately, the objective 2 programme will end in 2006, as will LEADER +. Further such programmes will be required after 2006. Without such programmes, there will be a significant funding gap, which will have a detrimental effect on the rural economy and rural businesses in my constituency and throughout the south of Scotland. That could occur at a time when the proposed reforms to the common agricultural policy might mean that the Borders and the south of Scotland will lose the direct investment that comes into the local economy from the CAP.

The overriding necessity for a new funding programme is clear to those in the south of Scotland who have noted the benefits of present and previous programmes. Any post-2006 programme should include greater flexibility than is available at present. The current programme excludes hard infrastructure projects, by which I mean transport and building projects and other direct investments of that kind. To use the jargon, the programme prefers soft infrastructure projects.

Unlike our friends in the Highlands and Islands, the south of Scotland does not have a history of European funding over many years. A large backlog of problems needs to be addressed. European funding could well address that backlog to the benefit of the rural economy and rural businesses. Flexibility would be immensely valuable in any post-2006 programme.

The key problems that will face the Scottish Borders and whole of the south of Scotland in the next few years revolve around the lack of skilled labour, which is the result of demographic trends such as out-migration and the need for upskilling. Therefore, it is equally important that we obtain an extension of the lowland Scotland objective 3 programme for training and guidance support, which ends in 2006. The programme includes £300 million of expenditure and its objectives are to raise employability, address social exclusion, promote lifelong learning and develop a competitive economy. That investment is immensely helpful and valuable.

The rural businesses and rural economy of the south of Scotland, and of my constituency in particular, have benefited from those European programmes. I would dearly like those programmes to continue after 2006. I hope that my colleagues from the south of Scotland will be prepared to back the campaign of the south of Scotland alliance, which is drawing up important advocacy of the post-2006 programmes that we need in our part of the world.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It was good to hear Alasdair Morrison speak in glowing terms about the Western Isles and its causeways and bridges. All of them were instigated by the Tory party.

I want to highlight how we can regenerate one sector of the Scottish rural economy in the Highlands and Islands. I will highlight the problems facing people in the salmon farming industry and in the wild salmon and sea trout angling industry, which have received so much comment in the press recently. After attempting to show how the problems of those two industries are linked, I will suggest solutions that will help to encourage enterprise, employment and wealth creation so that both sections can flourish and do better.

For many years, there has been a furious debate about whether the huge growth in salmon farming over the past 20 years has been a key factor in the decline of wild salmon and sea trout stocks in the north-west of Scotland. Many believe that the explosion in the numbers of parasitic sea lice is a result of the increase in salmon cages in sea lochs. That explosion has led to a huge increase in mortality in the smolts, which are the young wild salmon and sea trout starting their journey to sea. If the smolts have to pass through clouds of sea lice, they are easily overwhelmed and killed by parasites. The lice also do immense damage to the farmed salmon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Both circumstantial and scientific advice show that those claims are correct, so it is vital that the situation is reversed to allow more money and employment to be generated by angling tourism.

I cannot stress enough the importance of wild freshwater fisheries to the economy of rural Scotland and especially to that of the Highlands and Islands, but the reality is that the Scottish farmed salmon industry is now a key industry, which produced 40 per cent of Scotland's food exports last year. The farmed salmon industry employs some 7,000 people, many in remote areas and others in processing plants within towns. When will the Scottish Executive face up to the issue and find a solution so that the wild and farmed industries—which are equally vital to the Highlands and Islands—can live together in sustainable co-existence?

Both industries underpin the future of people, families and communities. On the one side, the wealth of experience in river management and angling that has been amassed by generations of river ghillies and managers has now been added to by the scientists who work on the fisheries trusts. The trusts are making progress in delivering area management agreements with the different fishery stakeholders. Believe me, despite its recent deterioration, Scottish fishing is still sought after by many anglers worldwide. As such, it provides income and employment and is a large contributor to many rural hotels and businesses.

On the other side, we have the salmon farming industry, which underpins the lives of so many in remote areas and the products of which support many ancillary industries. The salmon farming industry has become indigenous in the Highlands and Islands and supports local culture, including the game of shinty.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Does the member care to explain away the reported increase in the sea lice population on the east coast of Scotland and in the Solway firth, where there are no salmon farms?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There is no increase in sea lice on the east coast. The increase has been on the west coast, where the salmon farms are.

The tools now exist to resolve the sea lice problem. I ask the minister to make it easier for fish farmers to use those tools to secure the future of fish farms and of wild fish interests. The drug Slice has been shown to be effective in reducing sea lice levels markedly. Six farms that were tested on Loch Sunart had nil lice after treatment. Why is the Scottish Environment Protection Agency taking so many months to grant licences for something that it says is safe? Surely SEPA should be pragmatic. That is the first thing that I ask the minister to do something about.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It should be the last thing, because your time is up.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I shall just close, Presiding Officer.

The second thing is that I would like to see both industries live together in sustainable co-existence. I ask the minister to do everything in his power to ensure that.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate, but I do not recognise the area that I represent in the description in the Conservative party motion. Yes, the Highlands has problems, but they are more about housing our expanding work force than about finding jobs. The Highlands is bucking the Scottish trend because our population has increased by 20 per cent over the past 30 years.

In line with other parts of Scotland, our unemployment rates are low and are lower than the average. Unemployment in the Highlands has dropped by 13 per cent in the past year alone. Everyone in the Highlands knows that Lochaber was an unemployment black spot, but it now enjoys some of the lowest unemployment rates in the whole of Scotland. That is due not only to an increase in the number of jobs but to the work that agencies have carried out. They have ensured not only that people have the skills to take the jobs on offer but that they have the skills to access them, providing driving lessons, for example, as part of the new deal. As Alasdair Morrison mentioned, the business start-up rate in the Highlands and Islands is higher than the Scottish average.

There are still challenges. Some communities are dependent on tourism, which may provide only seasonal employment. We need to attract year-round tourism. That already happens in places where people undertake winter sports. We must create more indoor activities for those who would come to the Highlands in the winter for our scenery but not for our weather. I welcome the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee's inquiry into tourism. I am sure that the committee will receive a great welcome when it visits the city of Inverness on Monday.

The Tory motion talks about the lack of investment in IT. In Argyll and Bute, the three islands partnership is using IT to deliver services to remote communities. For the first time, those communities can access services without having to travel to the mainland. Almost all the public agencies are involved and the Executive has helped with finance. The north Argyll islands also benefited from digital communities initiative funding. By giving each home a computer, the initiative has not only encouraged the use of IT but has provided the tools to do it with. That is a clear example of the benefits of IT to rural communities.

Last week, the Highland Council advised MSPs how the council, the Executive and other public bodies hope to take things further by connecting schools and general practices to broadband. I believe that a similar project is going on in the south of Scotland. Such projects will bring IT to the heart of rural areas and will provide a quality of service that would be unavailable commercially.

Rural areas also face transport problems, because they lack the critical mass of people for the commercial provision of public transport services. Again, the Executive has stepped in by investing £18 million in the rural transport fund between 2001 and 2004. By 2004, local authority money for rural public transport services will increase to £25 million.

Different communities are using that money in different ways to suit their needs. In Sutherland, a bus service has been built round the peak times for use of the successful dial-a-bus scheme. That means that the existing resources can be expanded into other areas. In Aviemore, the money has been used for a community car scheme for those who do not have access to a car. IT has also been used to provide a reception service for the scheme. People who wanted to volunteer but were not able to do so outside can now provide the service from home. Those are not high-profile schemes, but they make a huge difference to the lives of the people who benefit from them.

As I said in my introduction, we face challenges. More people are moving to rural Scotland to benefit from the quality of life and experience, and high-quality work is now available in rural areas. We need further investment in housing to ensure that that continues. Many businesses tell me that expansion is held back by the difficulty of finding a work force because of the lack of housing. We need to take an inter-agency approach to deal with the problem and to ensure that the barriers are broken down. I ask the minister to ensure that he takes that forward.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Let me quote from the speech that the Minister for Finance and Public Services made to the Parliament:

"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."

But what was the next sentence? It was:

"Our cities are central to the quality of life and well-being of Scotland."—[Official Report, 12 September 2002; c 13669.]

That is where the rub lies. We hear a lot of gesture politics and gesture words about rural communities, but there is no financing.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I have only just started. The member should let me get on.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, the Borders has received nothing for roads or for the rail link. Although a rail link has been proposed to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports—

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No—the member should sit down. We have received only £2.4 million for the Borders rail link. That is a hill of beans.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am not giving way at the moment. We have not even received any funding for broadband.

What has the Scottish Executive delivered for the Borders economy? I will tell the chamber. It has delivered a call centre. In 1999, Donald Dewar announced the creation of a call centre that would boost the Borders economy and bring 250 jobs to the area. In a Scottish Liberal Democrat press release from 14 February 2001—it is always handy to keep such releases—Ian Jenkins described it as a

"major boost for the Borders economy, an economy that has had more than its fair share of job losses in recent years."

He continued:

"I am especially pleased that this will help diversify the economy and will also provide opportunities for young people to both live and work in the Borders."

Well, well. What happened to that call centre, which received about £1 million of Government funding? Until this June, its employee total was in double figures. In June, it managed to increase that figure to something like 160 and, for a brief moment, on 29 August, it employed 313 people, 60 of whom were commuting from Edinburgh. Within three weeks, 100 of those jobs had gone and I have learned today that 30 more people are on short-term contracts. That is the reality of investment in the Borders economy.

Let me quote from young people—

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

rose—

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Oh, deary me. The Liberals have been in the Borders for 40 years. They were a waste of space then, and they still are.

I have some comments from young people who took up employment at the call centre. "One upset worker" said to The Southern Reporter:

"I only started three weeks ago, and had a week on a training course. This came totally out of the blue—everyone was looking forward to the careers they were promised."

