Scottish Parliament, 13 March 2008

449 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 13 March 2008

Borders Railway

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S3M-1549, in the name of Jeremy Purvis, on transport.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Good morning. This morning's debate is not on whether there should be a Borders railway; rather, it is on how and when the project will be delivered. The case for the Borders railway has been well and consistently made in this Parliament over a number of years, going back to 2000. Members from all parties joined local people in the Borders in the campaign to push for the restoration of the Waverley line—not only as far as Galashiels and Tweedbank, but all the way to Carlisle.

The campaign continues, but its record in this Parliament has been patchy. Progress has not been easy. The original case was developed and a viable project sought, thus the Waverley railway partnership was created. The strongest and most viable case was for a railway to Tweedbank, serving Galashiels and the communities of Midlothian. When the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was subsequently presented to Parliament, Parliament decided—rightly, in my opinion—that there should be an additional station in the Borders, in the community of Stow.

The campaign continues for an extension of the line to Hawick and all the way to Carlisle. Inevitably, that would require decisions at a United Kingdom level, but trends for investment in rail services in Scotland since devolution have, I regret, not been reflected in trends south of the border.

The context for today's debate on the construction of the Borders railway to Tweedbank is the bill that Parliament passed. The Liberal Democrat manifesto contained a desire to see progress on a feasibility study into extending the project to Hawick. That desire did not appear in the manifestos of other parties, but I am sure that there is cross-party support for the extension. We have argued that a feasibility study should be carried out.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The member is well aware that the bill that was presented to the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee was for a line only as far as Galashiels. I wonder why his party's transport minister did not argue at the time for a line as far as Hawick.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I give credit to the member, who was the convener of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, which scrutinised the bill. The committee had cross-party membership.

In the first part of my speech, to which I hope the member was listening, I indicated that the Waverley railway partnership was tasked with promoting a viable project. The viability was determined, and the cost benefit ratio was positive only if the construction went as far as Tweedbank. I am sure that that information formed part of the committee's considerations at preliminary stage. The member will recollect that fact, although she seems to have somehow forgotten it this morning.

Notwithstanding the fact that the bill that authorised the construction of the railway received royal assent only on 24 July 2006, the SNP seems to think that former transport ministers should have progressed illegally and started digging up my constituents' gardens to construct the railway before then.

As we all know, the bill had a troubled process leading up to and during its consideration by the bill committee. Presiding Officer, you will recall an SNP amendment during consideration stage that called for the sacking of the Waverley railway partnership as the sponsor of the bill. I have checked the voting record on that amendment, and it was supported by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, by the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism—who is in the chamber—and by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. They have to consider their record of support for the Waverley railway partnership's proposals and for the bill. Voting to sack the promoter is perhaps not the best indication of support.

Last week's statement on the Borders railway raised more questions than it answered, I regret to say.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The bill received royal assent in July 2006, and the diligence exercise was instructed in March 2007. Why did it take nine months to instruct a diligence exercise?

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Immediately after royal assent, £30 million was given by the previous Scottish Government for the preconstruction process. When the scheme was transferred to Transport Scotland in March 2007, it was expected that the design process would start immediately after the first £30 million had been spent. Since May 2007, not one penny has been invested in the project by the Government. The design process has stalled. That accurately reflects who made progress.

Questions were raised by last week's statement. One welcome part was the capping of the local partners' contributions. I spoke to the leader of the Scottish Borders Council yesterday, to seek urgent clarification on a number of funding issues. Funding issues are of great concern to this Parliament. There is a move towards funding the line entirely through borrowing by a company on a non-profit model. The company has not even been set up yet and there is no timetable for its establishment.

I look forward to a timetable finally being published on the design process; I hope that that will happen within the next two weeks. The design process should have begun last June and run concurrently with the legal transfer of the scheme from the Waverley railway partnership to Transport Scotland. However, it was delayed by an extended due diligence process. Everything has been on hold for an eight-month review.

There are serious concerns about the funding model—concerns reflected in the comments of some Scottish National Party members in recent press reports. Last week, on "Good Morning Scotland", I did an interview with Christine Grahame, who no doubt will speak this morning. I have reviewed the transcript of that interview. I put it to her that the funding scheme was new, and her reply was, "No it's not." Gary Robertson suggested that the Government had chosen to experiment on a system that was not even in place yet. She replied, "It is." I then said:

"There is no money in this three-year spending review for the Border railway; all the money for this project is going to be borrowed through a vehicle that has not even been set up yet."

Christine Grahame's response was:

"Indeed. Indeed. Far more prudent."

After this fundamental issue had been raised, the response from the SNP was:

"the actual nitty-gritty of the details are being worked out".

Well, £235 million-worth of nitty-gritty is something of a concern to my constituents. We are talking about a body that has not even been set up yet.

So far, the SNP has added confusion where there should have been clarity, and delay where there should have been progress. In the vote this afternoon, I hope that the Parliament will give a clear signal that up-front capital funding from the Scottish Government has to be urgently restored, so that there will be progress on the construction of the railway. Rather than a woolly sometime- sometime-never start, I hope that construction actually starts and is completed ahead of schedule. That will be brought about not through an organisation that has not even been set up and over which there are question marks, but through actual Government investment in the project.

I move,

That the Parliament reaffirms its commitment to reinstating the Borders railway and condemns the SNP government for cancelling government funding for the construction of the line and failing to commit to a start date for its construction; deplores the uncertainty that this has caused about the future of the project, and calls on the Scottish Government to commit direct funding for the capital costs of the Borders railway and to take forward the construction of the project without delay.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to remind the previous Administration that it had eight years to decide what to do with the project. We are reiterating this Government's commitment to deliver the railway.

The leader of the Scottish Borders Council has welcomed my positive announcement and is delighted that the council has had confirmation that the project's construction will begin in this session of the Scottish Parliament.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Just for the record, during the passage of the bill through Parliament, did the minister vote to sack the Waverley railway partnership as promoter?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Mr Purvis is unable to recognise that we have an effective partnership with all the councils involved. I very much congratulate the Waverley railway partnership on its very valuable contribution to getting us where we are. We do, of course, have to move on to deliver. I am delighted that the relationship between the members of the Waverley railway partnership and this Government are so good and will be effective in ensuring that the project is delivered—on time and on budget.

Much has been made of finance. As I advised last week, we intend to deliver the scheme using a non-profit distributing model. That means that we will use expertise and innovation in the private sector to deliver this public infrastructure project. The NPD route will provide an opportunity to use a competitive process that is geared towards obtaining the best solutions from the construction and finance markets, while ensuring that any excessive profits will be reinvested for the good of the community.

Contrary to the views of certain members, NPD is not new. Three projects in Scotland have been developed using the NPD model already. Those projects are in the schools sector in the areas of Argyll and Bute Council, Aberdeen City Council and Falkirk Council. All three projects have reached financial close.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Does the minister agree that the NPD model is a form of public-private partnership?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The model is a method of ensuring that we do not pay the excess interest rates that too many projects with which Dr Murray's party has been associated have paid. The NPD model is a way of ensuring that the profits that are derived from financing the project are delivered for public benefit. I would have thought that Labour members would welcome that approach.

A project for NHS Tayside is currently being procured using an NPD model contract. Furthermore, Network Rail—which is owned by the Government on our behalf—is, in effect, an NPD structure delivering at UK level across the rail infrastructure. In short, NPD is a tried and tested approach that was used for years by the previous Administration, starting in 2005.

As I announced in my statement to Parliament last week, the capital costs are indicated to be in the range of £235 million to £295 million, with a contribution of £30 million from the councils—those are 2012 figures. The councils welcome the stability in relation to their funding contribution. We anticipate that the money will be paid back over 30 years. The final timescale will be agreed with the successful bidder.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Can the minister clarify how much of the capital costs he intends to borrow? Last week, on "Scotland at Ten", Derek Bateman said to Christine Grahame that Borderers will want to know where the money is coming from. Christine Grahame replied that the amount that the Government has said it will commit to the scheme is the same as the previous Government said it would commit, and that the additional costs will be met by the NPD mechanism, spread over a number of years. Will the NPD mechanism be used to cover the additional costs or all of the costs?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The people of the Borders are not the slightest bit interested in where the money is coming from; they are interested in the money being spent to deliver a railway for their benefit. Our plans will ensure that the railway is built on time and on budget.

In the current testing financial times, investors will move to high-quality investments—a flight to quality, as it were. People are already expressing considerable interest in providing funding via this excellent investment opportunity. We welcome that interest whole-heartedly. It will ensure that the Scottish taxpayer gets good value for money.

I take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the project. The Government will have spent at least £40 million on the project before procurement commences, using the funding that I am talking about. There has been no cancellation of Government funding; in fact, we will be putting more money into the project. When one borrows money and repays money, one puts more money in.

When the railway opens, it will connect the Borders to the national rail network for the first time in more than 30 years and will reduce CO2 emissions by nearly half a million tonnes.

This Government takes a pragmatic approach to procuring projects because we are focused on project delivery.

I move amendment S3M-1549.1.1, to insert after "inception":

"commends the 450,000 tonnes of CO2 saved by the project".

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It is good to see so many Liberal Democrats here today. I hope that they know what they are doing at decision time.

Last June, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change reaffirmed the Scottish Government's commitment to provide £115 million at 2002 prices towards the Borders rail project. Last week, the same minister tried to present as cause for celebration: the excision from the Government's budget of the earmarked amount that he had previously pledged to spend delivering the project; a delay of three years in the commencement of construction work; and the removal of the cap on the contribution from the taxpayer, coupled with the imposition of a cap on developer contributions, which, in the context of a delay of nine months plus three years, has sharply increased the estimated cost of the project.

Mr Stevenson has been generous in providing the chamber with vignettes from his wide-ranging experiences in a variety of occupations, but little in his previous life would have prepared him for talking such mince. Even though Christine Grahame has bravely attempted to put a bright red face on the removal of funding for the Borders rail project from the Government's spending plans, the minister has not, in truth, found many Borderers celebrating his announcement.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I think that you have had your shot, Stewart.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr McNulty, I must ask you not to refer to ministers or other members by their first name.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I apologise.

Christine Grahame was unwise to go on the radio to defend the Government's position—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order. Guidance issued by the Presiding Officer previously has always been that, on first reference, members' full names should be used. You have never ruled before that we should not use first names.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Well, I've ruled it now.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Stripped down to essentials, the SNP is saying that, for the next three years, no money will be forthcoming for a project that it eagerly embraced in opposition. Construction work will not start until 2011 at the earliest, and instead of funding the project along the same lines as every other rail project, the Government has come up with an experimental funding package that is untested and will require, according to the Government, extensive market soundings.

Budgets are where Governments make choices. The SNP Government has decided not to include the Borders rail project in its budget allocations for the next three years.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Did you oppose the budget that was passed a few weeks ago?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I should also ask members not to refer to each other as "you".

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The SNP is not doing what it said it would do in its manifesto. People in the Borders were promised, not just by Christine Grahame but by others on the Government benches, that an SNP Government would prioritise a rail connection to Edinburgh. However, thanks to the SNP, no one will ride on a train from the Borders before 2014. Given the SNP's jettisoning of the project in this spending round and the higher priority that the SNP has apparently given to other commitments, the future of the project has been placed in doubt.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

In relation to Des McNulty's amendment, while it might be appropriate for parliamentary committees to question ministers on the project, does he agree that it is appropriate for committees to decide their own work programme rather than be instructed by the chamber?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

That is an interesting point from a Green convener who was put there by the SNP.

Whether the Borders rail project can progress now depends on the attitude of the banks to the funding package. The minister has been able to give the chamber no assurances that, in the short time before construction commences in 2011, the banks are willing to experiment with an untested funding mechanism. Similarly, he has been unable to clarify what impact the funding approach has on the project's business case.

The uncertainty and lack of clarity over the funding mechanism means that ministers have to accept their responsibilities. We want the issues to be tested by parliamentary committees, as they should be.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Fine.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We are talking about a substantial amount of public money. Ministers cannot proceed simply by subterfuge. The issues must be explored in detail. That is why Labour's amendment calls on ministers to appear before parliamentary committees to answer appropriate questions.

I move amendment S3M-1549.2, to leave out from "commit direct funding" to end and insert:

"reinstate earmarked funding for the capital costs of the Borders railway with a view to taking forward the construction of the project without delay, and believes that ministers should be asked to appear before the relevant parliamentary committees to answer urgent questions over the delivery of the project, its escalating costs and the implications of the proposed funding arrangements for future transport and infrastructure projects."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is my pleasure to speak in this debate and re-establish a connection that I have had with the Borders rail project since I had the pleasure of introducing a committee debate on the subject on 1 June 2000, when the Parliament was sitting in Glasgow. It is interesting to read the Official Report of that debate and note who spoke in it. Some of the people are now history, but some are here today to speak once again on the same subject.

After all this time, it is tempting for me to say, "A plague on all your houses." However, there are concerns about the Borders rail project that must be expressed, and I take the opportunity to do so now.

One of our chief concerns about the project has been that the extremely modest funding that previous Administrations allocated to it may lead to council tax payers in the Borders being asked to contribute more. The Conservatives on Scottish Borders Council are fiercely opposed to that. The minister's insistence that the local authorities' contribution has been capped at £30 million is welcome, but the new funding mechanism that he has outlined has done little to allay our fears about the major funding gap of between £50 million and £110 million that appears to exist. We will return in the future to our concerns about the minister's insistence on novel funding methods for several transport projects.

The proposals that have been made progress the project in so far as they tell us how the Government intends to pursue it. The problem, of course, is that it appears that there will be further delays. How the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party can complain about delays, given their record on long-term funding delays and on constructing major projects—

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member remind us which Government's actions led to the Beeching axe, which took away our railways in the Borders?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I cannot remember. It was a long time ago.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

rose—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Sit down, please, Mr Hume.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The Borders rail project, which we have pursued for more than eight years—other members raised the issue in Parliament before I did—is worthy of pursuit. It is disappointing but not at all surprising that it has continued to suffer from delays. Such delays were par for the course when two Liberal Democrat ministers took care of transport.

