Scottish Parliament, 29 January 2009

358 contributions from 82 members. The official report.

Official Report 29 January 2009

Forestry

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3325, in the name of Sarah Boyack, on forestry. We have a little flexibility on time, but not a lot, so I ask members to stick closely to the time that they have been allocated.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The widespread and clearly expressed concerns that have been raised throughout the country about the Scottish National Party's proposal to lease substantial areas of the most commercially successful parts of Scotland's national forest urgently need to be brought before the Parliament. The contracts will last for decades, deprive the Forestry Commission Scotland and 18 future Scottish Governments of the revenue from forest that was planted at public expense and, in the process, damage the Forestry Commission's ability to manage the strategic change that is needed in our forests.

We are not opposed to all the suggestions that the minister has made. Indeed, the proposal to enable the Forestry Commission to enter into joint renewables ventures to plant more forests was in our manifesto and we strongly support it. However, we are opposed to the main proposals on leasing, which are set out in the policy memorandum and financial memorandum to the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. They are ill thought out and lack a published business plan. Moreover, the Government has given no substantive answers to a series of questions on fundamental aspects of the proposals.

It is unacceptable that ministers, who have had 22 months to work up proposals for the bill, have suggested the major leasing proposals at the 11th hour. As people in the industry have put it to us, they are a bolt from the blue. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee will be put in an unacceptable position because, in two weeks' time, it will be expected to consider the implications of those huge proposals in one brief meeting without having seen the full results of the hurried consultation, which was put together at the last minute.

The consultation closed on Tuesday and we waited until then so that people could pass us their comments. The Scottish Parliament information centre tells us that ministers will not see a full report of the consultation until the end of February and the responses will not be made available to everybody until March. When we have asked questions, we have been told that we are scaremongering and being deeply misleading, but we have referred back to the initial consultation document, which gives no detailed information.

The minister keeps attempting to reassure people by saying that the leasing proposals are just ideas, but it is stated clearly in the financial memorandum to the bill that the Government intends to secure powers through the bill to make secondary legislation on the release of capital from the national forest estate through the letting of timber-cutting rights. The memo is clear that it would be

"a 75 year lease over about 100,000 hectares (or up to 25% of the national forest estate)"

but is extremely vague about the income: it could be an up-front payment or an income stream. That is a pretty basic issue to pin down at the start.

Without guarantees, this is money up for grabs by a cash-strapped Government. The proposals would mean the SNP borrowing from the future. It would take at least two years for a lease even to be drawn up. At a conservative estimate, the steady income stream to the Forestry Commission is £10 million to £15 million in today's money, so we are talking about a minimum loss of £750 million for a paltry income of maybe £200 million—if there are no plans to spend it. The sums simply do not add up. It is a bad deal for Scotland but a really good deal for one lucky private investor.

The proposals are a damaging diversion from the debates that we should be having on the other parts of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. We are concerned about biodiversity, the promotion of access and the loss of jobs, particularly in fragile rural areas. Understandably, forestry workers are deeply concerned about jobs, but they are also concerned about the integrity of the Forestry Commission and the sustainability of Scottish forestry for the years to come. They are not reassured by the minister's comments about their jobs. Many of them work in our most remote rural areas and they understand employment law and the financial imperatives of a single employer that would want to recoup the money that it has paid up front as fast as possible.

Industries that rely on the long-term contracts that the Forestry Commission manages are also deeply concerned. They know that, even when wood prices drop, they have long-term contracts with the commission that deliver a steady stream of wood. They believe that the proposals will cause irreparable damage and cost jobs. The sawmill sector is made up of successful Scottish family businesses that want to expand but which worry about the implications of one big company coming in and vertically integrating the whole operation.

The processors are not the only ones who are worried. Climate change means that we need more wood for our sustainable construction industry, and the renewables industry needs more wood for local supply. There is no point in developing local biomass plants if the wood pellets are imported while Scottish wood is exported abroad. The Forestry Commission guarantees that that does not happen, but that guarantee would be lost under the proposals.

Environmental non-governmental organisations are also worried about the loss of biodiversity and the loss of the strategic management and experience that the Forestry Commission brings to our forests. They would rather that the commission focused on other challenges, such as the stewardship of our peat bogs, which is vital if we are to tackle climate change.

Forestry expansion must be underpinned by a coherent land use strategy—we must put the right tree in the right place at the right time. We have mountain biking facilities that simply would not have been developed without the Forestry Commission's long-term partnership, investment and expertise. Multi-use forests are in the public interest and we must not damage that interest in the future.

The plans do not add up and are deeply unpopular. The Forestry Commission trade unions' petition has already been signed by more than 3,000 people and the Labour Party's petition has attracted more than 800 responses. People have expressed their views strongly. I will quote one comment from our website:

"As a lifelong member of the SNP, I am appalled and embarrassed by this proposal. If money is needed to fund an extra 10.000 hectares of new plantations, then it should come from the Carbon Emmission Reduction Target program (CERT) funded by the energy utilities who are the major CO2 polluters, and not from a flawed, irresponsible and uncosted adventure to privatise our greatest national sustainable asset, ie our land and all that grows on it."

Our motion asks for the plans to be dropped now. They will be deeply damaging to jobs not only in future but now. We are in a deeply difficult national financial situation and the last thing that the Government should do is make that worse. Alternatives exist, so let us focus on them. Let us sort out the rural development plan. Less than £1 million out of the £14 million woodland challenge fund has been allocated so far this year; that is not good enough. We should look at the new revenue streams from renewables and look at community participation.

The SNP Government must do the right thing: dump these unpopular, ill-thought-out, damaging proposals. Let us focus on the way forward.

I move,

That the Parliament notes widespread and clearly expressed public concern about the potential effects on biodiversity, access, employment and the ability of Forestry Commission Scotland to continue to carry out its functions effectively as a result of the Scottish Government's proposals to lease large tracts of the forestry estate to the private sector for decades into the future; notes that the Parliament is being asked by the Scottish Government to scrutinise a proposal that it has now said does "not necessarily represent the best or only option" to achieve its objectives; also notes that the Scottish Government has not set out what it believes would be the other or better options; further notes the lack of published detail or business plan and the inability of the Scottish Government to answer a series of questions on the full implications of its proposals at this time, and calls on the Scottish Government to reconsider its plans to proceed with the leasing proposal and end the uncertainty surrounding the proposals by dropping the provisions that would permit this from the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will deal with facts, which were in short supply in the speech that we have just heard from Sarah Boyack and will be in short supply in the speeches that we will hear from the Liberal Democrats, who made an entirely fact-free contribution to the consultation.

I will start with some facts that might be hard for the Labour Party to take. The great defender of Forestry Commission jobs is the party that, when in power, lost 1,000 of them from 1999. Those jobs were lost under Labour and the Liberal Democrats; our proposals would increase employment in rural areas.

Alas, the other fact with which I must deal is the history of consultation under Labour and the Liberal Democrats, in which the decisions were made before the consultation papers were issued. I understand those people who have difficulty taking my assurances at face value. For years, they have had ministers in Scotland whose assurances meant nothing, so I say at the outset that my assurances are to be trusted. [Interruption.] I know that it is an unusual concept for Labour to think of trust and ministers in the same sentence, but the reality is that there will be no loss of jobs, biodiversity or access.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

rose—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will not take an intervention from Mr Hume at any stage today.

There will be no difficulties of the type that has been talked about. It is scaremongering.

Let us go to the facts. Scotland's forests represent one of our biggest assets in terms of natural and financial capital. A lot more forest needs to be planted to help us to achieve the world-leading climate change ambitions on which this Administration has led and which the United Kingdom Government is merely following.

On what basis can I say that? The 2006 Stern report on the economics of climate change, which highlighted the importance of effective, early action, said:

"Encouraging new forests, and enhancing the potential of soils to store carbon, offer further opportunities to reverse emissions from land use change".

The AEA Technology report on policy options, "Mitigating Against Climate Change in Scotland", identified increasing woodland area as a high-priority, cost-effective measure. A total of 10,000 hectares of new woodland each year would lock up an additional 4.4 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2050. For comparison, 4.4 million tonnes of CO2 is equivalent to 44 per cent of road transport emissions in Scotland in 2006. It would make a significant contribution. It is a pity that the Labour Party talks about action against climate change but is not prepared to do anything.

Let us talk about how the proposals came about. For years, people have approached the Forestry Commission and asked to buy its land. As forestry minister, I will not sell Forestry Commission land. However, we need to consider creative ideas. When Rothschild came to us with a creative idea, I considered it and rejected it, because it was a proposal for 100 per cent of the forest estate. I needed to find a creative way to deal with the issue. The creative way is to take the 25 per cent package, get the value from it and invest that money so that we can grow more trees in Scotland. That is essential. Moreover, by putting that in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, we guarantee that it will be used in that way because it would be ultra vires if it were not.

We have a win-win situation in Scotland. We have the potential to meet the target of 10,000 hectares, which existed throughout the Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration but was never even approached. We can meet that target. Because we have access legislation, we can guarantee access. Because the proposals deal with specific areas, we can ensure that things such as the 7stanes and rallying are maintained and enhanced. We can ensure that leisure access takes place. All those things are guaranteed.

Where are the downsides? There is a downside for scaremongers and for those who want to make political capital out of the proposals. The reality is that there are no downsides for Scotland and none for those who work in forestry.

The biggest criticism that the Labour motion makes is of being open-minded. I find that fairly astonishing. Of course, I am prepared to consider alternative ideas. That is what a consultation is about. I have invited those ideas, and I am grateful to the trade unions, for example, for coming up with the idea of increasing the amount of repositioning. However, there is a problem in that, because some of the arguments that we have heard against leasing, for example to do with the potential danger to the Galloway forest park, would, if they were true, be exactly the same if the land were to be sold, yet those are the precise areas that Labour is proposing to sell. Its proposal is not worked through or worked out.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

Minister, you must agree that—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Through the chair, please.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

I am sorry, Presiding Officer.

The minister surely agrees that he already sells forest—there is already an income stream of £15 million per annum in the budget for the Forestry Commission. It has already happened.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

An agreed repositioning package was started by Labour, which we have continued. The solution to the problem of how we plant 10,000 hectares of new woodland each year is not to sell more land to do so, because that will endlessly diminish the forest estate. The solution is to use the resource imaginatively and boldly, which is what the senior lecturer in forestry at the University of Aberdeen, Andrew Cameron, suggested. He said that if we invest the money in that way, we will plant trees.

There are three classic ways of increasing tree planting. First, there are tax concessions. The Government cannot offer those. The second is borrowing. The Government cannot borrow—that restriction was imposed on us by Labour. Thirdly, there is this proposal. We need more trees. If there is a better proposal in the chamber, let it come forward. If not, let us ensure that we do something about climate change instead of just talking about it.

I move amendment S3M-3325.1, to leave out from "widespread" to end and insert:

"the consultation on climate change and forestry that has just closed; welcomes the widespread agreement that there must be a significant planting increase to assist the process of combating climate change; is grateful to all those who brought a variety of ideas and views forward, and looks forward to a report to the Parliament on the outcome of the consultation."

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I declare an interest as a farmer and a member of NFU Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives support the Government's target of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. We acknowledge how difficult that will be. However, that is a long-term problem that requires thought-through solutions so, although I understand the Government's desire to make a start on carbon reduction, I remain as yet unconvinced that the proposal to lease 25 per cent of Forestry Commission land in Scotland is the best way forward. However, we shall see.

First, it is important to note that the short consultation on the proposal ended only two days ago, and it has so far been impossible to examine the responses. Indeed, as Sarah Boyack said, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee wrote to the minister expressing its

"dismay and frustration"

at being

"asked to commence scrutiny of the proposals without any awareness of how consultees have responded to them".

The Parliament finds itself in that position today.

Of course, as one would expect, the Scottish Conservatives approach the proposal with an open mind, unlike the Liberals who, in their uniquely childish way, memorably claimed that Christmas trees and Christmas cards would be a thing of the past if the Scottish Government pressed on with its plans to sell off Scottish forests.

I have sympathy with the concerns that Sarah Boyack raises in her motion, although it is tempered by the knowledge that she and her party voted down the budget yesterday, which will reduce the Forestry Commission budget this year by £3.5 million. Calling on the Government to drop the leasing proposals today without even taking note of the responses to the consultation smacks a little of a knee-jerk response and shows little respect for the consultees. I would have expected a more reflective and open-minded approach from her of all people.

What is needed is not a poorly thought-through scheme from the Government, a knee-jerk response from Labour or scaremongering from the Liberals, but a joined-up, thought-through proposal, to be put on the table and set in the context of an integrated and strategic land use policy. A spatial planning exercise and full land use review needs to be conducted and should, if possible, reconcile all of Scotland's competing land uses.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I entirely agree that land use is a substantive issue. I am sure that the member will acknowledge that the work that has been done by the Scottish Government in its land use research, and the land-use policy that will come to fulfilment later this year in a land use event, are useful contributions.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Absolutely. I acknowledge that, but the proposals are ahead of that, and need to be part of that integrated approach.

Increasing forestry cover by 50 per cent by 2050 has to be reconciled with the need to produce more food from our land. Make no mistake—that planting target, if met, will be at the expense of food production on our hills and uplands, because that is where the trees will be put. The concerns of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association about the timing of secondary legislation, about how many leases might be entered into, about how viable the remainder of the Forestry Commission becomes, if the proposals materialise, and about the future of the timber processing sector all need to be answered.

RSPB Scotland and others have concerns about how the Government can ensure, over the 75-year period, that the £200 million raised by leasing will be reinvested in forestry and not used, say, to help to pay for the new Forth bridge. At the moment, the bill gives no guarantees on that. The RSPB and the SRPBA are concerned that extra forestry planting on the land on which that planting would take place may not be the most efficient way of combating carbon emissions. They believe that a more detailed scientific and cost-benefit analysis is needed.

The legitimate concerns of the unions, the staff of the Forestry Commission, and others in road haulage and downstream industries must be addressed—I hope that the minister can do that—as must the concern about continuity of timber supply to processing industries in good times and bad. Those are just a few of the questions that I would have liked to pose to the minister in the short time available.

The proposals thus far are not well enough developed to enable us to take a view. We do not know what views have been expressed in response to the consultation, but sufficient criticism and doubts have been aired for us to question the viability of the proposals. That is why the Conservatives remain to be convinced of the merit of the leasing proposals. However, we await with bated breath the answer to the questions posed by us and by the consultees and other parties, and thereafter we will come to a view.

I move amendment S3M-3325.1.1, to insert at end:

"and to subsequent detailed parliamentary scrutiny of any proposals brought forward as a result of the consultation."

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

The Labour motion reflects what, for many weeks, Liberal Democrats have been calling for, and it has our support. Our amendment simply expands on how hard the SNP proposal would hit Scotland.

The Government's proposal to auction off one of Scotland's most prized natural assets for a one-off, bargain-basement sum, under the guise of perhaps using the money for climate change measures, does not add up. What is in effect the sell-off of the most commercial part of the public forestry estate will not benefit Scotland, nor will it solve the many issues of climate change. It is at best naive and at worst reckless. There has been widespread opposition to the proposal from environmental groups, business and the public. Community groups could be left out in the cold as their local woods are snapped up by investors, and there is also a question mark over the future of leisure tourism. The economic future of rural communities is under threat.

