Scottish Parliament, 23 April 2009

321 contributions from 71 members. The official report.

Official Report 23 April 2009

Newspaper Industry

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3947, in the name of David Whitton, on the Scottish newspaper industry. I inform members that we are very tight for time in both this morning's debates.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I declare an interest. I have been a member of the National Union of Journalists for more than 30 years, and I am a former employee of Johnston Press, Trinity Mirror and Scottish Television.

Labour will not support either amendment to my motion, as we are totally opposed to the compulsory redundancies that are being imposed at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail.

In Scotland, we have enjoyed for many years the benefits of our distinctive media outlets, our strong regional daily and weekly newspapers and our distinctive broadcasting voice on radio and television. Collectively, the media have an important role to play in the Scottish economy. Around 27,000 people are currently employed in the creative industries in Scotland, which is roughly 6 per cent of the United Kingdom total. We should include animation, computer games and film in the creative industries as well as newspapers, radio and television.

These are difficult days for the Scottish economy. All sectors, including the media, must consider how they can make savings to remain competitive. My colleague Ken Macintosh will cover the effects on the broadcasting sector; I will confine my remarks to what is happening in Scotland's newspaper industry.

Unfortunately, three of the major players in Scotland are engaged in redundancy programmes as they restructure their editorial capacity in the face of falling sales and advertising revenues. Earlier this year, we debated what was happening at The Herald, the Evening Times and the Sunday Herald as 37 volunteers for redundancy were sought. New contracts have now been introduced, journalists now work longer hours and their holiday entitlement has been cut. The Health and Safety Executive has been asked to intervene.

That was just the prelude for management action elsewhere. Johnston Press, which owns The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday and the Edinburgh Evening News, wants to shed around a dozen jobs in addition to the five that have already gone at smaller titles in Glasgow and Ayrshire, but at least it was willing to negotiate with the unions. That has not been the case with the management at Trinity Mirror, which owns the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail. It is merging the workforces of the two profit-making titles, it wants to cut the workforce by 60, and it has already declared 19 compulsory redundancies. All of those people have been told to go by the end of this month. That has triggered industrial action, which will mean a three-day stoppage beginning at midnight tonight.

The situation is made worse by the fact that Trinity Mirror is trying to get redundancies on the cheap. It has withdrawn enhanced pension provision for those with long service, which was always paid in previous redundancy situations, and it seems to have selected candidates for redundancy on the basis of who is cheapest to get rid of. A young photographer constituent of mine is included in that number. He will lose his job next week despite having been nominated for three national awards. Another candidate is a man with 30 years of service who would have qualified for an enhanced pension. He will see his lump sum cut by around 30 per cent and his pension entitlement cut by around 40 per cent. As a former industrial editor of the Daily Record, I confess that I am appalled by the current management's attitude to its workforce.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the member agree that employment law regarding the redundancy situation must also be looked at?

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

I accept what Sandra White says, but it is really a case of management and union sitting down together.

Altogether, around 200 jobs are being taken out of the media industry in Scotland. Those are good, well-paid jobs that contribute to the Scottish economy, not only in Glasgow, which is regarded as the media centre, but in Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh. Other jobs are under threat.

We might have expected to hear from Jim Mather, who is the minister responsible for the media, while all that has been happening, but what has his reaction been? Silence. I am concerned by his lack of action. I hope that he will tell us that he has written to or spoken with the management of all the media companies about their prospects and their plans for their workers. If he has not done so, there is still time for him to pick up the phone. At the very least, the offer of partnership action for continuing employment teams should have been made, as the workers in question have skills that could be used elsewhere. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy, has expressed his strong views to the Scottish management of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, as I and other elected representatives have done with constituents who are employed at those newspapers.

The Trinity Mirror titles, like the owner of The Herald titles, Newsquest, and the owner of The Scotsman titles, Johnston Press, are still in profit, despite their current difficulties. In 2007, Trinity Mirror made an operating profit of £196 million—the profit margin was more than 20 per cent. The Scottish titles were responsible for around £28 million of that. I understand that the profits for 2008 are around £145 million and that the contribution from the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail is around £20 million. All of the 60 journalists who are now facing redundancy made their contribution to those profits, but their reward is to be shown the door on the most minimum terms that the company can get away with. I would have thought that the minister for the media should take an interest if one of the largest companies in the sector is seeking to shed a quarter of its editorial staff. It is still not too late for him to do so.

The NUJ is not opposed to change at The Herald, The Scotsman or the Daily Record. It was and is willing to engage with management to bring the changes that are needed to compete through negotiation, not confrontation. I have corresponded with the chief executive of Trinity Mirror, Sly Bailey, to complain about how the company is treating its staff. In her reply, Ms Bailey, whose remuneration in 2007 was more than £1.7 million, said that the company was facing the worst trading conditions that it had ever seen and that it could not afford to continue the enhanced discretionary payments. I confess to thinking that it is perhaps Ms Bailey's enhanced payments that need to be trimmed, not someone's pension payment after 30 years of service to what was Scotland's newspaper of the year last year. If quality journalism is cut at The Herald, The Scotsman and the Daily Record, the product will be damaged. That will damage sales, and there will also be the risk of damaging democracy.

As a politician who is a former journalist, I firmly believe that the activities of the Government and the Opposition should be kept under scrutiny by a lively media, as should other areas of public life. As I stated earlier, the media industry makes a valuable contribution to Scotland's economy. It will change and adapt, as it always has done, but that must happen through negotiation and—dare I say—some Government help.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the threat to the Scottish economy from the current crisis facing Scotland's newspaper and media industries; notes that local newspapers are facing particular difficulties in the current economic climate; opposes any moves towards compulsory redundancies such as those imposed by Trinity Mirror at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail; calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts, and calls on the Scottish Government to hold urgent talks with Trinity Mirror management in order to prevent compulsory job cuts.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I, too, declare an interest as a shareholder in Scottish Television.

For once, I find myself speaking in a parliamentary debate about a topic that I know something about. David Whitton and I are possibly the only MSPs who began our careers as print journalists. It is a sad day to find myself standing in the chamber trying to find words that might help to save the jobs of friends and former colleagues.

In a recent members' business debate on a motion that was lodged by Sandra White, I referred to the tsunami that was about to overwhelm Scotland's newspaper industry. I described the media version of the perfect storm, with circulation and advertising revenue in freefall, increased competition from the web and the credit crunch set to get worse. It did not take a genius to see that jobs were going and that famous newspaper titles were under threat. So things have turned out.

Jim Mather responded to that debate by holding a stakeholders seminar at Glasgow Caledonian University, which Sandra White and I attended. I am glad that Labour has also recognised the gravity of the situation by proposing this debate, albeit in a sadly truncated timespan. I am sure that Ken Gibson accepts that it is pure coincidence that Labour has in effect trumped his members' business debate this evening on the Trinity Mirror situation.