There are concerns about the route. The railway will serve only a very small area of the Scottish Borders. Our view is still that the project would have been far more viable if the railway had continued on to Hawick in the first instance. John Lamont raised that issue last week when he replied to the Government's statement. Vast swathes of the eastern Borders—notably Berwickshire—will be unable to benefit from the railway. The Government should seriously consider improving the availability of services on the east coast main line for people who live in that part of the Borders.

There is disappointment about journey times. It appears that we are in danger of having a service that is even slower than the one that was cancelled by Beeching in the 1960s. Such issues should be taken into account.

People are concerned about the failure to get freight on to the railway. As far as I am aware, Liberal Democrat transport ministers were responsible for ensuring that the headlong dive was made to provide a passenger service without including the opportunity to put freight on the railway.

It is important to realise that we are experiencing progress, however slow. However, the Liberal Democrats' motion either demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the position of the project or is an attempt to misrepresent the position of the project for political reasons. Funding has not been cancelled, as far as I am aware. There are concerns about funding, but there is an opportunity for the project to be progressed. Let us take that opportunity and progress it.

I move amendment S3M-1549.1, to leave out from "reaffirms" to end and insert:

"notes the decision to progress the Borders railway taken by the Parliament on 14 June 2006; regrets the delay in construction and the substantial increases in costs since the project's inception, and calls on the Scottish Government to work with Transport Scotland and the relevant local authorities to ensure that the project is completed as quickly and cost effectively as possible."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We now move to back benchers' speeches. We have some time available for the debate, so I can be a bit flexible. However, speeches should be no more than five minutes, please.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I understand that the Borders railway won the Parliament's backing because it will deliver major economic and social development opportunities and because it represents one of the most sustainable public transport proposals in Scotland. In fact, the minister said last week that its cost benefit ratio has increased even further.

The Government's laudable aim of leading the way on tackling climate change must be backed up by action. Transport contributes significantly to climate change, and it is one of the fastest-growing sources of emissions. We can take a big stride forward in respect of carbon reduction by facilitating modal shift, but only if the country invests in high-quality public transport services. If our country is to meet its climate change responsibilities, the Government must deliver a number of key transport projects without delay.

In developing Scotland's transport network, it is important to break the link between economic growth and transport growth. Reducing carbon emissions without damaging economic performance will be critical in the future, when economic success will depend on attracting and retaining talent. The Borders railway project will facilitate economic growth without concomitant transport growth. The railway will bring significant modal shift benefits. It will reduce car dependence, and it is expected to cut car journeys by more than 700,000 a year, which will reduce emissions and reduce traffic levels on the A7 and the A68. The project will also improve safety for travellers, as rail travel is around ten times safer than car travel. Much of the Borders is not currently served by efficient transport links, so the benefits of the railway should not be underestimated. It will facilitate new housing—including affordable housing—reduce congestion and address the predicted labour shortfall in the Lothians.

There is no doubt that the delivery of major transport projects needs broad support from the Government, local councils, the community and the private sector, and long lead-in periods. Successive Governments' certainty and willingness to press on with projects whose genesis was under a different regime are needed. At this stage of the development of the Borders railway project, it is not helpful to introduce uncertainty. Losing time through prevarication is damaging, because people lose confidence and investors think about going elsewhere. In the meantime, the opportunity to take early action to reduce emissions is lost, which makes it harder each year to contain damage. From what we heard last week, I believe that the Borders rail project is losing momentum. It risks stalling completely as a result of a lack of genuine commitment from the Government. We now have no start date and no clear funding mechanism.

Last week, the minister said that the non-profit distributing vehicle would operate as a private firm under Government control, which raises governance issues. The SNP's planned funding method is untested for transport projects in Scotland; so far, it has been used only to finance new schools. It appears that the proposed method would mean that a single company would build, finance and maintain the rail line. Do we need another layer of confusion? How does the proposal fit into an integrated transport network?

Last week, the minister said:

"NPD funding models are a cost-effective borrowing mechanism that avoid the high interest rates of private finance initiative funding and leave ownership of the asset in public hands".

However, finance experts have said that the incentives for private sector involvement remain unclear. Mr Stevenson also said:

"The details of our final approach will be developed by Transport Scotland, in conjunction with the financial partnerships unit and Partnerships UK, full account having been taken of market soundings and the need for a competitive procurement process."—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; c 6576.]

It sounds to me as though there is not a lot of certainty about the method, and that that is why we are facing a delay of at least two years.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am about to finish.

The Borders rail project should be allowed to progress without delay, and the people of the Borders are right to expect the Government to fund it properly. I say to Mr Stevenson: do not waver over the Waverley route. Let us get back on track and build it without delay.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

There is a requirement in the Parliament's standing orders, which Mr Rumbles is familiar with, that motions that members lodge for members' business debates or for support should have titles. It would be interesting if the same requirement applied to motions that are lodged for the ordinary business of the Parliament. Members would then be given opportunities for light relief. For example, Mr Purvis's motion could be called the let's give the Borders Party more room to sabotage the Waverley line motion; the forty years of Lib Dem inaction, true to form motion; or simply the bare-faced cheek motion.

Mr Purvis gave a history of the Borders rail line. I will give mine. In the 40 years of David Steel rising through the humble ranks to lordly status, not one piece of track was laid. In that time, the Scottish Borders continued to slide down the economic ratings. It still has the lowest household income in Scotland. In eight years of Lib Dem and Labour government—as members have said, we had Lib Dem transport ministers in that time—not one piece of track was laid, and the economic status of the Borders stayed exactly as it was: rock bottom. Indeed, in those eight dreary years, the Lib Dems and their Labour pals did not bring to the chamber one debate on the Borders railway.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Not after the member had a go at me in the final minute of his speech.

In the first months of the first session of the Parliament, I secured the first debate on the Borders railway line. I established the cross-party group on Borders rail and assisted petitioners through the parliamentary process, from the Public Petitions Committee to the Rural Affairs Committee. That culminated in the unanimous vote in June 2000—which has been referred to—to build the line all the way to Carlisle.

The SNP led the way. We tried to get the line to go to Hawick, but there was no Lib Dem support for that. In those eight years, no feasibility study was commissioned to extend the line to Hawick. I know, because I kept asking about it. Indeed, efforts to include a station at Stow were blocked by Mr Purvis's predecessor, Ian Jenkins, who constantly told me to keep shtoom about Stow or the Borders would get no line at all. It took the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee to remedy that wrong.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No. Jeremy Purvis had a go at me in his last minute and I could not intervene—silly man.

Six years after that vote, as the Conservative amendment states, Parliament voted unanimously to pass the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill in what was also a committee debate.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am not going to allow Mr Purvis's deputy to deputise for him.

The problem for Mr Purvis is that I have been here from the start, and his party's record on urgency for and commitment to the railway is etched in my memory. If the past eight years have been an example of Lib Dem urgency, I would not want them near me if there was a fire, because I would be what the Lib Dems are now, politically speaking—toast.

Today, the former employee and self-proclaimed disciple of Lord Steel told the world, on "Good Morning Scotland", that Borderers are "appalled" at the delay, one year on from the previous completion date that was announced by his own party. However, at one time, the previous Administration was going to complete the railway by 2006—I know that because Nicol Stephen, the then Minister for Transport, told me so in 2004. Furthermore, Lib Dem councillors are in control of Scottish Borders Council, but are they shouting? Are they appalled? Councillor Jim Hume will, no doubt, tell us what his Conservative coalition partners are saying.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

rose—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

David Parker, who was elected by that coalition as council leader, is delighted. Jim Fullerton, Scottish Borders Council's executive member for roads and infrastructure, is delighted. For "appalled" read "delighted". The constituents who come to see me at my surgery in Tesco in Galashiels are pleased, but still wait like doubting Thomas for proof—track on the line. Who can blame them after 40 years of Lib Dem false promises and false dawns? They are dismayed by Mr Purvis's deliberate—and somewhat spiteful, I have to say—negativity, but what is new in that?

In his 2003 election material, Mr Purvis said:

"We will start construction of the Waverley Line."

Where is his wee bit of track? Is it OO gauge? Is it going round his living room? The document continued:

"In the next term of the Parliament Jeremy will give the area a strong voice and working with Liberal Democrats in the Parliament will ... ensure the Waverley line is constructed".

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am in my last minute. [ Laughter. ]

Mindful of the need for Mr Purvis to get Penicuik votes, the document added:

"and campaign for a light rail serving Penicuik".

Penicuik should not hold its breath.

In a spirit of compassion and because spring is in the air and the sun is shining, I will settle for the title "bare-faced cheek".

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Christine Grahame should be on the stage—there is one leaving in about five minutes.

To have this debate so soon after a ministerial statement is strange. Neither on the occasion of the ministerial statement nor again today did we receive from the minister, Stewart Stevenson, his usual Churchillian eloquence—or perhaps that should be Gladstonean verbosity. The whole Borders rail link story is turning into a bit of a soap opera. I am not a regular soap opera viewer—I am not a regular television viewer—but when I pop home and my wife is watching a soap opera, she rapidly explains to me what is going on at that juncture with a wee comment on whether it is a good fact or a bad fact. For those who are not regular viewers of the Borders rail link, here are some facts with the comments added.

The Borders rail link has been delayed from 2011 until 2013 at least, which is bad. The cost benefit ratio has improved to 1.32, which is good. The rail link will be procured through a non-profit distribution vehicle—nobody knows yet whether that is good or bad. Network Rail is a non-profit distribution vehicle, but it will not be involved. Speaking from my considerable experience, I think that that is good.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I hope that Network Rail will be one of the parties that will seek to be involved in the project, and it may take the lead. Of course, at this stage I cannot say who will take the lead, but I hope that Network Rail will be involved.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It will probably be the women who make the tea at Network Rail who will take the lead.

Apart from Network Rail, there are, in theory, other non-profit distributing bodies—for example, the Scottish futures trust, although it does not exist yet. The Scottish Government's consultation on that model closes tomorrow; therefore, it is passing strange that a detailed variation of that model should be proposed by the minister in this context. Does that cut across the Government-wide consultation on the broader model, is it a branch of that model, or is it a different model altogether?

At this stage, the viewing public are becoming confused, because there is no simple explanation for some of what is happening. Transport Scotland will become the undertaker, the procurer and the debt servicer. As I will touch on, it may also be involved in appointing an operator, but not from among the usual suspects. Viewers are confused, so let me explain the situation as simply as possible in soap opera terms. Instead of using his debit card to pay for the Borders rail link, the minister will use his credit card. He will not pay off the credit card debt "in a wanner", as they say in Castlemilk; he will just pay the minimum amount every month for 60 years.

I return to my point about the operation of the line, which is what I find rather interesting about the possible new model. We could be talking about not just a new model of procurement, but a new model of operation—and not just of the infrastructure, but of the trains themselves. Such a model is not entirely without precedent in the rest of the United Kingdom's heavy rail network, but I wonder why the minister is being so coy about it all. If the model really is a revolution in the procurement, the vertical integration and the future operation of Scotland's railways, there may be a great deal of support for it in the chamber. However, I suspect that the minister has something to hide and that this is a soap opera in which more good or bad facts have yet to emerge.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I speak from my long association with the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill Committee, of which I was the convener. That was the longest-running committee of the Parliament, as it met for something like three years. As I recall, the committee had piles of evidence that were 4ft high, and 5 o'clock starts on winter mornings to get to Galashiels to hear evidence were not the ideal start to the working week.

Having been the committee's convener, I remember the stances of its former members and their reactions to the proposals for the Borders railway. Des McNulty has lodged an amendment to Mr Purvis's motion, asking the Scottish Government to

"reinstate earmarked funding for the capital costs of the Borders railway with a view to taking forward the construction of the project without delay, and believes that ministers should be asked to appear before the relevant parliamentary committees to answer urgent questions over the delivery of the project, its escalating costs and the implications of the proposed funding arrangements for future transport and infrastructure projects."

That is the same Des McNulty who, during the preliminary stage debate on the bill, expressed his serious concern about the ability of the promoter and the Liberal Democrat minister to bring forward the project. For example, he highlighted increases in estimated costs, saying:

"In August 2002, the estimated cost of the railway was £73 million. By January 2003, it was £100 million; by March 2003, it was £126 million; by September 2003, it was £130 million, where it remained at that until September 2005, when it went up to £151 million. That does not seem to me to be evidence of firm cost appraisal and effective cost management by the promoter."——[Official Report, 28 September 2005; c 19527.]

I do not remember Des McNulty at that time calling ministers before a parliamentary committee to explain cost increases in the management of the project.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Actually, the member is wrong. Ministers were invited to appear before the Finance Committee, of which I was the convener, to discuss the mechanisms of transport infrastructure. To my recollection, specific questions were raised at that meeting about the Borders rail project.

However, does the member accept that, if the estimated cost at that time was £151 million and is now between £235 million and £295 million, the SNP has presided over the largest increase in costs so far?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I think that the member will find that the committee was not completely satisfied that the costs were robust. A Liberal minister repeatedly assured us that the costs were sound. As with everything else about this project, if there are any overruns, the involvement of Liberal ministers should be mentioned.