No one can guarantee that sawmills and other companies that have been dependent on wood as their raw material for 75 years will have the same cutting contracts with private landlords that they currently have with the Forestry Commission. The minister cannot guarantee that there will be no redundancies in the commission. The jobs guarantee that he talks about, and the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, mean nothing.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

What does he mean that they mean nothing? That is nonsense.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

The minister should listen. He might learn something.

The TUPE regulations state that employees' terms and conditions may not be changed unless for an

"economic, technical or organisational reason"—

that is, for every reason under the sun. How can the Forestry Commission guarantee its workers' jobs if 25 per cent of its most commercial land is no longer in its management and up to 40 per cent of its timber income is lost overnight? That will leave it in a vulnerable position.

Under the proposal, we could not have the level of woodland investment that we have had under the Forestry Commission, so there is no prospect of new tourism initiatives such as the 7stanes project and no prospect of expanding or maintaining existing facilities. We have been told that it is okay because only remote areas will be leased off, such as the Galloway forest and parts of Argyll, but that is a centralist attitude. Are those not the areas that need the most economic stimulation?

What is the point of having a not-for-profit trust? Surely the Forestry Commission acts like a trust anyway and is fully accountable. The proposal is "unnecessary and overbureaucratic"—not my words but those of the trade unions. In an answer to a parliamentary question from Peter Peacock, Mr Russell even admitted that leasing might bring a lower return than joint ventures, so why propose leasing? The proposal is nothing more than an instant cash-generating scheme that involves selling the nation's family silver. I remind members that £200 million equates to only £2.66 million a year for 75 years, but we would lose £17 million a year in timber income. That is absolute madness. In addition, the private lessee might have access to Scottish rural development programme funds and therefore cost the Government even more. That is poor maths.

One of the thousands of people who replied to my forestry survey said:

"If I'd had any inkling of what we were in for, Alex Salmond and his cronies would never have got my vote. Being a party to their vainglorious appropriation of the Scottish Parliament will be a thing I regret for the rest of my days."

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

It is the way he tells them.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

It is. Here is another quote:

"The authors of this consultation have grossly underestimated the effects on investments and jobs. There's a significant risk to the supply chain and there's been a suspension of major capital expenditure, risking rural employment."

Those are the words of 19 major timber companies that need their wood supply if they are to survive.

The proposal is madness and I call for it to be dropped. I move amendment S3M-3325.2, to insert after "future":

"; recognises with concern that the loss of potentially 100,000 hectares of estate earmarked for this lease option represents 35 to 40% of Forestry Commission Scotland's (FCS) timber income and 25% of its land mass; notes that diminishing FCS income by such a significant proportion could lead to the loss of investment for new leisure and tourism facilities, other woodland initiatives and research and development on renewable energy and could, in the longer term, threaten existing facilities and projects due to a restricted maintenance budget; further notes the potential detrimental impact that giving away full cutting rights could have on sawmills, smaller timber contractors and timber companies that often rely on cutting contracts granted to them by FCS to sustain their businesses; believes that the lease option has been drawn up without considering the impact on rural and remote communities and without considering other land uses and land-use policies in an integrated approach;".

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

This morning's debate is an important one for many of my constituents. In rural areas there are not many permanent full-time jobs. Those that are created by the Forestry Commission are often the backbone of fragile rural communities and make them sustainable. We should also take into account the boost that forestry activity gives through temporary work at felling time and the commission's work to encourage public access and tourism.

The Minister for Environment has said again and again that Forestry Commission employees need not fear for their jobs and that they can either transfer to the lease company or remain within the Forestry Commission. However, in many of the areas that I represent, that is not an option. There will be no local forestry jobs with the commission if cutting rights are leased. Forestry Commission staff who have attended information workshops were told that the position for all staff was just as stark. If they refuse to transfer to the new company, they will be deemed to have resigned—no redundancy, no choice, no option.

However, it is not just commission staff who face an uncertain future. Employees in the downstream industries such as wood processing and sawmills also face uncertainty. Those industries need a stable supply of wood if they are to continue to operate. A private company with cutting rights will have no loyalty to those industries. It could be argued that the company will be dependant on the industries if it is to sell its timber, but things can change quickly. The timescale that is being discussed makes it impossible to predict what the economic position will be, or indeed what the needs of the industry will be. On today's figures, Scotland is being sold short, but how short time alone will tell.

Cutting rights are not the only concern of the downstream industries, as they are also concerned about the research and development of timber products. Many processors do not have the resources to fund research, and anything that affects the budget and scope of the commission will certainly affect research. The uncertainty that the proposal has created is causing problems now. A few weeks ago, I spoke to someone who works in the processing industry, who told me about an exciting new project that uses Scottish timber in construction. The project was in the early stages of development, but it has stalled because of the uncertainty that the proposals have created. How many other projects have stalled? At a time when the Government should be providing stability and security where possible, it is causing needless concern and insecurity. It is costing us jobs at a time when it should be protecting them.

The UK Forest Products Association says in its response to the consultation that the policies

"could irreparably damage the forest products sector".

That is a real concern. We should consider the experience of other countries that have gone down the same route and regretted it. For example, Sweden lost more than 20 sawmills after it sold substantial parts of its forestry.

Our rural economy is fragile. Many areas never experience the economic boosts that come to our more urban areas. Jobs are interdependent. The loss of one job can undermine a teaching job or even the local school, and that can have a knock-on effect on the local shop or post office. Many of the jobs that will be lost under the proposals are in our remote and rural areas. The fact that the Forestry Commission provides public access and encourages tourism in its forests means that the proposal will have further job implications, but I do not have time to discuss those today. Tourism is important in remote and rural areas, but private investors do not have a social responsibility to protect those jobs.

We are in the middle of a severe economic downturn. Is this the time to tell people that their jobs are at risk and create uncertainty in our wood processing and sawmill industries? This is the time for the Government to provide leadership and stability. I ask the minister to do that by withdrawing the proposals and investing in our forestry industry to provide security. I support Sarah Boyack's motion.

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

This is a silly and premature debate, but I am grateful to Sarah Boyack for one thing: she seems to agree that this is a "cash-strapped Government". I hope that the minister will ensure that that is extracted from the Official Report and quoted back at Labour as often as necessary, because those were her words. I am fascinated by the Labour Party's opposition to private investment. Strangely, we do not hear Labour express that opposition when it comes to hospitals and schools, so I am slightly confused about where the principle lies at present.

Let us cut to the chase. Are Labour and the Lib Dems now saying that increasing forest cover from 17 per cent to 25 per cent is not to be welcomed? In any case, how do they imagine that that can happen without an increase in employment? I do not know how on earth we could increase the forest estate without increasing the number of jobs.

At no point in the last year has there been the slightest cheep from Labour to the effect that it does not agree with the afforestation proposal, so I am puzzled. I remember that the sale of forest estate was included in the budget projections as a way of raising capital to start the process. I do not remember any Labour or Lib Dem member questioning the principle at that point. Indeed, when I checked, I could not find any Labour or Lib Dem member even asking a question on the subject. Who did? Well, I did, and so did John Scott.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

We queried the view that, to increase the estate, the Government has to sell. On the face of it, that is a paradox. The minister thinks that he has come up with a cunning plan and he has put it out to consultation. That means that it is out to discussion and that nothing is set in stone. Labour must not apply its own notion of consultation to what the Government does. What we have is a real consultation.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I agree that the timing is bad. I have already written a grumpy letter to the minister in my capacity as convener of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, but committees in the Parliament have been put in impossible positions since 1999, so there is nothing new in that.

If Labour is not opposed in principle to sale, and if it has only just discovered that principle, why is it so opposed to leasing?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

There have been so many red herrings so far that the debate should have been on fisheries instead of forestry.

Labour members might well argue that such a long lease—which, by the way, is very typical of commercial leases—is tantamount to a sale, but they can take it from me that a lease is not a sale. If they do not believe me, they need only look at any legal text book for the reality.

However, we have already established that Labour is not opposed in principle to sale. This is the problem: what the Government is proposing is not a massive sell-off at all but the fact is that if we do not raise substantial amounts of money, we cannot undertake the new planting. The proposal is in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill for a reason, and I note that Labour has avoided that context completely in this debate.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Although carbon sequestration is not the only component in the approach to meeting emissions targets, it is an important one.

If I raised some of these questions with the minister, he would no doubt ask me how I would raise the money. In turn, I ask Labour whether it has a cunning plan for raising £150 million to £200 million for carbon sequestration.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way on that specific point?

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

If we have to take carbon sequestration out of the equation—which is what Labour members seem to want to do—its members really have to say what they would do in its place. I have not heard a single word about that from either Sarah Boyack or Jim Hume—and that is what is missing from this debate.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

In 1918, in the dying days of the first world war, the country was ravaged by conflict, our young people had been sacrificed on the battlefield, and our economy was in free-fall. That was the context in which the Forestry Commission was born, with the aim of replanting, rebuilding and renewing a crucial asset that appeared impossible to replace.

Of course, the idea seemed oxymoronic. How could we replace native Caledonian pine forests that were hundreds of years old? However, in the 1920s and 1930s, those foresters of old did what it said on the tin: they replanted our forests with fast-growing and mainly, though not exclusively, non-native species.

As we all know, the picture today is very different. Our living forests play a number of roles in climate change mitigation, industry and construction, job creation, biomass, housing, leisure, and biodiversity. That is why this debate is so important.

Politicians meddle with the structure of our forest assets at their peril. As many of us will recall, the Conservative Government of the mid-1980s decided—to its credit, I have to say—not to sell the Forestry Commission. That is why it beggars belief that the Scottish Government has effectively resuscitated a totally discredited idea under the guise—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry—I do not have time to take any interventions.

Today, the minister, who has always struck me as intelligent, diligent and hard-working—

Margaret Curran (Labour, Glasgow Baillieston)

Oh, for goodness' sake. [ Laughter. ]

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

—has the opportunity to reject a proposal that has even the staunchest Scottish National Party supporters scratching their heads in disbelief. I thank my colleagues for their support for that part of my speech.

Where on earth did the idea come from? What evidence is there that there is any support for the idea of leasing vast areas of Scotland's public forests to speculators for the next 75 years? I am not saying that we should not explore how to maximise the ways in which our public forests can work for us—indeed, Sarah Boyack has already suggested joint ventures for renewable projects—but I must challenge the minister to explain in his winding-up speech how the overall figures stack up. For example, we have been told that the national forest estate is worth about £850 million and that the Government wants to raise £200 million from leasing vast areas of forest. However, £850 million is the most optimistic valuation of the estate in a stable land market. The market reality is that, by flooding the market with an enormous area of land, the Government will lower the price and value of the assets.

Moreover, the creation of leases with the highly restrictive clauses that the minister mentioned will have a negative effect on the value of the assets, which might mean that even greater than expected areas of Scotland's forests have to leave public ownership in order to raise the necessary cash. If the idea is pursued, any future Government's ability to manage the forests will be hamstrung for 75 years, irrespective of new knowledge or developments in climate change, land use or any social, economic or environmental policy. A quarter of our national forest estate will effectively be exempt from public intervention until 2084. That cannot be right.

The minister tells us that this is not a back-door sale, because only trees will be sold; the land itself will remain in public ownership. However, the land is relatively worthless without the trees that are planted in it. That fact, coupled with the length of the proposed leases, shows that this is asset stripping of almost eye-watering magnitude.

Will the minister explain in his winding-up speech why the Government felt it necessary to discuss the proposal with Mrs Thatcher's favourite privatisation consultants, the City of London merchant bankers Rothschild? Will he also confirm that it was Rothschild that suggested that 75-year leases were the best way of selling off the management rights to Scotland's national forests?

I hope that the minister is genuine in his repeated assurances that the leasing proposal is not set in stone and that he will indeed consider the pros and cons.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

There seems to be a marked reluctance by members to take interventions. Of course, they do not have to give way to other members, but I hope that they will not allow time constraints to prevent them from doing so. Time is available, and the Presiding Officers will be flexible.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In this debate on the Forestry Commission, we should get a few things in perspective. The commission owns about a third of Scotland's forests, which means that, under the proposals, 25 per cent of a third of the existing forests might be leased. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the organisation has been cut back again and again, and 1,000 jobs have been lost. However, no debate has been called on that by those on the Labour benches who were in power at the time. Because of those losses, the Forestry Commission's ability to carry out its work is now underpowered, and the vast majority of its 1,400 workers are now in the business not of planting trees but of managing the forest in the public interest. As a direct result of that, however, those jobs have been saved.

Nevertheless, we have to try to extract some value and create the potential for more planting. We should remember what happened in the past. Dr Andrew Cameron, for example, has pointed out:

"In 2006, only 4,000 hectares of new forest were planted in Scotland, the lowest level in more than 60 years. At this rate, achieving 25 per cent forest cover would take ... 150 years."

We have to accelerate that process and, as Dr Cameron has made clear, the Government has to be creative and imaginative in that respect.

I find the false prospectus in the Labour motion and the Liberal Democrat amendment absolutely reprehensible, because it does not address how we have reached this point and how we should move forward in a devolved situation in which we have very limited means of raising cash.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will the member give way?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I might give way to the member in a moment, but I want to make some progress.

John Scott spoke about where we might plant and suggested that planting should not interfere with our food supplies. We have lost a lot of stock, particularly cattle and sheep, but that has happened in areas where the soil has a high peat content and where trees do not need to be planted. The land use strategy that we are introducing must consider the parts of the country where planting is both likely and necessary. To put that in context, I believe that the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill provides the guarantee—the lock, one might say—that we will make a creative judgment and ensure that the money will be reinvested.

If Sarah Boyack wishes to talk about that, I will be glad to take her intervention.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I made it clear in my opening speech—and have made it clear from day one—that we strongly support measures such as joint ventures for renewables that ensure that money is recirculated back into our forests. However, the current grant system needs to be sorted out. There are opportunities for increasing the number of trees that are planted, but the work needs to be carried out properly.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

As Dr Cameron made clear, the method that the member has proposed will take 150 years.

Creative leasing has been trialled in other countries. In fact, the environmental management of leased forests in Alberta in Canada has been acknowledged as being of a higher standard than that of state forest services.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

We are set in a debate full of the scaremongering that puts words into the mouth of John Farquhar Munro, who is not in the chamber. He said:

"A century on from the date George Orwell imagined, we are being offered destructive privatisation, thinly disguised by Ministerial double-speak."

That kind of piffle leaves Parliament in a position in which there can be no forestry development, so I cannot accept the motion or the Liberal amendment. We must support the Government's position.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

When I first heard of the proposal to lease Scottish forest land for 75 years, I could not believe it; I found it mind-boggling, and immediately lodged a motion. I recognise the Government's commitment to increase forest cover from 17 to 25 per cent, but I am dismayed by the proposal to lease Scottish woodland to commercial companies for up to 75 years.

I want to explain to the minister my problems with the policy, and I want to hear answers, particularly while the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill is still going through its committee stages.

If we lease land to a company for 75 years, and it invests heavily in that land—with, I hope, a policy of planting some deciduous, late-maturing timber—it will never reap the benefits, unless it has a guarantee that it will be able to renew the lease in 75 years' time. Realistically, however, we would not have the opportunity to change our minds about the leases in 75 years' time; we would be committing ourselves to selling off our Scottish forestry land for ever. Once we leased the land, it would be almost impossible to get it back.

I will quote from the Scottish Wildlife Trust's consultation response a couple of times. The minister and other members have talked about the lack of access to consultation responses, but they are now available.