A mother said:

"My son gave up his job to go there and has had to pass a lot of tests, only to be told he no longer had a job. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with destroying people's lives."

For the people in the Borders, there were simply a lot of soundbites, noise and big promises. If people are working at the centre, they are lucky to get £10,000; most of them are on short-term contracts. The way in which the organisation hires and fires its staff is outrageous. How anyone can stand up in the chamber and say that the Borders has done well out of this Lib-Lab coalition is a great mystery to me and to the people who will vote next year.

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

As a resident of the Borders, I am well aware of Christine Grahame's own ability to generate noise and soundbites.

I begin by referring members to my entry in the register of members' interests.

As the member for East Lothian, I must say that I do not recognise the picture of rural doom, despondency and desolation that Opposition members have conjured up. Alex Fergusson is really too nice to be convincing as a Jeremiah, although the nationalists have some potential in that area, if nowhere else.

The main complaint from rural east Lothian is that the economy is overheating with high house prices and rents. There is also a lot of concern that there is too much development, with consequent pressure on rural schools and infrastructure. However, I welcome such pressure. We simply need to learn to cope with the situation and get it right.

I am well aware that the foot-and-mouth outbreak in 2001 was a catastrophe for agriculture and that commodity prices for milk and cereals are unsustainably low this year. However, most reasonable farmers will agree that the Scottish Executive's environment and rural affairs department is making the best of a difficult job.

There are encouraging signs. For example, a couple of weeks ago, I visited Kelso tup sales and saw very healthy trade. Indeed, the fact that one of Stewart Stevenson's constituents saw fit to spend £18,000 on a Fife-bred Suffolk tup indicates a certain degree of confidence in the future of sheep farming. That cannot be a bad thing.

I recall from my time in the rural affairs department during Donald Dewar's Administration that the Executive gave a very high priority to rural policy. That is not surprising, because the influence of rural Scotland has never been greater than it is in the Parliament. Indeed, the First Minister was brought up on the isle of Arran, which is in Allan Wilson's constituency. What greater rural influence can one ask for?

The big challenge is to ensure that rural support measures are value for taxpayers' money. It is a funny old thing, but—to take a topical example—every single year the Scottish Executive spends more than the total capital cost of the Holyrood building on production subsidies to Scottish farmers under the common agricultural policy. However, all that public money is conspicuously failing to sustain employment on Scottish farms. As a result, I welcome efforts by the Scottish Executive and the UK Government to shift the CAP's emphasis away from production subsidies towards environmental and social priorities. That must be the right move.

I pay tribute to the thousands of rural enterprises that are adding value, diversifying and helping to develop tourism and a range of opportunities in rural Scotland. That must be the way forward, based on partnership between local businesses and public agencies including Scottish Enterprise and local authorities.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

John Home Robertson (Labour, East Lothian)

I am sorry—I do not have the time.

I want to cite two examples of such partnership that will help rural areas in my constituency. The Haddington farmers' market is an extremely successful example of a local authority initiative that has boosted the rural economy. I am also looking forward to some innovative projects that will be proposed for new European Union funding under the LEADER+ community initiative for rural east Lothian.

Such initiatives, together with new funding for essential health, education and transport services, must be the best way forward for rural Scotland. With great respect to the Conservative party and those who went to London last weekend, it is time for a reality check. Fox hunting is not, and never has been, the mainstay of the rural economy, and the Conservatives are not doing anyone any favours by trying to stoke up antagonism between rural communities and the rest of Scotland. That sort of division is as futile and damaging as the nationalist threat to break up the UK. We do not need that potential for mayhem.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The partnership agreement between the Labour party and the Scottish Liberal Democrats says:

"We will work to support rural life, rural communities and the rural economy."

The programme for government makes it clear that our priority is to

"promote improved environmental, employment and living conditions in rural areas".

I have already pointed out that we are seeing one of the highest-ever levels of investment in rural areas. Indeed, the minister made the same point in his opening speech. I also highlighted the fact that farmers who claim support from the Scottish Executive now receive an average income of £19,000, which is the highest-ever level of support.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Not after 40 seconds.

I will not dwell long on the SNP's position, but I point out that its members seem intent on talking down rural Scotland for their own political purposes. Although there is no doubt that there is a real crisis in farming, they have no policies on or answers to how we can improve the current situation. They even failed to consider the interests of rural areas when they proposed that fuel taxation should be harmonised with that of other European nations. Such a policy would have deprived Scottish farmers of cheap red diesel.

Before I leave the subject of the SNP, I should say that Christine Grahame's speech was remarkable. She constantly talks down the Borders and refused to take interventions from my colleagues Ian Jenkins and Euan Robson. Indeed, she has constantly attacked their fight to get investment and jobs into the Borders. In her speech, she again attacked investment and job boosts for the Borders. For example, she ignored the £2 million funding for the Borders rail link and the Scottish Executive's £45 million investment in the A1. She spoke complete bunkum.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Sit down.

I want to turn my attention to the Conservatives, because I have some information for them. Alex Fergusson seems to think that rural Scotland's problems started in 1997 when the Tories left the scene, but official statistics show that, between 1995 and 1997—the last two years of Tory rule—the total income from farming fell by 56 per cent. Between 1995 and 1997, borrowing by farmers increased by £73 million, or 8 per cent, while investment remained unchanged. The value of cattle livestock products fell from £594 million in 1995 to £545 million in 1997, which is a drop of more than 8 per cent. The value of sheep livestock products fell from £290 million to £260 million, which is a drop of more than 10 per cent. Between 1996 and 1997, the value of non-cereal crops fell by 53 per cent to £130 million. Between 1991 and 1997, debt increased by 27 percent from £1,250 million to £1,593 million. The value of output for finished cattle fell by 22 per cent and the value of cows and bulls fell by a massive 76 per cent.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I would if I had more time.

I have listed those statistics to prove a point. The Tories are intent on pretending that they are the guardians of rural Scotland. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their policies have damaged rural Scotland. The statistics show how damaging it was for rural Scotland the last time they were in Government.

We now have a Scottish Executive that is doing its best to improve life in rural Scotland. There are real difficulties, but the situation is improving. We have had the highest level of investment ever.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Perhaps the most remarkable admission in Mike Rumbles's speech was that the Scottish Executive is "doing its best". Frankly, the Scottish Executive's best is not good enough.

I am grateful to the Conservative party for lodging today's motion. It has given us the opportunity to unveil the range of half-truths and downright lies that we have heard from the Scottish Executive over the past couple of years.

Today's debate has brought out three issues. The first relates to broadband. Annabel Goldie has left the chamber, but she will remember from the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee that business identified broadband as the number 1 issue for businesses that seek to improve their competitive capacity. It was their number 1 priority and we said that we would make it our number 1 priority.

What happened was that the Scottish Executive introduced a pilot project and punted the issue into the long grass. There was the suggestion that we would be able to aggregate public sector demand, which would stimulate the use of broadband across Scotland. We have not seen that happen. There is no evidence that we are any further forward.

When Stewart Stevenson says that the uptake of connectivity in Scotland is half that of the UK, we should take that statistic further. Connectivity in the Highlands and Islands is half that of Scotland. The area that can benefit most because it is remote and rural is the area that is benefiting least.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No thank you; I will come back to the member in a second.

Secondly, with regard to transport, there have been some interesting statements in the debate. It is obvious to those who represent the Highlands and Islands—Rhoda Grant will know this—that ferries and roads dominate—

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am just talking about the member's colleague.

Ferries and roads dominate just about everything in the Highlands and Islands.

I was interested to hear George Lyon argue that Argyll and the isles is a land of milk and honey and that there is a strong economic community there. I refer George Lyon to the submission from Argyll and the Islands Enterprise and from Argyll and Bute Council. The council said that the absence of roads, bridges and ferries was a

"major constraint on economic development".

Argyll and the Islands Enterprise said:

"Transport, especially to the islands, is inadequate in terms of frequency and affordability."

Those people are on the ground and they are telling us about the reality of the situation. To try and spin that away is disingenuous. Consider the CalMac position and the instability in the CalMac tender. Consider the diminution of service on the Clyde and ask whether those are really the signs of an Executive that is committed to economic development. Perhaps they are; Maureen Macmillan will tell me.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Duncan Hamilton has made a lot of noise in the press about the CalMac issue. He said that he would write to me, as reporter on the CalMac issue. That was approximately a month ago. He said that publicly but I am still waiting for the letter. When will it come?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Perhaps that is another difference between Prince Charles and me. I think the member will find that the people in Dunoon and who live along the Clyde consider the matter with dismay. They see an Executive that is now committed to a diminution of service between Dunoon and Gourock; an Executive that is today claiming that it is in favour of economic development.

In his contribution, the minister said that he believed in the stable economic environment provided by the United Kingdom. Now that we are in a recession, I ask the minister to consider who got us there. It is not the case that it is not the Executive's responsibility or that it can ask who will get us out of the recession. The Executive has been in charge of a relative economic decline. The UK Government will not now claim the £11.8 million of compensation that it could have done to alleviate the recession. When farming has been decimated by the strong pound, there is no prospect of the Executive claiming that it has created a strong economic environment.

When it comes to who will turn the situation around, I ask members to consider the comments made by Mr Lyon earlier this year. He said:

"Labour policies are a disaster for rural Scotland."

He also said that it is clear that Labour is trying to

"slash vital support for our most fragile communities."

That is the support that the Executive is getting from its so-called allies. I suggest that we all be clear today that whoever turns the economic situation around, it will not be this Executive.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I am tempted to say that whoever turns the situation around, it will not be Duncan Hamilton because, as I understand it, he is leaving us. I am sure that we all agree that he will be a loss when he goes.