At the outset, I say that it is not the job of Parliament or politicians to tell people in the newspaper business how to run their business. Therefore, we will not be able to support the motion. However, the Government has a role in working with all newspaper and media groups to safeguard as many of the Scottish jobs that are at risk as possible and to do all that it can to help media owners to buy time in adjusting to new communication technology.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Does Mr Brocklebank agree that it is Parliament's job to take an interest if a major company is sacking a quarter of its workforce and is pushing people out of the door by making compulsory redundancies rather than negotiating with their unions?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Compulsory redundancies are certainly always to be regretted, but we are living in extremely difficult times. The Conservatives are no luddites. We recognise that massive technological changes are under way and that local and national newspapers must embrace them. What we seek is managed change in fraught economic circumstances—and that is where we believe that the Government can help. We accept that, increasingly, governmental recruitment will be done via the net. For many employers, computer literacy is vital. It would be absurd not to use the net for recruitment purposes. However, we suggest that public notices fall into a different category. In a recent letter, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism told me that the proposed removal of public notices from newspapers to online portals could make huge savings in the estimated £10 million per annum that is currently spent on such notices. The minister claimed that he was seeking a more useful format for the intended audience. With respect, I suggest that many people among that intended audience are not quite as computer literate as Mr Mather demonstrated that he was during the event at Glasgow Caledonian University.

I am of a generation that, to be frank, has no interest in blogging. Nor do I twitter—at least, not when I am bored at dinner parties. However, I do read newspapers—avidly—and so do a great many of us who would no more think of hunting down local planning applications, road closures and the like on a personal computer than we would think of phoning up the local library, as John Swinney has suggested, if we wanted to know which Government decisions might be about to affect our communities.

The Government's Scottish household survey found that nine out of 10 pensioners, and nearly half of single parents and single adults, as well as 77 per cent of couples of non-pensionable age, have no access to the internet, in or outside the house. In my view, a vital aspect of freedom of information is the freedom to have information available for those who have no interest in the net.

It seems that Ed Balls, Gordon Brown's Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, agrees. He has rejected Labour's own Killian Pretty review, which said that councils should not have to publish planning statutory notices. At a recent newspaper conference, Mr Balls said:

"Local newspapers provide a vital service."

He went on to add that removing the obligation to place public notices in local newspapers would be

"a retrograde thing to do."

It will be interesting to hear whether Andy Burnham agrees with him as Labour launches its local media summit in the next few days.

I believe that the loss of every newspaper and every newspaper job is a loss to the democratic process, and I look forward to hearing from other speakers in the debate how our democratic rights will be upheld and how these newspaper jobs might be saved.

Because I have so little time for this initial presentation, I will leave it until my summing up—when members will hear me again—to flesh out Conservative plans to encourage new industry models to emerge, including media investment in local online services and new local television companies.

I move amendment S3M-3947.2, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts, and calls on the Scottish Government to hold urgent talks with Trinity Mirror and to work with all media groups to allow new industry models to emerge that will encourage investment not just in local newspapers but in local online services and new local TV companies."

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am pleased to be able to speak in this morning's debate. I do not think that anyone in the chamber will disagree on the need for a vibrant, free and varied press in Scotland. It is a key democratic factor. We need newspapers and other media sources of good quality in order to inform the public about what is happening in society, to encourage debate on the key issues, to inquire into what has been happening and give out the information, and to hold politicians to account. All of those are key roles for our newspaper industry, and I believe that they are under threat from the many changes that are taking place in the industry.

Of course, there is a symbiotic relationship between politicians and journalists. I do not think that we can live with them, but we certainly could not live without them. I think that that is true the other way round as well. We also have one thing in common: the level of affection for us among the general public is shared. I am not sure what that says about politicians and journalists in general, but those among us who were journalists before becoming politicians are in a particularly interesting situation. However, at least we can all thank the bankers for their contribution to such discussions.

Scotland has been blessed with a strong national, regional and local newspaper industry. Titles such as The Scotsman, The Herald and the Daily Record have long and distinguished histories. They have served Scotland well and helped to promote debate in Scotland. That has helped to create the place in which we are speaking today; without the support and help of the newspaper industry, with titles such as The Scotsman and The Herald fighting alongside us, we would not have a Scottish Parliament today.

Regional titles such as The Press and Journal and The Courier still have deep penetration into the communities that they serve. They provide an excellent service to their communities. For me, personally, The Courier is a particularly important title.

Also providing valuable information and different services to communities are local newspapers, whether they are daily evening newspapers or, more usually, weekly journals.

Dave Whitton was right to highlight the potential loss of jobs in the newspaper industry and other media industries. Job losses have been threatened at The Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday, The Herald and the Sunday Herald. The BBC has already shed some jobs, and the loss of circulation and advertising revenue will have serious financial implications for local newspapers. The job losses among journalists have a cumulative effect. The loss of years' worth of the experience, knowledge and judgment of many senior journalists cannot easily be replaced. I am afraid that it will devalue the quality of newspapers and the quality of debate and democratic scrutiny that newspapers help to provide.

Ted Brocklebank was right to highlight public notice advertising. It is all very well to put information on the internet, but not everyone has access to it and not everyone will be flicking through the internet to come across a public notice. One of the points of having public notices in local newspapers is that people do flick through them and can spot things that might affect them and of which they might otherwise have been unaware. It is important that the public is kept informed of things such as planning applications. Also, people who are looking for jobs can be made aware of them through job advertisements in newspapers.

Advertising income is essential to our local newspapers. I therefore hope that the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will look carefully at their current policies on those issues.

I will end by talking briefly about the Liberal Democrat amendment. It is worded as it is partly to cover broader issues that affect the newspaper industry in Scotland and partly because we share Ted Brocklebank's view that it is not for the Scottish Parliament to say no to compulsory redundancies. We can certainly express our concerns, but we are not here to manage the newspaper industry.

I move amendment S3M-3947.1, to leave out from "opposes" to end and insert:

"expresses concern at moves towards compulsory redundancies such as those imposed by Trinity Mirror at the Daily Record and Sunday Mail; notes the importance of a viable and diverse national, regional and local newspaper industry to Scotland's culture; recognises the need to retain talent in Scotland's creative media industries, and calls for all newspaper and media organisations considering restructuring, reorganisation or redundancy to engage in meaningful negotiations with the relevant workforce representatives in order to minimise the economic impact of any job cuts and the need for compulsory redundancies."

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The debate follows on from the members' business debate that was secured by Sandra White back in January, which was preceded by Government engagement with the industry and unions, which gave us a clear understanding of the issues, the implications and the views that were held. Further meetings followed, and there was a major workshop at Glasgow Caledonian University, which triggered further follow-up meetings and the involvement of the First Minister. Today, there will be a further members' business debate, secured by Kenneth Gibson, on this very issue. As we are seeing again today, there has been clear evidence that the Parliament and the Government deeply regret the developments that are unfolding in the print media sector in Scotland.

In changing circumstances, there is a clear need to transform the print industry and its fortunes. Other industries and companies have made such transformations in the past. We acknowledge that attempts have been made in the newspaper industry. However, the challenge is immense and complex, and it has yet to be comprehensively answered, although there are signs of new models emerging in Finland and the United States of America.

It is clear from the motion and amendments that most of us regret the spectre of compulsory redundancy and regret the polarisation of positions. However, we can all understand how the situation has arisen, because we appreciate both the concerns about jobs, job security and employment conditions, and the concerns about the very survival of the titles and businesses involved. That is why the Parliament and the Government are giving so much time to the issue.

Government ministers cannot intervene directly in industrial disputes, but we can try to broker a climate of maximum engagement, to help to produce an imaginative transformation. We have done that and we will continue to do that. I accept the motion and will be engaging with all the parties involved, as the motion suggests that we should. However, we will also point out the benefits of internal co-operation and cohesion, and will highlight examples of companies that have pioneered such approaches and benefited from them. Benefits accrue from there being a unifying, worthy and sound altruistic purpose behind newspapers and what they are trying to achieve as well as ambitious goals for their commercial success. Such an approach repeatedly triggers ingenuity, good will and engagement from staff, unions, suppliers, readers and other allies.