Sweden has been mentioned as an example. The SWT says:

"the Swedish Government sold a substantial part of its NFE to a single company in 1992. A decade later the same company were experiencing extreme financial difficulties and ended up raising timber prices using its power as a semi-monopoly. Since then an estimated 20-30 sawmills have gone bankrupt, or been sold to Russian or Baltic owners, reducing forestry employment and capacity within Sweden. The Government has since offered to buy a 30% shareholding in the forests and subsequently the remaining 70% under certain conditions."

The Swedish Government would have to raise an awful lot of money to buy back its forestry estate. I am not scaremongering, because that actually happened in Sweden. I would like to know the Government's answer to that point.

The SWT consultation response gives some answers to the question that the minister flung back at members this morning. He asked how else the money could be raised. The SWT's proposes, first, that we

"ringfence the money raised from joint renewables ventures ... for woodland creation. Estimates suggest that annual net income from joint ventures might be expected to be £10m/yr by 2012 and 30m by 2020."

Over a period of 75 years, that would raise £750 million times two—at least—which is a considerable sum. We would be into the billions of pounds after 75 years.

The SWT continues:

"These sums would be easily enough to ensure an increased rate of woodland planting to over 10,000 ha/yr".

Another of the SWT's proposals is that we could

"ensure better take up of future woodland grant schemes through better and simpler SRDP scheme design, adequate per hectare payments and reduction of administrative 'red tape'".

I know that the SNP is very keen on reducing red tape.

We could also

"continue to run the National Forest Land Scheme, reinvesting the money from sales into land purchase in priority woodland creation ...

take more opportunities to deliver low cost woodland creation on the PFE through measures to encourage extensive natural regeneration ('re-wilding') ...

negotiate the abolition of the charge which FCS pays on the capital value of the NFE to HM Treasury. This charge is currently a significant financial burden"—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should consider winding up.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I will give it my immediate attention, Presiding Officer.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am grateful.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

There are some answers for the minister and the Forestry Commission Scotland in the SWT's response.

Finally, the SWT strongly advocates

"the development of an 'integrated land use strategy'",

and integration is what I want to come out of the debate. Recently, we have had debates on flooding, which should be considered as part of an integrated strategy. We have not yet had a debate on the provision of timber for construction purposes. We are desperately short of wood for construction in Scotland, and I would like that issue to be addressed, too.

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Scotland's forests are among our most precious natural resources. They are an integral part of the landscape in many parts of the country. Those of us who have a personal, political or geographic rural hinterland might sometimes take the forests for granted. For those with a more urban perspective, there is always the possibility that more can be done to make sure that they have access to, and an appreciation of, our woodlands, which are so healthy for body and soul.

I know how popular with tourists from across the country and around the world some of the Forestry Commission land is in my South of Scotland region. Those forest spaces include smaller areas, such as the West Forth woodland near Lanark, which are popular with day-trippers from the cities because they are within easy reach of major population centres and provide important opportunities for outdoor recreation, fresh air and exercise.

The Forestry Commission plays an important role in managing those tracts of land; in total, it manages about one third of Scotland's woodland. The land that the commission controls is much loved and well used. Therefore, it is a little bit disappointing that the motion on our forests is so negative, offering, as Roseanna Cunningham noted, little constructive vision for the future of Scotland's woodlands.

There is no doubt that Scotland's forests face a challenge. The previous Administration set a target of increasing forest cover by 25 per cent, and we all accept that an ambitious target is necessary if we are to protect our natural heritage and ensure that we get the full benefit of the carbon emission reductions that forests can provide. That is why the Scottish Government has embarked with an open mind on the consultation, which outlines the different options for managing and growing our forests in the years to come.

Members will be aware of newspaper reports of plans to sell off to private hands publicly owned forests for ever as a way of earning a quick buck for the Government. However, the Labour Government in London is consulting on proposals for private involvement and ownership of Forestry Commission land in England that are far more radical than those of the Scottish Government. The Labour Government is giving far fewer assurances and guarantees than our Minister for Environment has given about jobs, access and biodiversity, which are mentioned in Labour's motion.

These days, the default Opposition tactic seems to be to scaremonger rather than to promote any positive or constructive alternative approach. Labour claims that jobs are at risk under the Government's proposals. However, the effect of allowing the Forestry Commission Scotland to enter into joint ventures for the development of renewable energy projects could generate up to £30 million per year by 2020, and leasing the land could generate up to £200 million, which could be reinvested in woodland. We know that the Labour Government likes to pump cash into banks and businesses so that they can turn round and lay off staff, but here in Scotland, the investment proposed by the Scottish Government will safeguard and most likely generate jobs in the forestry industry.

There are practical jobs to be done on the land, as well as a range of important management and promotional functions, such as those that are carried out from Braidwood house in Lanarkshire. That work could also benefit from the investment.

I will address the leasing issue in a bit more detail because it is perhaps on that issue that the scaremongering of most Opposition politicians has been extreme. In 1998, the National Audit Office explicitly recommended leasing over privatisation, citing the success of the New Zealand model in guaranteeing public access under the new management arrangements. The Woodland Trust Scotland has indicated its support for that option, subject to safeguards, and Scottish Environment LINK has not rejected it. I am pleased to hear that Mike Russell will continue to keep an open mind throughout the consultation, and I hope that he will continue to work with others as he seeks a way forward.

I am tempted to accuse the Labour Party of not being able to see the wood for the trees in its motion. Labour members claim to be outraged at consultation options that will safeguard jobs, access and biodiversity through continued public interest in land that is owned and operated by the Forestry Commission Scotland, but they are content to let colleagues in London consider outright privatisation of forests elsewhere in the United Kingdom. They seem to reject everything that the Government's consultation suggests, but offer nothing constructive as an alternative.

Scotland's forests are far too important to be turned into sticks for political parties to beat one another with. I support the Government's attempts to find sensible and viable ways in which to manage and grow our woodlands, and I encourage members of all parties to do likewise.

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

I regret to inform my friends in the Scottish National Party—I have some—that I rise to my feet as a scaremonger. David Stewart rightly touched on the history of the Forestry Commission. On 1 September this year, it will be 90 years since the Forestry Act 1919 came into being. As David Stewart mentioned, the act was about securing the nation's interest in a strategic reserve of forestry products.

The theme of my speech will be that, alas, the Government is not taking the people who know about forestry—or the people of Scotland—with it. I will read several quotations. The first is from a gentleman who lives in my constituency and who is very knowledgeable about forestry—Reay Clarke. He will be known to many members with Highland connections. In a letter, he states:

"I think the proposal is that forestry companies will pay rent for forest lands where they will fell trees and sell them. The rent money will then provide cash for government to give out grants for more planting or re-planting. However why should the F.C. not fell and sell these same trees from these same forests and so gather in equal amounts of money for future grant aid?"

The letter continues:

"The Forestry Commission is grossly under rated. Despite operating under the whims of ever changing government policies"—

I accept that point—

"in just 80 years F.C. has created a national asset of great forests".

Mr Clarke says that forests are a "national reserve" of great value to the nation. He continues:

"This leasing proposal is the latest whim and it distracts all in the F.C., from commissioners to forest workers, from their primary task of tending Scotland's forests."

I am grateful to Robin Harper for referring to the Scottish Wildlife Trust, which has produced detailed proposals on how the money could be found, which the Scottish ministers should consider closely. David Grundy of the SWT has said:

"We firmly believe that the wildlife living within our national forests will be safer under the expert stewardship of the Forestry Commission Scotland as opposed to a large commercial company which will naturally put economic considerations first".

Almost every year since I was first elected in 1999, I have made it my business—and it has been my pleasure—to join the Forestry Commission in the summer to see different aspects of its work. I have seen with my own eyes the time and trouble that it puts into creating walks for the general public—I am thinking of the Morangie forest near my home town of Tain. I have also seen its work on wildlife conservation, such as the efforts to maintain the number of capercaillie, again in Easter Ross. I have come to appreciate the Forestry Commission's expertise and knowledge. I have also come to appreciate the fact that a finely balanced sum is involved in which the money coming in equals the money going out. It would be dangerous to remove a large part of the capital or the resource, even if for only 75 years.

Highland Council has come out against ministers' proposal to lease forests. The RSPB has doubts about it, as does Reay Clarke, whom I quoted earlier. I have had representations from people who work in forestry and who are deeply concerned about the proposal. A good Government has to take people with it. At this stage, that is certainly not happening—it is not happening with my constituents, at any rate. When the company Balcas decided to come to Invergordon to make wood pellets, the amount of forestry in the area and the activities of the Forestry Commission were part of its calculations. The decision might have been different if the situation had been different. Reference has been made to the timber processing sector. There are grave doubts out there.

I hear Rob Gibson using the word "scaremongering" from a sedentary position—I will use it myself. If representing the comments of Highland Council, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and my constituents is scaremongering, so be it. I am happy to stand up and be counted on that. The minister is in a hole and he should stop digging. The proposal is a Thatcherite policy and it ill behoves him to wrap himself in the lady's mantle.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The debate has provided a useful opportunity to air the arguments pertaining to the Government's proposals for leasing a significant part of the forest estate to the private sector, which have provoked strong reaction from many quarters. As John Scott made clear in his opening remarks, the Scottish Conservatives have an open mind on the proposals, but we remain to be convinced that they are the right way forward. There are serious issues to be considered, many of which we have heard about this morning.

We accept that forestry can play a significant role in tackling climate change, not only by locking up carbon, but by providing the wood that is increasingly used by the construction industry as a substitute for concrete and steel. Wood is also important as a fuel, with biomass now regarded as having the potential to make a serious contribution to the achievement of Scotland's renewable energy targets. We also accept that significant new forestry development is needed to bring Scotland's tree coverage anywhere near the level in Europe. Woodlands are home to numerous species of insects, plants and animals, thus benefiting the country's biodiversity. Thanks to the Forestry Commission and others, many forests have been opened up in recent years for valuable recreational activity and sporting events.

The 39 per cent growth of commercial forestry in the past decade is indicative of its economic potential. We can understand the Government's interest in exploring a possible role for the private sector in the future management and development of some commercial aspects of the Forestry Commission's work. The commission has done a great deal of excellent work over the years, but there are concerns that some of its activities do not always give good value for money and may sometimes hinder rather than help the private forestry sector. On the other hand, we fully appreciate the legitimate concerns that have been expressed by the Forestry Commission and other stakeholders. We would need stringent conditions to be applied to any leasing arrangements to ensure that Forestry Commission standards were maintained; that employees were retained under present conditions; and that the environmental and social benefits of our woodlands were secured.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not have time to take interventions.

We would also need to be sure that the funds that were raised from any leasing arrangements would be used for climate change mitigation.

An issue of particular concern, which has been raised by the RSPB and the NFUS, is that the proposals that are under discussion have been made in a policy vacuum and in the absence of any overarching land use strategy. However, we acknowledge that, as the minister said, the Government is considering that point. An increase in Scotland's forest coverage from 17 to 25 per cent would have significant implications for agriculture, as good agricultural land would be likely to become woodland. In a nation where much agricultural land has already been used, and is still being used, for housing and industrial development, and in a world where demand for food is escalating, any plans to divert major tracts of land from primary food production will have to be thought through carefully.

It would be foolhardy to consider forestry in isolation. Instead, it should be considered in the round, alongside other competing land uses, in developing a strategy for the future. For now, we remain open minded about the Government's proposals in its consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill and will therefore support the Government's amendment at decision time, together with the addendum to it in John Scott's name. We look forward to considering the various views and ideas that emerge in response to the Government's proposals; to discussing the outcome of the consultation in due course; and to detailed scrutiny by the Parliament of any proposals that the Government produces thereafter.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will briefly address some of the points that have been raised. John Scott and Nanette Milne made points about the important issue of woodland creation at the expense of productive land for food production. We need a more systematic approach to land use. Activity for farming enterprises to diversify and increase sustainability should focus on planting lower-quality land. We remain aware of the issue and will continue to consider it.

David Stewart made a thoughtful speech, although I did not agree with all of it. The Forestry Commission's role has always involved operating in conjunction with the private sector. A public-private balance has always been necessary to increase woodland in Scotland, so it is not a new thing. He also raised the spectre of Rothschild on the horizon, which he called "Thatcher's favourite privatisation" organisation. Of course, it is also new Labour's favourite privatisation organisation, so perhaps that is not a fruitful line of inquiry for Mr Stewart. It is important to point out that the idea of leasing did not originally come from Rothschild. In 1998, under a Labour Government, the National Audit Office said specifically on forestry that

"the idea of leasing should be considered in any future programme".

So the idea of leasing in this context has been around for more than 10 years. It has always been around—as Elaine Murray admits from a sedentary position—and was in the previous forestry strategy. Although leasing is not a new idea, I believe that its time has come.

I wish to make one or two keen points in response to Robin Harper. He asked important questions and I want to answer them, but some were lengthy, so I offer him the opportunity to sit down and discuss the answers. I will address two of them briefly. We saw an example in Sweden of what not to do, how to do it on far too big a scale and in a way that monopolises the market. We have a mixed forestry in Scotland, which will produce much better results. There are other possibilities, of course, as I have said constantly during the consultation. I have also said that we need action now and resources as soon as possible. If we can take a mixed approach to planting trees, I will be happy, but we need to plant trees. That is an absolute that must be understood in this debate. Unfortunately, although Robin Harper and others made some good suggestions, we have heard none from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

I will now offer some clear guarantees. We have heard scaremongering on a grand scale this morning, so I will put the facts on the table: first, long-term contracts will be honoured; secondly, biodiversity and access are guaranteed by law; thirdly, there will be no effect on leisure and tourism; and fourthly, triple assurances on jobs have been given, and there will be new jobs. Those are all facts.

As I said, we have heard scaremongering on a grand scale: if I may pick out an individual for dishonourable mention, it is Mr Jim Hume. I offer Parliament three brief cameos of the campaign since 4 November. Those who are connoisseurs of such things will remember seeing a stunning photograph of a group of Lib Dems wearing helmets in a forest in the south of Scotland. I presume that the helmets were worn to keep the ideas out rather than the brains in. Remarkably, the Lib Dems were in a forest that is not even affected by the proposal. They were led by a man—Mr Tavish Scott—who posed fetchingly like a young Viking on a bike. It is baffling why a man with no forests in his constituency is fighting against a plan to sell forests that does not exist. That is liberal democracy for you.

It goes further. Unfortunately, I was struck down by the lurgy after Christmas. I was lying in bed on 6 January feeling rather sorry for myself when I was cheered up by Jim Hume. He appeared on Radio Scotland in an interview after he had issued a press release about the threat to the Christmas tree that our proposals would produce. I have in front of me a transcript of the interview. I ask connoisseurs of such things to listen to this. In response to Mr Hume's assertion that there would be no Christmas trees next year, Gary Robertson said:

"Yes. But it's just not true is it?"

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I will not take an intervention from the former minister for forestry; I want to finish my point.

Mr Hume said:

"Well the main point whether that is. I mean, most people will relate to the Christmas tree that they see in their houses, so what better way to alarm them".

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I am not taking an intervention. I thank Mr Hume, but I do not need any alarming this morning.

Finally, let me bring in—gone but not forgotten—Mr George Lyon, who has been stamping round Argyll with that poor craitur Alan Reid, stirring up apathy everywhere he goes. I want Mr Hume to think about what the news website for Argyll says.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the minister give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

No, I will not. The news website says

"There is nothing so tired, so dispiriting and so empty-headed as politicians focused only on scoring party-political points rather than doing their best for Scotland. There is nothing so dishonourable as politicians who don't do their homework while confidently trotting out wildly inaccurate statements for political benefit. ... In every respect"

they do

"not trouble themselves with the documented facts and it is a dilution of the currency of trust on which democracy depends. And it is irresponsible to frighten and destabilise people about the security of their jobs when no threat to them exists."