The Borders railway project has had a long history. First, it was going to be constructed in 2003; then, the timescale for its completion went to 2012. However, as I pointed out in my question to the minister after last week's statement on the project, Liberal Democrat ministers were already setting up the possibility that construction might not start until 2016 by lodging amendments that allowed the timescale to slip. Despite the protestations of the committee, which wanted the timescale to be brought forward, the Liberal Democrats, along with the Labour Party, voted to extend the timescale so that work would not begin until 2016.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Does not the member accept that the five-year timescale plus another five years for compulsory purchase to which she refers is consistent with the provisions of every such transport bill that has passed through the Parliament? As a member of the Airdrie-Bathgate Railway and Linked Improvements Bill Committee and the Edinburgh Tram (Line Two) Committee, I know that it was included in the Airdrie to Bathgate railway project and the Edinburgh tram project. Indeed, it was also included in the Edinburgh airport rail link project.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The committee was assured by the Liberal Democrat minister that he expected the project to be completed by 2012. If that was really the case, there was no reason to extend the timescale to 2016—unless, of course, there was no way that the project was ever going to be completed in the timescale that Jeremy Purvis has set out. Indeed, that has been borne out. Neither Mr Purvis nor his party has laid a single bit of track or allowed construction to go forward. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

You should be closing, Ms Marwick.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

I am finishing, Presiding Officer. It is a pity that I was interrupted by Mr Purvis from a sedentary position.

I am confident that construction of the Borders railway will begin under this Government, because the SNP—unlike the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party, which spent eight years fighting between themselves about whether the project should go ahead—has a long history of commitment to the project. Indeed, it was the in-fighting between those two parties that blighted the project in the first place.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

History is being rewritten somewhat in this debate. Other members have covered some of this ground, but I would like to recap what happened in the past.

Interest in opening the line precedes the creation of this Parliament. In 1999, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, and the then Scottish industry minister, Gus Macdonald, launched the first feasibility study into reopening the Waverley line, the results of which were published in February 2000 by Sarah Boyack, who at that time had been Minister for Transport and the Environment for only nine months. The study concluded that a regular passenger service on the line could cover its operating costs.

As Alex Johnstone said, on 1 June 2000, the Parliament, which was sitting in Glasgow, debated a motion on the Borders rail link that had been lodged by the Rural Affairs Committee after receiving a petition via the Transport and the Environment Committee. Parliamentary time was requested because we all felt that the topic was sufficiently important to merit such a debate. I should mention in passing that when Mr Johnstone mentioned members who were history, he looked directly at me—that worried me slightly, as I am one of those who survived against the odds.

Parliament unanimously agreed to the motion, which recognised and endorsed

"the case for the establishment of a railway linking the Scottish Borders to the national network at Edinburgh and Carlisle and urges the Scottish Executive to consult with the Strategic Rail Authority and others to facilitate its establishment."

However, as much as I—and indeed many of us—would love the railway line to go all the way to Carlisle, I must accept that that might have to remain an aspiration. For a start, the track has been built over in some places, which might give rise to difficulties with compulsory purchase.

During that debate in 2000, Christine Grahame and Michael Russell vehemently demanded to know when the railway would be built. Eight years later, despite the fact that a minister with responsibility for transport has been in post for 10 months, we are asking the same question.

Members have implied that the previous Executive somehow procrastinated. That is not the case: the Waverley railway partnership was formed in summer 2001; technical assessments continued between the end of 2001 and the summer of 2003; and in September 2003 the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was introduced, which, as Tricia Marwick pointed out, was a private bill, not an Executive bill. That was part of the problem. As the many members who served on bill committees well know, Parliament, not the Executive, had agreed a very cumbersome and long-winded process for dealing with private bills; in the case of the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill, that meant that consideration of the general principles was not completed for two years. The bill was eventually passed in June 2006 and received royal assent eight months before the dissolution of the second session of Parliament. As Jeremy Purvis said, the Executive in its last stages made some investment to try to bring the project forward.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I know that the minister is listening to the member's speech. I am sure that the member agrees that, given when the bill received royal assent, this Government, which has made zero investment in the line, has been in charge of the project for longer than the previous Government, which gave £30 million towards it.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I absolutely agree.

The non-profit distribution model for funding the project is actually, as Mr Neil would describe it, a form of PPP. Private contractors make a profit at subcontractor level; the private sector is represented on the board of the contracting organisation; and the funding is borrowed from the financial markets.

Argyll and Bute Council, Falkirk Council and Aberdeen City Council have used the same model to fund PFI schools projects, but it is still relatively new and there are some doubts about whether it will deliver as efficiently as conventional PPP in the operational phase. Moreover, organisations such as Unison that dislike PPP have said that the model is another form of PPP that, according to that union, retains "higher borrowing costs", ensures that private profit is taken out of public services at contractor level and results

"in the same profiteering and inflexibility inherent in PFI".

I do not share Unison's opposition to PPP, but the SNP has been opposed to PPP for years. One might well wonder why the SNP, after all that it has said about PPP in the past, now proposes to fund this project through some version of it. Obviously, one reason is that it is off balance sheet—for the moment. Of course, that might not remain the case. After all these years, why has the SNP performed such a U-turn on the funding of the project?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We move to winding-up speeches. I can allocate up to a minute extra on the original allocations, but that is a strict limit.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The Scottish Conservative position is that we must ensure that the project is completed as quickly and cost effectively as possible. To that extent, we welcome the £30 million cap on Scottish Borders Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and Midlothian Council that was announced previously, because we were concerned about that spending in the past. It is worth mentioning that, although the debate is about what has been called the Borders railway, there will be big benefits to the city of Edinburgh and to Midlothian, where four of the seven stations will be situated.

Where do we want to go with the project and what are our priorities? First, we want answers from the minister on timing. My colleagues Derek Brownlee and John Lamont raised the timing issues last week. However, given the history that Elaine Murray has just told us about—the eight years of dither and delay and the nine months that it took from royal assent for the Government to order the start of the due diligence process—it is important that we get more definitive timescales from the minister and the Government. To be specific, when will construction begin? I read the minister's statement last week, and he made it clear at least five times that construction would begin at some point

"before the end of the life of this Parliament."—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; c 6588.]

That is not exact enough. The people of the Borders and the Lothians—the people of Scotland—deserve something more concrete. We do not expect an exact day or week, but I am pretty sure that the minister, in his closing speech, will be able to tell us something more exact than that.

Another important question to which we need to know the answer is when construction is scheduled to finish. The critical date for the people of the Borders and Midlothian is the one when the trains will start to run, as opposed to when construction starts. However, given the project's history and circumstances, we need dates for when construction will start and when it is due to finish. That should be possible. The minister also mentioned in his statement that a critical path was in place. He stated that some items were part of it and others were not. If a critical path is in place, the minister must be able to give us an indication of when construction will start and finish.

The other priority on which we need to focus is funding for the railway. We have heard a little bit about the NPD model, which sounds fairly similar to a rebadged PPP model, but we would like more detail on it; I hope that the minister will be able to tell us that soon. As Derek Brownlee pointed out last week, there is a shortfall of £50 million to £100 million between what the Government said that it was putting into the project and the total cost of between £235 million and £295 million that it announced. From where will that shortfall be made up and how will the gap be closed? Will the minister guarantee that using the proposed funding mechanism will not slow down the process? It has been far too slow for far too long. What is the total sum of money that the Government is physically committing? The minister said that the people of the Borders do not care too much about the functions, but the Scottish taxpayer does, so who will repay what and when will it be repaid?

Another issue that was raised last week is freight. We welcome the minister's statement that the Government would be delighted to have freight on the track. We take that as a positive signal, but we are looking for something a bit more concrete than that. How will the minister actively pursue the line's freight potential? If it is not pursued actively, it will probably not happen, which would be a loss to the Borders, the Lothians and Scotland as a whole.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

We were treated to a bravura performance by Christine Grahame, who covered up her embarrassment on behalf of her party by trying to attack everybody and anybody for the delay that the minister who is sitting in front of her has announced.

Parliament is entitled to question ministers on the details of the funding proposal for the Borders railway and to seek independent corroboration on the approach's viability and its implications for other infrastructure projects. This is about not only the Borders railway, but the future transport budget and there are some serious questions to be asked about the financial mechanisms that the Government proposes. It is one thing to talk about costs increasing, but trying to create a scheme to transfer the method of payment from the debit card to the credit card—as Charlie Gordon accurately pointed out—has profound consequences not only for the Borders railway but for every other project that comes along in its wake. Parliament has a responsibility to examine that as a matter of urgency before we get to the strategic projects review so that we can clarify the position.

When SNP members were in opposition, they stridently opposed PPP and called for direct Government funding for new schools and similar projects. Now it seems—as Elaine Murray pointed out—that they want to extend the PPP model beyond schools and into rail projects, for which it has never previously been considered a viable funding mechanism. There are some serious questions about whether we could translate the futures trust model—even if we knew what it was—into a rail project. Let us be clear that, according to the consultation, that vehicle

"could design, build, finance, operate, manage and own the facilities created."

That is what the SNP says about the scheme that it is taking forward. A private railway of a new kind: is that what the SNP is offering us?

We have been offered no good reasons for departing from the decision that the Parliament made in 2006 to proceed with the Borders railway. SNP ministers have failed to take the process forward. As the decision was made in 2006, the soonest that construction could have started was 2008. However, the soonest that it will start is 2011. Mr Stevenson and his colleagues are responsible for that three-year delay. As Gavin Brown pointed out, the key issue for Borderers is not when construction starts but when the first train runs on the line. The earliest that that will happen is 2013 or 2014—ministers have not been able to tell us the year—even if the Government agrees to proceed with commissioning the project in 2011 in the next funding round.

The Borders have been sold a pup. Ministers should reinstate the financial commitment during this spending review period in line with what they said they would do in June last year. There are serious issues about whether the Borders railway can proceed under the model that ministers have now set out. Parliament must explore whether they have a realistic basis for that model—whether the banks will buy into the scheme and whether we have enough detail on it to progress it—because people need to know the answer to that question.

On that basis, I hope that members will endorse the Labour amendment, which emphasises the need for Parliament to exercise its scrutiny function with rigour and for its approval to be sought when significant changes are proposed to a project of the magnitude of the Borders railway. I ask for support for the amendment in my name.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The debate has been slightly more interesting than I thought that it might be when I read the amendments. Although it has covered a reasonable range of topics in relation to the Borders rail link, it has brought little light to the subject and has certainly brought some confusion and uncertainty. That came in particular from the previous speaker, who is being unhelpful by introducing a synthetic uncertainty that need not be present.

I will respond to one or two matters that arose during the debate. There is no stall in the decision-making process, whatever Mr Purvis asserts on the subject. The non-profit distributing vehicle is, of course, established as part of the bid process when the project is put together, and members should realise that that is when it takes.

The special-purpose vehicle is a model with which we are entirely familiar. The point of the model is that it reduces dramatically the interest rates at which Government can borrow. Any benefit from the resulting profits is delivered back to the public sector. The core interest rate over the life of a Scottish Water PFI project in the late 1990s was set at 8.5 per cent; the mezzanine finance rate for the project was set at 13.75 per cent. It is absolutely clear from the interest that has already been expressed that the interest rates via which we will be able to fund the Borders rail project are of an entirely different character. The high level of interest rates has always been the central objection to the way in which things were done in the past.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Last week, the minister announced costs of £235 million to £295 million. How much of that sum is budgeted for interest payments?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member must put on his financial thinking hat. The figure that we announced refers to borrowing, which must be repaid over a period of time. The important point is that we have given certainty to the councils that are involved—certainty on the future of the railway, on the financial structure of the project and on the price. The financial model that we have chosen over the life of the project will deliver a cost-effective solution for the people of the Borders.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

If the figure of between £235 million and £295 million refers to the capital cost of the Borders rail project, what is the total cost—capital cost plus interest repayments—over the 60 years of the project?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member knows perfectly well that it is important for us to have a negotiation that delivers appropriate value for the public purse. We will, and we will be accountable to Parliament and the people of Scotland for that. No one will respect the concerns that Opposition members raise if they continue to introduce a synthetic uncertainty into the project; that is in no one's interest. Opposition members failed to address the issue during the recent debates on the budget.

Mr Johnstone raised the issue of journey times, which we have managed to reduce. I would also like to see freight on the railway. In the near future, I will speak at a major rail freight conference in London; I will also speak to the all-party parliamentary rail group at Westminster. I will not hesitate to take those key opportunities to raise the issue.

Reference was made to those who have supported the project since it began to be debated. I welcome the fact that Donald Dewar, Sarah Boyack and many others of different political persuasions accepted that the project was vital for the Borders. That is why some of the remarks that have been made today are distinctly unhelpful.

This year we have spent £14 million on land, site investigation and topical surveying. We started the outline design in 2007, without even waiting for the due diligence to be completed. The financial issue that has been raised is synthetic. I direct members to page 60 of the Liberal Democrat election manifesto, which states:

"I want to involve the private sector in financing and delivering priority transport facilities".

As we are into websites, I point out that the statement is available at www.nicolstephen.org.uk. Ms Grahame put her very substantial political finger on the nub of the issue. Under the Liberal Democrats, the Borders have been in the economic doldrums for years.

Charlie Gordon suggested that the minister had something to hide. He is correct—it is my humility.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

All members who represent the Borders have welcomed Jeremy Purvis's Lib Dem debate on the Borders rail project. Christine Grahame was keen to quote Mr Parker, the ex-SNP Scottish Borders Council leader. I will give her another quote from Mr Parker. It states:

"Given her appalling conduct"

on the cross-party group on Borders rail

"it seems clear that she does not, in fact, support the reintroduction of the railway. She should resign from the cross party group immediately and allow other MSPs, who have supported the promoters all along, to do the job properly."

The minister suggested that people in the Borders are not interested in where the money comes from, and did not clarify how much money he thinks will be needed. It is perhaps no coincidence that on this day, the ides of March, 2,052 years ago, in a similar forum in what is now Italy, a certain Caesar was stabbed in the back. The people of the Borders will feel that exactly the same thing has been done to them today—"Et tu, Brute?" I will translate that for members later.