David Whitton (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will come on to discuss Mr Whitton's earlier attempts to apportion blame. I have only four minutes, and will need all that time.

This is the stuff of positive transformation and it is the stuff of allowing us to endure and grow. As David Whitton says, in the long term the industry will change and adapt. However, Mr Whitton pointed blame in my direction and the Government's direction. That, to say the least, was unfortunate. I prefer an approach in which all parties see themselves as part of the solution. That may include parties that have yet to come to the table, such as generation Y, who may indeed have the solution as we attempt to create media for them and their children. They, too, will need news and quality analysis.

The blame culture is worrying because there are dangers within it. People are liable to defend their position, stick to and gold plate their original strategy, disengage and avoid risk. All of that adds no value and reduces the chances of any of the existing players being part of the successful transformation solution that will occur. Others will fill the vacated positions as, in Mr Whitton's words, the change and adaptation come through.

We stand ready to engage and assist in the knowledge that there are opportunities. The internet and newspapers are not mutually exclusive—they can come together. Modern Scots need a positive, modern service, and the business model will adapt to provide that. By learning from elsewhere and evolving new ideas here, this cohesive, tightly measured Scotland can come together to achieve that end.

I look forward to further debate on the subject this evening, in Kenneth Gibson's members' business debate.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

One of the issues underpinning the debate, which should not focus only on the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail , is the need for quality journalism in our society. For generations, events have shown that journalists who ferret out the truth and information play a significant role for the public in holding those in power to account. In political circles, that means those in power at both national and local levels. They also hold businesses to account, focus on damage that is caused to the environment and local communities and expose criminality in communities up and down the country. To enhance and develop that quality journalism, our society needs investment in that type of service.

I am profoundly worried about what is happening at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail because it is a harbinger of what might well happen throughout the rest of the industry and the rest of the country, which will leave us so much poorer in the future. The only people who will sit comfortably with newspapers being destroyed and their quality being eroded are those in power and those who have something to hide.

The Daily Record and the Sunday Mail have made a significant contribution to Scottish civic life over many years. They have exposed criminality and scams affecting old people, and they have fought for children who have been the victims of abuse. Notwithstanding the fact that they are part of the same stable, they have competed with each other for stories and neither has been constrained in what it has said because the other has reported a story first. I fear that what is being proposed will eliminate much of the internal competition in that newspaper group. We will also see not just the erosion but the elimination of years of the experience that is necessary to develop good-quality stories.

Other newspapers in the Trinity Mirror group will be watching what is happening anxiously. I suspect that the group is trying it on in Scotland knowing that, if it succeeds here, it will find it much easier to impose similar cuts elsewhere. I also suspect that many other newspapers are watching what is happening because they intend to follow suit. Our society stands to lose significantly if this ill-judged management proposal goes ahead.

I have been struck by the willingness of the trade unions and the workforce to co-operate. They are not seeking confrontation; they are willing to engage with the management. As David Whitton has said, an extremely profitable company that is led by a well-paid chief executive is refusing to talk to the people who deliver the profits for that organisation. It needs to think again.

I urge the Government, ministers and local councils such as Renfrewshire Council to reconsider their willingness to move away from the placing of public notices in newspapers. The internet may well be used in addition, but it should not be a substitute, as many people rely on newspapers for such information. Not only is the approach that is proposed socially damaging; it will be economically damaging for newspapers as well.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I am surprised that the motion focuses so heavily on the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail , given that I have secured a members' business debate on the crisis at those newspapers for later today. However, I am pleased that the Opposition has chosen the subject for debate, given the lack of enthusiasm among Labour members of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee for my suggested review of the newspaper industry. The Scottish National Party stands fully behind the workers of both Newsquest and Trinity Mirror. Nevertheless, as I have only four minutes in which to speak now and given that my members' business debate will take place later today, I will focus on the wider issues relating to print media.

We are all aware that the newspaper industry must adapt in order to reflect the changing social environment. However, newspapers can survive in the long term only by investing in quality and in staff, not by slashing costs and laying off workers. The circulation of many local and national newspapers is falling year on year yet, paradoxically, newspapers have never been so popular, especially among young people. The problem is that fewer news consumers are paying anything for the information that they obtain, as much of it comes from the web.

Newspapers traditionally earn their revenue from three sources: news-stand sales, subscriptions and advertising. However, by putting all their eggs in the one basket of advertising, focusing particularly on web-based advertising that is unlikely to be profitable in the short to medium term, many publications have cut their own throats, especially in the current recession. In addition, traditional ads have tailed off due to the property and vehicle sectors being hit hardest by the credit crunch. A few newspapers currently charge for their online content, but it is possible to do so only if a publication has content of sufficient quality and interest to attract online subscribers who are willing to pay for what they read, whether through micro-payments—say, 5p for an article and 20p for a full day's edition—or by paying £4 for a month's web access. Such a system can be used for every medium, from magazines to cookbooks, and offers increased revenue for traditional newspapers.

The key to all of this is, obviously, good-quality journalism. The short-sighted, short-term approach of Newsquest and the Trinity Mirror group is ultimately self-defeating. The industry cannot be turned around by relentless cost cutting, by increasing the stress under which journalists work and by giving them an uncertain future. Where does the solution that I am suggesting work? Everywhere from Europe to Japan. The number of daily newspaper sales is higher in Japan than in the United States, which has almost three times Japan's population, despite similar levels of internet penetration. Innovation and journalistic quality and creativity are fundamental to the success in Japan.

By March 2006, Rotterdam-based newspaper NRC Handelsblad, an old-fashioned afternoon daily, faced rapidly declining year-on-year sales. Rather than go under, it launched nrc.next—a flashy, vibrant morning edition of the afternoon newspaper's best content along with analysis and features written by young journalists and aimed at prosperous young readers. At €1 it is not cheap, but it looks and feels cool. Despite competing against four free dailies, it now sells 90,000 copies a day in Rotterdam—exceeding by 10,000 its launch target—and makes €3.3 million in profit on sales of €25 million.

Last year, 60 of the United Kingdom's 1,300 local and regional newspapers went bust. What is the answer there? Ensuring that a newspaper that purports to represent a locality does just that. Such newspapers should be based in the communities, should not cover too wide an area and should keep their stories interesting and a must for local news. In my constituency, Arran, with a population of 5,000, has two weekly newspapers. The Arran Banner has an astonishing circulation of 3,500 copies on the island—the highest circulation per capita of any newspaper in the world—and The Arran Voice has a circulation of just under half that figure. Both newspapers are lively and completely different, addressing different sectors of the island's population. The Arran Voice, which was launched less than two years ago, stimulated The Arran Banner to improve its content dramatically. The Arran Banner subsequently invested in new technology and took on an extra journalist.

Local newspapers are a vital community resource, and they allow many journalists and others in the industry their start. Print media journalism has a bright future in this country if it is allowed to be innovative and creative—and trusted to be so—by the newspaper proprietors.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As my party's rural affairs spokesman, I am pleased, if a little surprised, to close the debate this morning. Unlike Ted Brocklebank, who modestly admitted that he does not twitter, I must say that this is not my specialist subject. However, that is not to say that I do not have a genuine interest in it. In fact, I declare an interest as the son of somebody who still earns the occasional crust from scribbling political cartoons for The Herald . Members can imagine my father's joy on hearing that his son was standing for election—a satirist's equivalent of ordering a home delivery.