That is true. That is what the Liberal Democrats and Labour have done; it is dishonourable. Let us now speak the truth about this great proposal that will plant trees in Scotland, fight climate change and preserve jobs. I commend the proposal to the chamber.

Elaine Murray (Labour, Dumfries)

That was an excellent example of defence by attack. Yet again, those of us who raised legitimate concerns about the proposals have been accused of scaremongering by the minister and his colleagues. Indeed, in answer to oral questions last week, the minister stated that our behaviour had been "disgraceful". Unfortunately for the minister—Jim Hume alluded to this—a diverse range of individuals, local and national organisations oppose the proposals. Trade unions, the UK Forest Products Association, Scottish Environment LINK, RSPB Scotland, NFU Scotland, the Scottish Tourism Forum, the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, the organisers of the Merrick car rally in Galloway, Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce and Tory-controlled Dumfries and Galloway Council are just some of those who have expressed concerns. Are those organisations scaremongering? Are they behaving disgracefully?

As Sarah Boyack described, the forestry trade unions are not convinced by the minister's so-called triple guarantee. Forestry workers who do not wish to be transferred to the private investor's employment have been told that the Government will "make every effort" to find them another post in the Forestry Commission. However, many forestry workers live and work in remote locations with few employment prospects and it might not be easy to find alternative employment in the same locality. My colleague Rhoda Grant illustrated the consequences for remote and rural communities of the loss of those jobs. Workers who transfer will do so under the TUPE regulations, but TUPE is in force for only three years after transfer and so will not protect them from the potential that they will be made redundant after transfer has happened.

What about the effect on the Forestry Commission's income? Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce—hardly a Labour-controlled organisation—has calculated that implementation of the proposals could reduce the commission's income by £10 million a year. Other calculations have put up that loss to £17 million a year. Over 75 years, £0.75 billion that could have been spent on forestry will have been lost to the Forestry Commission. Dave Stewart described to us the reasons why even the £200 million that the Government thinks it might get will probably not be realised.

Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce asks, what are the consequences of the loss of that income for the management and planning of forests? What are the consequences for mountain biking, car rallies, sled-dog competitions and a range of other activities? Those are not my fears, but those of the Dumfries and Galloway Chamber of Commerce. What are the consequences for all the activities that have been developed so successfully in the Ae and Galloway forests? The world mountain biking championships are coming to Dumfries and Galloway this year because of that success—what are the consequences of the loss of that income?

Although the biodiversity duty under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 would apply to land in the public forest estate that is leased to private interests, private investors will not have the same motivation to encourage and cherish biodiversity as the Forestry Commission, which is directly accountable to Scottish ministers.

NFU Scotland and Scottish Environment LINK are both also seriously concerned that private investors would be eligible for grant payments under the Scottish rural development programme. That is because a large company might have expertise that would make it more likely to get those difficult grants.

The lease of 25 per cent of the forestry estate is proposed—the most productive and commercial part of the estate. It is estimated that around 50 per cent of production on Forestry Commission land could be controlled by the private investor.

Forestry science is complex and I would not like decisions to be made without the science being properly considered. I understand that around half of the carbon that is sequestered by trees is in the root system and therefore remains in the soil after the timber has been harvested. Early disruption of the soil can cause the carbon to be released back into the atmosphere. The Scottish Woodland Trust has therefore raised concerns about the rapid cycle of replanting. The private investor, keen to maximise the profits obtained from the land that it has leased, is more likely to replant areas shortly after harvesting, disturbing the root systems of the harvested trees and releasing carbon into the atmosphere, therefore acting in opposition to the purpose of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

A large company would be at an advantage compared to small organisations. The Scottish rural development programme is very difficult to access.

The UK Forestry Products Association is concerned that small local Scottish businesses such as sawmills could be under threat if the proposals are implemented. Robin Harper explained extremely eloquently the problems in Sweden, which we cannot guarantee would not arise here. We are concerned about the future of our sawmills. Would a private investor be able to guarantee the stream of product in the way that the Forestry Commission has done? There have been no assurances that anything other than the existing contracts of up to five years will be honoured.

The Minister for Environment has stated that he is entirely open to other ideas, so I will conclude by giving him some other ideas, not just for forestry but for carbon sequestration, which is important in relation to climate change. The Government could first consider protecting and, where necessary, reinstating organic matter-rich soils, such as peat land and blanket bog, which can sequester and store carbon. Secondly, it could encourage the use of wood for fuel and construction and—thirdly—the use of local timber wherever possible in order to minimise carbon emissions from transport. Fourthly, it could extend crop rotations to maximise carbon storage and promote the use of high-quality hardwoods, Fifthly, the SRDP could be reformed to maximise support for planting woodlands, timber production and natural flood prevention schemes, which are the sort of things that we talked about last week during our discussion of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Bill.

My sixth suggestion—in which I agree totally with John Scott—is that the Government could consider developing a comprehensive land-use policy that maximises the potential of the land to tackle climate change and its effects. That would best be achieved if Scottish ministers retained direct control of the forest estate. My seventh suggestion echoes what Sarah Boyack said. It is unfortunate that various members seemed to be deaf to what she said this morning. We could gain income from renewables through joint ventures. We welcome joint ventures and the possibility of not only increasing the amount of renewable energy but increasing the income to the forest estate.

Those are seven suggestions for the minister. He should not say that we, or others, have not offered any suggestions, because we have offered seven alternatives. It is not necessary to lease out the forest. The idea has been around for a long time and it has been rejected repeatedly, even by the Conservatives—even by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Michael Forsyth. It has also been rejected by Labour politicians—it was rejected by some of my colleagues when it came over their desks. I ask the ministers to please reject it again. Let us go forward together with other suggestions for how to combat climate change.

Transport

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3322, in the name of Des McNulty, on transport priorities.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

This debate is as much about the conduct of ministers as it is about transport—ministers who tell their constituents one thing but who, once they get around the Cabinet table, do something else; ministers who make promises when they are seeking election, but whose constituents' interests come second to the comfort of the ministerial Volvo; ministers such as Richard Lochhead, who told voters in Moray that he would "always put voters first" and that "the people of Elgin cannot wait until 2020 or anywhere near that for their bypass"—[Official Report, 21 June 2006; c26903.]— but who still signed off the Government strategic transport plans for between now and 2030, which make no mention whatever of the Elgin bypass.

The decision made and the dirty work done, Richard Lochhead went back to his constituents to say that he was still fighting for the bypass—the one that he said in 2006 was a "make-or-break issue" for the social and economic future of the area, but the one that his Government has rejected from its plans.

Last October, Mr Lochhead told the Holyrood magazine:

"I've got a certain attitude to the way I operate as a politician and I try to avoid bullshit when I can and I try to have a frank and open relationship with the people I'm dealing with."

He should try harder.

When the Scottish National Party was in opposition, the Elgin bypass was a regional priority but, as we can see from its thoroughly dishonest amendment this morning, now that the SNP is in government, the bypass is a local matter.

To be fair to Richard Lochhead, he is not the worst manipulator of the facts. Fergus Ewing told his constituents in 2006:

"The SNP has led the campaign to agree that the A9 and the A96 should be dual carriageways ... Inverness is the only one of Scotland's five major cities that lacks dual carriageway links."

Richard Lochhead contented himself with making weak excuses that he was still fighting for a bypass that he and his fellow Cabinet members had rejected, but Fergus Ewing, in his arrogant way, declared his various failures as victories.

According to Mr Ewing, his failure to secure any commitment to the trunk link route through Inverness, his failure to get the Inverness to Aviemore stretch in the first phase of any upgrading of the A9, and his failure to get the dualling of the A96 to go any further than Nairn are all triumphs.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Des McNulty said that there is no provision for the trunk link route in Inverness. Does he concede that the eastern section—valued at £34 million—has been adopted by the Government as part of the strategic transport projects review?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Is that the limit of Dave Thompson's ambition? It was not the limit of Mr Ewing's ambition in advance of his becoming a minister. Let us be clear: of all the projects that the Government should have supported on the ground of safety—the first of the three priorities that are listed in its amendment—it should have made a commitment to upgrade the A82. Have Fergus Ewing and Jim Mather stood up to be counted? Have they said that there must be no more deaths or injuries on a road that everyone knows needs substantial investment as quickly as possible? No. We have not heard a peep.

Because the SNP failed to keep money aside for the Forth replacement crossing and because it spent the £900 million that it inherited instead of using a substantial part of it to fund the new bridge, every other project on its wish list is shrouded in uncertainty.

In 2006, Fergus Ewing said that the £609 million for the Edinburgh airport rail link should be redirected to a dual-carriageway upgrade of the A9 between Inverness and Perth, to the A96 between Inverness and Aberdeen, to the A82 which links that road through Inverness to Lochaber, and to building a rail bridge over the Dornoch Firth. The Edinburgh airport rail link was cancelled. Where are all the other projects to which the money should have been redirected?

With no commitments on funding, the SNP's wish list is a mirage. The more it adds to it, the further we get from delivery. The only thing that is certain is that SNP ministers will not accept responsibility for their actions.

When Adam Ingram told the community in Maybole that the chances of securing their bypass were better than ever, he was wrong, because the bypass is not even included in the wish list.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention on that subject?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The minister should just let me carry on for a little while—he will get a chance to respond in a second.

It is not just lowly junior ministers or even cabinet secretaries who have failed to deliver their promises. The great haggis himself, Alex Salmond, stood on the Inveramsay bridge, which brings the busy A96 to a single-lane standstill outside Inverurie, and promised voters in Gordon that he would dual both the A90 and the A96. His election pamphlet said:

"Alex has pledged record local roads investment to dual this stretch, which connects two major Scottish cities, as well as serving local road users".

Repeated pledges regarding the Haudagain roundabout were dropped, only to be reinstated because of the intervention of my colleague Lewis Macdonald and the fear of the outcry that would be led by the Aberdeen Evening Express and the Press and Journal. Even so, the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are going to have to wait a long time for their roundabout.

Throughout Scotland, the SNP made promises on which it is now reneging. The blame for the dropped projects and the delays lies fairly and squarely with SNP ministers. The choices that they made in government are not what they promised in opposition. They can dodge and weave and claim to be fighting for this or to be leaving the door open for that. If the STPR is not the only mechanism for delivery of surface transport infrastructure, even at an estimated cost of £33 billion, what the hell is it for? What on earth is the bill for the SNP's fantasy commitments? If yesterday showed anything, it was that the SNP's key priority is to keep its ministerial cars, rather than to improve the roads for everyone else.

Cabinet government is based on the principle of collective responsibility, not on the notion that each individual minister should campaign against Government decisions quietly in Moray or Maybole, Inverness or Inverurie while voting for those self-same decisions here in Edinburgh.

Why not accept the thrust of the Labour motion and the amendments that have been lodged by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives? Ministers should put aside the posturing, end the horse trading and, just for once, do what is best for Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the Strategic Transport Projects Review lacks detail on timescales and does not commit the Scottish Government to deliver a programme of expenditure for the vast majority of the projects identified; also notes the concern of communities along the length of the A82, A77, A9 and A96 that no indication has been given as to when their needs for road improvements will be addressed; notes in particular the disappointment of people in Elgin, Inverness and Maybole who were led to believe by the SNP prior to the 2007 election that their bypass schemes would be given priority by an SNP government, and reminds ministers of the principle of collective responsibility and the need to ensure that communities are not misled about the Scottish Government's intentions.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We have just had a perfect illustration of Labour members' reading skills: they have none. Clearly, Des McNulty has read little, if any, of the STPR. The Maybole bypass is in it.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

No, it is not.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is in there, under the interventions for the A77. I can confirm that.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Would the minister accept that all that is needed to secure a bypass for Maybole, which would be of benefit to all people in southern Ayrshire, is for the Government to include the project as part of the enhancement of the A77 south of Ayr, as referred to in the strategic transport projects review? Can he give the people of south Ayrshire that commitment today?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Work for the Maybole bypass is included, and is safety focused.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the minister take an intervention on that point?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In the six minutes that I have, I will address as many points as possible.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will make some progress before I—

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

On that point—

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Sorry. I beg your pardon. I will take an intervention from Cathy Jamieson, because of her constituency interest.

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

On the Maybole bypass, if it is in the STPR, will you give a commitment today on when that work will commence and when it will be completed?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I remind members not to use the second person.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The STPR will be funded through successive spending reviews. The Maybole bypass and all the other work will be similarly considered, as funds become available. It is included in the A77 intervention.

Reference was made to the Haudagain roundabout. The very first oral answer that I gave, in May 2007, provided an absolute assurance of the Government's commitment to dealing with the issues there. I repeat that assurance—as I appear to have had to do weekly ever since. Sooner or later, somebody will hear that the Haudagain roundabout will be fixed by the Government, in the interests of the people in Aberdeen.

The STPR is about strategic nationally important projects. It distils a huge number of projects into its 29 interventions, which we as a Government will directly deliver. We are clear about our delivery priorities and about the timescales within which interventions can be delivered.

The Forth replacement crossing is central to our strategic transport priorities. It is a vital economic link, which must be maintained, and I know that there is broad—if not universal—agreement on that point across the chamber. Financially, it dominates what is going on.

In parallel, we are able to undertake a substantial number of rail improvements: between Edinburgh and Glasgow, on the Highland main line and on the route between Aberdeen and Inverness. Those interventions will dominate the period to 2016.

The Government takes responsibility for what the STPR will deliver—and we intend to deliver. I accept that not all the decisions will be welcomed by everyone and that there are schemes that are not in the STPR. In considering 1,000 projects, that was inevitable. Good government is about approaching problems systematically and taking tough decisions.

Let me speak a bit about Elgin. There are some important issues around Elgin that will influence the way forward. There have been a number of studies and they have come up with a range of different conclusions about numbers. The Highlands and Islands transport partnership study suggests an average figure of 20,227 annual traffic movements in the centre of Elgin. However, our monitoring on the trunk road at the edge of Elgin shows 7,000. That is quite a different number that tells us that the congestion issues in Elgin are largely local.

There is also a difference of view in the modelling that we have done and the modelling that HITRANS has done on the transfer effect. We think that only 10 to 35 per cent of the 7,000 vehicles going into Elgin will transfer to the bypass, whereas HITRANS cites a figure of 60 per cent of its 20,000. That numerical difficulty does not mean that there is not a problem to be solved—of course there is. It indicates, however, that further work must be done to understand the distinction between the benefit that could be delivered by upgrading a trunk road with a new bypass to the south of the town, and interventions that would affect local traffic inside the town. That is why we are continuing to work with the regional transport partnership and the local council on the issue. We will continue to pursue that intervention with energy and commitment.

We are the first Administration to adopt the whole of the A82 route improvement plan. We have done so because 13 people died on the A82 in 2007. It is a road on which engineering interventions can make a very real difference. Safety is our top priority, and we will pursue it right across Scotland. We will continue to engage with communities and regional transport partnerships. I notice that the Labour member appeared to suggest that we should abolish regional transport partnerships, as he said that only the Government should be making interventions. We take a different view, which I think is shared across the chamber. I will be interested to hear from the former convener of the north-east Scotland transport partnership.