Just last week, we debated a report on rural policy, which highlighted the difficulties associated with social exclusion in the south of Scotland and the problem of attracting young people to and keeping them in our area. There is a need for integrated public transport, which is a huge factor. Scottish Enterprise, which is now being dismantled by Jim Mather, says that a Borders railway would attract young people to and keep them in the area, provide better access to jobs and opportunities, boost tourism, create more inward investment and reduce road congestion.

Today's debate is disappointing because in 2006, during the previous session, the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill became law. The present Government has been in charge of the project for longer than any other Government. We were looking forward to the project being completed, not just started, by the end of this session, but now we are told that there is no specific scheduled start date for the project.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

The project has been talked about since 2000. Being absolutely fair and objective, what percentage of the delay is attributable to the Liberal Democrats?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Higher!

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

No percentage whatever of the delay is attributable to the Liberal Democrats, who have always pushed the project forward. That is the view of the same independent councillor who stated that Christine Grahame is holding the project back.

Today no light has been shed on the final cost of the project or on the shape that funding will take. Last week, the minister stated in the chamber that he

"will not give an exact cost for the railway".—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; c 6576.]

He has repeated that statement today. It is hardly Stevenson's Rocket—more like a slow train never coming. That is not good enough. I agree with my colleague Jeremy Purvis that last week's statement raised far more questions than it answered.

John Lamont (Conservative, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member give way?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I would like to make some progress. It is a pity that Mr Lamont did not get involved in the debate earlier.

The minister's statement was very disappointing, especially after he had taken a year out to review the project. The previous Executive committed £115 million to the development—the equivalent of £155 million now. We are now being told that the money to finance the cost of building the railway will be borrowed from an as yet unknown source, by an uncertain method, and paid back from the transport budget over 60 years.

As Jeremy Purvis mentioned, the minister's colleague Christine Grahame said on 6 March:

"the actual nitty gritty details are being worked out between Transport Scotland financial partnerships unit and Partnerships UK".

It is disappointing that the minister has not given us those details. Will he stand by the commitment that he gave in June and September 2007 to provide the Government funding of £155 million that has already been agreed for the project? Is he willing to state whether he will increase or decrease his portfolio's contribution to the project, given the uncertainty that now exists about the remainder of the project's costs, due to the SNP delay?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member asked a specific question about funding. We are providing the funding, forby the £30 million that we have capped for the councils. That commitment has been widely welcomed. The project will go forward.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I look forward to the project not going forward but, as Gavin Brown mentioned, being completed. That is the issue that interests people.

I was disappointed by Alex Johnstone's knowledge of history. Today we have heard from both the Tories and Labour about how much they would love to see the railway back, but it was the Tories who started to wield the Beeching axe in the late 1950s, reducing the size of the railway network. The 1960s Labour Government said that it would backtrack on that policy but failed to do so.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

By the same token, can we therefore claim that when the railway is built eventually, it will be the Liberal Democrats what done it? [ Laughter. ]

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

I thank the member for that.

The case for the Borders railway line has already been made and accepted. The Government has shunted that vital project on to a sideline; I plead for it to be put back on track. It is no coincidence that, despite frequent attempts, the SNP has gained no constituency seats in the south, nor is it ever likely to do so. I can see the timetable announcement in the Borders now: "SNP railway delayed".

I am happy to support the Lib Dem motion, of course, and look forward to some real certainty that the project will be finished.

Fuel Poverty

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1550, in the name of Liam McArthur, on fuel poverty.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is safe to say that over the course of the next hour and a quarter, we will hear members cite a range of statistics that are shocking, but which provide this Parliament and Government with an unambiguous call to action. Action must also come from the United Kingdom Government, local government, energy companies, civic Scotland and all of us as individuals.

It is simply unacceptable that, as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century, more than 650,000 households in Scotland are in fuel poverty—a rise of more than 230,000 over the past five years. Help the Aged estimates that, among older people, who make up a disproportionate number of those in fuel poverty in Scotland, a shameful 320,000 households are spending more than 10 per cent of their disposable income on fuel, despite the introduction of innovative and welcome initiatives, notably the warm deal and the free central heating programme.

Although those initiatives have made a real difference to the quality of life of many thousands of older and more vulnerable people in communities throughout Scotland, the staggering increase in the cost of fuel over the same period has resulted in an explosion in fuel poverty. It is estimated that a 5 per cent increase in fuel prices will result in 40,000 more Scottish households falling into the fuel poor category. In the past year alone, fuel prices have risen by more than six times the rate of inflation. At the same time, the energy companies' profits have soared by 500 per cent. The responsibility on those companies to do more to address fuel poverty in this country is beyond any reasonable dispute.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I agree with every word that the member has said so far. Does he agree that the measures announced yesterday in the chancellor's budget are wholly inadequate for dealing with the current crisis?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is an element of truth in what Alex Neil says.

In my constituency, the combination of the harsher climate and poorer housing stock with relatively lower wages and even higher fuel costs has led to acute difficulties in recent times. Such difficulties have been made worse by recent failures to carry out free central heating installations in a timely fashion. Those difficulties have not been helped by the continued unwillingness of UK ministers to consider a reduced fuel levy for remoter parts of the country.

Like other members, I know of older constituents who are choosing not to turn on their heating systems for fear of the bills that they might run up. The consequences of such action do not bear contemplating, not least when one considers that almost 3,000 deaths a year are already linked to people living in cold, damp housing. Such statistics are not in dispute, and nor is the political will across the Parliament to look at how we can address the problem, drawing on the lessons that have been learned to date.

Fuel poverty will continue to dodge any single magic bullet. That is why Liberal Democrats are challenging the Scottish Government to develop a one-stop-shop approach to tackling fuel poverty. Bringing together the warm deal, the central heating programme and the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative with effective advice services would make a real difference. That would make it quicker and easier to increase the installation of energy efficiency measures, such as better insulation, efficient central heating systems, microgeneration systems and smart meter technology. All those measures would not only save households money, but improve health and contribute to tackling climate change.

To achieve those outcomes, we believe that the Government should re-establish the fuel poverty forum, which should take the lead in developing a more joined-up approach that harnesses political consensus and drives concerted action. There should probably be a review of fuel poverty programmes first.

Under Nicol Stephen's leadership, Scottish Liberal Democrats are proud of playing a leading role in efforts to increase energy efficiency and promote microrenewables—both measures that can dramatically cut fuel bills for families in Scotland. However, we must do more. We call on the Government to make the installation of microgeneration schemes an easier and more attractive option for households. Planning rules need to be changed to remove one of the main obstacles to micropower installation, and we look forward to the Government taking swift action on the back of the consultation that has been launched.

We believe that using the local taxation levers that we have at our disposal is key. Evidence from elsewhere in the UK suggests that such incentives are tangible and therefore effective. I know that the minister has reservations about their use, but I hope that he will agree to consider seriously how such incentives, along with a range of other measures, might be made to work in the interests of increasing energy efficiency and reducing fuel poverty. In an otherwise acceptable SNP amendment, we need greater clarity on that point.

In their amendment, the Tories have sought to plagiarise our motion—I suppose that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery—but they remain coy about energy companies' profits and unambitious about local tax incentives. The Labour amendment is an addendum to our motion and strengthens it in the key area of money advice and energy advice.

In preparing for this morning's debate, I was not hard pressed to find any number of startling facts and figures. As I said, some of them are deeply depressing in 21st century Scotland. However, I was struck by the clarion call from Energy Action Scotland's director Norman Kerr in the organisation's most recent edition of its quarterly journal, Energy Review. Although he acknowledges many successes over recent years, he expressed genuine disappointment that his organisation is still around to celebrate its 25th anniversary this year.

I hope that all members will join me in committing to do what we can in this parliamentary session and beyond to create the conditions for making Norrie Kerr redundant. That would be a P45 worth celebrating. The Liberal Democrat motion today sets out a broad-based approach that can best achieve that worthwhile objective. I look forward to members' contributions to the debate.

I move,

That the Parliament deplores the fact that while household fuel prices have risen by six times the rate of inflation over the past year, power companies' profits have risen by 500%; is concerned that, for every 5% increase in fuel prices, it is estimated that 40,000 more Scottish households become fuel poor, while almost 3,000 deaths per year are linked to living in cold, damp housing; believes that tackling the social, health and environmental impacts of fuel poverty can save people money, improve health and help to tackle climate change; calls for the re-establishment of the Fuel Poverty Forum with a remit to include the development of a one-stop-shop approach to fuel poverty that increases the installation of energy efficiency measures, efficient central heating systems, microgeneration and smart meter technology; calls on the Scottish Government to consider the introduction of a local tax rebate to provide a further incentive to householders to invest in energy efficiency and microgeneration packages, and further calls for changes to planning rules to make it easier to install micropower.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I start by warmly welcoming this debate on such an important area, which impacts on far too many households throughout Scotland. As we have said before in the chamber, this Government is committed to eradicating fuel poverty as far as is reasonably practicable by 2016. We signed up enthusiastically to the previous Administration's target, which was bold when it was established in 2001. However, fuel poverty has doubled since 2002, as Liam McArthur said in his opening speech. We have a real challenge, but we are determined to rise to it.

According to the report "Fuel Poverty in Scotland", which was published in 2004, a closer look at the evidence shows that increased energy efficiency has a role to play in affecting fuel poverty, but that 50 per cent of the reduction in fuel poverty up to 2002 was due to rising incomes. The rise in fuel poverty since then is mainly due to fuel prices, which, as we all know, continue to march upwards.

Although we continue to invest in energy efficiency and to look for ways to maximise the impact of that investment on fuel poverty, we are also doing all that we can to influence prices and incomes for people who are fuel poor. We might not have control over many of the factors that affect prices and incomes, such as the tax and benefits system and the regulation of the energy markets, but we have a strong argument and take every opportunity to make it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that the UK Government should earmark the additional revenues that result from higher energy and oil prices to tackle fuel poverty?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I absolutely agree with Alex Neil that the UK Government is not going anywhere near far enough or quickly enough in tackling fuel poverty. I will come on to address some of the issues that I have raised with the UK Government.

I expect to be at the fuel poverty summit that the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has convened on 23 April, at which I will engage directly with ministers from across the UK on the core issues and the need for action across the board. In November 2007, I wrote to Hilary Benn at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and John Hutton at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, underlining the need for the re-establishment of just this kind of dialogue, which has apparently not taken place formally for more than two years.

I have met the energy companies in Scotland and the Energy Retail Association to encourage them to maximise progress in helping their most vulnerable customers. I welcome the Ofgem probe into energy supply markets that it announced recently. I intend to keep up the pressure on those who determine prices to ensure that they do all that they can to protect vulnerable people from falling into, or getting deeper into, fuel poverty.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The minister has outlined a number of worthwhile discussions. In that context, will he take forward discussions with Ofgem and Treasury ministers on the possibility of using a windfall tax on emissions trading certificates to address fuel poverty issues?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I fully expect many of these topics to be discussed at the fuel poverty summit on 23 April. There is a wide range of topics that we are all keen to see discussed, and a co-ordinated effort across the UK is needed to ensure that we tackle fuel poverty. Many of the levers—indeed, most of them—rest with UK ministers. I will raise a number of matters at the summit, including the issue that Liam McArthur raised.

Of course, the basic flaw in the political settlement is that it divides responsibility for these interconnected factors. As a result, too many of our households are left struggling to have a warm home. I see that as a key area for debate in the national conversation. In taking on the challenge of the fuel poverty target, we are maximising our impact on the factors that are not under our direct control. At the same time, we must ensure that we enable energy efficiency measures to maximise their impact on fuel poverty. We will do that by making the most effective use of our investment in the fuel poverty programmes. We will support that effort by maximising other opportunities for all householders to reduce their fuel costs.

I will give some examples. As Liam McArthur said, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change announced on 4 March a consultation on reforming the planning system to encourage greater use of microgeneration equipment. The Sullivan report "A Low Carbon Buildings Standards Strategy for Scotland" sets out a route towards zero carbon new buildings. We are also funding a dedicated worker in the Energy Saving Trust to ensure that Scotland gets its fair share of funding for insulation from energy suppliers through their carbon emissions reduction targets.

Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and I met many of the key stakeholders in tackling fuel poverty. We discussed how to reinvigorate the debate on fuel poverty and move forward in the most constructive way. We heard that the industry forum had not gone as far as stakeholders had hoped it would. Many said that they were disappointed with progress and felt that the forum had nothing more to offer. However, it is clear that there is much to discuss around how we can take things forward. We will continue those discussions. We are impressed by and welcome the stakeholders' appetite for a fresh start on the challenge to reach the 2016 target. As part of that wider debate, I also welcome this opportunity to hear members' views on what more can and should be done to tackle fuel poverty.

As I have discussed with the Local Government and Communities Committee, an internal review of fuel poverty work is being undertaken to take stock of what has been achieved to date, so that we can consider how to make improvements. I expect to share the findings with the committee once the review is complete. As is necessary for such an important issue at such a crucial stage, the review will be thorough and wide ranging.

I am determined to use our fuel poverty review as the starting point of a better and shared understanding of the action that we now need to take to tackle fuel poverty. Over the coming months, we must all focus our attention on the big picture of the fuel poor. Everyone must be part of that debate—parliamentarians, Government and all the groups that are concerned about or have an interest in fuel poverty—so that, together, we can come to a collective view on the way forward.

I move amendment S3M-1550.3, to leave out from "calls on the Scottish Government" to end and insert:

"recognises the Scottish Government's announcement on the consultation to remove planning restrictions on the wide range of energy generating and saving devices, and calls on the Scottish Government to make a statement to the Parliament before the summer recess outlining in detail its progress to more effectively address fuel poverty."

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As Liam McArthur said, the Labour Party amendment is an add-on to the Lib Dem motion. The aim of our amendment is to reinforce the importance of the role of the voluntary and statutory organisations in giving appropriate advice to those who are in fuel poverty.