Of course, there is a wider context to the debate. In a week that confirmed the worst-kept secret of all—that Scotland is officially in recession—we have also had confirmation that the jobless total in Scotland has risen by 15,000 over the past year—15,000 more people who are facing the harsh reality of the economic downturn.

Although there are sectors of the economy that are faring worse than the newspaper industry, at least in terms of total job losses, there has been a certain brutality about what is happening in the world of print media. It has been suggested that this process is in effect Scotland's Wapping and, as Hugh Henry suggested, it seems to have a whiff of the final reckoning about it.

No one would dispute that these are difficult times for newspaper and media organisations. Advertising revenues have taken a brutal hit, which comes on the back of the longer-term trend of increasing competition from online and other sources of news content. Those factors demanded a response from traditional print media organisations and some element of restructuring and reorganisation was unavoidable—a fact not disputed, and even embraced, by the workforce. However, it is how that appears to be being carried out that raises concerns.

David Whitton was right to point out the lack of consultation and the seeking of redundancies on the cheap. That said, we need to take care in how we express our concern. It is absolutely right that we send out a clear message that a greater commitment to meaningful negotiation with workforce representatives is not only desirable but required. An active and engaged Government is essential in these circumstances, but it is another thing entirely for the Scottish Parliament to suggest that Scottish ministers should in effect prevent compulsory redundancies.

Like others, notably the public, I am growing tired of hearing Scottish ministers blame their inaction or incompetence on a lack of power or resources. However, I certainly see little to be gained in investing these—or any other—Scottish ministers with the power to veto private companies' decisions about the direction of their businesses. It is one thing to be opposed to compulsory redundancies, but it is quite another to suggest, as David Whitton seemed to do, that Government can prevent or veto them. As employment law is reserved to Westminster, as Sandra White said, it would seem that such a power should be wielded, if at all, by UK ministers.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

What is not in dispute is the effect that this process and how it is being handled will have on the viability and diversity of our national, regional and local media. Members have rightly pointed out the danger of undermining the quality of our newspapers, as that can only launch us ever faster down a spiral that threatens the vitality of our public life and the quality of our political debate.

Iain Smith highlighted the challenge function of our national and local newspapers and the loyalty to and penetration of papers such as The Press and Journal and The Courier in certain parts of the country. In my constituency of Orkney, the number of local papers has doubled, with Orkney Today joining The Orcadian in recent years, albeit now under a single management structure. However, the short-term cost-cutting approach that is being adopted by some newspaper owners puts all of that at risk. The Parliament and the Government must get engaged and be persuasive, but we must not falsely raise expectations about the powers that are at our disposal.

I support the amendment in the name of Iain Smith.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There have been some sound contributions to this debate. Although there has been more wringing of hands than provision of actual solutions, perhaps that is not surprising—media groups worldwide have found it difficult to cope with the sheer speed with which the net has usurped the role of traditional newspapers, and few could have predicted the scale of the collapse in circulation and advertising revenue.

David Whitton spent some time detailing the problems at Trinity Mirror, but we remain unconvinced that the Government should get into the nuts and bolts of individual cases. Iain Smith was right to say that journalists and politicians ought to be grateful for the current unpopularity of bankers. I was interested in the minister's claim that there are examples in the USA of newspapers finding ways of engaging profitably with the web. Hugh Henry was absolutely right that investment needs to be made in quality journalism and reportage, not only in financial terms but in terms of support from politicians of all parties.

In my opening speech, I suggested ways in which the Scottish Government might be able to help prop up advertising revenues in the short to medium term, but there is no doubt that the Westminster Government's support will also be required. In that regard, I welcome Labour's forthcoming summit, announced by Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, into the future of the industry.

I was one of those who wrote to the BBC trust arguing strongly against the BBC competing with local press on news websites. It seemed totally wrong that a publicly funded body should be competing with an ailing private media sector in that potentially profitable business, and I believe that the BBC trust was right to abandon its plans.

I welcome Andy Burnham's ideas about the BBC providing sound and images for local newspaper websites, but Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative shadow culture secretary, and David Cameron have gone much further. Conservatives propose that bureaucratic regulations around the ownership of local newspapers should be swept away entirely to allow newspapers to consolidate both with one another and across platforms, into the internet, television and radio. The removal of those regulations would allow local newspapers in particular to adapt to the digital age.

Scottish Conservatives were among the first to propose a new Scottish digital network. We believe that its introduction could provide an invaluable vehicle for reinvigorating our beleaguered local newspaper sector through the development of local or city TV.

It has been estimated that Scotland could support up to 16 local TV channels covering major cities and regions. Local TV works in the USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and all over Europe. Why has the UK alone failed so miserably to develop it? Detroit, a city the size of Glasgow, has eight local TV stations, and Bangor, Maine, which is smaller than Perth, has three. Of course, however, Glasgow and Perth have no local TV stations.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am afraid that I do not have time.

Local TV channels in Scotland could be part of the proposed digital network, opting out of its core schedule to provide coverage of local news, current affairs and politics. There is no reason why local newspaper groups should not be the major investors in local TV, selling local advertising across media sectors.

To those who ask where the advertising revenue would come from to support those new stations, my response is that it would come from the same carriers that are currently pillaging local newspaper advertising: the web and other online portals. There is also the fact that we will not always be in economic crisis. It is no secret that Scottish Television, which would be among those fighting for advertising revenue, would welcome the opportunity to invest in genuinely local TV, possibly in partnership with newspaper investors. That is how it works elsewhere in the world. Why would it not work here?

Although there are genuine fears about the future of local newspapers, there are also real opportunities if our media groups have the courage to grasp them. We on this side of the chamber are committed to working with the Government, newspaper owners, the NUJ and all political parties to chart a more secure way ahead for a vital Scottish industry.

Much as we talk about economics, the bottom line, of course, is that any reduction in a free and responsible press could bring losses to the democratic process that would be truly incalculable.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I declare an interest, in that I am a former member of the NUJ, a contributor over many years to many papers and broadcasting outlets—I think that Ted Brocklebank has on one occasion commissioned work from me, although Mr Whitton has never done so—and a former director of a media company. Perhaps my most relevant interest is that, after having been a Herald columnist for more than six years, I was fired by second-class mail by an editor whom I had never met. That says something about the culture of newspapers today. That was bad practice, which is what we are talking about today. Good practice requires consultation and discussion with employees and involves respect for their skills and abilities. Bad practice dispenses with all of that in the interests of the profitability—and, perhaps, more—of a single company.

The examples that David Whitton gave are important, and I am aware of similar cases, such as that of a photographer with 29 years' service to a newspaper who has just been made redundant in order to diminish his pension. That is a shameful thing for a company to do to an individual who has given long and distinguished service. We should condemn such practices unreservedly, which is why the Government will be supporting the Labour motion and abstaining on the amendments. It is right to say that what is going on is bad practice. Of course, it is not our place to tell companies how to run themselves, but we can say that they should run themselves to the highest standards, and we should say when they are not doing so.

I hope that that message will be reported by the newspapers. I take strongly Hugh Henry's point that the purpose of newspapers is to hold people to account. However, newspaper owners have to be held to account as well. The purpose of this debate is to perform what Kelvin MacKenzie used to call a reverse ferret, as we are holding to account the owners of those newspapers. I hope that they will report that and reflect on their actions.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Will the member give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

In the past, my party and I have been critical of the ownership structure of Scottish newspapers. The criticism that too much of the ownership is based outwith Scotland and focuses too much on areas other than Scottish economic and newspaper interests has turned out to be true.