I move amendment S3M-3322.2, to leave out from "lacks" to end and insert:

"(STPR) focuses on the three STPR priorities of addressing safety on the network, maximising use of the network and making focused investments that deliver national benefits and notes that the STPR is not the only mechanism for the delivery of surface transport infrastructure supported by the Scottish Government which also involves working with regional transport partnerships and councils and that the Scottish Government is engaging with local communities such as Elgin, Inverness and Maybole to deliver solutions to a range of transport infrastructure issues that have important local benefits."

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

It is interesting how context can play a big part in what we discuss in Parliament. Earlier this week, our informal discussions with a number of other parties on what our amendment could be were simply in the context of a transport debate. Today, one day after the budget debate, we have a whole different context. I intend to touch on that, as well as on transport issues, in the limited time that is available to me.

I repeat some of the calls that we have made previously. We believe that the strategic transport projects review, when it was published served a purpose as far as it went, and we were delighted that it had come along. The problem was one of prioritisation. Priority number 1 was the new Forth road bridge. Priority number 2 was everything else, whenever the Government could get round to finding ways to fund it. I therefore repeat my call to the Government to proceed from the publication of the strategic transport projects review, to prioritise properly, to develop timescales and to discuss funding mechanisms to put the projects in place over time.

The Conservatives will continue to work, in a general sense, with any and all political parties in Parliament to further the aim of evolving and developing the trunk road network. We know that large improvements are required all over Scotland, and they need to be delivered when they can be afforded. Although budget considerations and funding mechanisms will inevitably play a part in what we can do and when we can do it, we are prepared to explore every possible funding mechanism and arrangement that could be put in place to achieve those aims.

As I look through the motion and amendments, I conclude that the context must be taken into account. I agree that the roads that need to be improved that have been included in the motion are very much the ones that we need to deal with, and I agree with the Liberal Democrat amendment that the A90 should perhaps also have been included. I even agree with some elements of Stewart Stevenson's amendment, but we must take the context into account.

During the budget debate yesterday, I did not hear from Labour members that improving the trunk road network was among its priorities. Having voted against the budget bill, they have effectively reduced the transport budget for next year—unless something can be done—by £217.5 million. As a consequence of that, it is difficult to take into account the position that Labour has taken today.

The Liberal Democrat amendment makes no mention of the Elgin bypass, which has been that party's priority in previous debates, including last week. I look forward to hearing the opening Liberal Democrat speech and to finding out whether it features quite as strongly as it did on previous occasions. It must be taken into account that, yesterday, the Liberal Democrats once again demanded an £800 million per annum cut in Scottish public expenditure. What they have said on transport indicates that they have no intention of taking that amount off capital expenditure, and they have expressed on many occasions the view that it should actually increase, rather than decrease. Their proposal would require an annual cut approaching 6 per cent in revenue spending across Scotland. How can the Liberal Democrats have a list of spending commitments that include investment in road and rail infrastructure, but which do not take into account that proposed cut? There is simply an imbalance in the Liberal Democrats' approach.

I accept much of what is in the motion and the amendments. However, in the context of yesterday's debate, this debate has been rendered inept.

I move amendment S3M-3322.3, to insert at end:

"and, while recognising that the new Forth Replacement Crossing is an overriding priority for Scotland, calls on the Scottish Government to state its priorities by reference to the projects listed in the Strategic Transport Projects Review and others identified by regional transport partnerships and local authorities as having a major regional significance."

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The strategic transport projects review process has been a long haul. It has taken 20 months, which is about the same length of time as the gestation period for an elephant. Of course, an elephant has a lot more substance than the STPR. The longer we waited for an outcome, the more we thought that there was bound to be clarity. Why else was it taking so long? However, those of us who were hoping for a coherent, costed and timed transport investment programme were disappointed.

That is for another day; today I want to focus on what is not in the plan. I want to focus on projects on which the SNP campaigned vigorously and improvements that the SNP told voters were political priorities. The title of the debate is "Transport Priorities", but in reality it is about the honesty and integrity of ministers. I give members a couple of examples of missing links in the north-east: a bypass for Elgin, and the dualling of the A90 from Ellon to Peterhead. I use those examples because they were given high priority by people who are now Government ministers.

We are becoming used to the SNP's broken promises, but worse, in this context, Government ministers continue to suggest that certain transport projects will happen, even though the review that ministers signed off in Cabinet and presented to the Parliament excludes those projects. Ministers who have failed to persuade their Cabinet colleagues of the merit of their case have gone back to their constituencies and suggested the opposite.

I wonder why Mr Stevenson did not even manage to convince himself of the merits of dualling the A90 from Ellon to Peterhead. In June 2006 he said:

"it is extremely regrettable that the Scottish Government has not taken the opportunity to extend the dualling of the A90 north of Ellon as part of the same programme of development."

If Stewart Stevenson could not persuade himself, surely the First Minister would manage to persuade him. After all, Alex Salmond said in February 2007:

"I have already put on record my commitment to bringing forward plans to dual the A90 and A96 if elected Scotland's First Minister in May".

Moreover, Alex Salmond's election address leaflet, which was entitled—members will like this—"The man you know; The man you trust" said:

"Alex has pledged to lead a step change to bring our beleaguered transport network into the 21st century, including the dualling of the A96 and A90".

We know now that the dualling of the A90 from Ellon to Peterhead has been ruled out in the STPR. That has left the First Minister clutching at straws. A spokesman for the First Minister has hinted that improvements to the road could still be in the pipeline, but on 19 January Alex Salmond was quoted in The Press and Journal as saying:

"It is up to Transport Scotland the nature of what is to be done, but the things which could be done include dualling."

That is double-speak of the worst kind, which has led to press headlines such as, "New hopes of dualling key road in north-east", although the truth is that the interventions that are proposed in the STPR—I refer members to page 68 of report 4—amount to no more than road safety improvements and are far short of what was promised. The SNP appears to be haemorrhaging credibility at every turn—and its members know it, because they resort to weasel words when they are in their constituencies.

Despite the SNP's repeated calls in opposition for an Elgin bypass, the SNP Government has not included the bypass in its investment plans. However, members should not fear: Richard Lochhead says that he will keep making the case. We might ask, the case for what—the project's inclusion in the next 20-year plan? His credibility is in tatters.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I am in my final minute.

The SNP is unwilling to prioritise and unable to admit that it overpromised, but it continues to try to mislead everyone by suggesting that we can have it all. George Orwell wrote:

"Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind".

Who knew that Orwell had met the Scottish National Party? The STPR has no substance, but how could it, when it was written by the Government?

I move amendment S3M-3322.1, to insert after "A9":

", A90".

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

When Stewart Stevenson announced the strategic transport projects review, I said that the only certainty that day was that the SNP would be spinning like mad across the country and suggesting that every community's wish for its local road was about to be granted. Sure enough, that was the case. No doubt the spin doctors and the SNP were happy about the following day's headlines.

Since then, however, it has been interesting that local papers have started to use different headlines as the truth has become more apparent and the spin has begun to unwind. The truth is that the STPR is not, as was spun, a transport plan. Nor is it a transport programme, a set of spending commitments or a funding document, as the minister had to admit to me in an answer to a parliamentary question the other day. The STPR is no longer even a credible wish list.

I say to all the people in my part of the world who think that a commitment has been made to dual the A9, to dual the A96 to Nairn, and significantly to improve the A82, there are no such commitments. It is not just me who says so; the chief executive of our regional transport authority, HITRANS, has clearly made the same point. There are no commitments to fund those projects.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member give way?

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot; I have only four minutes.

The minister himself made it clear in the debate that if I could tell him what his budget would be in 2017, he would be able to tell me what projects he would fund. There are no commitments to fund.

The STPR is not a strategic document, as is illustrated by the approach to the Elgin bypass and the Inverness trunk link route. Elgin is a significant urban centre in the north, which suffers from significant congestion. There are projections of traffic growth of 26 per cent to 2022. There has been a strong local campaign for a bypass for many years, which the SNP backed. Prior to the election, the clear impression was given that a bypass would receive the highest priority. As Des McNulty said, Richard Lochhead made it clear that people could not wait for the bypass. However, the so-called strategic document, which covers the period to 2020, makes no serious mention of solving the problem. An answer to a parliamentary question that I asked recently revealed that the Government does not even accept the principle of the need for a new trunk road. The issue has gone from being top priority before the election to having no priority after the election.

There is a similar story in Inverness. Inverness is a key hub, which is rapidly growing and rapidly clogging up. The existing road that connects the A82 to the A9 is grossly inadequate and there are huge tailbacks on the road, particularly in summer. As in Elgin, colossal growth is projected. The SNP campaigned before the election for the trunk link route—I think that Dave Thompson had the honour of chairing the campaign for a time—but in the STPR there is no mention of that key section between the A82 and the A9 being built. An answer to a parliamentary question also revealed no acceptance on the part of the Government that the current trunk route will not be able to cope in the years to 2020. The Inverness trunk link route is another project that has gone from being a key priority before the election to receiving no mention in the STPR after the election. For the crimes of misleading people before the election, Fergus Ewing and Richard Lochhead stand above all others.

However, worse, there is no mention in the STPR of emerging strategic problems in Inverness. There are huge tailbacks every day across the Kessock bridge to the roundabout to the south of the bridge. The problem can only get worse every year that the trunk link route is delayed and traffic at the junction grows.

There is no commitment to fund anything in the STPR. The STPR is not a strategic document or a transport plan, but an attempt at the biggest transport con that we have seen.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

For decades, Scotland's transport infrastructure has been a low priority for Administrations at Westminster and Holyrood. It is in a sorry state—the Scottish Chambers of Commerce described it as "dilapidated" and found that almost 70 per cent of Scottish businesses think that the transport network does not meet their needs and that a lack of quality infrastructure inhibits inward investment. The economy and the environment of Scotland have paid a heavy price for that legacy.

The Scottish Government was faced with a difficult challenge, given the creaking infrastructure that it inherited. How do we maintain the current transport network, which previous Administrations have left to fall into rack and ruin? How do we cut accidents on our roads, many of which have been happening at the same black spots for years? How do we improve our infrastructure to deliver sustainable economic growth, given the numerous yawning gaps that there have been in the infrastructure for decades?

One thing is certain: we cannot improve infrastructure by leaving public services in Scotland with a funding shortfall of £1.8 billion for the next year.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the member give way?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I want to develop my point first.

I am pleased that the motion demonstrates Labour's faith in the SNP Government's ability to fix the transport problems that were created by Labour's neglect without even being able to borrow or invest.

The framework has begun with the STPR, which weighty document reviews projects of significant national importance. It is not the place for the commitment of expenditure, which should rightly be done as part of the budget and the comprehensive spending review process; nor is it the only way in which projects can or should be delivered. RTPs and councils will continue to play a pivotal role in delivering projects that are important to their local area.

One project that has rightly been given priority in the STPR is the Forth replacement crossing. Labour and the Liberal Democrats prevaricated, but this Government has taken decisive action. Perhaps if Labour had moved more quickly on that project while it was in administration, the other transport projects that are mentioned in the motion, which are vital, could have been built more quickly and completed earlier and could already be assisting the Scottish economy in these difficult times. Unfortunately for Scotland's business community, Labour did not do that.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the proposals for the new Forth crossing, with their lack of a multimodal facility, be future proofed? Will they meet the needs of people in the Lothians and Fife?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member demonstrates a difficulty in his understanding of what is in the project. There is a multimodal aspect to it. In fact, the crossing will be improved by having a dedicated public transport corridor that will serve the people in his constituency for many years to come.

Where do Labour's transport priorities lie? Recent announcements on high-speed rail suggest that they terminate at Birmingham. To be fair to the Tories, at least they would take the line as far as Leeds. Perhaps Mr McNulty would like to phone a friend in the Scotland Office and see whether they can provide him with a timetable and a committed budget for building a high-speed rail line all the way to Scotland—or perhaps he would not. It beggars belief that Mr McNulty can come to the chamber today and ask the Government to provide detailed timescales for long-term transport projects, when his party has thrown into doubt the transport projects that are planned for the forthcoming year. That is on top of the threat of £500 million of cuts over the next few years—budget cuts that will be handed down to this Parliament as a result of the Westminster Government's mismanagement of the United Kingdom economy. How will transport fare when Scotland's budget begins to suffer? What transport projects will have to make way to pay for Labour's depression? Only time will tell.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In any democracy, it is the duty and responsibility of the Opposition parties to hold the Government to account. That is precisely what we are doing today. The SNP made many promises over the years and in the lead-up to the 2007 election. We are all elected on the basis of our manifesto commitments. I am proud to say that the Scottish Conservatives' manifesto was fully costed and all pledges were costed. Our financial guru, Derek Brownlee, would not allow anything less. However, that is obviously not the case for the SNP.

I appreciate that an inexperienced politician can make gaffes on the way to an election. However, we are not talking about inexperienced back benchers, bag carriers or back-room boys; we are talking about pledges that were made by the First Minister of Scotland and Richard Lochhead, a local MP and previous SNP MSPs to bring forward an Elgin bypass. In addition, Fergus Ewing made a similar pledge for the Inverness trunk link route. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has even said to the local newspaper in Elgin, the Northern Scot, in answer to a question about an Elgin bypass:

"Improving the transport infrastructure is the key to unlocking Moray's economic potential".

In the midst of all those SNP pledges and manifesto commitments, I should also mention Tavish Scott's response to a written question that I submitted in November 2005. He stated:

"We have no current plans to construct an Elgin Bypass."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 8 December 2005; S2W-21541.]

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change has stated that the Inverness trunk link route and the Elgin bypass would provide poor investment returns. How could there be poor investment returns for congested Inverness from linking the main arterial routes in Scotland from the east, south and west? The minister's statement also begs the question that, if the Elgin bypass would give such a poor investment return, why is the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment allegedly fighting to get funding for it in the face of opposition from his colleagues in Government? There is no doubt that Inverness is the economic hotspot of the Highlands and that Moray has the lowest average wage in Scotland. We all agree that Moray's potential needs unlocking, but refusing to build the Elgin bypass will make matters worse and not better.

As someone else said,

"What we would like to know is whether the Scottish Executive is committed to help deliver an Elgin bypass. We would like to know how long this will take and where an Elgin bypass stands as a priority for the Scottish Executive."

Those are the words of Angus Robertson, the SNP MP for Moray, which I put to the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change.

In opposition, the SNP slammed Mike Watson for voting with his Cabinet colleagues in favour of the Glasgow hospitals shake-up but campaigning against it at a local meeting. Nicola Sturgeon said:

"He has betrayed his constituents. His position is untenable. He has been prancing around Glasgow for the last few months telling them he would oppose the plans for Glasgow's hospitals and then he goes to Edinburgh and votes for these plans."

The same applies to the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. I cannot confirm whether they were prancing, but they certainly gave pledges to constituents to deliver an Elgin bypass, dual the A96 and build a trunk link route around Inverness. However, when the chance came for them to deliver, they changed their minds.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

What road and rail projects can we expect to be started over the next five or six years? There are the Scottish Government's inherited commitments and its current commitments. Then there is the draft national planning framework 2, which contains eight or nine big projects, although not all of them are transport related. If they are approved, that will amount to them having outline planning consent, which of course amounts to incremental progress, of a sort. There are also 29 interventions—the term that is used by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change—in the strategic transport projects review.

If members want a project to be started during this session of Parliament or the next, the fact that it is mentioned in the STPR does not necessarily mean a lot. The minister says that the 29 interventions comprise many more individual projects; he is on record as saying that it could take 20 years to deliver some of them. When the minister says yes to a project, he therefore really means that it may be an intervention in 20 years' time. That is not yes, and it is not even mibbes aye, mibbes naw; it is the unique Scottish vernacular double positive, "Aye, right!" To be fair to the minister, on the day that we debated the STPR in the chamber, he killed off some of the other projects on the 1,000-long wish list that he mentioned. For example, he appeared to kill off the Glasgow crossrail project.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Sorry, but I do not have time.