For eight years, fuel poverty was a critical issue for the Labour-led Executive and the Parliament. There is no doubt that the issue was championed by members from across the parties. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us—I think of Margaret Ewing. Those members kept the issue on the agenda and worked hard to ensure that it did not get lost in the normal day-to-day party-political battles in which some of us are all too happy to engage.

The issues with which we are wrestling are difficult. The debate is important in building agreement on action. It is right that it should spur us on in recognising that there are still people who are cold in their homes and who have to choose between heating their homes and feeding themselves. In addition, the consequences of the rise in fuel prices have huge implications for people who are in fuel poverty.

The minister has broader responsibilities, including the important issue of people having quality housing with effective insulation measures. A broader question needs to be asked about housing policy and how local authorities and housing associations are supported in meeting the housing quality standard. Many people wanted to vote to get rid of housing debt for just that reason. In that broader housing debate, it is important that we hear from the minister how the Government plans to address the issue.

Labour strongly supports the fuel poverty forum. We recognise the potential for developing a one-stop shop. In the past, things perhaps became overfragmented, which may have led to a lack of understanding. Critically, the fuel poverty forum recognised that Scotland is blessed with strong voluntary sector organisations. People such as Norrie Kerr and others are committed to addressing fuel poverty and are creative in developing policy. They are also robust in challenging Government through their advocacy for those who are in fuel poverty, no matter which party is in government. The forum could have a key role to play in bringing the power companies to the table to discuss further the development of the social tariff and the rationalisation and harmonisation of programmes to ensure greater reach, and to consider why the poor face disproportionate charges for fuel.

Although I am sure that Alex Neil will not agree with me, I recognise the important strand that energy issues played in yesterday's budget. We can debate how far the Government has gone in addressing the issues, but in the announcements that were made it recognised that the issue is important to everyone.

Of course it is important to link work on energy efficiency measures and fuel poverty programmes. We must also recognise the importance of sustained money advice and energy advice, as such advice can reach out to those who are most vulnerable and who suffer most when action is not taken. Although general energy efficiency issues are critical, we must not lose our focus on the issue of the poor paying disproportionate charges.

I am disappointed that neither the Tories nor the SNP want to consider the notion of tax incentives for microgeneration measures. Labour's Sarah Boyack has done a huge amount of work on the area—the Government would not have to look far to get advice—and engaged with loads of people in the sector. I hope that the minister will look further into the work that she has done.

However, the reality is that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has set his face against such tax incentives. As a consequence, the hands of other ministers are tied. It is odd that a cabinet secretary who offered accelerated tax cuts to small business with no conditions attached will not support the use of taxation as a means of encouraging positive action on energy efficiency.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member is in her last minute.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I need to make progress, and have one minute remaining.

Labour members have an agreement with our Liberal Democrat colleagues on the issue, although we may not agree with their position on local taxation. The motion is moderate in its demands. It asks the Executive to look at the possibility of a local tax rebate, and it is disappointing that the Government will not countenance that. Instead of closing down the debate, the Executive could have said that it would include that option in its report to Parliament.

We know the challenges that are involved in eradicating fuel poverty by 2016. We acknowledge the important work that is being done and the challenging points that energywatch Scotland has raised about the central heating programme. It is important that the debate progresses. The minister spoke of an internal review. I urge him to have the confidence to externalise the review, particularly around the central heating programme. That would enable the Executive to hear what those who are trying to deliver the programme have to say about the challenges involved and the programme's effectiveness. In his response to the debate, I hope that the minister will tell the chamber that he recognises the importance of doing that.

I move amendment S3M-1550.1, to insert after "technology":

"recognises the importance of continued support for voluntary and statutory organisations providing debt management, money and energy advice to those most affected by fuel poverty;".

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The number of people who qualify as fuel poor dipped to a new low in this country in 2002, yet between the financial years 2004-05 and 2005-06, fuel poverty rose by 30 per cent, which was, of course, under the Liberal-Labour coalition. Most worryingly, nearly 50 per cent of single pensioner households are fuel poor. Therefore, although I congratulate Liam McArthur and think that he is right to highlight those appalling statistics, I point out that the situation came about under his Government's watch.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Let me make progress—I will come back to the member in a minute.

I well remember in the previous session of Parliament taking on, in a short period, more than 100 cases involving senior citizens in the Highlands and Islands who could not get the free central heating that they had been promised. Some of those people who had no heating were in Orkney and Shetland. Because the proportion of elderly people in our population is ever increasing, a long-term solution must be found if the Government is to honour its pledges on the central heating programme.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In a minute.

I am still listening to complaints on the issue from people from Campbeltown to Shetland.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Jamie McGrigor was quick to criticise the previous Executive, but he has been rather more coy about pointing to the 500 per cent increase in the energy companies' profits in the same period. As the minister and other members have made clear, the biggest driver of the increase in fuel poverty has been the rise in fuel prices.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the member will let me carry on, I will come to that.

We are told that there is a waiting list of 10,000 for the central heating programme, with an average waiting time of between five and six months. How many of those people might die as a result of that wait? The motion speaks of 3,000 deaths, which is a sobering thought. In my region, the Highlands and Islands, the problems are exacerbated by storms and bad weather, which often cut electricity supplies to rural households. More than a third of households in rural areas suffer fuel poverty whereas, in urban areas, the figure is a fifth.

I listened to the chancellor's speech yesterday, and it is good to know that he has finally woken up to the unfairness for customers who have prepayment meters. However, it is too late for most of those people, because they cannot get their money back. Prepayment meter customers pay on average £214 a year more than those who pay by direct debit, which is grossly unfair, particularly as the extra charge generally falls on those who can least afford it.

I am concerned that the latest price rises will hit low-income households the hardest. I welcome the response to political and customer concern about anti-competitive behaviour—we have the Ofgem investigation into the domestic retail market, which will report before the end of September, and the House of Commons Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee investigation. If the assertions that have been made are confirmed, steps must be taken to ensure that the customer gets a fair deal.

Increased energy efficiency can help the fuel poor. Scottish Gas has highlighted that, for every £3 that is spent on heating and lighting, £1 is lost immediately. Twenty-five per cent of carbon emissions are generated in the home, so we are wasting money and potentially damaging the environment. Energy efficiency measures are widely acknowledged to be the cheapest, cleanest and safest way in which to achieve Britain's climate change commitments. In addition, energy efficiency can make an important contribution on other energy priorities, including those on fuel poverty, supply shortages and sustainability. Best of all, energy efficiency makes money for those who invest in it—for example, installing cavity wall insulation can save £150 a year on energy bills in an average home.

I agree with Liam McArthur's sentiments regarding the fuel poverty forum, the goal of which was to end fuel poverty in Scotland by 2016. I note that the minister, Stewart Maxwell, has written to Westminster to ask the UK ministerial fuel poverty group to reconvene as soon as possible. Can he enlighten us as to the responses to that inquiry?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

indicated disagreement.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Apparently, he has not had a response—that is not very encouraging.

I support the investigations into the domestic retail market and the calls for the re-establishment of the fuel poverty forum. I call on the Scottish Government to ensure that the central heating programme reaches those who need it most as quickly as possible.

I move amendment S3M-1550.2, to leave out from "deplores the fact" to end and insert:

"regrets that the latest figures show that fuel poverty increased by 30% between 2004-05 and 2005-06, with nearly 50% of single pensioners experiencing fuel poverty, and welcomes the Ofgem investigation into the domestic retail market and the similar investigation by the House of Commons Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee; further regrets that almost 3,000 deaths per year are linked to living in cold, damp housing; believes that tackling the social, health and environmental impacts of fuel poverty can save people money, improve health and help to tackle climate change; calls for the re-establishment of the Fuel Poverty Forum with a remit to include the development of a one-stop-shop approach to fuel poverty that increases the installation of energy efficiency measures, efficient central heating systems, microgeneration and smart meter technology, and further calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the central heating programme is reaching those who need it most."

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

The motion proposes a local tax rebate. I understand the sentiment behind that, because anything that we can do to encourage more people to introduce energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources must be welcomed. However, in effect, the proposal is for a £100 grant. Do members really think that giving a £100 grant will encourage people to spend £3,000 on a solar energy installation on their roof? I do not think so.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Does the member now not support the provision of grants for the installation of community and household renewables? Is such a grant not a great deal better than the Scottish National Party proposal to give £2,000 to first-time buyers for no particular purpose at all?

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee West)

I support grants for renewables, but if we introduced that small £100 grant, the money would have to come from somewhere, and it might come from the more reasonable grants that can pay for a third of the cost of solar installations, which makes a difference. If there is a pot of money that we have not tapped into—some of the profits that the energy companies make could be used to provide more investment—grants for cavity wall insulation, which Jamie McGrigor mentioned, would have a much bigger impact. We should consider what more can be done to ensure that no houses in Scotland have cavity walls that are not insulated, as that is probably the easiest measure that we can take to have a big impact on fuel poverty and our CO 2 emissions.

It is a sad state of affairs when we must debate fuel poverty in Europe's most energy-rich nation. Scotland produces 10 times more oil and five times more gas than it consumes. We export 20 per cent of our electricity and have huge renewable resources, with 25 per cent of Europe's wind resources and about a quarter of Europe's tidal resources. We know that we face challenges in tapping into that huge renewable resource, but members are up for that challenge.

Despite the abundance of energy resources in Scotland, pensioners still die from cold and more than 1 million Scots live in fuel poverty. We all remember the massive price rises a couple of years ago that resulted in fuel bills rocketing. The reason for those huge increases was that the UK had become a net importer of gas, with about 5 per cent coming from overseas, despite the fact that Scotland is a net exporter. Scotland produces at least five times as much gas as the country uses, but a quarter of our households are fuel poor. That is the reality of the union dividend for the people of Scotland.

The previous Administration made a worthy effort to tackle fuel poverty—we must give credit where credit is due. The central heating programme made and still makes a big difference to households throughout Scotland. However, as we have heard from other members, as fast as some people are being pulled out of fuel poverty, more people are becoming fuel poor as a result of rocketing prices. The Parliament lacks resources to combat fuel poverty, the rate of which is three times that in England. We need power over regulation of the energy industry and control over Scotland's oil and gas to make a real difference to the hundreds of thousands of Scots who cannot afford to heat their homes.

Communities throughout Scotland hoped for strong action from the chancellor in yesterday's budget to ensure that energy companies put some of the huge profits that they make back into combating fuel poverty. The chancellor is not one for exciting speeches, and his announcement that energy companies will be encouraged to spend £150 million on social tariffs fell flat. Figures from energywatch show that the 5 million customers who have prepayment meters in the UK pay on average £255 more than consumers who pay online by direct debit for the equivalent energy. That tax on the poorest in our country means that energy companies rake in an extra £1.2 billion per year.

On the one hand, the chancellor talks about the energy companies spending £150 million, but we should compare that with the £1.2 billion a year that those companies make from the poorest energy users in society—it does not add up. The non-mandatory extra £150 million that the chancellor wants energy companies to put towards social tariffs is a drop in the ocean compared with the profits that those companies make. The budget attempts to tackle fuel poverty, but it fails to address the key underlying factor in the rise in fuel poverty, which is the high prices that energy companies charge people, particularly those who have prepayment meters.

Colleagues have shown their willingness to tackle the blight of fuel poverty. I agree with the majority of Liam McArthur's comments. However, the simplest way to combat fuel poverty is surely to take control of our huge energy resources and to ensure that the people of Scotland benefit from them—that would put an end to fuel poverty once and for all.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on fuel poverty. As has been acknowledged, it is a major issue, affecting 650,000 households throughout Scotland. Energy prices are increasing and energy companies are hiding behind the façade of rising wholesale prices. Analysis shows that much of the cost is being passed on to customers. It is a particular problem for pensioners—324,000 pensioner households are affected, which accounts for nearly half of the fuel poor. It is a particular problem in my constituency, where the number of pensioner households is high.

I disagree with Alex Neil and Joe FitzPatrick. There were some positive aspects to yesterday's budget. Increasing the winter fuel allowance for over-60s to £250 and for over-80s to £400 was a positive move and a step in the right direction.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the member accept that the increase in the allowance was 2.5 per cent compared with an increase in energy prices of around 40 per cent?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The fact of the matter is that for over-60s the allowance has gone up by £50 from £200, and for over-80s it has gone up by £100 from a base of £300. Those are significant increases, which are well above the rate of inflation. They are a serious step in the right direction of helping pensioners.

The minister asked for practical suggestions on how to move things forward. I will certainly give him some. He is committed to eradicating fuel poverty by 2016. In a recent debate, the Scottish National Party said that tackling poverty was at the core of its aims. Therefore, I am disappointed that it has not given support to Sarah Boyack's bill on energy efficiency and microgeneration. Measures in the bill include incentives to householders and housebuilders to put energy efficient measures in place and to offset council tax payments. Such incentives would tackle energy efficiency and fuel poverty. There is an excellent example of that in my constituency, where Rutherglen and Cambuslang Housing Association is putting solar panels in the housing stock, which is resulting not only in energy being used more efficiently but in reduced bills, particularly for pensioners. Sarah Boyack visited the scheme with me and we spoke to a number of pensioners who had experienced real benefits from it. The minister would be better going down that route than down the council tax freeze route. The £70 million from the council tax freeze would have been better invested in the scheme that Sarah Boyack proposes, which would have done more to tackle fuel poverty.

The minister should be a lot more robust in his discussions with energy companies. Prepayment meters have been mentioned. Direct debit customers pay £137 more and online customers £214 more. Scottish Power has a scheme for back-charging, which it has implemented in Scotland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom. I would like to know what discussions the minister has had with Scottish Power and other energy companies about prepayment metering.

I welcome yesterday's announcement by Alistair Darling of an increase from £50 million to £150 million to tackle social tariffs. He said that he would legislate if necessary to get that through.