I thank the Conservatives. I am extremely grateful to them for the platform that they have again provided for us to focus on the Executive's significant plans to invest in and support economic growth and sustainable rural development. I am grateful to them for giving me the opportunity to outline again our strategy for growth, which is a strategy for all of Scotland, urban and rural—we do not distinguish between the two. That strategy has the key priorities of helping businesses to build and grow, building global connections and improving Scotland's skills base.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The minister has just hit on the nub of the problem. The Executive does not make any distinction between urban and rural Scotland. That attitude is behind today's motion. Does the minister accept that there is a need to differentiate between the two? The situation is not one in which one answer suits all. We need differentiation of policy to address the problems of rural Scotland.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Closing the opportunity gap is as relevant to rural Scotland as it is to urban Scotland. Social justice is as important in urban and suburban Scotland as it is in the countryside. That is the point I am making. It is a very simple point. The Conservatives try constantly to create an artificial divide between urban and rural Scotland where none exists, and they do so to be divisive and to talk down Scotland.

"A Smart, Successful Scotland" sets out a policy that is acknowledged—even by the SNP—to grow businesses, promote global connections and extend skills and learning. Scotland's people are a huge resource, as many an inward investor has realised.

The Executive's latest expenditure plans will take public spending in 2005 and 2006 to a level £4 billion higher than in 2002-03. I make no apology for repeating that. That is a product of our successful stewardship of the UK economy. Investment has been rightly targeted at growing the economy and improving transport infrastructure. If there are three Is that are significant for the rural economy, they are infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure.

In the spending review, we identified two specific targets to encourage more sustainable agricultural activity in the 13,500 farm businesses in Scotland's remote hills by 2006, and to deliver better service provision to rural communities through support for around 80 new rural development projects each year and funding for three to four joint initiatives per year with other Executive departments or agencies by 2006. The spending review will also expand the Scottish rural partnership fund by an additional £2.2 million. It will maintain the historically high levels of support for agriculture through the less favoured areas scheme. It will also provide an additional £2 million per year from 2003-04 to improve the quality and range of businesses and other advice available. It will implement the Scottish forestry strategy with an additional £4 million of resources for recreational and tourism-related facilities, especially in our national parks. It will also make available an additional £2 million in the first year, £2 million in the second year and £3 million in the third year in domestic funding in support of European Union fisheries structural funds to secure sustainable and successful sea fishing and aquaculture industries in Scotland.

If there was one blot on the landscape of today's debate—which I have enjoyed—it was Jamie McGrigor's contribution, which talked down the importance of the aquaculture industry to sustainable rural communities and to sustaining employment in the most fragile, remote and rural communities. Frankly, Jamie McGrigor should reflect upon his speech. I will say no more.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

No, I am in my last minute. The only thing I will say is that Jamie McGrigor should reflect upon his speech to the chamber, and ask himself whether it contributed to growing a sustainable agricultural industry.

The doubters and cynics should stop talking down Scotland and rural Scotland. The habit of doing down Scotland, our abilities, our performance and our potential can impact on our future. Let us lift the level of debate. We should talk about what we can do, rather than constantly talk about what we cannot do.

There is much that is positive in rural Scotland. To answer Duncan Hamilton's question, I say that I believe that it is an attractive place in which to live and work. Technology is helping rural Scotland to have the kind of enterprises that used to be located far away, which is increasing the population in the Highlands and Islands, as Alasdair Morrison said. We have real diversity, real companies, real jobs and real prosperity. Our challenge is to build on that and extend it to remote and fragile areas of rural Scotland.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Executive seems to have wakened up this morning, which is about the first time that it has done so on rural affairs since the Parliament was established. It gives me great pleasure to support my colleagues in highlighting the continuing failure of the Scottish Executive to acknowledge its shabby disregard of our rural economy and the sustainability of rural communities.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not yet.

I thank Richard Lochhead for generously supporting our motion. I presume that he did so because the SNP could not think of anything else to say. It is a shame that the SNP misguidedly thinks that independence will automatically restore profitability, diversification, investment and hope to rural Scotland. Once again, despite this being SNP conference week and despite the SNP having the opportunity to lay out its stall, we have not heard anything new.

Amazingly, once again, the minister failed to respond to the motion in any detail. The Executive's amendment refers to "significant plans". One must ask where the Executive has been since the Parliament opened. In the past few years, farms' profitability has sunk to its lowest level. Never mind all the nonsense and drivel from Mr Rumbles this morning. The fact is that the Executive is now talking about farm income, whereas the Conservatives used to publish the figures for net income—in other words, wages. Mr Rumbles seems to confuse a £19,000 subsidy with the profit that farmers and their families can spend. The man does not have a clue.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at this time.

Many members across the parties have mentioned broadband connection. In the days when Wendy Alexander was a minister, significant comments were made on how broadband would be rolled out and how we would get diversification. However, apart from in the Western Isles—that unique community that is forging ahead of the rest of Scotland—broadband is not being rolled out in rural areas. In addition, training is not being made available and there is no access for start-up businesses.

I am puzzled as to why the minister did not refer to the fact that schools in rural communities are closing. Why is that happening? Where are the general practitioners and dentists that we need in rural communities? The minister did not refer to quality of life, yet he went on and on about what the Executive has done for rural communities. As my colleagues have asked, why have there been fewer business start-ups in the past five years under Labour than there were under the last four years of the Conservative Government?

It was interesting to hear about the minister's new relationship with the royal family. What did he learn from Prince Charles, who admits, because of his direct connection with the rural community, that there are problems? Prince Charles might be able to persuade the minister when the Parliament cannot.

Given the minister's broad brief, can he tell us how many new rural bus routes have been introduced and how many have been withdrawn over the past few years?

All I can give the minister and the Executive credit for is interfering and meddling in the vital areas of the rural economy. The Executive has spent a lot of parliamentary time on issues such as hunting and land reform, on which it thinks it is doing well. Land reform is already damaging investor confidence.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does David Davidson disagree with Jim Hunter, the chairman of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, who said, when the Executive was accused of failing to deliver:

"Well, not in the Highlands and Islands you aren't ... you're presiding over something ... remarkable—the revival and regeneration of a region"?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It probably helps that the area still has objective 1 status, which has been denied elsewhere.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

No, we do not.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I beg Maureen Macmillan's pardon. I meant transitional support.

Over the next few days, I will visit some of Aberdeenshire's sporting estates to hear about the problems first hand. It is interesting that many of their problems seem to be caused by the uninformed approach of the urban Labour party, meekly supported by the Liberal Democrats, who posture in their constituencies and then, hypocritically, turn up in the Parliament to act as voting fodder for the Executive week after week. That cannot be denied; it is on the record.

I have dealt with Mr Rumbles. We have to get across the fact that we are talking about net income, not gross income. We do not want to play the accountancy game.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not at this time.

John Home Robertson—whose speech was wonderfully insulting—compared the cost of the new Scottish Parliament building with the rural economy. He even suggested that the Holyrood project is better value for money than putting money into agri-support. I wish that he would tell that to the farmers of Scotland. That was a classic comment from someone such as him.

The debate has been interesting, in that there has been a lot of heat but little light. There have been one or two pockets of honest comment from Labour members. However, it is interesting that, in his ranting apology for the Executive's actions, George Lyon talked at some length about how land reform was going to be fair. Does he agree—he may have a personal interest; I could not possibly comment—that one set of landowners will be replaced by a new set of landowners? That is not the way in which to drive the economy forward. That is just political dogma.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It is clear which lot of landowners the Tory party supports. The Duke of Buccleuch's recently published accounts show that he gave £7,500 to the Tory party to ensure its continued support for his cause.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I thought that we lived in a free society where people could put their money where they wanted. I notice that the expatriate Scot who is big in the film industry does his business and nobody criticises him for that, except for the fact that he does not live here. Such things happen with the Labour party, too. How many millions are given to the Executive's colleagues by large businesses down south?

George Lyon raises a spurious defence. We need honesty in the chamber from the Liberal Democrat lackeys and the Labour party about what they think the problems in rural communities are.

Once again, all we heard about in Allan Wilson's speech were plans to invest. There are always plans to invest, but there is never action. The issue is always the future and having another think-tank and another initiative. The Executive never does anything. The minister has failed to tell us the differences between the Government's rural and urban approaches. We have also learned that the Executive has nothing to say to rural communities. Roll on May 2003.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I have a point to make about four members who spoke in the debate and who referred to their interests in the "Register of Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament". It is preferred practice that, when members refer to their interests, they specify what the interests are. I did not pick up any individual member on that point, because the clerks did not draw it to my attention until two members had already passed us by. Members ought to say what their interests are, but not at any length.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Members of the Opposition did not observe parliamentary protocols in this morning's debate—they made their speeches and then left the chamber. That is becoming a regular practice and we might need to take some action.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The clerks keep a running note of members who leave the chamber early—those members are not confined to one party. The Presiding Officers make it clear in advice to all members that, when they have spoken, they should remain in the chamber, that they should hear the opening speeches when they are participating in a debate and that, when they have participated, they should be in the chamber for the closing speeches. Those are elementary rules of courtesy that we should all observe.

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

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Would you care to invite those members who made declarations of interest to declare what those interests were?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No.

Transport (Investment)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3342, in the name of David Mundell, on the impact on transport of the comprehensive spending review.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Today's debate and the circumstances preceding it follow an all-too-familiar pattern. There was spin and hype in the press about the importance that the Executive allegedly attaches to transport issues and there was an announcement in Parliament. The Executive's words sound good, but when the fine print of their documents is finally read, the position is more confusing than ever. That was true of the late, lamented Wendy Alexander's much-vaunted transport plan, which subsequently became a report. It is true of the comprehensive spending review announcement and the section on transport in the glossy document "Building a Better Scotland: Spending Proposals 2003-2006".