The Glasgow crossrail project could provide through rail services from south-west Scotland to Edinburgh, the Forth ports and north-east Scotland. Sadly for the minister, on that day he had to attend a scheduled meeting of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on Glasgow crossrail, of which I, too, am a member. He got a bit of a rough ride at that meeting and has been subjected to further pressure since.

Lo and behold, at a recent meeting of the Parliament's Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, the minister revealed in evidence that the deceased Glasgow crossrail project has a love-child—I will call it son of crossrail—which needs a new Glasgow central rail terminal. It is mentioned, but not by name, in the draft national planning framework 2 and the STPR document. Incidentally, the minister also said that another driver of the need for a new Glasgow central rail terminal was that the new rolling stock that he hopes to acquire will in some respects be too long operationally for the platforms at Glasgow Central and Glasgow Queen Street stations. I have a good memory for transport issues and I say honestly that that was the first time that we had heard that in the Parliament.

Far be it from me to accuse the minister of circumlocution or obfuscation but, in the absence of a timetabled and funded five-year transport programme, he seems to be making it up as he goes along.

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the STPR; I am sure that that does not surprise members. In the eight years from 1999 to 2007, Liberal and Labour transport ministers did absolutely nothing for the Highlands and Islands—that was eight years of nothing for the Highlands and Islands.

I contacted Tavish Scott when he was a minister and he refused point-blank to sanction the Inverness trunk link route bypass. I know that because I have campaigned since 2002 for the TLR. I made submissions to and attended the public inquiry on it in 2003. I say to Peter Peacock that I was not just the chairman of the fixed link action group; I founded it. I asked members of other parties such as Labour and the Lib Dems to join the campaign, but none did. The campaign had no Peter Peacock or Mary Scanlon.

Tavish Scott, the Liberals and Labour highlight their hypocrisy. That is also shown clearly by Jamie Stone of the Lib Dems, who recently called for the A9 to be dualled from Tore to Tain. Such a project is worthy, but he did not tell the people of the Highlands that he voted for the 2p tax cut, which would cut £800 million from the budget, and against the budget yesterday. Like the Labour Party, he says one thing in the Highlands and another thing in Edinburgh. The voters will punish them for that in due course.

We now have real progress by the SNP. The SNP minister has approved the eastern section of the Inverness TLR; Highland Council just needs to complete the western section. The minister confirmed in parliamentary answers to me on 15 and 22 January that he will work with the council and all others.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Dave Thompson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry; I do not have time.

It could not be clearer that Highland Council needs to come on board to complete the TLR's western section. A council report in September 2007 said that the whole TLR from the east to the west would cost £119 million, which would be met by the council, the private sector and the Government. The Government has chipped in £34 million for the eastern section, so it has done a good bit already. The council's capital plan of October 2008—barely three months ago—reaffirmed the capital budget of £119 million. It is surprising that the council looked only for council and private contributions at that stage. However, in December 2008, the SNP Government came up trumps.

The council's capital plan budget between now and 2012—before the STPR applies—sets aside £32.2 million for the TLR. That Liberal and Labour-led council could complete the TLR from the Dores roundabout to Tomnahurich and thereby complete the road section of the bypass by its own hand in the next three years, if it had the will and if it stopped sniping and trying to blame the Government for the problems. The balance of the cost can also be met from the council's capital plan, which sets aside money for future years. We can easily complete the TLR if Highland Council has the political will and if it plays the game with everybody else.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Members have—rightly—focused on the SNP's failure to prioritise key projects on the A96 and the A90. The junction of those roads at the Haudagain roundabout is the worst single pinch point on either road, but it is not even mentioned in the strategic transport projects review.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

After I have laid out my argument, I hope that the minister will respond. He will have the opportunity to do so.

When the STPR was published, John Swinney said that the Haudagain was missed out because the problems at the junction would be solved when the Aberdeen western peripheral route was built. He told The Press and Journal on 11 December that the traffic bottleneck at the Haudagain was

"essentially influenced by the effects of the construction of the AWPR, which will take an enormous proportion of traffic from the A90. So therefore, it seems to me to be a prudent approach to concentrate on a strategic project of that nature."

So the SNP said that it would concentrate on the WPR because that strategic project would—apparently—solve all the problems. An SNP Government spokesman backed that up when he told the Aberdeen Evening Express that the Haudagain scheme had been superseded by the Aberdeen bypass.

Stewart Stevenson has tried a couple of different explanations. When I asked him about the issue last December, he said that the STPR was about

"strategic transport projects. The Haudagain is an example of a local project."—[Official Report, 10 December 2008; c 13254.]

However, he told The Press and Journal something different—that

"the work ... is set to be completed before 2012, which means it does not have to be featured"

in the STPR. He has since confirmed that the WPR will not be completed before 2012. That suggests that work on the Haudagain would have to take place alongside work on the WPR, if work on the Haudagain was missed out of the strategic transport projects review because it would be finished by 2012.

However, that is not the situation according to Alex Salmond. The First Minister told The Press and Journal emphatically that work on the Haudagain

"will be done but let's get the bypass done first, it would be daft to do it the other way round."

The Evening Express put Mr Salmond on the front page, saying:

"I will fix the Haudagain ... but work to revamp the Haudagain roundabout won't start until after Aberdeen's bypass is completed."

That is funny, because Mr Stevenson has since told me in a written answer that the A90 between Charleston and Blackdog will be detrunked and that responsibility for it will be transferred from the Scottish Government to Aberdeen City Council on 1 April, following the WPR's opening. That does not suggest that much work is being done by central Government. If the project is local, as Mr Stevenson said in Parliament, perhaps the work is the local council's responsibility.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No—absolutely not.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

No, indeed—Mr Salmond told The Press and Journal on 18 December that

"the key commitment is"

that roundabout improvements

"will be paid for and delivered before the road is de-trunked."

That will not be down to

"Aberdeen city. It will be the Scottish Government that will do the work and then it will be handed over as an improved roundabout."

So there we have it. John Swinney thinks that the WPR will take care of things; Stewart Stevenson wants to hand the Haudagain to the council as soon as the WPR is finished; and Alex Salmond says that he will not hand over the Haudagain until the WPR has been built and the roundabout has been sorted out. The three SNP ministers have three different plans. Just for good measure, Brian Adam told the Evening Express on 6 January this year that Stewart Stevenson

"was not in a position to give a timescale or say which option would be used."

Perhaps today ministers will finally sort out the party line and tell us what the Scottish Government intends to do at the Haudagain roundabout and—above all—when it intends to do it.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is a little over six weeks since the Scottish Government announced in the chamber the results of the strategic transport projects review. Like many members, I welcomed the minister's statement and the scale of the review's ambition and vision. However, I noted in the debate on the review that

"In some ways, I wish that the Scottish Government could go further."

As they have done today, members around the chamber on that day

"described projects that they want to be implemented and which were not in the statement. Of course, they must tell us how those projects could be achieved; often, our hands are tied by the frustrations and limitations of the Scotland Act 1998."—[Official Report, 10 December 2008; c 13241.]

Members will not be surprised to learn that the position has not changed in the intervening period. What has changed is that we now know about the Labour Party's lack of commitment to making the Parliament and devolved government work—yesterday's events demonstrated that vividly. Under devolution, the budget is the only document in which any Government can make exact spending commitments. Where were Labour's budget amendments to finance the projects on which Labour members have focused today? In bringing its critical and carping motion to the Parliament, the Labour Party is suffering from a political reality bypass rather than showing a genuine interest in building transport bypasses.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No, I will not take an intervention from Des McNulty, given the lack of interventions that members of his party seem to be taking.

It is in the nature of strategic documents that they do not—indeed, cannot—contain spending commitments: "Scotland's transport future" in 2004 and "Scotland's National Transport Strategy" and "Scotland's Railways" in 2006 did not contain such commitments.

The reality of the situation remains that the Government's hands are tied. Even if Labour had lodged amendments to yesterday's budget to pay for the projects that its motion names and they had been agreed to, the finance would have had to come from cuts elsewhere. Labour trusts the Government in London to borrow billions of pounds to bail out banks and the automotive industry, but this Parliament's lack of borrowing powers and its limited fiscal levers inhibit the range of action that the Scottish Government can take.

I would have thought that it would be welcome that the Scottish Government has, within 18 months of being elected, put in place an ambitious, coherent and workable plan for the major development of our strategic transport network. The plan is the launch pad for transforming the travelling experience for people in Scotland, but just because a project is not in the STPR does not mean that it is not a good idea or that it is not worth fighting for.

As for the specific projects that the Labour motion mentions, it is clear that investment is planned in the A9, the A82, the A77 and the A96. On a bypass at Elgin, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change said at question time last week that he is

"confident that we can work with local interests to develop new proposals".—[Official Report, 22 January 2009; c 14301.]

That demonstrates that work can be undertaken on projects that are outwith the STPR.

People will welcome a Government that continues to listen to their concerns and wants to work with them to find suitable proposals rather than close the door to their transport needs. That is why the other implication in the motion that support for a project that has not been included in the STPR is a breach of collective responsibility or a betrayal of constituents' trust is incorrect. I am sure that members who argue the contrary will understand that individual MSPs can hold opinions and campaign on local issues while still supporting the Government. The fact that those members present their case as if that was not so ill-serves them and, worse, ill-serves political discourse.

If the transport projects detailed in the motion are of such fundamental importance to those who are calling for them today, why have they not called for them in the past? On 23 January, in commenting on the A96, The Northern Scot stated:

"Pity these opponents were not as voluble for the bypass campaigning which has been going on for years. A Labour Transport Minister visited Elgin but failed to offer any glimmer of support for the bypass call, a Lib-Dem Transport Minister, as part of the same ruling coalition, did likewise".

That is more evidence, if any were needed after yesterday's events, of the descent of the Labour Party into the realm of student politics.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

Today's transport priorities debate is rather thin on transport priorities from the Government, but that is not the only thing from the Government that is thin. The STPR is fundamentally flawed because it does not detail adequate timescales, priorities and costs. As Alison McInnes pointed out during last week's Council of Economic Advisers debate, it is difficult to take a document seriously when the costs associated with it range from as low as £12 billion to as high as £21 billion. The document is so thin that it would not even prop up the minister's wobbly desk.

Alison McInnes agreed with Des McNulty's point that today's debate is as much about truth and honesty as it is about priorities. I add that it is also about the credibility of the Government, which has been severely damaged.

Stewart Stevenson and his colleague Dave Thompson tried to pass the buck to local authorities, but I would have thought that the minister would be well aware that he, not the local authorities, has responsibility for trunk roads in Scotland.

One or two other members referred to the Maybole bypass south of Ayr, on the A77. When in opposition, Adam Ingram said of Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport:

"The minister has met the bypass campaigners ... and will be well aware of the strength of the case for the bypass and the depth of feeling in the community, which has been created as a result of decades of fruitless pleading. The campaigners have only one question left: how much longer must we wait? Will the minister be kind enough to give them a straight answer to that question this afternoon?"—[Official Report, 7 September 2006; c 27423.]

I ask the minister this morning when he will give us a straight answer on the Government's priorities and costs for the projects in the very thin STPR document.

I will now address a project that we all agree—or at least most of us do; the Green members are not here—is the key priority for Scotland: a new Forth crossing. It has pretty much all-party support. A few months ago, it was supposed to be the great multimodal link for eastern Scotland, but that is no longer the case. We now have a cut-down version with no guarantees that the multimodal option will last into the future. The road connections to the south have been cut down in the STPR and are now inadequate—they use the existing but not necessarily the best routes. When I attended one of the public meetings on this new transport project last week, I was told by Transport Scotland officials that the bridge will be a 70mph crossing. That seems strange when the road network to the north has 60mph limits. Perhaps the minister can explain that.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It does not.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

The A90 north has a 60mph limit.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No, it does not. That is factually wrong.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

We will take that discussion forward in due course.

There are great concerns about the lack of clarity on funding for the new crossing. I would like some information on that.

We have touched on the issue of trust. The STPR does not make the promises that the SNP made in opposition as part of its election campaign. Yesterday, the public began to understand what we have all known for a long time in this Parliament: the SNP Government cannot be trusted.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

I will be as constructive as I can be and reflect what is said in the Scottish Conservative amendment. The key point in our amendment is prioritisation. Six weeks ago, we welcomed the STPR in broad terms, but we said then—and it is crucial to repeat it now—that now that there is a list of 29 projects, the process must move forward quickly to prioritise which projects will go ahead when. Which projects are planned for the early part of the period after 2012? Which ones will go forward in the middle period, if we can call it that, and which ones are more likely to fit in at the tail-end of the period covered by the review?

The minister said that the projects will be funded by successive spending reviews. Of course, spending reviews take place every three years or so, so the Government must have some idea—or if it does not, it must develop one fairly quickly—of which projects will be put forward at the next spending review and at the one after that. It is important for the credibility of the Government and, indeed, the Parliament that expectations throughout the country are managed properly, because for people in affected communities there is an enormous difference between a project that gets on track in 2012 and one that gets on track 10 or 15 years later.

It has been said that the projects in the STPR are numbered but not ordered. That might be acceptable for the review document, which is not, as Mr Tolson said, a "thin" document. If only it were; I am afraid that it is in excess of 800 pages, much to the chagrin of some spokespeople. We are looking to receive information swiftly—I hope that we can get some guidance today, if not full answers—on the likely costs of the projects, because we currently have only indicative costs from similar projects. Will we get some idea of timescales and perhaps even the funding mechanisms for taking the projects forward? Currently, of the 29 projects, apart from the Forth road bridge, which is clearly the number 1 priority, the other 28 all appear to be equal priorities. The danger is that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

I do not want to be overly critical of the previous Administration, but a similar lack of focus was typical of it, too. For an example of that, we need only look at an answer that was given to transport oracle David Davidson, a former member of this Parliament, in March 2007. The question was:

"To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish a list, in priority order, of its announced transport infrastructure schemes."

The answer from Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport, was:

"The planned programme of transport infrastructure schemes may be found on the Scottish Executive and the Transport Scotland websites ... All these projects are considered as a priority, which is why they have been included in the programme of committed projects."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 23 March 2007; S2W-32430.]

That was the settled position after eight years of the Administration.

We will have to move far faster and far more effectively if the strategic transport projects review is to come to fruition. That will be important to underpin our economy, especially at the present time, but also in the medium and longer term. It is important that we get it right because, as the Audit Scotland "Review of major capital projects in Scotland" showed, too many projects have not been on time or on budget: only two fifths of projects were on budget and only one third were on time. We now need to follow fine words with details.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In the limited time that I have, I will try to deal with as many of the points that members have raised as possible.

The STPR deals with surface transport and not merely roads. However, Alison McInnes clearly believes that all interventions on roads should be in the STPR. That is not true—unless she is advocating, as she now appears to be, the abolition of the regional transport partnerships.

Let me draw Peter Peacock's attention to some of the numbers relating to traffic at Elgin. If we consider an extreme situation, as few as 3,000 of the 20,227 vehicles that go through Elgin every day could divert to the bypass. That should make us focus on the fact that we are not merely talking about a trunk road intervention. It is precisely because different views exist that we are now engaging with HITRANS and the local council to work out the right interventions for Elgin. However, we acknowledge that interventions are needed.