We must also reflect on the rapidly changing paradigm of the newspaper. That is an important context for this debate. I have to disagree strongly with Ted Brocklebank, as I think that the reality of the situation is that technology is part of the solution. It is not the enemy of change, but something that can produce change. The failures in the newspaper industry—particularly in Scotland, but also more widely in these islands—are due to the fact that the embracing of technology by newspapers has been haphazard and often plain wrong. Some of them have given away their most valuable product, while others have not known how to maximise income from their product using new technology. My colleague Jim Mather gave some good examples of that, as did Kenny Gibson.

Three things need to be said in this debate. First, bad practice in management, wherever it exists—in newspapers or elsewhere—should be condemned. We need to send the message that short-sighted management that diminishes the quality of the product and constantly goes on cutting the costs will be completely self-defeating in the end.

Secondly, although newspapers have traditionally been read more intently in Scotland than almost anywhere else in Europe, that is no longer the case. That is partly due to a drop in the quality of newspapers, as the experienced people who work on them have been thrown out of the door—a practice that needs to stop.

Thirdly, the workforce, by working together and collaborating with management, can invent the new paradigms that can take forward a distinctive Scottish media with an ownership structure that is based in Scotland. Although I understand Ted Brocklebank's fondness for a solution that involves local television, that could bleed out more advertising and run the risk of damaging Scotland's local newspaper sector in particular, so we must be careful about that.

I believe that Scotland, as a centre of excellence for newspapers and the media, should celebrate what has taken place in the past—it has been a distinctive part of our national culture—but should regret what is taking place, which is largely driven by companies that have very little focus on Scotland. We should try to find a structure that will take us forward and ensure that a modernised, renewed and refreshed Scottish media that takes advantage of new technology can once again become among the best in the world. More important, we as a nation would be better served by our media than we are now.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Twice in the past month I have been interviewed by young student journalists who are putting together stories for their degree paper—a scenario with which I am sure many members will be familiar. It is usually encouraging to see the bright, enthusiastic and enquiring minds with which journalists—like politicians—begin what could be a very fulfilling career. However, over the past month, I have been filled with anxiety. Journalism has always been a difficult profession to enter, but I am anxious about the prospects of those young students.

Over the past few weeks, I have—like David Whitton and other members—spoken to constituents who have 10, 20 or even 30 years' experience in journalism and who have been thrown out of their jobs and had their pensions threatened or cut by the same employers with whom those young students are seeking to work. These are difficult times and different forces are at work, affecting the newspaper and media industries. However, it is the employers' response to those difficulties that I find most depressing, and it clearly angers most members in the chamber today.

Turning to print media first, there are certainly few in the industry and beyond who are not acutely aware of falling circulation across the board. The apparent decline in readership has been accompanied by an equally worrying fall in advertising revenue. The impact of the credit crunch on the motor and property markets, and hence on the revenue of the motor and property pages, has merely added to a pretty dismal economic backdrop.

It is difficult to imagine that there will not be a reduction in the number of Scottish titles, although I do not believe that it is inevitable. It was pretty grim news when the Herald group recently cut and merged its production teams, but the way in which that process was handled verged on the scandalous. There seems to have been a return to old-style macho management by newspaper owners, who are using the wider economic uncertainty and the lack of job security to flex their management muscles. That is the "bad practice" that the minister mentioned, and I welcome his condemnation of such behaviour.

There have been cuts in production staff to the point at which I am amazed that some papers make it off the presses every week. If it has been tough for staff at The Herald and the Evening Times, the Trinity Mirror group's attitude to journalists and workers at the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail has set a new low. Those are not failing newspapers; they are high-circulation, highly profitable titles that almost certainly subsidise other papers in the Trinity Mirror group and thereby help to post large profits for the parent group—yet compulsory redundancies are now being introduced. If that was happening in another industry, it would be headline news in those very papers. It is shameful for the owners and managers of long-established Scottish titles to trade on the loyalty of readers and journalists but show no such loyalty in return.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Sorry, but I do not have enough time in this limited debate.

What is happening in the broadcast industries is also of deep concern. In a recent parliamentary debate, many of us expressed our fears over the future of STV. I do not wish to repeat what I said then, other than to note that while independent networks share journalists and cut back on news services, ITV made £311 million in profit in 2007, spending £3.8 million on executive pay.

The recent job losses in the BBC could not have come at a worse time. It is entirely counterproductive for the BBC to be shedding so many staff in Scotland at the very time when the corporation is trying to boost production here.

Most of us in Parliament have been encouraged by the BBC's public commitment to Scotland, and recently we have seen an obvious difference in national news coverage of Scottish affairs. I am sure that I am not alone in being concerned about how the BBC in Scotland will take advantage of that policy commitment as it cuts its production teams.

Despite a few misplaced remarks, I broadly welcome the speeches from all sides of the chamber. It is clear that what happens to the Scottish newspaper and broadcast industries matters to all of us. Tony Blair once famously described the Scottish press pack as "unreconstructed"—I forget the whole of his pithy quote. That was probably the high point of my party's relationship with the press. However, none of us in any party—none of us in the chamber—has any doubt about the importance of a robust press, a well-read public and a reliable, objective broadcast media.

I am disappointed that some of the other parties have tried to water down Labour's motion. However, I am encouraged by the otherwise shared concern and common agenda to resist any threat to a healthy and strong newspaper and media industry in Scotland.

In recent days, what has been of most concern is the attitude and approach of the owners and managers of media companies. As Hugh Henry put it, they are "trying it on". The Parliament needs to unite around one strong, clear message: we need to say no to compulsory redundancies. The companies should rethink their confrontational approach and get around the table with the NUJ and others. I urge members to support Labour's motion.

Transport Infrastructure (West of Scotland)

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3938, in the name of Des McNulty, on west of Scotland transport infrastructure. I call Des McNulty to speak to and move the motion. He has 11 minutes—less the time he took to walk across in front of me.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

For generations, Glasgow and the west of Scotland were the industrial heartland of the Scottish economy. Glasgow is a proud, dynamic city, the core of a conurbation in which more than 40 per cent of the Scottish population lives and works. Glasgow and its adjoining towns have wrestled with the economic legacy that they were left by manufacturing industries and have risen to new challenges.

However, much of the infrastructure in the conurbation is outdated. Major new infrastructure investment is needed. In part, that has been recognised—the replacement of much of the waste water system in the east of the city has been listed as one of the projects in the national planning framework. The Scottish Government has also taken forward the M74 link, which is regarded by business and local government leaders as vital in unlocking traffic congestion in and around Glasgow, especially at its worst choke point, the Kingston bridge.

However, major investment requirements do not figure in either the strategic transport projects review or the national planning framework. Glasgow has two rail systems—lines that go south and west from the city, and lines that go east and north. Glasgow's subway has not been extended since it was built in the 1890s, and its last refurbishment was in 1990. Top-quality new facilities at hospitals in Clydebank and Govan are not easily accessible for many patients and relatives.

The projects that feature in the STPR have no starting dates. The A82, the main road between Glasgow and Fort William, has never been brought up to standard along its full length, and two particular sections are extremely hazardous. The A77 between Ayr and Stranraer is similarly unsafe. The stretch of the A8 between Baillieston and Newhouse, which has the highest benefit to cost ratio of any project assessed using Scottish transport appraisal guidance methodology, seems to have stalled, despite the urgent need to connect key development projects such as Mossend and Ravenscraig to the motorway network in order to attract business.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Would the member approve of any suggestion to bypass the planning system with regard to certain projects?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The first step is to incorporate these projects in the national planning framework.