Ms Alexander's report turned out to be nothing more than a wish list with no substantive commitments. The only new announcements that flowed from it were for a car park and a roundabout. How can we be confident that the spending review announcement will be any different? It is couched in the same terms. Beneath the spin, all we get are the usual weasel words: "work starting on work to develop proposals to bring forward options on surveys that could be progressed on how further consultation could be taken forward with stakeholders in partnership with partners so as to address the concerns as to how to take forward top priorities flowing from studies on how to create a land of milk and honey". And so it goes on.

The amendment to today's motion, lodged by the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, is in exactly the same terms. As I said of the comprehensive spending review, the Executive has turned the production of guff into an art form. The minister might be able to get away with drivel in the chamber, but what kind of reception does he think he would get if he tried to soft soap Fife rail commuters or a Glasgow bus queue with such anodyne nonsense? Like all hard-pressed transport users in Scotland, those people want to know the facts. When and how are services and infrastructure to be improved?

The purpose of the motion and today's debate is to flesh out the reality and the facts of the Executive's commitment to transport so that the Parliament and Scotland know what the Scottish Executive is going to do and, as important, when it is going to do it. When will the first rail be laid on the Glasgow airport rail extension link? When will the first sod be cut on the M8 at Newhouse? When will the first passenger travel on the rail link to the Borders?

On reading the amendment, I am not optimistic. It is not that I expect the deputy minister to be a magician or some kind of Mystic Meg, but I cannot believe that, with the vast resources of the Scottish Executive at his disposal, he cannot come up with reasonably accurate costs of the projects outlined and the likely time scales.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Given that Mr Mundell's party was in power for 18 years and that it had the vast resources of the entire United Kingdom Government at its disposal, why did the Conservatives not cut the first sod on the M8, lay the first rail on the Glasgow airport and Borders rail links or build a tram system for west Edinburgh?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Margaret Smith will find that we constructed the M74 motorway and dualled the route up to Aberdeen. We carried out important infrastructure projects. That compares well with the recent five and a half years of inaction.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Not at the moment, but I will come back to the member.

If the Liberal Democrats aspire to be an Opposition party at national level, Margaret Smith should be holding the Executive to account and not going along with any old anodyne flim-flam that it comes up with.

If the Conservatives want to hold the Executive to account for its inactivity, so too do one of the minister's predecessors and Mr Bill Butler. I support the sentiments of the motions that they have lodged, which call for more detail on the Waverley station upgrade and the Glasgow airport rail link projects respectively. Today's debate gives the minister the opportunity to provide members, including Labour back benchers, with that detail.

Let me make it clear that I have no difficulty in welcoming genuine, additional expenditure on the key transport projects that were alluded to in the transport plan and the spending review document. After all, as I have set out many times in the chamber, Scottish Conservative policy is to put additional investment into our transport infrastructure as a key element of improving Scotland's potential for business growth and investment, as well as being of benefit to the travelling public.

You may call me cynical, Presiding Officer, but given Labour's record on transport in the five and a half years since it came to power in Scotland, I regret to say that the provision of that infrastructure is as uncertain as it ever has been during that period. In those five and a half years, we have seen the minister and his predecessors preside over a decline in investment in transport. As Wendy Alexander conceded in The Herald earlier this year, transport was

"sold short in the first spending round".

During the five and a half years, Scottish and UK ministers have presided over the needless delay of important infrastructure projects such as the M77.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

Will the member give way?

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I will do so at the end of this piece.

Equally damaging to the whole economy of Scotland was the needless delay to the M74 Gretna to Carlisle extension. I say to Bristow Muldoon that both those improvements would have been complete by now had the Conservatives been returned to power in 1997.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I put it to Mr Mundell that, had the Conservatives been returned in 1997, they would have further neglected infrastructure investment not only in transport but in schools, hospitals and the water industry. Perhaps Mr Mundell will explain why, in the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in power, they failed to realise the strategic importance of the completion of the M8 motorway.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

The Conservatives have always understood the importance of Scotland's motorway network. That is why we put massive investment into the M74 link. Today's debate is about the Executive's record over the past five years and what the Executive is going to do in future. The Executive parties are being held to account. We want to hear what they are going to do.

Let us take the situation in Aberdeen. I do not have to tell the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning about the reaction of his local press to the lack of firm commitments in the spending review. As my colleague Alex Johnstone has said, the Executive's failure to make any announcement on the future of Aberdeen's western peripheral route is yet another missed opportunity. Once again, people in the north-east are left wondering when they will ever see a firm funding commitment for that project instead of the usual platitudes. In this instance, the platitudes include

"addressing the concerns of business and the wider community in and around Aberdeen by fixing Aberdeen's congestion - stimulating the local economy, strengthening the community".

That takes the biscuit, even by Executive-speak standards. No concrete commitments whatever are given.

Elsewhere in the spending review document, what does "invest to develop" mean in relation to the Glasgow and Edinburgh rail links? Why use the phrase "begin construction" of the M74 northern extension rather than use the word "construct"? The phrases raise more questions than they give answers.

When challenged on its failure to deliver on road and infrastructure, the Executive has responded repeatedly by claiming that it has concentrated its efforts to date on public transport. Not only did we have Ms Alexander's outrageous claim that all rural transport issues were "fixed", we also had the relentless promotion of the Executive's much-vaunted concessionary travel scheme for elderly people. Of course, the spin fails to point out that the scheme does not become fully operational until April next year, which coincidentally is only one month before the Scottish Parliament elections, and that, as we have seen in the past few weeks, the implementation has been an absolute pig's ear, with many elderly people left confused and disappointed. As ever, the Executive's priority is not the detail or the implementation, but the number of column inches in the press. This time, that has rebounded on the Executive.

Despite the platitudes and expensive advertising campaigns, there is not a shred of evidence that the Scottish Executive has encouraged more people to use public transport.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

rose—

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Lewis Macdonald can make his point in his speech.

Travellers remain as sceptical as ever about rail services in Scotland, which are struggling to return to normal after the ScotRail strike, during which the Scottish Executive demonstrated remarkable ambivalence. As we have said repeatedly, and as Lord James Douglas-Hamilton will set out in more detail, the attempts by the Executive and the City of Edinburgh Council to browbeat the public of Edinburgh on to public transport through iniquitous congestion charges, which is a tax by any other name, will not work.

I look forward to hearing some detail on how the Executive will achieve the so-called objective in the spending review of supporting

"sustainable development by promoting more efficient transport networks and more sustainable modes of transport, having regard to the overarching principles of minimising resource use, energy and travel".

I am disappointed that, although the Liberal Democrats at Westminster have attacked vigorously the Labour Government's disastrous track record, in Scotland we hear only acquiescence and support for flim-flam and double-speak. If realising our potential means simply saying that independence will solve everything, the Scottish National Party is as bereft now as it has been in the past three and a half years of ideas to deal with the issues that face the people of Scotland.

In the past five and a half years, we have had prevarication, flannel, spin and studies and the jargon of inter-modal, multimodal, semi-modal, urban-modal and sustainable-modal, but we have not had decent roads, reliable trains or a growing bus network. The Executive claims that there is sufficient money. I want to hear from the minister how and when the Executive will deliver.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that increased investment in transport infrastructure is essential to providing the best business environment to generate growth and investment in Scotland; regrets that since Labour came to power in Scotland in 1997 there has been a failure to deliver any meaningful infrastructure or public transport improvements; further regrets that the Scottish Executive continues to prefer spin and wish-lists to costed plans and timescales for delivery, and calls on the Executive to provide full details, including the cost and timetable, for completion of each commitment outlined in the recent Spending Review which included the Scottish Passenger Rail Franchise, rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports, public transport improvements across Central Scotland, A8 and A80 motorway upgrades, improvements to the existing trunk road network and tackling the congestion problems in Aberdeen.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the increase in the Scottish transport budget over the next three years. The budget settlement for 2003-06 reflects the fact that transport is one of our top priorities. The settlement provides the tools that we need to transform and modernise Scotland's transport infrastructure.

Excluding capital charges, our transport budget will rise from £671 million in the current financial year to more than £1 billion by the end of 2005-06, which in cash terms is a rise of 52 per cent. That unprecedented level of funding will allow us to act on our priorities and compares exceedingly well with the £100 million of additional funding that the Tories proposed when they last initiated a transport debate.

The budget settlement is about allocating resources, but it does not stand in isolation from the rest of the transport policy process. The origins of that process lie with the white paper "Travel Choices for Scotland", which the Scottish Office issued in 1998. That white paper set out a distinctive modern agenda, which highlighted the importance of integration, of transport as a tool for addressing inequality and of a range of solutions to meet the range of different transport challenges in Scotland. Since devolution, the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 has carried many of those ideas into legislation. It provided the framework to begin delivering an integrated sustainable transport system.

The third stage was to set out priority projects and to address the gaps in the transport network, which we did with the transport delivery report in March of this year. The report identified the greatest single transport challenge facing Scotland as road traffic congestion and proposed a series of measures to contain traffic growth. It established clear priority projects and a clear agenda for working in partnership with other bodies to tackle the growth in road traffic and to complete the missing links in the transport infrastructure.

The budget settlement does not, as has been implied, set out priorities for the first time—that has already been done—but it provides sufficient resources to meet those priorities.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister makes great play of the fact that he has a lot of resources. Will he give a commitment on the finances that are required for the western peripheral route? I remind him of the letter that he wrote on 18 September to my colleague Mr Welsh.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I will address the matter of the western peripheral route, but the point that I was making, in response to Mr Mundell's motion, is that the spending review and the budget do not aim to make substantive decisions on projects and priorities. That was done in the transport delivery report. As a former member of the Audit Committee, Brian Adam will know that level 3 spending details will be shared in due course with the Finance Committee as part of the budget process. That will provide more detail on some of the figures that have been announced.