Peter Peacock appeared to suggest that the TLR might resolve issues at the roundabout adjacent to the ground of Caley Jags. I am really not clear why that should be.

Mary Scanlon said that she was holding the Government to account. Quite properly, she said that that was the job of the Opposition, and I have no problem of any kind with that assertion. However, the mature way of making progress is to engage on the issues—such as those affecting Elgin—in order to work out the right solution.

Charlie Gordon asked what would be happening in the next five or six years, and then talked about "son of crossrail". This is another situation in which various numbers arise. We have commissioned research work from Jacobs to consider the capacity of the Glasgow stations and the rail network in the approaches to Glasgow. The research will inform a meeting that will take place in the next few weeks. Useful work will enable Strathclyde partnership for transport and the Government to determine the long-term strategy for developing son of crossrail or crossrail-plus, or whatever we choose to call it.

On the question of the rolling stock being too long, if I was misleading in the meeting of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail I should now be clear and say that the new rolling stock is 23m long as opposed to 20m, and in future trains will comprise eight carriages of 23m. Under those circumstances, the present ability at Glasgow Central sometimes to put three trains at one platform will be diminished—platforms will be able to accommodate only one train. It is not that we will be unable to get the trains in, but there will be an effect on the overall capacity—the overall number of trains. I know that the people who are considering the issue will acknowledge that that effect will have to be dealt with.

I will answer Lewis Macdonald's points very briefly. He brought forward a miasma of obfuscation, distortion, misrepresentation, pusillanimous persiflage, and economy of memory, facts and explanation. It will be done. We will pay for it. The people of Aberdeen will be duly grateful.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

No, he will not. He has got only five minutes, so he does not have enough time.

Jim Tolson described the STPR as a "thin" document. It has 3,800 pages, for heaven's sake! He has given the game away: he has not actually read the thing.

Jim Tolson went on to say that there is a 60mph limit north of the Forth bridge. The first 60mph limit on the A90 north of the bridge, or on any of the roads connecting to it, is at the delimit sign at Dyce airport north of Aberdeen. If he thinks that that will affect—

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

That is wrong.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Alison McInnes is quite right: I am wrong. The first 60mph limit is north of Inverurie. However, it certainly is not immediately north of the bridge. Let us deal in facts, not hypotheses.

This Government is committed to bringing forward the projects in the strategic transport projects review, and I look forward with optimism to support for our approach at 5 o'clock. We will support the Tory amendment because it makes sense, but no one else should look forward to our support.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Jim Tolson is a former mechanical fitter, so anything with only three and a half thousand pages would seem quite thin to him.

The minister will recall how unsatisfied members were at the way in which the review was first presented to Parliament. We had little time to read the information, and many of us predicted that we would end up having many debates on its contents over the years to come. Many of us were concerned about the lack of focus, and those concerns have been repeated today by Gavin Brown. Many of us were also concerned about the lack of priorities, which most Opposition members have mentioned today. All of us were concerned about how and when the projects would be delivered, because the projects are important to the communities in our constituencies. I am sure that the minister will agree that the STPR's introduction to the Parliament was not the most auspicious, and things have gone a little downhill since then.

Despite the plethora of information, the strategic transport projects review has provided more questions than answers for the Parliament. The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will not be surprised that we are now having our second debate on the STPR since he presented it last month. I predict that we will have many more debates in the months to come.

Debate has been generated across the country, not all of which has been positive. However, the minister will understand that real and legitimate concerns have been expressed about what is and is not in the review.

Peter Peacock highlighted concerns about what exactly the STPR is. On the Labour side of the chamber, we believe that it is a nationally co-ordinated local media campaign, as opposed to a proper review of projects for the next 10 or 20 years in Scotland.

The minister spoke about the Forth road bridge. I would like to respond to comments made by Shirley-Anne Somerville. Our concerns about the plans are well documented. We believe that not enough is known about the condition of the existing bridge for it to be classed as a serious long-term public transport corridor. We have real concerns about the existing cables. We will not know until 2011 whether they will be okay or will have to be replaced. I do not think that the minister was able to give guarantees about that when he last appeared at the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee.

The Forth Estuary Transport Authority is considering how to examine the huge anchorages that hold the main cables. No one can be 100 per cent sure about the condition of those huge structures. I applaud FETA for doing that work. A number of skilled engineers are at work on the crossing to make it safe for us, and it is right that they are doing that. I encourage Shirley-Anne Somerville to meet FETA to find out about its plans—although she has probably done so already.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I have.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

She will share my concerns that we cannot guarantee that the bridge will be fully operational for as long as we would like it to be, so that it can provide a multimodal option.

The funding of the new crossing has been a topical issue. Concerns have been raised about the Government's inability to bring forward a suitable funding package.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

If the member is so concerned about the future of the Forth bridge, why did his party, when it led the Administration, do absolutely nothing to deal with the problem in a way that would not affect traffic in the long term?

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member cares to look, she will see that our priority was a new bridge—that was in our 2007 manifesto, and there were debates in the Parliament about it. That was a policy objective of my party, just as it was of the member's party.

The SNP's 2007 manifesto said:

"we have concerns ... about the construction cost"

of building a new bridge, which demonstrates that the party knew about the cost issue at that point but did nothing about it until a couple of weeks before it presented the projects to the Parliament. That is unbelievable.

I welcomed many of Alex Johnstone's comments, until he went off on a different track. I understand why the Tories are lashing out this morning, but the reality is that we had extremely constructive discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth and other members of the Cabinet. I felt that those discussions were taking us in a positive direction, but we could not reach agreement. The Tories also had constructive discussions, but found that they were able to reach agreement. That is where we are. Our objective was to increase apprenticeships and skills training, which are, of course, vital to the future of our transport network. That is why we focused many of our budget discussions on those issues.

The wider issue that our motion deals with is responsibility. All of us in this chamber have a responsibility to maximise public confidence in what we say and do. That is why our motion focuses on the actions and words of ministers and the fact that they take collective decisions as part of the Cabinet. A minister cannot face two ways at once and simply cross their fingers and hope that the public will not notice. I do not know why Richard Lochhead has not been in the chamber today to defend his position. It is a convention that, if a minister is so opposed to a Cabinet decision that they feel that they cannot back it, they should seriously consider their position. The minister can either accept that the concept of collective responsibility means that he must say that the SNP is correct to miss out an Elgin bypass from its 20-year plan or consider his position and leave himself free to fight for that bypass. He cannot do both things.

Where is Adam Ingram this morning? Where is Fergus Ewing? We must give the First Minister his due, because when he made his recent faux pas about spivs and speculators he came into the chamber to defend his position. Where are the ministers I have mentioned? They could have participated in the debate.

What we, as politicians, say and what we make happen are equally important. The minister has made a commitment to bring forward an action plan in the new year. We await the detail of that with interest. I hope that the outcome of today's debate will go some way towards making that happen.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

To ask the Scottish Executive, further to its announcement on 24 August 2007 that it intends to replace the prison in Peterhead and close Craiginches prison in Aberdeen, what plans it has to establish new community prison facilities in Aberdeen. (S3O-5754)

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

Following detailed evaluation of numerous sites, we have decided that the most suitable site for the construction of a replacement facility is at the existing Peterhead prison. The new prison will be community facing and is a new initiative in the accommodation of prisoners from the north-east of Scotland. The facility will have huge benefits across the whole area: it will meet the needs of a full range of prisoners and avoid the necessity for most females and young offenders to be held at Cornton Vale and Polmont respectively in the central belt. Instead, they will be located considerably nearer their homes in the north-east.

There are no plans to have any prison facilities in Aberdeen once the new facility is operational.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The cabinet secretary's deputy, Fergus Ewing, rightly said in The Press and Journal on 27 November 2008:

"The family is absolutely key to the rehabilitation process."

If the cabinet secretary agrees with that, can he explain how placing prisoners in Peterhead and forcing families from Aberdeen to make the 60-mile round trip from Scotland's third city to visit them will help prisoner rehabilitation?

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

As I made clear, it is significantly easier to get to Peterhead from Aberdeen than it is to get to Stirling, where Cornton Vale is located, or to Polmont, where the young offenders institution is located.

If Mr Rumbles wishes to insist on there being a facility in Aberdeen, perhaps he can tell us—bearing in mind the £800 million-worth of cuts that we would have to bear as a result of the Liberal Democrats' 2p income tax cut—where we would get the £140 million to £200 million to pay for it. He must explain where that £1 billion-worth of public expenditure cuts would come from.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Has the cabinet secretary discussed the impact of there being no community prison in Aberdeen with local social work agencies and the police? Is he aware of the police's security concerns about the 40-mile journeys for prisoners to the courts and the impact on the rehabilitation of prisoners who are placed further away from key services and their families?

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

As the member will be aware, I have numerous meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, local police representatives and the Association of Directors of Social Work, all of whom are supportive of the Government's direction.

I have to say that I am gobsmacked that the member thinks that security implications are greater on journeys from Aberdeen to Peterhead than on journeys from Aberdeen to Stirling, Polmont, Shotts, Barlinnie or other prisons to which prisoners are regularly transferred.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many houses for social rent it expects to be completed in 2008-09 and 2009-10. (S3O-5705)

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

We expect to complete around 4,700 houses for social rent in 2008-09. The planned completions for 2009-10 will be announced as part of the programme announcement for that year in due course. In 2007-08, we completed 4,241 social rented units; the estimate of 4,700 for 2008-09 reflects an 11 per cent increase.

Mary Mulligan (Labour, Linlithgow)

I am astounded by the minister's complacency as he must be aware that 600 fewer social rented housing units were completed in the first six months of 2008-09 than in the same period in the previous year. Will he tell us how an additional cost for housing associations averaging £10,000 per unit—which lenders seem very reluctant to pick up—will assist in housing completions in 2009-10 meeting the Government's targets, let alone the urgent and increasing demand for housing?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Perhaps the member should have listened to the answer before asking that supplementary question. We expect an increase this year of approximately 11 per cent in the number of social rented units that will be completed—the number will go from 4,241 last year to 4,700 this year. To make that absolutely clear, that is an increase of 11 per cent.

The issue is not the impact that the member suggests might occur but the impacts that will occur if we do not pass the budget that the Government brings forward. [Interruption.] To make it clear, the impact of that on affordable housing will be a loss of £113 million from the affordable housing budget. If we pass our budget bill, the affordable housing budget will be £644 million, but it will be £531 million if—[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. That is enough sedentary intervention.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It will be £531 million if the Labour Party carries on with its irresponsible behaviour. The total amount of money that would be lost to housing in the affordable housing investment programme, in private housing and in a range of other areas—including the regeneration programmes—is about £135 million. That is the real impact of Labour's irresponsible behaviour on people throughout the country.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Western Isles)

How will the Scottish Government assist organisations in building new affordable housing in the Western Isles?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am glad to report to the member that, using part of the third tranche of accelerated money that was brought forward to this year—and which is therefore exempt from the impact of the Labour Party's irresponsible behaviour—we have managed to bring forward two projects in the Western Isles: at Lews Castle school in Stornoway and at Vatersay croft. Both of those were land acquisitions, and we hope to provide 25 new affordable houses on that land.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I have been contacted by a housing association that has been given Scottish Government approval for a scheme along with a grant of £88,000 per unit, but only if the rest of the balance can be obtained from the local authority. Meanwhile, a neighbouring housing association has been assessed and awarded a grant of £107,000 per unit. Is the minister aware of that? Can he tell me why such varying grant levels apply in two neighbouring parts of the west Highlands and whether he supports that?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I support the provision of the appropriate level of grant for a particular project. I cannot speak about those individual projects, but I imagine that the difficulties in terms of geography and land that might affect a project could result in differences in the level of grant. We have stated clearly—despite claims by the Opposition—that the grant level can vary depending on the individual project, and the member has just proved that point.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Is the minister aware that it looks as though the Government has an extra £33 million? Perhaps he could persuade the Government to put that money into affordable housing in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Is he satisfied that there are a sufficient number of tradesmen to carry out the work that he has outlined?

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I am glad to say that both Edinburgh and Glasgow benefited from the third tranche of accelerated money for affordable housing that was announced this week. I would be delighted to spend the additional money to which the member refers on affordable housing, but that is, of course, a matter for negotiation between the various parties.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to encourage physical activity among schoolchildren. (S3O-5734)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Physical activity, physical education and sport are key elements of the health and wellbeing subject area of the curriculum for excellence. That will require schools to make provision for every young person to participate in those activities during and beyond the school day and is explicitly reflected in guidance to support the new three-to-18 curriculum. Taken together, the experiences and outcomes for physical education, physical activity and sport will underpin a pattern of daily physical activity, which research has shown is most likely to lead to sustained physical activity in adult life.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, during a recent evidence session of the Health and Sport Committee, a witness from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Education stated that if a report for an inspected school made no mention of physical education one could assume that there was no cause for concern. That is in spite of the fact that only a tiny minority of schools have achieved the target for two hours of PE a week, five years after it was set.

Can the cabinet secretary assure us that, given the commitment in the curriculum for excellence to children's health and wellbeing, greater emphasis will be placed on the importance of physical education in schools and that more transparent arrangements will be made to monitor progress?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am aware of the Health and Sport Committee's evidence session. Every inspection team will ask about progress towards the target of two hours of PE and about wider physical education activities. HMIE was reminded as recently as two weeks ago that that should be the case. In schools where the provision of physical education has been highlighted as an issue, the inspection team will explore that rigorously, and if it concludes that provision is insufficient or of poor quality, that will feature in the inspection report. Good practice will, of course, also be highlighted. I take on board the points about transparency in the reporting system, and I will pass them on to HMIE for it to reflect on.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Would that problem be allayed if the General Teaching Council in Scotland considered assisting the training of new probationer teachers in outdoor education as well as in specialist PE activity?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I appreciate the member's interest in that general area—physical activity includes outdoor education. The new training and continuous professional development that is provided for existing primary teachers can certainly do that, but we need to ensure that the probationers who are going into education are well grounded in all aspects of physical activity, as that will make a big difference in improving the activity levels of our young people.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress is being made by the working group on Scotland without nuclear weapons. (S3O-5730)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The working group on Scotland without nuclear weapons is progressing with its work plan within the remit that has been set. The minutes of each group meeting are placed on the Scottish Government website.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the working group commit to work with those at an international level—such as President Obama's Administration—who have called for work to halt the progress of nuclear proliferation? Does the minister agree that recent press reports about the huge annual cost of maintaining Trident, and the reports from senior military officials who have called it "irrelevant", make the case for a new generation of nuclear weapons very weak indeed?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I agree with the member—the case for a new generation of nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Trident was recently denounced by Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the former head of the armed forces, who was backed by Generals Lord Ramsbotham and Sir Hugh Beach. They described it as "irrelevant" and "completely useless", and referred to its influence and effectiveness as a deterrent as a "fallacy". They went on to say:

"Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently, or are likely to, face—particularly international terrorism; and the more you analyse them the more unusable they appear."

I agree entirely with that sentiment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Has the group identified the redeployment of all 11,000 people who depend on Faslane for employment, particularly given the current economic climate? Does he accept that Alex Salmond's promise of a Scottish navy—all seven frigates—related to Rosyth and not Faslane, which would mean that the whole base would close?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

We should be careful not to scaremonger over numbers on such a serious issue. We hear the figure of 11,000 continually from Jackie Baillie, so I will tell members what a United Kingdom minister said not that long ago in answer to a Scottish National Party member in the UK Parliament:

"The number of civilian jobs which directly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 936 in Scotland".—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 February 2005; Vol 431, c 128W.]