We also need to consider smart meters, which are a good way of achieving energy efficiency. The minister should take forward the matter in discussions with energy companies. There is a sound business case for such meters for companies, because it saves them money and makes their billing systems more efficient.

There is broad agreement among members that we need to tackle fuel poverty, but we must also consider the practical suggestions for how we do that. The minister should look again at the Boyack bill and should be more robust in discussions with energy companies on prepayment metering and smart meters. In that way, he will demonstrate that he really means what he says about eradicating fuel poverty by 2016.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is no coincidence that a significant number of our debates centre around either water or fuel—water because we tend to have rather too much of it, and fuel because in our climate we are in constant need of it. In the north of Scotland, a home can spend 68 per cent more on fuel than one in the south of England. That factor lies behind the tentative debate in Scotland on the issue.

I was disappointed with the Conservative amendment. While most of the other amendments concentrated on measures to tackle fuel poverty, as far as I can understand it the Conservative amendment—apart from jumbling up the wording—seemed to exclude three issues: fuel company profits; the possible tax rebate for energy efficiency and microgeneration; and planning rule changes. Taking those issues out of the debate is not a helpful way to take the matter forward.

Across the board, the single most successful policy measure taken in the Parliament has been the free central heating scheme that was introduced for those people most challenged by fuel poverty. It is regrettable that the roll-out of that provision has fallen into arrears under the current Government. The delivery time has gone up from 114 days to 239 days. The minister must spare no effort in getting it back on track.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The member is not comparing like with like. He is comparing the survey waiting time with the final installation time. Those are two separate sets of figures. He might as well compare apples and elephants.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am not sure that that is necessarily a correct rendering of the matter. Over recent weeks, there has been quite a lot of publicity of the issue. The SNP Government has also flat-lined the budget in that area, causing a real-terms decrease of 2.6 per cent a year. I notice that the minister is not standing up to challenge that point.

There is probably more agreement on it being time to move forward on a more unified system, and to roll up the central heating scheme, the warm deal and the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative into a single gateway for accessing free installation of microgeneration technology and smart metering. It is also time to address the idea of a benefits check. I would like to develop those points a little.

As I have said in a number of previous debates, microgeneration has many advantages, but one of the biggest in this context is the potential for stable pricing, which is a huge attraction for people on low incomes. The challenge is the capital cost of the installation of microgeneration devices but, once installed, the resultant energy is not subject to price increases. That is why I welcome the Government's proposed relaxation of planning restrictions on such devices. However, the Government must go further. James Kelly rightly referred to housing associations, which are often pioneers in this field. They should be encouraged and funded to roll out microgeneration, and private householders should be given information and support to take it up. All of that would help to increase demand and—importantly—bring down the unit cost. Once we reach that take-off point, there will be a drive forward. Incidentally, there are big opportunities for Scottish businesses in that area. Joe FitzPatrick may or may not be right to criticise the incentive idea. It is certainly worth considering. All that the motion proposes is that we should examine the potential for encouraging the take-up of such devices in the private household market.

On smart metering, it is trite to say that people on low incomes are those most likely to have prepayment meters, but people do not always realise that such customers are likely to pay an average £214 a year extra for gas and electricity compared with the best deals available. Even worse is the way in which they can be thrown into unnecessary debt because of delays in recalibrating meters after a price rise. A while back, I had a motion before Parliament on that matter. Members should say quite categorically that it is the responsibility of the fuel companies—who make substantial profits, as has been pointed out—to sort that out. If they cannot, they should refrain from charging customers for the increase. No other business would get away with taking such a cavalier attitude to their customers. The whole subject is linked to the sluggish introduction of smart metering and the anti-competitive practices of National Grid, which recently earned it a £41.6 million fine.

This is a timely debate. I welcome the Government's constructive response to it but, at the end of the day, this is about living standards and the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in Scotland. Our response as a Parliament must be equal to the challenge.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

As many members have testified, fuel poverty blights every region of this energy-rich country. I make no apology for pointing to a particular problem in my constituency. I cite the Western Isles as being where the problem afflicts Scotland most extremely. Seventeen per cent of Scottish households are officially in fuel poverty; in the Western Isles, the figure is 42 per cent or, if we aggregate the last three surveys, 46 per cent. In other words, getting on for half my constituents are paying more than a tenth of their income just to keep tolerably warm.

Some of the reasons for that are obvious enough: the wind-chill factor; the ageing population; and the unavailability of mains gas in most areas of the islands. There are also some distinct historical reasons. Government grants in the 1930s were designed to get people out of the thatched black houses, and another wave of housebuilding took place in the 1970s. The new houses were not all fuel efficient and many of them are now in need of significant repair. The most recent Scottish house condition survey indicated, unsurprisingly, that dwellings in the Western Isles score among the lowest in Scotland according to national home energy rating measurements. In the islands, 92 per cent of houses scored 6 or under on the 10-point scale.

Many people in the islands live in what might, at first sight, be classed as private sector accommodation, but their houses are in fact tied to crofts and to crofting legislation—and that is not to mention the several hundred people who are waiting to get a house at all. The islands have a huge task on their hands to deal with that legacy of inefficient and ageing housing stock, which was recognised by the Government's recent decision to dedicate an extra £750,000 to the housing repairs budget in the islands.

Given all that, like many other members, I looked hopefully to the UK budget for signs that fuel poverty would be genuinely tackled, but that hope was largely confounded.

I welcome any initiative, however small, to get a better deal for people who use prepayment meters, but the call from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the energy companies to spend an extra £50 million on social tariffs must be seen in two telling contexts. First, the social tariffs are not mandatory for the companies. Secondly, the sum amounts to less than a week's profits for them.

Whatever Westminster's failures in this area, I hope that we in Scotland can take a lead. Therefore, I welcome the freeze in council tax, which will, slowly but surely, take people out of fuel poverty. As the Scottish fuel poverty statement of 2002 made clear, it defines household income net of council tax. A local income tax would certainly remove more people from fuel poverty.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member acknowledge that one of the key charges that the SNP must face is that a council tax freeze does not actually help the poorest people in our communities and, therefore, it is bizarre to claim that a freeze will somehow address fuel poverty? Regardless of the separate argument about whether the freeze is a good thing or a bad thing, it is certainly not directly in the interests of the poor.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

I thank the member for that intervention, and I challenge her to come to my constituency and explain to pensioners that it would be a good idea for them to continue to pay the council tax.

I welcome the current review of the Government's central heating scheme. Like other members, I pay credit where it is due. When it was first introduced, the scheme made significant progress in tackling fuel poverty—36,000 houses received central heating. However, any member who is alive to the contents of their mailbag must see the flaws that are now appearing in the scheme. The character of the scheme's operation has changed. In certain areas, certainly in the Western Isles and the other islands, there have been periods when no installations have taken place. It is unclear whether the scheme takes account of the needs of areas where there is no mains gas supply. I hope that, despite the howls of contrived outrage that greeted the news of a review—from some parties, anyway—we can all now see that if we are going to tackle fuel poverty, such a review is welcome and long overdue.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank all the members who have contributed so far to the debate on an issue that I think is of fundamental importance to everyone in Scotland. As one of the ministers with responsibility for tackling fuel poverty through the central heating programme and the warm homes agenda in the initial years of the Parliament, I welcome the progress that we made. I will perhaps comment later in my speech on some of the regrettable developments since the election of the SNP Government last May.

I note with interest that virtually all the members who have spoken on behalf of the SNP so far have focused on what the UK Government and the chancellor could be doing about fuel poverty, rather than on the responsibilities and powers that they have in this Parliament. We should measure their contribution in that context.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I want to make progress on these fundamental issues.

We were making progress using the powers that we had in the Scottish Parliament. That is why we now have the central heating programme that was developed by the previous Executives. We gave support to energy efficient housing in new developments. The fact that 80,000 pensioners and almost 315,000 homes have, in different ways, benefited from those programmes is testament to the vision of the previous Executives.

There are concerns contained in the briefings that we have all received for the debate, not from political parties but from organisations that are involved in the sector. They are equally critical of what is being done here as they would be of what is being done at Westminster. That is right and proper, as they are campaigning organisations. We should be concerned that the waiting time for central heating installation has almost doubled. The minister might shake his head in disagreement, but those are not Frank McAveety's words nor the words of any other MSP; they are words from the briefing from Energy Action Scotland. The minister can take up the issue with Energy Action Scotland.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Irrespective of whether the member is quoting Frank McAveety's words or anybody else's words, the fact is that the average waiting time has remained at roughly six months. It is six months this year; it was five to six months last year; and it was six months the year before. For the first two years of the programme, when Frank McAveety's Administration was in charge, the average waiting time was eight months.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

In a briefing paper, Energy Action Scotland cited 114 days in May 2007 and 229 days in January 2008. I know whom I would much prefer to believe. In their recent contributions at the Local Government and Communities Committee, the installers—the key agencies for delivering the programme—indicated that the ambition that the minister expressed to the committee would be difficult to fulfil in the time remaining.

Members have touched on the need to have a much more responsible approach to microgeneration, and some have identified ways in which that can be done. I stress the action that we can take here in Scotland, and I welcome the chance for further dialogue. The minister has indicated that the statement that will be made to Parliament in the near future will address the dialogue involving organisations such as Energy Action Scotland and the fuel poverty forum. That would be a welcome development.

We have considerable concern about the role of the major companies involved, but I understand that the Government has good relationships with them, in particular with Scottish Power. Let us engage in a debate with Scottish Power around its position of, in effect, not releasing the debt of people in Scotland who have prepayment meters, although it will do so for those elsewhere in the UK, in areas that the company has inherited owing to its expansion. It would be helpful to open up such a dialogue.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

rose—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The member has one minute left.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am in my final minute, and it is important to make this point.

We have major issues to address, as we have been called on to do by Energy Action Scotland and other organisations. One is the need to refine the central heating programme, in particular to address the installation time. I disagree profoundly with what the minister will probably say in his winding-up speech. In members' experience, there is an increase in the number of people who are waiting for central heating installation, and more problems are emerging in that regard.

There are many acronyms involved in the fuel poverty industry: HTA, or Help the Aged; ERA, the Energy Retail Association; and EAS, or Energy Action Scotland. This is a new one for me: MSFM—Mr Salmond's favourite minister. I ask Stewart Maxwell to concern himself with the issues that campaigning organisations and constituency and regional members of the Parliament have raised, and to make three differences on: installation under the central heating programme; a social insurance programme, as identified; and taking a one-stop-shop approach, as Liam McArthur suggested, to try to integrate what we do throughout Scotland. If we do that and advocate measures to tackle the fuel companies, we can address fuel poverty much more effectively.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

By and large, this has been a good debate with many measured speeches, which reflects the commitment throughout Parliament to tackling fuel poverty. I am grateful to Johann Lamont for mentioning our good friend Margaret Ewing, who did such fantastic work on the issue. I know that Alex Neil, too, would have liked to contribute, but the debate has been unfortunately too short. I will make an exception for Frank McAveety, who is quite an exceptional person. Some of us have long memories, so we remember the Labour-Liberal Democrat record in Government.

We acknowledge that there are three contributory factors to fuel poverty: household income, the energy efficiency of houses and fuel prices. I recall a debate in November 2003 in which Opposition members were forced to debate a motion that congratulated the Executive on the central heating programme's success in reducing fuel poverty. In that debate, I said:

"Although I accept that the Executive has made progress, I think that it is disingenuous to suggest that the reduction in the number of fuel-poor families is ... down to Executive and Government action."—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; c3522.]

Most independent commentators at the time acknowledged that the reason why there was a drop in fuel poverty up to 2002 was that price rises had been limited—there had been very few. I warned then that what comes down will go up and that when fuel prices started to rise, we would see a consequent increase in fuel poverty, which has proved to be the case. In 2002, 580,000 people in Scotland were in fuel poverty, and by 2005-06, the figure had risen to 959,000. Most of that increase was down to rises in fuel costs.

I take issue with what Frank McAveety said and contrast the record of this Government on the central heating programme with the record of his Executive. In Glasgow in October, November and December 2007—the three worst months of the year—under this SNP Government, there were 648 installations. In the same period in 2006, when Labour was in Government, there were only 34 installations in the Glasgow postcode area.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member give way?

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

Yes, in a moment.

In my area of Fife, in October, November and December 2007, there were 183 installations in the KY postcode area. I will let members guess how many installations there were in the same period in 2006. Precisely none. This Government will not take lectures from those who failed abysmally to ensure that the central heating programme was available when it was needed. The record speaks for itself.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The specific time that Tricia Marwick chose for her comparison was of course the time of the transition from Eaga delivering the programme to Scottish Gas delivering the programme. I was involved at the time and wrestled with these issues. I will not pretend that the figures were great, but they are explainable and we acted to deal with the situation. The SNP now has to act to deal with the fact that waiting times are increasing and people are losing confidence in the central heating programme and buying their own systems because they have been told to expect delays of up to a year. I have a constituency case if Tricia Marwick wants an example.

Tricia Marwick (Scottish National Party, Central Fife)

The previous Executive was responsible for managing the transfer of responsibility, in which it failed abysmally. I welcome the fact that the minister has said that there is going to be a review of the programme. When the programme was introduced by the previous Executive, I said that I wanted it to be extended to families with young children. The one life-enhancing experience for young children is to grow up in a dry, warm home. I hope that the minister will consider including in the programme further categories of people who could benefit from it.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The debate has been interesting and constructive points have been made by members of all parties. I am pleased to acknowledge that even Robert Brown made constructive points today.

I acknowledge the points that were made by Alasdair Allan and Liam McArthur about housing in the Western Isles and the Orkney Islands. Those points need to be highlighted. I echo Johann Lamont's tribute to the late member who did excellent work here and at Westminster.