The decision on Aberdeen's western peripheral route is important. We are making progress on tackling Aberdeen's congestion. As Mr Adam knows, we made provision for that earlier this year. The budget settlement includes provision for whatever work might be required for the western peripheral route in the spending review period, provided that the value-for-money case and a basis for further progress are agreed. As all members with an interest in north-east Scotland will be aware, the transport modelling to provide the basis for that further discussion is under way and is expected to produce results later this year.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I have covered the issue, so I will press on.

The re-letting of the Scottish rail passenger franchise is at the top of the list of priorities for the next 18 months. Directions and guidance have been issued and a joint franchising team of Executive and Strathclyde Passenger Transport officials is working to deliver the service specification. We are working with the Strategic Rail Authority to let the franchise by March 2004. That is a specific commitment.

We are considering proposals from the central Scotland corridor studies and we will make an announcement on the way forward later in the year. We expect to begin preparation on the A8 and A80 motorway upgrades shortly, which will lead to a likely construction start date of around 2008.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome the investment and the priorities, but does the minister recognise that barriers exist to the delivery of improvements? For example, work on the A78 West Station bridge in my constituency has been dogged by delay, which has caused great inconvenience to constituents and to business. Will the minister investigate that matter and bring it to a speedy conclusion?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am happy to investigate the matter, as I am happy to investigate any case in which an agreed transport priority has been stalled for reasons that can be addressed.

As well as picking up the specifics, we must look at the wider picture. We must recognise that by the end of the decade we will have transformed Scotland's transport infrastructure. The budget settlement provides the resources to allow that to happen. It will allow the completion of the central Scotland motorway network, the provision of new railway links throughout the country—including rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports—and significant public transport improvements in and around our cities.

For some projects, discussions are on-going to establish a value-for-money case and, for other projects, progress depends in part on commitment from partners. We have sought to provide in the budget settlement the necessary resources to allow projects to be carried forward in the spending review period. I am confident that that has been achieved.

We will continue to fund and support lifeline air and ferry services and to make provision through the public transport fund. Between 2002 and 2006, we will increase Executive support for public transport by 70 per cent. The budget settlement sustains social inclusion objectives, such as free local off-peak concessionary bus travel, and environmental objectives, such as an increase in public transport to reduce traffic congestion.

We have sought in the budget settlement to make the resources available to deliver on our priorities. Over the coming months, our tasks will be to deliver on those in detail, working in partnership, and to bring to completion the projects that we have identified and established as our priorities for a sustainable transport system.

I move amendment S1M-3422.2, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"welcomes the increase in spending that the Scottish budget settlement for 2003-06 provides for transport as one of the Scottish Executive's five key priority areas and recognises that these resources lay the foundation for priority projects set out in the Transport Delivery Report that will transform Scotland's transport infrastructure over the next decade, delivering a sustainable transport system fit for the 21st century, which supports business and economic growth and meets the needs of all in society."

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

It is difficult not to disagree with the Tory motion. We require to press, probe and call the Executive to account. There is no outline manifesto by a new Administration, because this is an Administration that is in its death throes. It should be capable of resting on laurels won for what it has done in its tenure in office to date. Instead, it is proposing to do something away in the future. That is unacceptable—we have seen it all before.

Nonetheless, I cannot agree entirely with the Tories, who had the opportunity to change things during 18 hard years of Tory rule, 10 or 11 of which were Thatcher rule. They cannot continue to dine out on the construction of the M74 and the dualling of other roads. In those 18 years, we witnessed the undermining of the rail industry. Whatever criticism I may make about where the rail industry is heading, the problems began under a Tory Administration that privatised and underfunded it.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not at the moment. I am trying to move on.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

He is frit.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Tories have no reason to be self-congratulatory.

Reading the Executive amendment is a bit like seeing "Groundhog Day"—the amendment is couched in exactly the same terms that we have heard in the comprehensive spending review debate and from Andy Kerr. The Executive offers various outline proposals but not one commitment or pledge. I had assumed that, in an attempt to spike the Tories' debate, the Executive might give a clear commitment today. However, not even today, in an attempt to take away from the lustre and light of the Tories' debate, has the Executive offered any firm commitments. We are told that the promised land is on the horizon, but we are not told how far away it is, what direction it is in, or what we have to do to get there. The Executive amendment is simply an abomination and an apology for the actions that it has taken.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Yes.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

He is not scared of George Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

It must be Brian Monteith's beard.

Kenny MacAskill is criticising the Executive's performance, but the SNP has abandoned its policy of raising tax with the penny for Scotland. How would it deliver its policies under the current budget?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We will speak later about the powers that are required, some of which are fiscal and some of which pertain to ways of dealing with the rail industry.

We have heard what the Executive is now saying previously in the CSR debate. Back in 1998, the position was outlined not by Jack McConnell, the current First Minister, nor by Henry McLeish, the previous First Minister, nor even by Donald Dewar as the first First Minister. It was Donald Dewar who, as the Secretary of State for Scotland, said on page 7 of the white paper, "Travel Choices for Scotland":

"We shall continue to ensure that the Scottish transport network is appropriate to support Scotland's economy".

Does that sound familiar? Does that sound like the Executive's amendment? What has happened since July 1998? The Executive has put forward no radical proposals. On page 8 of the same document, the Government talks about pressing

"for improvements in rail ... connections to airports".

The fact is that, since July 1998, no real progress has been made. There are more potholes, there is more congestion and we face a bus strike in Edinburgh.

Some improvement schemes would be cheap. For example, the proposal to re-regulate the buses is supported not only by Executive back benchers, but by Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Passenger Transport. That is not a grand scheme; it would be relatively cheap. Will the Executive support it?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I am interested to know the differences between Mr MacAskill's proposed re-regulation bill and the quality contracts that exist under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Lewis Macdonald need only listen to the bus industry to realise that quality contracts are not working. How many quality contracts are in place? None. Why do Glasgow City Council and SPT not believe in quality contracts? It is because they accept that regulation is required.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Not again. I have given way once.

We are told that the flagship concessionary fare policy is a national scheme. Yes; it is a national scheme in Wales, where people can travel from Anglesey to Swansea and from Cardiff to Colwyn Bay. By contrast, in Scotland a national scheme seems to be one whereby people can travel from Alloa to Falkirk and the lucky people in the Strathclyde region can travel from Girvan to Gareloch. However, can people travel from Wick to Wigtown? No, they cannot. The flagship policy is nothing but a con that will unravel before next April, when Scottish pensioners will realise that they have been sold a pup.

There is also the question about the state of our roads. We had a great debate in the Parliament, during which Andy Kerr—as the then convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee—attacked the then Minister for Transport and the Environment, Sarah Boyack, about the privatisation of trunk road maintenance. However, we are told, on page 27 of the 2002 trunk road operating companies' report, that

"Media criticism, predominantly of BEAR's winter performance, was sometimes inaccurate."

I remember John Farquhar Munro voicing criticism that I certainly do not think was inaccurate. The Executive has not even resolved the shambles surrounding the care and maintenance of the roads. That is why we need to have control of the rail network. If we are to create rail links to airports, we must first tackle the congestion at Waverley station. Who is in charge of that? Is it the Strategic Rail Authority? Is it the minister? Is it the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? We do not even know who is dealing with that problem. The only way in which to address matters is by taking control of the rail network and the rail industry, but we need full powers to do so.

I move amendment S1M-3422.1, to insert at end:

"and calls for the Parliament to be given all powers necessary to allow these and other required transport and infrastructure improvements to be properly implemented."

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

I am amazed that our Tory colleagues have chosen this subject for today's debate. It is a vain and misguided attempt to discredit the coalition partnership, which is endeavouring systematically to overcome the legacy of decades of underfunding and neglect and the Tories' abysmal mismanagement of the national transport infrastructure. Their efforts today are, to say the least, ill judged and inappropriate.

Any sensible individual would accept that the sustainable economic viability of our urban and rural communities can be secured only if there is an efficient and—most important—affordable transport infrastructure. Scotland deserves and has come to expect a much-improved transport network. The Liberal Democrats are striving to achieve that goal and, as members of the partnership Government, we have at last begun to reverse the decline in spending on transport that characterised the last years of the Tory Government and the first two years of the new Labour UK Government.

What are the Liberal Democrats doing to secure an integrated transport system? With our partners in Government, we have introduced a bill that will give powers to local authorities to introduce improved bus services and to tackle congestion. We have funded more than 30 major public transport projects throughout Scotland, which will encourage improved rural transport services, over and above the other 350 projects that have been introduced to the advantage of the travelling public. Extra funding has been allocated to local authorities to allow them to make a start on the backlog of repairs to our deteriorating roads and bridges, especially our remote rural single-track roads, which were never designed to carry the increasing volume and weight of traffic that we are seeing in the 21st century. Much is happening.

Substantial sums have also been allocated to encourage a change from road to rail freight, which we hear quite a lot about. Over the past two years, freight facilities grants have removed millions of lorry miles from our congested road network. However, much more is required. Substantial spare rail freight capacity is available, which should and must be utilised. I am sure that further incentives to that section of transport would attract widespread public support.

The Liberal Democrats are proud to have secured the resources to provide free bus travel for all Scottish pensioners and people with disabilities. That programme is due to commence next week. Some local authorities, such as the Highland Council, will not restrict free travel to off-peak periods. We need to secure an agreement for through-ticketing to remove border restrictions and allow the benefits to be enjoyed Scotland-wide.

I represent a Highland constituency. My wish list for the Highlands is an improved trunk road to the north coast and an east-to-west coast road built to modern standards. All of that could and should be integrated with our fishing and ferry ports and supported by an enhanced rail system.

Members will be aware that the Highland Council has not secured a passenger service obligation on flights to and from Inverness. We must continue to support that aim and the council's endeavours towards achieving it.

The convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee recently suggested to the Executive that it should consider a further reduction in, and ultimately abolition of, the Skye bridge tolls. I hope that that laudable suggestion finds favour in the chamber because the current level of tolls is the most expensive and absurd impediment on any transport link in Europe. The tolls defeat the Parliament's aspiration to social inclusion.

I need not tell anyone that an uncaring Tory Government introduced the tolls and, consequently, I cannot support the Tory motion.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We come now to the open part of the debate. Time is tight.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

When Andy Kerr, the Minister for Finance and Public Services, gave his statement on the spending review, the groan from Aberdeen must have been audible in the chamber. However, it is sad that the spending review document did not appear to have anything at all to say about Aberdeen. Nevertheless, the priorities of Aberdeen's modern transport system, particularly the western peripheral route, will come back to haunt the Executive, its members and possibly even the Deputy Minister for Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald, who is on the front bench today.

We must pay tribute to the organisation that has driven forward the western peripheral route project: the north-east Scotland transport partnership—NESTRANS—which represents the area's two local authorities, the enterprise company and Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. NESTRANS has brought together a series of ideas and has proposed a project that would be of great value to the people of the north-east.

It is important to acknowledge the level of support that exists for a modern transport plan for Aberdeen. According to a household survey that was conducted by the then north-east Scotland economic development partnership—NESDEP—85 per cent of respondents supported the option of developing a modern transport system in Aberdeen. In an Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce survey, 89 per cent of respondents from the business community supported the option of a modern transport system.

Funding is, of course, the key issue and we will keep coming back to that. Business in the north-east, particularly in the Gordon and Banff and Buchan areas north of Aberdeen, faces extremely high transport costs. The difficulties are caused by the failure to have a route around Aberdeen. Competitiveness is being seriously damaged.

I talk regularly to businesses and their representatives and spoke recently to businesses in the industrial estate in Huntly. They made it clear that every time they go through Aberdeen the lack of a bypass costs them money. It is increasingly difficult to run competitive businesses in the Aberdeen area.

That Scotland's third city is constrained by a trunk road that fails to serve it is ridiculous and unacceptable, as is the 400-year-old Bridge of Dee's inability to carry vehicles that are more than 7ft wide. The 14 sets of traffic lights on North Anderson Drive are also a serious encumbrance to transport.

NESTRANS has created plans for a modern transport system whose estimated costs are in line with policy and have been fully tested. Despite the overwhelming support that those plans have among people and the business community of the north-east, the Executive has given no firm commitment to funding the scheme.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

David (None, Lothians)

Mr Johnstone is just in his last minute. It is up to him whether to accept the intervention, but he must finish his speech within the four minutes.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does Mr Johnstone acknowledge that the Executive has provided match funding throughout the development of the NESTRANS strategy for the Aberdeen area?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Indeed, I acknowledge that. The problem is that that funding is extremely small. We need to set out a project that includes estimates of the time that it will take to construct the western peripheral road in particular. That is the most important part of the project for many people, especially to the north of Aberdeen. We must also have a system by which funding can be provided over a set period. It is extremely important to the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east that we progress the matter.

We need a commitment from the Executive to fund the western peripheral road. If ministers will not listen to me, let them heed the words of their Aberdeen colleague Brian Rutherford, who is a Labour councillor and Aberdeen City Council's planning committee convener. He has called on ministers to stop pussyfooting around and to get off the fence and give the people of the north-east a firm commitment on the western peripheral route. The deputy minister's career could depend on it. We look to him to deliver on behalf of the people of Aberdeen and the north-east.

David (None, Lothians)

As the Deputy Presiding Officer said, we are tight for time so I must be strict about keeping speeches to four minutes so that we can get everybody in.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I welcome this debate on transport expenditure in Scotland, particularly in the wake of the comprehensive spending review. Everyone in the chamber recognises transport's importance to several major Executive objectives. Whether it is developing the Scottish economy with a 21 st century transport system, improving our environment or reducing the opportunity gap, transport has a central role to play.

It is also important in any transport debate to recognise that the United Kingdom as a whole has over decades not invested in its transport systems to the level that many of our European counterparts have. We must put that right and I believe that the Executive and the UK Government are putting that right.

In responding first to the Conservative's motion, it is clear that they have learned nothing from their period in opposition. They have not acknowledged their failure to invest in the transport system, nor have they acknowledged how they devastated the system through rail privatisation, declining bus services and underinvestment in roads. In particular, as I said in my intervention on Mr Mundell's speech, the Conservatives failed to complete the link between our two major motorways.

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Why does Mr Muldoon persist in spending so much time in transport debates talking about the Conservatives? We want to hear what the Executive will do. Labour has been in power in Scotland for five and a half years. We want to hear about Labour's record.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I understand why Mr Mundell does not want to talk about the Conservatives' record in Government. I assure him that the Labour party will never tire of reminding the Scottish people of the legacy of the Tories, a once-strong party that is potentially reduced to scrabbling for fifth place in next year's Scottish parliamentary elections.

Moving on from Mr Mundell and his failure to acknowledge the Tories' past failings, it is also sad to see Mr MacAskill, the original billion pound man, reduced from his usual uncosted wish list of transport projects to painting his face with blue woad and telling us that all transport problems will be solved as soon as we achieve our freedom. It is particularly amusing to see Mr MacAskill perform, given the Scottish National Party's recent abandonment of its previous tax policies. Mr MacAskill continually fails to recognise that, per head of population, Scotland spends more than the UK average on transport and that because of the spending review the transport budget in Scotland will continue to grow.

Turning to the Executive's plans—to please Mr Mundell—the priorities that the Executive has set out will make a real difference to Scotland's transport infrastructure. However, I regret Mr Mundell's simplistic desire for Mr Macdonald to produce precise costing plans when those costings are still being worked out. We are still identifying routes and costings for some of the major projects. It is naive of the Tories to want such details at this stage.

The Executive will deliver on several important issues. It will increase capacity in our rail network, most notably at Waverley. It will deliver a new rail franchise for Scotland. I was surprised that the Tories suggested that the Executive should simply put a wad of cash on the table and expect various people to say what services they would provide.

One of the most important issues that the Scottish Executive will work on in the coming years relates to the A8, A80 and M74 corridor studies. Each is important and I urge the minister to implement the recommendations, particularly—if I may speak from a constituency point of view—those relating to the A8 corridor, especially the suggestion that it be upgraded to motorway status, and the reopening of the Airdrie to Bathgate line.

Transport is vital to the future prosperity of Scotland. The Opposition has nothing to offer in that regard. I ask members to back the Scottish Executive's transport vision for the 21st century.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Far be it from me to criticise the SNP's opening speaker, but I think that he was far too generous. He said that the promised land was on the horizon, but I am afraid that my eyes cannot see it and I suspect that neither can those of many in the chamber.

We do not need to confine ourselves to the views of people in the SNP. David Begg, the Government's adviser, has consistently told the Government that it is woefully underfunding the public transport network. Private Eye has a column called "Signal Failures" and I believe that this Government has been a signal failure with regard to transport. I will illustrate a few of the difficulties under which we labour—I use that word advisedly.

There is a monopoly in air transport. BAA owns the three most geographically important airfields in Scotland, which are there simply as feeder stations for BAA's economic workhorses: the London airports. No passenger jet aircraft in Scotland is registered to an owner in Scotland. Is it any wonder that air services in Scotland are peripheral to the commercial interests of airlines that are based elsewhere and which will always seek to develop services closer to their bases?

We continue to suffer from the tearing up of many of our rural railway lines. As members have heard me say previously, I represent one of two mainland constituencies that have no railway line. Nonetheless, we get no greater share of the road budget. From the limited largesse that is being distributed to support railways, we get little additional benefit. Alex Johnstone was entirely correct to highlight Gordon and Banff and Buchan as being places that suffer from poor roads and limited railways. If I come to Parliament by public transport, I have a £20 taxi ride to the two-hourly service that runs from the nearest railhead at Huntly, which is outside my constituency.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Will the member give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have no time for nonsense from Aberdeen Labour.

The western peripheral road is an economic drag on people in the north-east north of Aberdeen. I know of a company that estimates that congestion in Aberdeen costs it about £100,000. The area contains the world's biggest offshore oil base, but the 20 to 30 trucks a day that travel between Peterhead and Aberdeen are delayed by between 20 and 40 minutes on each of their round-trip journeys.

I know that Duncan McNeil did not hear this because he joined us late in the morning but, in the previous debate, Allan Wilson made the important point that his Executive is focused on three i's: infrastructure, infrastructure and infrastructure. Well, without infrastructure, we have no transport system worth debating.

The minister and I have exchanged comments on free local travel, especially with regard to disabled people.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Welcome it, then.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome what provision there is, but my disabled constituents do not have buses upon which they may exercise their right to those free rides. Labour is not delivering for the disabled or the pensioners in Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I apologise for the fact that I will not be here to listen to the closing speeches, because I have a previous engagement, of which I have informed the Presiding Officer.

I welcome the substantial increase in transport spending and I hope that rural Scotland gets its fair share. I note the big increase in spend on the Clyde and Hebrides ferry services from about £27 million in the previous budget to £31 million this year, £37 million next year and £38 the year after that.

As the minister is no doubt aware, Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd has made a bid for two new ferries for the Wemyss Bay to Rothesay route. No more work needs to be done on the bid and I would appreciate it if the minister could make an early decision on the matter. I will read the Official Report of the minister's speech in the hope that he will indicate that some positive thinking is being done in that direction.

There is an urgent need for further upgrading and widening of the A83. Already this year, £3 million—a significant increase—has been spent on the road and another £1.5 million will be spent next year. In the past 20 years, there has been virtually no investment in that vital trunk road and the benefits of the road-widening and road-straightening work are evident.