It is also clear from the answer from Quentin Davies to a recent parliamentary question that we are talking about a cost of £1.5 billion over 10 years to 2019 for that weapons system. I wonder how many affordable houses that would build.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made on analysing the responses to the consultation on draft guidance for local authorities on the use of biometric technology in schools. (S3O-5739)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

My officials are currently considering all the responses to the consultation, and we aim to publish a report on our analysis of the responses next month.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that the East Dunbartonshire parent council forum recently voted unanimously for a moratorium on the installation of biometric fingerprinting programmes in schools? Most parents had been unaware that the local authority was embarking on biometric fingerprinting. Does the cabinet secretary believe that parents have the right to know before such systems are introduced?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The short answer is yes. The East Dunbartonshire position has been brought to my attention. When it is published, the revised guidance will set out our position on the implementation of any such systems, which is that if an authority decides to use biometric systems in its schools we will expect it to follow the best practice, which will be set out in the guidance, and to consult parents. I hope that East Dunbartonshire Council will consider fully consulting parents on the use of those technologies in schools, but ultimately it is an issue for the council and the parent council forum to resolve.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will give an update on what progress has been made with the United Kingdom Government on allowing fatal accident inquiries to be held in Scotland for Scottish armed services personnel and others killed in accidents overseas. (S3O-5718)

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

Elements of allowing such inquiries are reserved, and questions on those elements should be addressed to the United Kingdom Government. However, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence on 19 November 2008 to propose a way to resolve the issue. Following a subsequent exchange of letters—one from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to me, dated 15 January 2009, and my reply to him, dated 22 January 2009—the Lord Chancellor confirmed to the Westminster Parliament on 26 January that the UK Government intends to table amendments during the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill to provide for inquiries to be held in Scotland.

The bill committee starts its work on 3 February 2009. Officials from the Crown Office, the Scottish Government's justice directorate, the Ministry of Defence, the England and Wales coroners unit, the Scotland Office and the Ministry of Justice Coroners and Justice Bill team are scheduled to hold a videoconference on 28 January 2009 to resolve the four outstanding details of the mechanism by which such inquiries could be held in future, on which I understand there to be an agreement in principle.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

Will the cabinet secretary continue to impress upon those with whom he is obliged to work on the issue the urgency of a satisfactory and rapid resolution, especially given the recent tragic deaths of a number of forces personnel based in Scotland—not only those who were Scottish but all those based in Scotland, predominantly those from 45 Commando in Arbroath—and the opportunity that a solution provides to alleviate the continuing suffering, stress and anxiety of the bereaved families of such personnel?

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

Absolutely. I am aware of Keith Brown's interest in the matter. The Government and the Lord Advocate have made it clear that looking after the interests of grieving relatives must be at the heart of the matter, which is why we are working with the Government south of the border to ensure that the pragmatic solution we suggested some while ago can be introduced and that such matters can be resolved with as little inconvenience as possible being added to the trauma that the families suffer.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the estimated completion date is for the replacement of HMP Peterhead. (S3O-5749)

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

The Scottish Prison Service is currently preparing to apply for outline planning permission from Aberdeenshire Council for the construction of the new prison at Peterhead. Subject to planning consent, the SPS will then conduct a procurement exercise for the prison's construction. It is estimated that planning, procurement, construction and commissioning will take a minimum of four years.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The First Minister said in August 2007 that he was ending the uncertainty and indecision about the prison. That seems long ago, as nearly a year and a half later an application for outline planning permission has still not been lodged. Will the cabinet secretary explain why the delay has occurred and what is behind the current uncertainty?

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

I am unaware of any delay or uncertainty. We moved swiftly to make it clear that the new prison for the north-east of Scotland—which, as I said to Mr Rumbles earlier, will serve Aberdeen and Peterhead—would be in Peterhead. That announcement ended the uncertainty and was welcomed by the prison officers and their families there.

The Government has acted expeditiously and is doing what it can to drive through the project, and we will do so in the knowledge that what matters is public safety, not private profit. The new HMP Peterhead will be a public prison and will be run to ensure the benefit and safety of the people who work in it and the communities that require to be protected from the people who are incarcerated in it.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Eighty-five per cent of adult male prisoners at Craiginches are from the city of Aberdeen, as are the vast majority of the women and young offenders from the Grampian area who are currently in prison. Can the cabinet secretary offer any explanation for his decision to replace Craiginches with a new prison in Peterhead rather than in Aberdeen?

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

As was made clear in my reply to Mr Rumbles, and as Mr Macdonald will know if he was in the chamber and listening, the new prison will be community facing and will hold youngsters who would otherwise be sent to HM Young Offenders Institution Polmont and women who would be sent to Cornton Vale. As a former minister, Mr Macdonald will probably recall numerous instances of female prisoners being sent around Scotland in Reliance vans in great discomfort; they will now be able to go the short distance from Aberdeen to Peterhead. It seems to me a significant improvement for female prisoners and young prisoners from the north-east of Scotland to be dealt with there and not shipped down to the central belt in a Reliance van.

First Minister's Question Time

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-1398)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today, I will meet Opposition leaders who have asked for meetings to discuss taking forward the budget process to completion. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has contacted every local authority in Scotland to explain the circumstances that threaten to disrupt their budgeting. Hopefully, that will concentrate the minds of the Parliament on the jobs and services outside the chamber that depend on the decisions that we make inside the chamber.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Yesterday morning, John Swinney said:

"The duty for me is to put forward a budget that convinces Parliament."

I agree. Last night, he acknowledged that he had failed in that duty. He failed because the Scottish National Party approached the serious matter of the Scottish budget with reckless brinkmanship and arrogance. Hubris indeed. It chose to seek narrow political advantage rather than broad, constructive consensus. That approach must not be repeated.

I welcome the First Minister's meetings today, and offer him the opportunity to explain to Scotland how he intends to change his approach to secure support for the resubmitted budget bill.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The bill failed because the Labour Party, as the principal Opposition party, decided to put its own narrow interests before employment and jobs for Scotland. That is why we have editorials such as that in today's Scottish Daily Express :

"Labour MSPs should be ashamed of themselves".

There were a number of revealing contributions in yesterday's debate, but none more revealing than that from John Park MSP, who responded to the realisation that the SNP had offered the Labour Party one of its key demands—the apprenticeship guarantee, which I think is vital—with the words:

"Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the Government would have announced that anyway, regardless of the budget process?"—[Official Report, 28 January 2009; c 14452.]

As if an issue as important as apprenticeships should depend on who was making the announcement. That is exactly the problem with the Labour Party when it refuses to face its responsibilities.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There is little sign of the Government having learned any lesson from yesterday. One editorial does not the news coverage make—I suggest that the First Minister reads the editorials in some of the other newspapers—nor does one proposal constitute constructive discussion.

Labour has a series of sincere proposals that we believe will help Scotland through the global economic crisis. A young person in Scotland has less than half the chance of an apprenticeship place that a young person in England has. We want that corrected. Most people would consider that a reasonable and compelling objective. In a budget of £34 billion, no one would believe it to be too much to ask. However, last night the SNP described that constructive dialogue as Labour "playing games". We have heard more of the same today.

Will the First Minister learn the lesson of yesterday, and promise to set aside such language and give an assurance that he will enter into discussions seriously, responsibly and in a spirit of good faith?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have entered into discussions seriously, responsibly and in a spirit of good faith. I agree with Iain Gray. Responding to only one constructive suggestion is not enough, which is why, for example, in response to another of the Labour Party's five demands we announced a town centre regeneration fund of £60 million, when they wanted one for £50 million. I see Labour members pointing at the Conservatives. Because the Conservatives championed that idea, it suddenly becomes invalid. Does that not imply that what Labour wanted out of the budget was not constructive investment for the people of Scotland but to be able to claim for itself ideas that were shared throughout the Parliament? [ Applause. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

That is enough applause, thank you.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister's responses demonstrate exactly the narrow party advantage that he has brought to and seeks from the process. Let us examine his responses.

In his first answer, he talked about the consequences of last night's vote, although he seems to have learned little about the consequences for his own standing. For some time now, the SNP and its loyal servants in the matter, the Tories, have claimed that £1.8 billion would be lost to Scotland if the Budget (Scotland) (No 2) Bill fell and that there would be no increase in funding next year. In fact, the Tories are claiming today that that has already happened, but it is not true.

I am sure that the First Minister would not wish to allow the Parliament or the people of Scotland to be misled, so let me read from an e-mail from the assistant clerk to the Finance Committee:

"If the Budget Bill for 2009-10 was passed at some point after 1 April and only came into force on, say, 1 June 2009, then the Government would get the full allocation of circa £34 billion".

[Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Yesterday, the moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland reminded us of Burns's words

"an honest man's the noblest work of God".

Is the First Minister honest enough to admit that the claim that £1.8 billion will be lost is just gratuitous scaremongering?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have heard many questions in my time as First Minister, but that must rate as the most extraordinary of them all. We are now told by Iain Gray that, apparently, it would not cause disruption to Scottish public services if a budget bill did not pass until June. What are the health boards throughout Scotland to do in the meantime? What are the local authorities throughout Scotland to do in the meantime? What is every voluntary organisation in Scotland to do in the meantime? [ Applause. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Let us put it in terms of jobs: £1.8 billion is 35,000 jobs. Sooner or later, the Labour Party had better realise, as the first ever Opposition party to vote against a budget at stage 3 in this Parliament, that it is jeopardising 35,000 jobs.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr Gray, a brief final question, please.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Mr Swinney made it clear last night that the Government intends to seek consensus and lodge a budget bill that the Parliament can support. That is what the Government requires to do in order to avoid the kind of disruption that has been mentioned. That is its responsibility. [ Interruption. ]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The process has to be about the SNP Government responding to the scale of the economic challenge that we face. Yesterday's gross domestic product figures simply emphasise the seriousness of the challenge in Scotland. Last night, when Mr Swinney was asked how much of his budget he had changed, he answered, "£82 million." That is one quarter of one per cent.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. I will decide on the timings in the chamber.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

We know that more can be done. We have been saying that since October. Our door is still open to discuss the budget that Scotland needs. Can the First Minister promise the same, and can we believe him?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are now making progress. We have moved from the context of the previous question, where there was to be no disruption at all and we could have a budget through in June, to an acceptance that there will be serious disruption. If the Labour Party starts to understand the consequences of its vote yesterday, perhaps we will get to the solution.

I have pointed out a number of issues on which the SNP had made agreements with, or at least offers to the Labour Party. I have mentioned two already. One was apparently invalid because we were going to do it anyway, and the second was invalid because the Conservatives were also proposing it. How about the promised increased investment in PACE—partnership action for continuing employment? That is another of Labour's demands that was met, but it is apparently now swept aside because Labour wants to seek some other advantage.

Yes, 35,000 jobs are at stake, as are the apprenticeship places that are going through; the small business bonus scheme; the council tax freeze; the extra police officers; the accelerated capital investment; the help for people who are facing redundancy; the zero waste fund; free personal care; regeneration; capital city costs; the reduction in prescription charges; and the town centre regeneration fund. They are all at risk because of Labour's attitude, and it is high time that Iain Gray started to face up to his responsibilities, not to his back benchers or to Jim Murphy, but to this Parliament and the people of Scotland.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1399)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have no plans to meet the secretary of state in the near future.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The latest International Monetary Fund figures show that the United Kingdom will suffer the worst slump of all industrialised nations since the second world war and that the Scottish economy is now falling faster than that of the UK as a whole. It is precisely because of that frightening backdrop that the Scottish Conservatives negotiated in the budget the abolition of or cut in local taxes for 150,000 of our small businesses; secured the continuing freeze of council tax; and got a pledge for a £60 million town centre regeneration fund to address this real, happening crisis.

Sadly, that goal was not shared by every party in this chamber. For Iain Gray and the Scottish Labour Party, this was not about addressing Labour's recession; instead, it was about trying to stage some bloodless debating chamber coup to ensconce him as First Minister. Let me make it clear: I shall have no truck with such antics. Does the First Minister agree that Scotland is already badly served by one Labour Government and that we certainly do not need two? [Interruption.]

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. That's enough.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Do I get time to answer this question? Yes, I agree.

I want to say a little about the town centre regeneration fund. We were unable to put the concept, which did not evolve with the SNP, into last year's budget; however, in negotiations with other parties, the opportunity presented itself precisely because last August—months before Westminster did it—we accelerated forward housing investment when we realised the extent of the crisis. That allowed us to allocate the consequential capital investment to other projects. I believe that, given the position that the real economy faces and the position of town centres and our communities across Scotland, this is exactly the moment when £60 million of capital investment throughout the country will do some good.

Every constituency MSP—indeed, every MSP—in this chamber should start to think about the projects in their communities that would be valuable this year but that are now at risk. Indeed, we should think about the global total of jobs—a number running well into four figures—that would be created by this one measure alone. It is exactly that type of project, which, as I say, did not originate with the SNP but is now shared by parties across the chamber, that has been put at risk by people not putting the interests of Scotland before their political objectives.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I am certain that all party leaders will have received this morning the public's views on yesterday's budget debacle. Our first priority must be to get a budget for Scotland passed in the chamber. We must remove the spectre of council tax increases and public service cuts; we need stability, not uncertainty; and clarity, not confusion. It is no victory for anyone in this Parliament for it to be a laughing stock. In an e- mail that I received this morning—an e-mail which, I have to say, is humbling—a correspondent who dismisses every one of us said of the budget:

"I don't care how you do it neither does the vast majority in the country just get it done".

Does the First Minister agree that the priority is not bloodless coups, debating antics in the chamber or putting parties on a war footing but getting this budget passed?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I agree. We intend to do exactly that, not in the interests of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives, the Green party or the Labour Party, but in the interests of the Scottish people.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1400)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The next meeting of Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Parliament needs a budget bill for private sector jobs and for public services but, more important, the country needs the right budget bill to tackle the economic problems that we face. Yesterday's economic news was truly disturbing: the growth figures for Scotland are worse than those of the United Kingdom; the UK figures were judged by the International Monetary Fund to be the worst in the world; and a global engineering business with an Ayrshire base is to close. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has been commendably blunt and said that Scotland is in recession. Does the First Minister agree with Mr Swinney?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I agree that Scotland is in recession. The official figures will not be out for three months because of the time lag in declaring them. In any interpretation of the current economic data, it should be remembered that Scottish employment is higher than the UK average, Scottish unemployment is lower, and Scottish activity rates across the population are also higher.

I say to Tavish Scott that, even if we thought that the 2p cut in income tax proposed by the Scottish Liberal Democrats last September was a good idea, there is not a majority for it in the chamber. [Interruption.] I hear members say that that has not been tested, but I have quote after quote from Labour spokesmen attacking it.

In yesterday's debate, Jeremy Purvis said that the Scottish Parliament information centre said that, under the Government's input-output model, such a tax cut would generate 9,200 jobs in Scotland. Yes; but the same model shows that if we reduce public spending by £800 million, we will lose 16,868 jobs, which is a net loss of some 6,000. That cannot be the right measure to take in these difficult times.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

This is about jobs in the private sector. We need a long-term plan to rescue us from the economic storm. Alex Salmond leads a minority Government and he has to work across all parties. Is the First Minister prepared, as I am, to sit down, roll up his sleeves, and work with others to build a budget and a long-term economic approach that can create jobs and tackle the economic recession? His economic growth target for 2011 was invented in the boom times. What is his assessment of that target now that we are in the bust?