I regret that the Conservative amendment places partisanship before the needs of the people who live in the area that I represent. My constituents are not really interested in Punch and Judy politics, especially at a time when their jobs or those of their friends and neighbours might be at risk. The attention of elected west of Scotland representatives is—or, at least, ought to be—focused on the impact of the current downturn on Glasgow and the former shipbuilding and heavy engineering towns that surround it. Figures that were released last week showed that the increases in the numbers of those claiming benefits are significantly higher in local authority areas such as North Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire, Inverclyde and Renfrewshire than elsewhere in Scotland, and that, of the core cities in the United Kingdom, Glasgow was the third worst affected after Birmingham and Leeds.

After yesterday's budget, certain matters over which the United Kingdom Government has jurisdiction—the tax and benefit systems, for example, and macroeconomic management—are being actively discussed at Westminster. Those in this chamber who speak on behalf of the people of the west of Scotland should ask themselves how we as Scottish parliamentarians can contribute to laying the foundations for longer-term prosperity.

Investment in transport and infrastructure projects plays an important part in economic success. Research has shown that transport improvements are key ingredients in increasing the efficiency of regional labour markets, enhancing the competitiveness of local firms, stimulating inward investment and triggering growth. Sir Rod Eddington's transport study, which is the most systematic appraisal of the contribution made by transport investment to economic performance, concluded that, for maximum economic benefit, transport investment should focus on supporting economically vital locations—for example, congested urban areas, interurban corridors, ports and airports—where it is most likely to stimulate further growth.

The Government's investment plans, as set out in the STPR and even the national planning framework, have been influenced by Eddington's thinking; for example, ports and airports feature prominently. However, too many projects in the most urbanised region in Scotland—an area that is vital to Scotland's economic wellbeing—either have been omitted or have been given no place in the spending programme, which amounts to the same thing. I have not read all 3,000 pages of the STPR, but the apparent exclusion of Glasgow crossrail and Clyde fastlink, the latter supposedly on the basis that it is a regional project, is unjustifiable.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

The minister will have the chance to respond in his own speech.

Both projects score far higher in the assessment process than other projects that have been included in the list. I am sure that the minister will tell us that he does not have the money to do all that he would like to do. I accept that; indeed, I am deeply conscious of the financial overhang of the Forth replacement crossing. However, many people in the west, in local authorities and in the business community, feel short-changed by the STPR. They are angry at this Government's reluctance to abide by its own criteria in determining the projects for inclusion in the list of 29, and they feel let down by the lack of firm dates for or firm commitments to construction of the projects that have been included.

By the way, I do not think the current Government is necessarily better or worse than previous coalition Administrations in that regard. I was openly critical of certain decisions made by previous Administrations on transport priorities when I felt that decision making appeared to have been driven by political rather than hard economic criteria. However, we should do things in the right way, and I hope that members of other parties will join Labour members in speaking up louder for the west of Scotland and putting a strong case for the key infrastructure projects that are vital to the region's economic and social wellbeing.

My colleague Jackie Baillie will make the case for the A82, and Michael McMahon will focus on transport issues in Lanarkshire. I want to talk about a project that is number 24 in the list that is set out in the STPR: west of Scotland strategic rail enhancements. I am pleased that discussions are going on between Strathclyde partnership for transport, Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland and that studies are being carried out on public transport in the conurbation. However, neither fastlink nor crossrail can progress much further without firm commitments from the Scottish Government. It is not just the transport infrastructure to link developments along the Clyde corridor, access to key sites including major hospitals through fastlink and the linkage of 220 stations across Scotland via the cross-Glasgow movements that crossrail would permit that are at stake but access to key Commonwealth games sites via segregated busways, light rail and heavy rail.

Time and time again we speak in the chamber about modal shift, reducing congestion and climate change emissions and improving public transport. These public transport projects have some of the most favourable social, economic and patronage returns. The business case for them is very strong and I hope that, when he responds, the minister will be much clearer than he has been in the past and will make a commitment to delivering fastlink, Glasgow crossrail and the station improvements at Dalmarnock and Bridgeton that, as Robert Brown's amendment makes clear, are needed to improve access to the main Commonwealth games stadium.

We know that the outline business case for modernising the Glasgow subway is due in the summer. Although SPT has funds available for some limited improvements, the costs of a full refurbishment are well beyond its means and the Scottish Government will need to make a sizeable contribution towards a major upgrade of signalling, tunnels and rolling stock. The need for such an upgrade may not be as urgent as some other projects—notably fastlink, which is needed both for the Commonwealth games and to improve hospital access—but the subway has a high level of patronage and attracts many of its customers out of their cars.

I welcome this Government's strong commitment to tackling climate change, and tomorrow the minister will receive the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee's recommendations for strengthening that commitment even more. If car use in the west of Scotland rises to the levels that have been seen in other regions of the country, it will blow a huge hole in emissions reduction targets and put us in a position from which it will be almost impossible to claw our way back. As a result, it is vital that the Scottish Government reprioritises key improvements to public transport in the west of Scotland and support for walking and cycling—in that respect, I regret that the Presiding Officer did not accept Patrick Harvie's amendment—and gives them the financial support that they merit.

I finish with a final message to the minister. My postbag is full of letters and e-mails about the state of the roads and pavements in the west of Scotland. According to the Accounts Commission, only Argyll and Bute has worse roads than East Dunbartonshire, but I feel sure that colleagues from West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire and many other local authorities get the same complaints. Single outcome agreements seem to be making things worse, not better. Repairs are not being carried out; the backlog is ever increasing; and more and more claims are being met out of exhausted budgets. The Scottish Government blames local authorities for the situation, and councils blame it right back. The only losers are walkers, cyclists and motorists, whose complaints are becoming more and more vociferous. Surely to goodness the different tiers of government in Scotland can and should sort the problem out.

I look forward to the minister's response not only on that matter but on the issue of the west of Scotland's transport infrastructure needs and the focus that the Scottish Government intends to give to delivering the transport projects that are needed to improve the region's economic performance at a time when its economy is under such pressure.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the need for investment in transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland, particularly in the Greater Glasgow travel-to-work area, to ensure the continued competitiveness of the area, especially given that Glasgow and surrounding areas linked with traditional manufacturing and heavy industry, which suffered badly in previous recessions, are experiencing disproportionate increases in unemployment compared with the Scottish average, as illustrated by claimant count statistics.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Most of the time, we in the Scottish Conservatives do our best to be as constructive and as consensual as possible. I agreed with plenty of things in Mr McNulty's speech and thought that he made many perfectly sensible, straight and honest points. However, the Labour Party should be very wary of the credibility gap when it comes to transport infrastructure projects. After all, in its eight years in power, Labour was synonymous with delay after delay in transport projects; indeed, I find a small irony in the fact that this Labour debate on transport had to be delayed as Mr McNulty got his card from the clerks.

I was also interested to hear Mr McNulty say that the Glasgow subway has not been upgraded since 1990—when, of course, the Conservatives were in power. In the eight years that his Government was in power, nothing happened with the subway. However, since Labour lost power, its upgrading seems to have become an extremely urgent matter.