I have spoken to the minister about a section of the narrows between Tarbert and Ardrishaig on which two lorries cannot pass each other without great difficulty. In this day and age, it is unacceptable that we have a trunk road on which lorries have to go onto the grass at the side of the road to pass each other. I appeal to the minister to look favourably on bids to do remedial work on that section. It was argued that the work should have been carried out at the time of the landslides, but it was not. Now that extra funding is in place, that road-widening project should go ahead.

I have also spoken to the minister about further trunking of the A83 all the way to Campbeltown if the Campbeltown to Ballycastle service restarts in spring next year.

The A82 north of Tarbert also gives us great concern. To describe the road that passes Loch Lomond as a trunk road is an insult to the term. It is single track in many places and most people who want access to north Argyll take the long route around Inverary. It is surely time that that disgraceful road was repaired, widened and upgraded to allow access to the west coast of Scotland.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I am in my last minute, but I will agree with the point that I think the member was going to make, which is that that road is important not only to the economic future of Argyll, but to that of Fort William and the rest of the west coast of Scotland. This is not simply a constituency issue; it is to do with turning around the economic prospects of the west of Scotland.

The issue of the Tobermory to Salen road has been raised by the minister on previous occasions. The consultation document on the Clyde and Hebridean services states categorically that the Executive will consider the short crossings to Coll and Tiree at some point. That road is absolutely vital if that promise is to be delivered and I appeal to the minister to consider funding for it.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

As the motion suggests, Labour is failing to address the problems of Scotland's transport infrastructure. Indeed, in Edinburgh, it is much more concerned with its anti-car agenda and the introduction of road tolls.

The City of Edinburgh Council's recent announcement of the result of its public consultation on the £2 road toll for the capital showed a small majority in favour of the scheme. That lacks credibility, because the whole consultation process was deeply flawed and rigged from the start. Of the 250,000 leaflets that were printed, only 20,000—fewer than 10 per cent—were returned. That is no surprise, given that the leaflets were available only on request. If the consultation were to have any credibility, the leaflets should have been delivered to homes throughout the city and surrounding areas. The consultation period of less than two months was far too short and it was cynically timed to coincide with the holiday period.

Moreover, the council further manipulated the results in its favour through the horrendously slanted manner in which the options were presented. The leaflets said that the option of no charge would lead to limited rail improvements and limited further environmental improvements in the city centre. That is patently misleading as it gives the impression that only by introducing road tolls could the cash be found to improve public transport. That is simply not the case—the Scottish Executive should provide funding for major public projects from its transport budget, as it will for projects elsewhere in Scotland.

The Executive's supposed commitment to developing an effective, modern, 21st century transport system for Edinburgh is duly proclaimed, so why should our motorists, who are already paying the highest petrol prices in Europe, be clobbered with yet another tax?

In the past week, two other shocking facts have emerged about the bogus consultation. First, 6,000 of the consultation forms—bear in mind the fact that only 20,000 were returned—were sent to green lobby groups, such as Friends of the Earth Scotland, which are strongly in support of tolls, in an attempt to draw up favourable responses. Secondly, the data that was collected from the returned questionnaires did not show a majority in favour of tolls. Only when the data was weighted to represent people who did not own cars and did not take part in the survey did the figures show a majority. In other words, the council made up the result by inventing people. We consider that a disgrace.

The Conservative party is the only party to have fought city-entry tolls every step of the way, and we will continue to do so. When we tried to amend the Transport (Scotland) Bill on 20 December 2000 by lodging two amendments opposing section 69 of the bill, which introduced road tolls, the amendments were voted down by all Labour, all SNP and all Liberal Democrat MSPs. Those MSPs include Fiona Hyslop, Kenny MacAskill and Margaret Smith, who are now falling over themselves to claim that they are against tolls.

Furthermore, the SNP's 1999 Scottish Parliament manifesto stated proudly that the SNP would support city-charging schemes. On 14 September 2000, while debating stage 1 of the Transport (Scotland) Bill, Kenny MacAskill said that the SNP

"are broadly sympathetic on congestion charging."——[Official Report, 14 September 2000; Vol 8, c 289.]

Nonetheless, I hold in my hand a copy of a leaflet that Kenny MacAskill distributed, which proclaims:

"Join the SNP campaign to end the Highway Robbery".

We welcome U-turns in our favour from wherever they come.

The road toll public consultation has failed to fulfil its purpose. It is no more than an exercise in political manipulation and that should fool nobody. The only way that road tolls will be stopped is at the ballot box next year. Only one party can be trusted to remain in the lead to stop them, whatever the circumstances.

Elaine Thomson (Labour, Aberdeen North)

Today's Tory motion can be described only as slightly bizarre, given the current scale of investment in transport in Scotland. We had 20 years of underinvestment in transport in Scotland, thanks to the Tories. The ill effects of that have been felt nowhere more acutely than in Aberdeen and the north-east. Parts of Aberdeen's modern transport system, such as the western peripheral route, were proposed years ago and could have been delivered by Grampian Regional Council, which for much of its existence was controlled by the Tory party or Tory-led coalitions under the national Tory Government. It has been left to the Labour administration in Aberdeen City Council and the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in the Scottish Executive finally to push for significant transport improvements, with the recognition that Aberdeen is one of Scotland's top 10 transport priorities. I welcome that.

In Aberdeen and the north-east, more progress has been made in the past three and a half years than was made in the previous 30 years. We have publicly supported plans with real development money, not to mention improvements that are up and running. Those include park-and-ride schemes and dial-a-bus schemes, which I mention particularly to Stewart Stevenson, because I am sure that they run in Aberdeenshire. I refer also to "twenty's plenty" schemes for safer communities and A90 trunk-road improvements.

There is the prospect of further funding from the recent spending review, if NESTRANS can introduce completed proposals rapidly. We know that tackling congestion in the immediate future is a key priority not only in Aberdeen, but throughout Scotland. The Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition is prepared to put in the investment for a massive expansion of public transport.

More than half of the transport budget is focused on public transport. In Aberdeen, for the first time in a generation, the number of bus passengers is growing. I do not doubt that that will continue with the introduction of free off-peak travel for our older citizens from Monday, which is another example of real delivery.

I also look forward to real change in Scotland's railways with, for example, the reletting of the ScotRail franchise. There have been improvements, and extremely successful grants such as the rail facilities freight scheme. If we are to continue to move freight off roads, issues such as low bridges and making the necessary investment to improve the rail infrastructure to allow greater capacity, such as on the Aberdeen to Edinburgh line, must be resolved. I ask the minister to address that in his summing up.

As a rail passenger, I believe that we have to work harder at making travelling by rail a pleasure rather than an ordeal. At least Labour has a real commitment to keeping Scotland moving, unlike the Tories. In the last year of the Tories' most recent Government they reduced grants to local authorities to zero.

We are making the necessary investment in public transport. We are helping Scottish businesses and industry by reducing congestion and we are improving the quality of many people's lives through schemes such as free travel for the blind and the new bus scheme for the elderly. In the coming decade we will see a transformation of transport in Scotland to give us a modern transport system for the 21st century. I call on the Tories to acknowledge that.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I, too, was tempted by the Tory motion, because everything is in it except the kitchen sink. However, I will support the amendment that my colleague Kenny MacAskill has lodged, because it recognises where the Government's plans and spending review and the Tory's concerns hit the buffers. Before anybody accuses me of talking only about constitutional niceties, I point out that I am referring to the powers that reside not with the Executive, but with what has during the debate increasingly been called the national Government in Westminster.

As evidence I refer to a written answer that the minister gave me on 18 September 2002. He said:

"Neither the Scottish Executive, nor any of its executive agencies, has carried out any detailed study focused on determining the comparative suitability of Glasgow and Edinburgh airports for a hub operation."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 September 2002; p1607.]

For goodness' sake why not? It is pathetic management of our economic development for the Executive not to have foreseen that it would have to come down on one side or the other and determine what its airport policy was to be. Is it going to be what is outlined in the strategic rail services review as determined by Westminster? When is the Executive going to decide that there is a priority for its spending review and for economic development?

I do not know whether to feel mad at the Executive or sorry for it for not deciding. It knows perfectly well that there is a limit to its powers and that the decision on the airport will be determined not by it, but by what I would call its superiors in Westminster—I do not doubt that the Executive would call them its senior partners. However, whatever the reason for the lack of a decision, will Lewis Macdonald undertake now to say what is likely to be the better option for Scotland's economy—a hub airport centred on Glasgow or one centred on Edinburgh? The Executive cannot afford to hang around on the matter.

Just before I press the case for the capital—as members would expect me to—will the minister consider what John Bowis, the Tory MEP, is saying today. Because of the strategic air services review, he is saying that there is the possibility of a central Scotland airport at Airth. We screwed up on that once before and missed the opportunity. Although it is unlikely that the minister will foresee a huge economic benefit to outweigh the environmental concerns of starting from scratch with a central airport, I still think that the minister should consider it.

However, the hub airport should be at Edinburgh for the reasons that are outlined in the strategic air services review. Edinburgh airport is in the right place when we consider the development of the business park—the fastest growing business park in the UK, never mind Scotland. There is room for a second, close-spaced, parallel runway. Believe it or not, there is potential for a reduction in noise pollution, because the two runways could have alternate take-off and landing directions. That is the way that I read it.

I have concentrated on airports, but the minister mentioned that it was in his power to reorder priorities. Will he listen to what James Douglas-Hamilton said about Edinburgh and congestion? The minister says that his own studies have identified congestion as the primary concern of transport policy and strategy in Scotland. Instead of concentrating on the rail link to the airport, will the minister concentrate on moving working people and tourists around within Edinburgh? Iain Gray has suggested that we may know by 2008 whether there will be a rapid rail transit in Edinburgh. We need to know much sooner than that, and we need Government help to move people around within Edinburgh. After that, the priority will be the rail link to the Borders, to ensure that people can get in to work in Edinburgh. The other big barrier to economic progress is the labour market problems that Edinburgh is experiencing. There are priorities other than airport links.