Any debate that raises awareness of fuel poverty is welcome, given that the Scottish house condition survey revealed a 30 per cent rise in fuel poverty between 2004-05 and 2005-06. Many factors determine fuel poverty: for example, the price of fuel, wage levels, welfare benefits and the type of fuel that is used. We can all argue about which is the most significant contributory factor, but none of us is arguing about the contribution of energy efficiency measures to household and business bills and to tackling climate change. We can also discuss the various incentives to invest in energy efficiency measures and microgeneration. I am pleased to hear that the Government is considering those.

In our manifesto for last year, we pledged to invest £12 million a year in an eco-bonus scheme for households, communities and small businesses, who would be able to apply for a grant to install modern energy-saving and energy- creating technology. That could include microgeneration, solar-powered heat and water and wood-fuel heating. Under the scheme, households and businesses would be entitled to apply for a grant of up to £4,000 to cover the cost of buying and installing a wind turbine or solar panel. Community projects could apply for a grant of up to £100,000. Consumers would see a cut in their energy bills, small-scale renewable technology production would be given a boost, and there would be a reduction in carbon emissions. Under such an initiative, there are no losers—there are only winners.

We also called for an urgent review of building standards to incorporate world class energy-saving design. I appreciate that we proposed a different incentive system to the one that the Liberal Democrats are proposing, but the end result would be the same.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mary Scanlon made interesting points about incentives. I am therefore slightly surprised that the Conservative amendment to our motion would remove any reference to incentives and would not replace them with anything else.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

That is a fair point. I am now putting forward our suggested incentives. Whether they are better than the Liberal Democrats' incentives is a subject for debate. I think that our policy is excellent.

With Jim Hume, Jack McConnell, Rob Gibson and Robin Harper, I am the Conservative participant in the Friends of the Earth Scotland energy challenge for MSPs, which has been extremely interesting. I live in a 14-year-old house in Inverness, which I presume was built to all the required building standards of 14 years ago. It is quite shocking to see from the thermal imaging that the insulation is not quite what I thought it would be. The Tory Government did not build my house—I think that we need to ensure that builders are meeting energy efficiency requirements.

I have discovered local energy advice centres. I have to admit that I did not know that they existed and I hope that they will be rolled out throughout Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

This has been a constructive debate, although I suspect that Tricia Marwick mistakes being critical for being unconstructive. When one is in Government, one needs to recognise that hard things will be said, and one has to be responsible for what happens on one's watch. My constructive-comment count has been very high today, if I may say so.

I urge Government back benchers and the Minister for Communities and Sport to look again at the issue of a tax incentive. We are asking the Government only to consider it, as we believe that it will make a difference and a lot of work on it has already been done. Joe FitzPatrick said that the money would have to come from somewhere, which I accept. That is the responsibility of Government, and we ask it only to consider the proposal. I would be more likely to accept the note of caution about choices from a party that had not spent the morning criticising the choices that were made at UK level.

I want the Government to think about the choices that it makes. The incentive might be only £100, and it might not make as much difference as some of us might hope, but the Government has committed, at the last count, to over £200 million in business tax cuts, with not one condition concerning energy efficiency. The Government still advocates the £2,000 first-time buyers grant, which will inflate house prices and will not do anything to counter fuel poverty. Those are giveaways and, in that context, Joe FitzPatrick's comment about the money having to come from somewhere rings a little hollow.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Would Johann Lamont like to redirect the more than half a billion pounds that is being spent on the Edinburgh trams to tackle fuel poverty?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I do not want to lecture Bob Doris on being in Government, but he needs to avoid having a single transferable alibi. The Government must take responsibility for the choices that it makes. I accept that the Government has chosen to freeze the council tax. It should not pretend that that will address fuel poverty—it will not, although it might address some issues.

Regarding the central heating programme, I note that the minister said that he is holding an internal review. If the Government is going to examine the central heating programme, it should not be in denial. There were hard issues in 2006, which we addressed. There are currently serious issues concerning the central heating programme, and the Government cannot pretend that those do not exist. I urge the minister to talk to those who are delivering. They tell us that the £7 million that has been announced by Nicola Sturgeon comes nowhere near to addressing the problem, and they tell us about the bizarre situation in which although we have the capacity for installations, companies are going out of business because they are not getting any work as a result of pricing levels. Those issues must be confronted.

The Tory amendment says that the central heating programme should be revised to ensure that it

"is reaching those who need it most."

That is the ultimate tension in the programme, so I urge the minister to ensure that we have an "open and constructive" debate on the issue, in the words of energywatch Scotland, which says some challenging things to all of us who saw the development of the central heating programme.

An internal review by the minister is not adequate—those who live with the programme have something to say. I welcome the fact that the minister has indicated his support for the fuel poverty forum, and I hope that that will be addressed, along with the broader issues that we have outlined.

On the work of Communities Scotland—and, I believe, the Scottish Building Standards Agency—being brought in-house, we need bodies that have a commitment to and an understanding of issues such as energy efficiency and fuel poverty. In the absence of those organisations, there must be greater pressure on the Government and its officials to ensure that that critical work—supporting housing associations, giving advice and ensuring that there is movement from policy to practical delivery—is still carried out. Whatever the weaknesses and criticisms of those agencies, they did an important job and I would like the minister to tell us how he intends to address their absence.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As members have said, the debate has been interesting and generally constructive. It has involved many issues that members have raised on behalf of their constituents, which reflect the contents of my postbag. I will respond to a number of members' points.

Johann Lamont raised a number of issues, including the fact that our amendment would remove mention of tax rebate. Although that is technically correct, we want—as I said in my opening speech—to debate the big picture, and to consider all the options. We are not ruling anything out, which is why the amendment mentions bringing the issue back to Parliament for a full debate before the summer recess—with contributions from all parliamentarians, all the committees that have an interest in the area, and outside stakeholders—to decide how to tackle fuel poverty. That is important, particularly given the figures that many members have quoted today concerning the rise in fuel poverty levels in Scotland. All options are being considered, and nothing has been rejected at this stage.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the minister state for the record that, in that context, consideration of local tax incentives is still very much part of the review?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Any member and any party in Parliament can propose ideas to the debate. I have said that I have some doubts about tax incentives—we have discussed that in passing in the past few days—but it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. We will debate that before the summer recess, and decide whether it is the proper way forward. There are a number of other options: Mary Scanlon mentioned a number of other possible incentives that we might want to discuss.

I said in my opening speech that I am more than happy to share the results of the internal review with the Local Government and Communities Committee and the rest of Parliament when it is complete.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Many people other than parliamentarians would want to contribute to the review, rather than just be given a report on it when it is complete.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I met a number of outside stakeholders, including Energy Action Scotland, last year. Last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing and I met a wide range of stakeholders to ask for their opinions and contributions to the review—that is why we met them before ending the review.

On waiting lists for the central heating programme, we can argue about figures until the cows come home, but the average waiting time is roughly where it was last year and the year before. The number of people who are waiting the longest—at the furthest end of the list—is declining week by week under the programme that we have instigated.

Joe FitzPatrick rightly pointed out that we must use all the levers to tackle fuel poverty because we have very few levers in that area. Although other members, including Frank McAveety, said that we in Government spend our time moaning about the UK, the fact remains that the vast majority of the levers—including the levers for energy prices and the whole of the energy market—rest with the UK. It is right for us to point out that the UK must play its part, because it has the levers and we do not.

Frank McAveety also mentioned rocketing fuel prices in Scotland, and other members mentioned the fact that we have rocketing fuel poverty in an energy-rich Scotland. It is important to remember that Scotland is a net exporter of energy.

James Kelly and other members asked why the Government is not backing Sarah Boyack's bill on local taxation proposals. I ask Mr Kelly why the Labour-Lib Dem Executive did not back Sarah Boyack's ideas when it was in power for eight years. It had plenty of opportunity to do so, but it did not, so Labour members should not come moaning to us when we are thinking about it.

I have had robust discussions with the energy companies on a number of matters that are extremely important to us all. It remains the case that the UK Government has responsibility, so I would welcome James Kelly's support for us in ensuring that the powers are devolved to this Parliament, so that we can have robust discussions and take firm action when necessary.

Robert Brown mentioned renewables. The renewables pilot is ongoing and will report in the summer. We will respond at that point. Alasdair Allan made a particularly thoughtful speech about the situation in the Western Isles, and about the bigger picture with regard to fuel poverty and the role of the central heating programme within that.

I finish with a quote from a number of key stakeholders, including Energy Action Scotland, Citizens Advice Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland and Shelter Scotland, who recently wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. In that letter, they said:

"In our view, the current programmes are not targeted effectively at fuel-poor households and are failing in their primary goal of eradicating fuel poverty. Ineffective targeting means that there are recipients of the programmes, in particular the central heating programme, who are not necessarily fuel poor."

That is one of the reasons why we instigated a review of fuel poverty. We want to find out whether, after seven years, the programmes are delivering. I welcome all contributions to the debate, and I hope that members will support our amendment so that we can have a full and frank debate about the issues that we all must sign up to so that we can move forward.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

As the Lib Dem shadow Minister for Communities and Sport, it has been my pleasure to work with a number of people and organisations who are seeking to eradicate fuel poverty. Not least among them are Norrie Kerr and Elizabeth Gore of Energy Action Scotland. I know that they are dedicated to eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland, and I have seen some of their work in practice, when I visited a local pensioner in my constituency a few weeks ago who had just had her insulation upgraded free of charge.

Having been involved in working towards the eradication of fuel poverty in my constituency for a number of years, I know that the target of ending fuel poverty as far as possible by 2016 is tough. However, it is a target that will, if it is met, make many people's lives more comfortable, but for some it will also literally be a life saver. To reach the target will take a co-ordinated effort from a number of public, private and voluntary partners. That is why I welcome the dedication of Energy Action Scotland and others to eradicating fuel poverty in Scotland.

I also had a briefing a few months ago from Sam McEwan of the Energy Retail Association about pressing the Westminster Government to progress a national roll-out of smart meters. As that could be heavily subsidised by the private sector, it is shocking that Labour in Westminster has not welcomed the opportunity with open arms.

All members are aware of the devastating effect that rising fuel prices have on tackling fuel poverty in this country. From 2003 to 2007, the average dual-fuel bill rose from £543 to £914—a rise of 68 per cent in only four years. What have been the consequences? There have been rising levels of fuel poverty in Scotland and a massive increase in profits for the energy companies, with British Gas reporting annual profits of £571 million in 2007, up from £95 million in 2006.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer had the opportunity yesterday to address those obscene profits, but he chose to ignore them and instead allow the energy companies to continue to make huge profits on the backs of the most vulnerable in society. It is a scandal that customers on prepayment meters are paying more than those who have access to internet direct debit tariffs. Companies must make their cheapest social tariffs available to the most vulnerable customers.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Is Jim Tolson aware that in 2004 Mike Weir MP tried to amend the UK Energy Bill to ensure that additional tariffs in prepayment meters would not be allowed? In 2008, Alistair Darling has again refused to act. Does the member agree that, as a one-stop shop to tackling fuel poverty, competence for energy prices should be returned to this Parliament so that we can tackle fuel poverty?

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Although a one-stop shop would do a lot of things, we are not seeking an independent Scotland on the back of it.

Presiding Officer,

"Companies like EDF Energy and British Gas have made significant efforts"

with social tariffs,

"But one thing the Government should have learned by now is that relying on voluntary action by suppliers will not deliver the goods."

Those are not my words, but the words of energywatch in the aftermath of yesterday's budget, to which Frank McAveety also referred. Liberal Democrats believe the fuel poverty forum should be re-established—my colleague Ross Finnie has written to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing on that very matter.

Included in the minister's deliberations should be an examination of the development of a one-stop-shop approach to fuel poverty that increases the installation of energy efficiency measures, efficient central heating systems, microgeneration and smart meter technology. Only by taking immediate action will the Scottish Government be able to tackle the growing number of individuals who are in fuel poverty.

There have been some very good speeches, not least from my colleague Liam McArthur, who opened the debate by highlighting the disproportionate effect on elderly households and the poor quality of houses that many people reside in, particularly in the island communities. Jamie McGrigor made a good point about the Highlands and Islands suffering more because of the frequent breaks in energy supply.

Johann Lamont raised the important issue of not only the 2016 fuel poverty targets but the 2015 targets to improve the quality of homes throughout Scotland.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The member should be winding up now.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Nearly there.

Stewart Maxwell made the welcome statement that all options would be considered and that a debate on fuel will be held before the summer recess. I also welcome the minister's assurances on reform of the planning system in respect of microrenewables.

I am heartened by what I hope is Government support for our motion—it has been a while in coming. This has been a mostly consensual debate, and I hope that members from all round the chamber will support our motion whether amended or not.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the withdrawal of housing estates renewal funding from the Mayfield community regeneration project in Arbroath will be used to offset local and national reductions in housing association grant, reported to be 25 per cent in Tayside in 2008-09. (S3O-2563)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

No. The housing estate regeneration fund is not being withdrawn. The fund was introduced for a three-year period ending on 31 March 2008 and was only ever intended as a short-term programme. HERF monies are part of the 2007-08 budget and therefore cannot be used against spending plans for the financial year 2008-09.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is there therefore an alternative that will allow money that was not able to be spent on phase 4 of the regeneration project at Mayfield, which is not yet completed, to be carried over, or is there alternative funding that councils can apply for to replace funding that was not used within the original allocation period?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In the situation that the member raises, the local council, partly through its own behaviour and partly through that of others, has not used the money available to it in the period up to 31 March 2008. It was made clear to the council on a number of occasions that the money would not be available after 31 March 2008 and that it could not be carried forward or rolled over into next year without the effect being a cut in the affordable housing budget.

There is no roll forward for the money in question. The money was reallocated to this year's priorities once the council made it clear that it would not spend it in the financial year up to 31 March 2008.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it intends to implement the findings of the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland's report on the moving and handling of young people with disabilities. (S3O-2612)

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government welcomes the "Handle with Care" report from Scotland's Commissioner for Children and Young People and in particular its emphasis on consultation, dignity and positivity.