The other point about credibility is that even since becoming a party of opposition, Labour has been a little inconsistent on transport. On 29 January—just as today—Labour had a Thursday morning debate on transport. Labour had had a month and a half to reflect on the strategic transport projects review and to decide what it thought that the priorities were and which projects the document lacked. None of the projects to which Des McNulty referred today was mentioned in the Labour Party debate a few months ago. In the previous Labour transport debate, in which Labour set out its priorities and where it thought that the gaps were in the STPR, no Labour member mentioned the Clyde fastlink, transport infrastructure in Lanarkshire or west of Scotland rail enhancements. The projects that are Labour's priorities today did not seem to be its priorities when it was in government, or even when we debated the issue a few months ago.

I turn to where the Scottish Conservatives stand and how we want to move the debate on. The first issue on which we want to make progress is prioritisation, which is relevant not only to west of Scotland transport projects but to all transport projects throughout Scotland. A number of months have passed since the STPR was announced. The next step has to be to determine in which order the projects will happen and, once the projects are ordered, what the target timescales and budgets will be. Of course, this debate has a specific focus on the west of Scotland. Therefore, in the context of the STPR, we are particularly interested to know about timescales and priorities in relation to Glasgow to Edinburgh rail improvements, west of Scotland rail enhancements, improved road journey times on the M8, M80, M74 and M77 and improvements to links between Glasgow and Oban and the west Highlands, including the A82.

The projects in the STPR are numbered, but not ordered. We need clear prioritisation now, and I hope that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change will comment on that in his speech. We need prioritisation for two reasons. The first is that by prioritising, we make actions happen. If everything is a priority, the problem is that nothing becomes a priority. Secondly, it is important that we manage the expectations of communities and commuters. A project starting in 2012, at the beginning of the STPR, will be very different from a project starting in 2022, two and a half parliamentary sessions later. Prioritisation has to happen in early course. I hope that we can get some steer on that from the minister today, because, as he said in the debate on the STPR last year,

"vision and ambition are not enough." —[Official Report, 10 December 2008; c 13201.]

On the areas where we want action to be taken sooner rather than later, I turn first to the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail improvement programme, which we have advocated for some time—we have made commitments on it in several manifestos. Twenty-four individual improvements are suggested, and we want them all to happen so that the flagship Glasgow to Edinburgh route can truly encompass greater modal shift and help the economies of both the west and the east of Scotland. Of course, that includes the electrification of the flagship route between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh Waverley; the possibility of six trains an hour from Queen Street to Waverley; and journey times for some trains as short as 37 minutes—there is a big economic benefit for both sides of the country from every single minute of time saved on that journey—coupled with the possibility of express services between Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley.

We will push hard for the upgrading of the M8, too. That vital project needs to be progressed, because, 10 years after devolution, Scotland's flagship motorway is still not of motorway standard throughout. The M8 was named as the worst commuter route in Britain for congestion in a survey by the traffic information service KeepMoving in spring 2007. It was named as Scotland's least popular road and the second poorest road in the United Kingdom in a survey by the insurers Cornhill Direct in February 2007. I am sure that members will have heard anecdotally that many of the junctions and slip roads are of great concern to our constituents.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I appreciate that Mr Brown is an Edinburgh member, but we are supposed to be discussing west of Scotland transport infrastructure. So far, he seems to have concentrated entirely on the route between Edinburgh and Glasgow. There are bits of the west of Scotland that lie beyond Glasgow.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothians)

Of course there are. I am talking about the projects that have the biggest economic benefit, but members sitting beside me, who represent Glasgow and the West of Scotland, will elaborate further on issues such as Glasgow crossrail and other specific transport projects. Mr McNulty might wish to reflect on his contribution in the previous Labour transport debate, to which I referred earlier, in which he did not mention a single transport project in the west of Scotland. It is a bit rich for him to criticise me in that regard.

We are disappointed that action was not taken sooner in relation to the M8, because the budget has risen from an estimate of between £123 million and £125 million to an estimate of between £170 million and £210 million. Of course, the estimated completion date has moved back from 2010 to 2012-13.

Ultimately, any Administration has to be judged on what it delivers. That is why I have focused so heavily on prioritisation. Previously, the primary problem was a straightforward lack of prioritisation, which was encapsulated in a question from David Davidson to Tavish Scott, the then Minister for Transport, 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 response from 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.]

The settled position of the Administration after eight years in government was that all the projects were a priority.

That is probably one of the reasons for the results of a recent Audit Scotland report on infrastructure projects. The report looked at 43 projects between 2002 and 2007—not just transport projects, but all infrastructure projects—and found that only two fifths of the projects were completed on budget and only one third were completed on time. That is why we have pushed for prioritisation and why we want to see progress made on the projects in the west of Scotland as quickly as possible.

I move amendment S3M-3938.2, to leave out from "especially" to end and insert:

"; therefore regrets the previous Labour-led administration's disappointing record on delivering improvements to key road links connecting the west of Scotland, notably the substantial delays and cost overruns in upgrading the M8 and M74; welcomes the fact that the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link project pioneered by the previous Labour-led administration has been cancelled, thereby freeing up investment for the crucial Edinburgh to Glasgow Rail Improvement Programme, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure the clear prioritisation of transport projects both in the west of Scotland and elsewhere."

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

The Labour motion is on an important policy area. As we have heard in the limited time so far, transport is one of those issues that gets us all going. However, the underlying point about the employment advantages of transport infrastructure for people who are employed on transport projects and people who benefit from them, on which Des McNulty majored in his speech, is valid.

Although I do not like the terms of the Conservative amendment, which is not surprising, Gavin Brown's point about prioritisation is important, because there is an element of uncertainty about what is and is not likely to proceed under the Government's programme and about what is and is not achievable.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Everything in our programme will be done.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Perhaps there is a question about the definition of the programme, to which we might return.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

And about when things will be done.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

That is absolutely right.

To get away from the talking that is happening beside me, I will focus on the specific and vital issue of the huge driver that the Glasgow Commonwealth games present, which we will debate from another perspective this afternoon. In 2006, SPT identified Dalmarnock station as a key transport infrastructure asset, given its proximity to the new national indoor sports arena. After that, the decision was taken to locate the athletes village and the velodrome in the same area, which, incidentally, is also close to Parkhead stadium.

The line through Dalmarnock to the east connects through Rutherglen and Cambuslang to Lanarkshire destinations, and to the west it connects through Argyle Street and Glasgow Central at low level to Partick and destinations in Dunbartonshire. However, the line badly needs modernisation, including the installation of disabled access facilities, modern signage and frontage on to Dalmarnock Road, and associated walkway and cycleway connections to local facilities, which are being looked at by Clyde Gateway. A redeveloped Dalmarnock station would give superb regular and speedy access to the key Commonwealth games locations and to Celtic Park, with good hub links to a variety of bus services on Dalmarnock Road.

The Commonwealth games will be Glasgow's window on the world, and it is vital that the transport infrastructure that supports the games is in A1 condition. Dalmarnock railway station urgently needs a dramatic transformation if it is to serve as a key gateway for the games and to be part of the legacy of the games.

Clyde Gateway has made a commitment to the project, which is costed at £8 million to £10 million. The organisation's business plan includes the project and it is ready to contribute funding. The project has support from SPT and it could attract support from Glasgow City Council, Network Rail and First ScotRail. Above all, it now needs solid support and commitment from the Scottish Government.