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

It is a pleasure to speak after Margo MacDonald. I agreed with almost everything that she said about Edinburgh and with almost nothing that she said about the powers of the Parliament. That is no great surprise.

I want to turn first to the Conservative contribution. I am glad that Mr Mundell has returned to his seat in time to hear this, because I will begin by complimenting him. He was, as ever, an effective dispatch box performer. However, his skill at dressing mutton as lamb was evident again. Sadly, the Conservative contribution had nothing of any substance. The Conservative group of MSPs—in fact, the party in its entirety—is a mixture of the mad, the bad and the dangerous to know.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

No—I will not be taking any interventions and I have much to say that I am sure Annabel will want to hear.

David (None, Lothians)

I think that she wanted to know which category she was in.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Yes. Where is the mutton?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

The Conservative party here has two groupings these days—and even today we can see some interesting seating arrangements. There are the mad privateers, who foam at the mouth at what they perceive as ideological dogma, but who have no other thought processes; and there are the camp followers, those who joined the party a very long time ago and sadly cannot remember why they are still there.

There is an old joke about how many such-and-suches it takes to change a light bulb. Usually the answer is a number between one and several hundred million. However, to the question, "How many Tories does it take to articulate a transport policy?" the answer is "None." No Tories articulate any transport policy of their own, and no Tories make any kind of effective attack on the Executive. That is a sad state of affairs for what was once regarded as the natural party of Government.

The nationalists are no better. Kenny MacAskill opened by saying that it was hard to disagree with the Tory motion. Well, there is more evidence of the Nit-Nat pact that we have seen in the chamber week in and week out. When questioned—by George Lyon, I think—on SNP policy, Mr MacAskill said that he would talk about it in some detail later. The "some detail" turned out to be a short sentence that was something like, "We need the full powers." What a blinding transport policy that is—a real vote-winner if ever I heard one.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

No.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton made one useful contribution to the debate: he exposed the utter hypocrisy of the nationalists on this issue as on every other. They are in favour of congestion charging when it suits them, and opposed to congestion charging when it suits them—no matter in which part of Scotland or in which city.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What about the Liberal Democrats?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

I will return to our Liberal Democrat colleagues in a moment. I am sure that the Conservatives will enjoy my contribution on that.

The job of a transport policy must be twofold. It must support our economy and our business growth, and it must support the delivery of social justice in every community in Scotland. To do that, two things must happen: we must have a meaningful dialogue with business and industry, so that priorities can be set and met; and we must have a transport framework that reaches every community. The Tories failed to do that in their 20 years in power because they did not want to serve every community in Scotland. However, such an aim is what we should expect from public transport policy.

A 12.5 per cent real-terms increase over three years has been announced in the budget. That is an enormous increase in transport spending and we should welcome it. Massive additional money will make a big difference. What response do we get to such announcements? David Mundell referred to local newspapers. I have some local newspaper comments that I would like to read to Mr Mundell. The Edinburgh Evening News—an august Edinburgh institution, as I am sure Mr Mundell would agree—on 12 September 2002 ran the headline:

"City transport gets major funding boost".

I do not think that that is a denigrating headline. The article began:

"Edinburgh's transport system was given a major boost today as the Scottish Executive announced where it would be putting its money over the next three years."

The article went on to mention

"the prospect of the first new tram lines for decades"

and then quoted Neil Greig, the head of the Automobile Association in Scotland, as saying:

"This is a big step forward for motoring in Scotland after 10 years of under investment, and finally brings the prospect of a European standard transport system closer to delivery."

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Angus MacKay (Labour, Edinburgh South)

No.

Mr Greig welcomed the additional money on roads and transport. Mr Mundell was slow in quoting that particular contribution.

As Lord James has outlined, congestion charging is the subject of the day in Edinburgh. The Labour administration is at least trying to come to grips with Edinburgh's transport problems, and it is doing so bravely. John Farquhar Munro had a kick at Labour in its first years in power, and I will have a kick at Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh—they cannot be environmentalist and anti-pollution in one part of the country and in one debate, and then be against radical road and transport initiatives in another debate. It is one or the other.

I welcome the funding that has been announced for the Edinburgh airport link; I welcome the unprecedented increase in the transport budget; and I look forward to seeing Edinburgh trams on the road again as Labour's national economic success becomes Edinburgh's transport success.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It will not surprise members that I will talk about the Borders rail link. Years ago now, this Parliament voted unanimously to reinstate the line from Edinburgh to Carlisle. Since then, very little funding has gone towards the project. A total of £1.9 million has gone towards preparing a bill, and a pauchle—£250,000—has gone directly to the project. The project clearly is not a priority for the coalition, but it ought to be. It is a disgrace that a part of Scotland that has a family income that is £50 a week less than the Scottish average, and that has a growing elderly population, is not having its railway line reinstated as a priority to regenerate its economy.

Margo MacDonald said that we have an overheated city, from which there could be a dispersal of jobs and people to an environment that is pleasant to work in. That is not happening for want of £70 million to start the rail line to Galashiels.

Euan Robson recently welcomed the £250,000 and said:

"Once again, the actions of the Executive speak louder than words".

Well, with £50 million a mile being spent for a motorway, the Executive's actions do indeed speak louder than words.

The vision of my colleagues on the coalition benches is so limited that at a recent meeting in Stow—where people have been campaigning for a railway station that would reopen their village and connect it to other communities—a letter that Ian Jenkins had written was read out. It said that people should not go on about the Stow station or they might not get the line at all. My goodness, with fechters such as that, no wonder the people of Stow have a failing economy and no railway station.

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

Does Christine Grahame acknowledge that there are problems with the Stow station idea that could call the whole project of providing a half-hourly service into question? Does she also acknowledge that people were told at a meeting in Heriot the other night about what will happen to their houses because the line is being directed there? Progress is being made. The time is not yet right for big investment. The big money should not be in the three-year spending review.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Just a minute. Mr Jenkins's party has been in coalition for three years, but there has not been a penny of commitment at any stage for that railway line.

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

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Mr Jenkins has had his say.

The other point made at the Stow meeting was about the train taking longer. Mr Jenkins should ask himself why there are three stops in Midlothian and nobody quibbling about it taking time there. I shall tell him why: there are Labour votes in Midlothian. The Executive does not care about the two Liberal Democrats in the Borders. They have no clout, so no money is coming to the Borders railway line.

While I am about it, I shall have a go at Mr Jenkins's colleague, Euan Robson, who is not here now. If Mr Robson is welcoming £250,000 for the Borders railway line, how little will he settle for to have a stop at Reston, in his constituency? A lot less, I would suggest.

This Parliament unanimously committed itself to that railway line. What right has the Executive not to put any commitment in funding towards it? Why should it ask that railway line, above all others, somehow to pay its way? Nobody is asking whether the links to Glasgow or Edinburgh airports will pay their way. It is time now for the Liberal Democrats to get some money out of their Labour colleagues before it is too late.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

There is a lot to welcome in the Executive's comprehensive spending review statement on transport, which includes increased spending to £1.6 billion by 2005-06 and a number of priorities that will be welcomed by my constituents. Those priorities include a new 15-year passenger rail franchise, a rail link to Edinburgh airport, progress on the Borders rail link—I agree with Christine Grahame that that link is essential to the well-being not only of the Borders, but of Edinburgh—and a link to Glasgow airport. There is also progress on a modern public transport system for Edinburgh. I am sure that my Tory colleagues will be pleased to note that I shall return to that in due course.

Edinburgh has seen a 60 per cent rise in the volume of traffic in the past 20 years, and it is clear that real public transport alternatives are needed. That is where the Tories have failed in the past, and continue to fail. TRANSform Scotland said of the 2001 Tory manifesto:

"The Tories have completely ignored the needs of Scotland's public transport users. Their manifesto makes specific commitment to £700 million of new road building yet fails to mention a single public transport project."

That would include a west Edinburgh tram system. TRANSform Scotland went on:

"With all transport investment squandered on new roads, there is no chance that public transport in Scotland could be improved. The Borders would still be deprived of its rail link while Scotland's cities would have no chance of seeing modern tram systems implemented."

I welcome the commitment to public transport from the partnership in power in Scotland. I also welcome the new concessionary travel scheme that will operate from next week. I agree with Kenny MacAskill and John Farquhar Munro that progress in through-ticketing must be made if the scheme is to progress. That is something that I would like the minister to address.

There is one thing that I agree with in the Tory motion. Whenever I speak to local businesses and ask what they want the Scottish Parliament to do to improve their business environment, they always say that transport infrastructure and education are their two main priorities.

I welcome the recent publication of the draft west Edinburgh planning framework, which focuses on an area of strategic importance and incredible economic potential. However, west Edinburgh is also an area of increasing congestion, so I am pleased that although the framework reinforces the green belt it says, crucially, that future development in seven agreed locations should go ahead only on the understanding that a public transport infrastructure is in place to support that investment and development. That is why I remain concerned about the council's recent decision on the Royal Bank of Scotland development at Gogarburn, which will add 800 more morning peak-time journeys to an already overloaded road network.

Margo MacDonald and Angus MacKay were right to say that Edinburgh needs Executive support so that we can tackle the transport problems that we face. Angus was right to highlight the investment that has already been made, through the crossrail project, the web scheme and the feasibility studies into the airport link and the west Edinburgh and central Edinburgh tram networks. Both the transport delivery report and the CSR support that, but I would argue strongly that, although the Executive must support the city in going ahead, those developments must not go ahead depending on road user charging. The city's transport problems are a challenge to the whole of Scotland, and it should not be left to the council taxpayers of Edinburgh to solve that problem.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

Will Mrs Smith give way?