As with all issues and challenges faced by children and young people with disabilities, a coherent approach is required to moving and handling. We will develop an approach that covers practice in health, education, social work and other relevant sectors and that takes stock of the recommendations in "Handle with Care" as well as the views and feelings of children and young people and their families.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

It is apparent from the report that a risk-averse culture has developed throughout Scotland, which is severely hampering the life chances and rights of children and young people, and it is clear that new and robust national guidance is needed. Will the minister agree to establish a stakeholder working group to develop that guidance, involving professionals, parents and children and young people, to ensure that the guidance brought into place is appropriate to their needs and takes into account their wishes and aspirations so that they can enjoy the fullest possible life?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am certainly strongly supportive of the commissioner's recommendation that blanket no-lifting policies should be abandoned by local authorities. That poor practice is about penny-pinching on training and certainly not about improving accessibility.

Engaging with children and young people is obviously important, as is involving them in solving their accessibility problems. As the member will know, appropriate legislation is in place, including the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, with its requirement for all education authorities to publish a disability equality scheme.

Guidance is also available, including "Helping Hands: Guidelines for Staff who provide Intimate Care for Children and Young People with Disabilities", which was published in 1999. We will revise that guidance in the light of the commissioner's report and follow up on other reports, such as the Audit Scotland report "Adapting to the future: Management of community equipment and adaptations" and "Equipped for Inclusion: Report of the Strategy Forum: Equipment and Adaptations". We will involve parents and children in the revision process.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister consider establishing a central register of the number and distribution of children and young people who require moving and handling assistance, to enhance planning for resource allocation?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

We can consider that when we review the recommendations in the commissioner's report and revise the guidance, as I have said we will. I will take on board that interesting suggestion.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

My colleague Karen Gillon mentioned the safety of the children who are involved, but workers who participated in the consultation said that they felt restricted from lifting and handling and from offering the service that they would like to offer. How will the minister address that while ensuring the safety of children and of workers?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

As I intimated, I am particularly interested in following up the commissioner's recommendations on local authority lifting policies. The guidance will focus on that.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to address and highlight the dangers of underage drinking. (S3O-2607)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We have rolled out test purchasing of alcohol to crack down on retailers that sell alcohol to young people who are under 18. By the end of March, all police forces will have live test purchasing operations. However, we must get better at diverting young people from misusing alcohol in the first place. The curriculum for excellence will ensure that all young people are aware of the implications of the use and abuse of alcohol and become confident individuals who can make the right choices.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I ask the minister to continue to provide support and financial assistance to help educate young people about the danger to their health and the havoc that young folk who go about in crowds can cause in communities.

What more can the Scottish Executive do to deal with irresponsible adults who buy alcohol to sell or pass on to young people? We really should address that.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

As the member is probably aware, the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 creates wider offences, including those of selling alcohol to a child anywhere and of purchasing alcohol on a child's behalf, and, for a child, the offence of buying or attempting to buy alcohol anywhere. In line with the seriousness of selling alcohol to children, penalties have been raised from a £1,000 fine to a £5,000 fine, a three-month jail sentence or both. The act will come into force in September next year.

The issue is serious. Far too many adults are too willing to buy alcohol for those who are underage. If they are caught, they will feel the full force of the law. We need to get better at using intelligence to catch such individuals and we will examine additional measures to achieve that.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the Scottish Government have proposals to deal with the problem of underage and young drinkers who drive cars or ride motorcycles?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

That issue is important. First, we need to get across the message that such behaviour is dangerous. We have only to look at the statistics to see how many fatal road accidents are linked to alcohol and drug misuse. Communication and education among young people are needed. We will take that forward in the review of substance misuse education in our schools. We have established a steering group to consider how we can improve young people's education on substance misuse, so that they are aware of the dangers, including the danger of using a vehicle when under the influence. We must also ensure that when any young person is caught acting in that manner, they are dealt with swiftly and severely.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The minister will be aware that Fife Constabulary is cracking down on adults who supply alcohol to young people and that, only this week, a second adult has been charged with supplying alcohol to two 12-year-old girls. However, tracing such adults is difficult and the police must rely on reports from the public. Does the minister agree that the Government should introduce a mandatory national ultraviolet marking scheme that would link alcohol products to the people who bought them? That would go a long way towards helping the police to do their job of identifying adults who break the law in that way.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

We are willing to consider any ideas that could help us to identify such people. Of course, intelligence gathering is part of the solution and we need to examine how we can assist the police in that. For example, the use of closed-circuit television has helped with capturing the image of someone who has purchased alcohol and handed it over to young people. However, I am willing, as I am sure the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is, to examine any measures that may help us to support our police forces.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what timescale is in place for the public local inquiry into the Aberdeen western peripheral route. (S3O-2646)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We are making arrangements for the public local inquiry. I hope to announce shortly a date for the pre-inquiry meeting, which will set the inquiry's timescale.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Does the minister agree that time is of the essence? The AWPR is crucial to the north-east's economic wellbeing. Will he not only assure me that he will announce the inquiry in the immediate future, but guarantee that when the reporter makes her or his recommendation, the Government will reach a conclusion promptly?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I agree that the project is essential for the north-east. It has one of the highest rates of return among transport projects—that sits at 5, whereas the figures for other projects are dramatically lower. In line with our objective of supporting economic progress, we will seek to make the fastest possible decision that is consistent with fairness to all parties.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Does the minister agree that the AWPR's northern leg is less contentious than other parts? Could the public local inquiry, on which I hope he will announce details in the near future, be structured to proceed in segments that would allow faster progress to be made on delivering the AWPR?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We acknowledge that different parts of the route are subject to different challenges from objectors. People have been on the ground to undertake preliminary work on the northern leg of the route. I am confident that, overall, we will make the necessary progress and be able to proceed with the whole plan. We will see what the objectors have to say to the inquiry and what conclusions the reporter reaches. There will be several ways to deal with the outcome when we know it.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

How does the minister intend to fund the western peripheral route when final decisions on it have been taken? Will those details be made public before the public local inquiry?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The route will be funded with money. The issues that the public local inquiry will cover relate to objectors' interests. Funding is unlikely to be relevant to the inquiry.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The First Minister has given a commitment to abide by the public local inquiry's recommendations, whatever they are. Will the minister confirm that that is still the Government's position?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is unusual to reject the inquiry's findings, but the decision must be made by ministers, and of course ministers will make that decision. Parliament will be party to that. I am sure that we will make a decision that reflects the view of the 90-plus per cent of people in the north-east who want the road to be delivered as early as possible.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

To ask the Scottish Executive how housing and regeneration issues will be developed by community planning partnerships. (S3O-2621)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Responsibility for the implementation of community planning sits with the partnerships themselves, and it is up to individual partnerships to decide how they develop housing and regeneration issues locally, within the overall context of Scottish Government priorities. To enable partnerships to regenerate communities, tackle poverty and remove barriers to work, they have each been awarded money from the fairer Scotland fund, which they can use as a catalyst to drive wider mainstream investment and improve services to people and communities.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The minister will be aware that, with the abolition of Communities Scotland, its officials are now resigning from local community planning partnerships. I am sure that the minister acknowledges that physical regeneration and community regeneration are central to effective work by community planning partnerships. Is he aware that, like housing associations, housing providers are not able to sit on community planning partnerships? What action is he taking to ensure that the critical work of the partnerships is sustained? Who will replace the Communities Scotland staff in the partnerships?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

From 1 April 2008, Communities Scotland will cease to be a formal member of local community planning partnerships. It is our view that its role in the partnerships will not be taken by the Government's new housing and regeneration directorate—the successor body for many of Community Scotland's functions.

Responsibility rests with local authorities and other members of community planning partnerships. It is not for Government to micromanage and intervene in the local flexibility and freedom that community planning partnerships must have to exercise their functions and to make decisions that are best for their communities. What we have done is a step forward. The previous Administration was too keen to micromanage every single decision that local authorities and community planning partnerships took.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to address the historically low detection and conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. (S3O-2591)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

We are committed to improving the way the justice system responds to rape and other sexual offences in Scotland—through law, through practice and through challenging public attitudes.

We will introduce legislation to reform the law in light of the Scottish Law Commission's report. We have asked the Scottish Law Commission to examine the law of evidence and in particular the Moorov doctrine. By 2009, the Crown Office will have implemented the 50 recommendations in the report on the investigation and prosecution of sexual offences.

Last week I announced funding for Rape Crisis Scotland to undertake a publicity campaign to challenge attitudes and preconceptions regarding rape.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of comments made by solicitor Iain Smith, who serves as a temporary sheriff and who described the 15-year-old victim of a rape as being "not very vulnerable". The cabinet secretary will also be aware of recent comments by Donald Findlay QC on a related subject. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that the Government does not agree with the stance taken by those lawyers? Will he act speedily to introduce legislation after the consultation on the Law Commission's report closes tomorrow?

Rape is the only crime in which the character of the victim is used in defence of the actions of the accused. Will the cabinet secretary assure us that he will act to bring that strange anomaly to an end, and will he assure us that the Government agrees with Roseanna Cunningham's motion that clothing is not an invitation to rape?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

The Government will move as expeditiously as possible with regard to legislation; that was the commitment that we gave at the outset. We accept that inappropriate comments have been unhelpful. There are laws to ensure that victims giving evidence are protected from questions. Clearly, language used in the courts and elsewhere can be inappropriate.

We need to change the law. Changes have already been made, and we pay credit to past Administrations and to the Lord Advocate for her role in ensuring that changes have been made when necessary. We will not hesitate to make further changes when necessary.

However, individuals in Scotland—particularly males—have to challenge their own attitudes, consider their own language and accept some responsibility. Legislative change there must be; but cultural and attitudinal change there must also be.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is supporting tourism in the Scottish Borders. (S3O-2650)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

VisitScotland supports the Scottish Borders in a great many ways, including through the VisitScotland website www.visitscottishborders.com and through various brochures and guides. The area also features in a range of VisitScotland national marketing campaigns and in adverts in key publications.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the minister join me in paying tribute to the staff in the Selkirk office of VisitScotland Borders in my constituency? They have a very good record of promoting the area and are dedicated to the development of tourism in the Borders. Does the minister not understand the confusion as to why the provision is now being removed and replaced by a general south of Scotland provision? Does he not understand the anger felt by many people? At the very time when benefits are starting to accrue, the Government is removing a specific, dedicated, local office in the Borders and replacing it with a generic south of Scotland office.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will join the member in making that commendation. However, I will also say that this is an operational matter for VisitScotland, which is aligning resources with demand in order to meet the purpose of developing tourism in the Borders. Mr Purvis must understand that, in other parts of Scotland, we are seeing greater collaboration and I am determined to ensure that that happens in the Borders. I want to create a situation in which we take full advantage of the small business bonus that now exists as well as the changes to visitscotland.com, which have aligned the service with the needs of Borderers such as Alan Keith.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I am delighted to say that His Excellency Rasoul Movahedian-Attar, the Iranian ambassador to the United Kingdom, has joined us today for First Minister's questions. Ambassador, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, I welcome you.

First Minister's Question Time

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-588)

I also welcome our visitors to the Parliament today and pass on the chamber's congratulations to Frank Hadden and the Scottish rugby team, following their Calcutta cup victory last Saturday. I look forward to seeing them later.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland. I will also meet Frank Hadden and will pass on everyone's congratulations.

I think that the chamber will want to join me in congratulating young Nathan Thomson who, at nine years old, intervened to protect his mother from a vicious assault and agree with the Solicitor General's remark that there should be an award for bravery for that exceptional young man.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I associate myself with the remarks that the First Minister has just made.

Two weeks ago, I asked the First Minister to publish his local income tax plans. Finally, the ever obliging Mr Swinney is shoved out to present the First Minister's flagship policy. The nat tax got an even worse reception than Thatcher's poll tax. [Laughter.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

For the most basic of accountancy purposes, can the First Minister tell the chamber how much 1p on income tax would raise in the first year of the tax?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I can tell Wendy Alexander that 432,000 pensioners across Scotland will welcome the change in taxation.

I notice that Wendy Alexander said that this tax is unpopular. She is a professor at the University of Strathclyde, whose election survey showed that 88 per cent of people supported income tax based on the ability to pay and 12 per cent supported Labour's council tax rises. I think that that is a sign of popularity, and I hope that, at some point, Wendy Alexander will welcome the introduction of a fair tax based on the ability to pay.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Pre-rehearsed, pre-cooked. I asked a fair question—what does 1p on income tax raise in the first year? I will try another question, with the assistance of one of Scotland's top accountancy firms. Yesterday, I asked PricewaterhouseCoopers for its analysis of the Government's plans. It said that it was at a total loss to explain why the most basic numbers were missing from the document. How much council tax cash has to be replaced? Which year do the plans refer to? How much will 3p on income tax raise? What is the size of the resulting black hole and how might it be filled?

It is strange that, although this time last year, in its scramble for votes, the Scottish National Party was willing to answer all of those basic questions, none of those numbers appeared in this week's document.

Does the First Minister agree that he is duty bound to publish the basic numbers and then let the people of Scotland decide?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I saw Margaret Curran shaking her head again. I think that Wendy Alexander is in trouble. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I can only imagine that the new consultation with PricewaterhouseCoopers means that Professor Arthur Midwinter is getting the sack. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

What Wendy Alexander describes as a black hole is a £281 million tax cut for working families throughout Scotland, which, as she has said, represents less than 1 per cent of Scottish Government expenditure. She thinks that that sort of efficiency gain is easily affordable, as she told us in her famous hungry caterpillar speech. Will she at some point join me in acknowledging the fact that single pensioners, pensioner couples, couples with children and one-parent families will welcome a taxation system that is based on the ability to pay as opposed to Labour's regressive council tax? [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.