For the minister, a gold-plated opportunity is available. The project will lever in money from other partners, has a modest and definable scope, and will require the sort of money that any Government can find, given the political will. It also levers in development funding for local shops at the station and for paths for pedestrians and cyclists in the wider area. Above all, it will provide the 21st century transport window to the Commonwealth games that Scotland needs and a visible and effective transport legacy. It could very much be Glasgow with style.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Do Robert Brown and Des McNulty agree that spending £500 million on a tramline is a complete waste of money that could have been used for projects in the west of Scotland, such as Dalmarnock station?

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I disagree. That point is for a previous debate. My point is that the Dalmarnock station project involves modest money and is deliverable. I hope that the SNP Government will recognise the opportunity and provide its part of the funding, which is modest in Government terms.

The Government has done well at seizing the credit for projects in the west of Scotland that were—incidentally—all developed under the previous Administration, such as the M74 extension, the Glasgow airport rail link and the Airdrie to Bathgate line. The Government has not yet come up with the goods on Glasgow crossrail. Dalmarnock station offers the Government a modest opportunity to make a difference—a one-off chance to help to get the transport infrastructure for the games right and to leave a permanent legacy. I hope that the minister will say today that the Government will commit to, or at least discuss committing to, the project.

Last year, the minister said:

"If it is about anything, transport is about a long-term commitment to take things forward."—[Official Report, 17 April 2008; c 7783.]

I agree. By their nature, transport projects take time to develop, plan, procure, finance and deliver. I have described a key project that has proven potential and leverage that can be delivered. However, on closer examination, the minister's fairly typical statement, which he made in a debate on Glasgow crossrail, contains some ambiguity and the suggestion that what is long term is reaching the commitment rather than sticking with a commitment that has long-term benefits.

That brings me briefly to Glasgow crossrail. The famous gap between Central station and Queen Street station, across which many of us trudge daily, is possibly one of the most significant drawbacks in what is otherwise a good suburban rail system in greater Glasgow. To his credit, the minister has listened to the representations of the cross-party group on Glasgow crossrail, but we remain without a solid commitment. The Government seems to favour the city centre station project, which would be attractive in times of unlimited capital—if ever such times came—but is almost certainly unaffordable this side of the second coming. The funding for crossrail is still substantial, but it is in the realm of the affordable. Crossrail would provide more options for improved and interconnecting services and relieve the growing pressure on capacity at the two main stations.

Finally, I return to where I began, with the Argyle line through Dalmarnock, which is, as I said, a main commuter route from Lanarkshire, Rutherglen and Cambuslang into the city centre. I occasionally use the line and it is clear that, like other routes, it has become a victim of its own success. The trains at Rutherglen are hugely compressed and overcrowded.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should finish now, Mr Brown.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I am on my final point, Presiding Officer. Will the minister examine the potential for agreeing with the train operator more frequent services or longer trains, although I know that they can create problems on shorter platforms? Revenue from the line must be increasing and there must be practical scope on which to build.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You should be finished now, Mr Brown.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I move amendment S3M-3938.3, to insert at end:

"welcomes the significant opportunity presented by the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth Games for the creation of legacy transport infrastructure projects in the west of Scotland, including the proposed redevelopment of Dalmarnock station as a key public transport hub for the Games and the area, offering speedy direct rail links to the main Games venues and to Celtic Park from Lanarkshire, the city centre and the west in particular, as well as a high standard of pedestrian and cyclist pathways through the area; supports the work of Clyde Gateway in developing the project, and urges the Scottish Government to give the Dalmarnock station project its full backing."

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome the opportunity that the debate presents to highlight the importance that we in Government place on the promotion of sustainable economic growth in these difficult times. I welcome Des McNulty's broadly constructive speech, which made a fine opening to the debate. We will see where it takes us.

We have made it clear that an efficient transport system is essential for enhancing productivity and delivering faster and more sustainable economic growth across Scotland, in the west of Scotland and particularly in Glasgow. Against the backdrop of a global economic slow-down, the Government—through Transport Scotland—is driving forward the largest transport investment programme that Scotland has ever seen, with a number of vital projects.

The programme will support tens of thousands of jobs, almost all of which will be in the private sector. Our continuing investment is helping the hard-pressed construction sector now and is creating hundreds of construction jobs. Last year, Transport Scotland projects represented approximately 25 per cent of the construction market in Scotland. About 95 per cent of Transport Scotland's budget goes to the private sector.

We will continue our focus on providing sustainable, integrated and cost-effective public transport alternatives to the car. Recent short-term and long-term investment in road and rail has supported nearly 13,000 jobs.

We will invest £2.5 billion in our strategic transport networks over the next three years, which will support the economy. The programme includes a new railway between Airdrie and Bathgate that links Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Borders railway, and reluctant but now entirely committed support for the Edinburgh tram project. We have also progressed—at last—the M74 project. People can plan for as long as they like, but what matters is making projects happen. The Glasgow airport rail link, the M8 between Newhouse and Baillieston, and the upgrading of the A80 to a motorway between Stepps and Haggs will all be completed in time for 2014.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I note that the minister continues to repeat that nothing happened with the M74 under the previous Administration. Will he clarify for the Parliament's benefit whether the M74 route that has only just begun to be built is being constructed on top of the many factories that were in its road? If not, were those factories relocated by accident or were they successfully relocated by the previous Executive?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The one thing that I did not say was that nothing had been done. It is clear that transport projects are long term and that they cross boundaries between Administrations. I acknowledge what was done. However, there had been no engagement to deliver the project, which is now happening.

Through Transport Scotland, the Scottish Government supports Network Rail's Scottish operations and ScotRail's passenger services, which involve about 7,000 jobs. Work on the new Clackmannanshire bridge—which was started under the previous Administration and delivered under the current Administration—and on the M74 involves 2,000 construction jobs. The M74 project will employ 900 people and the Stepps to Haggs project will employ 500 people. Lots of jobs are involved, such as the 3,000 that relate to the Airdrie to Bathgate rail link and the Edinburgh trams.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Like the minister and other members, I welcome the start on the A80 from Stepps to Haggs. A transport model considered the long-term plan of having a station at Abronhill in Cumbernauld, which would greatly assist commuters between Cumbernauld and Glasgow. Will the minister comment on the feasibility of that proposal?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Not at this stage.

Through a major infrastructure programme, we are delivering significant benefits to businesses throughout Scotland.

The strategic transport projects review, which has been mentioned, is a 20-year programme. The motion requires us to consider prioritisation. We have, of course, prioritised the projects in the review over the nearly 900 other projects that are outside it. As we go through comprehensive spending reviews, we will continue that prioritisation process.

Cross-city travel in Glasgow is important, which is why we are talking to SPT about a range of improvements. We are ensuring not only that we support short-term needs but that we consider the need for termini for high-speed rail and that we do not overload other parts of the network. Much is going on.

Labour's motion presents an opportunity for a subject debate and is therefore welcome. However, I will make a point that Labour politicians in Wales and England seem to have understood but which Iain Gray's team might not have. Rhodri Morgan, the Labour First Minister for Wales, said:

"The Archangel Gabriel could not find such proposed cuts in budgets without damaging public services",

and Harriet Harman told the Scottish Trades Union Congress that

"you cannot cut your way out of recession".

The efficiency savings that are being talked about for Scotland are, in effect, cuts. Removing resource only makes our job more difficult. I hope that we will have some unanimity in the campaign to ensure that we have the tools. Only then can we here do the job.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to the debate. Members will have to stick to a tight six minutes. I have already had to tell a member that she will not be called.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will use the short time that is available to me this morning to address two projects that are important to my constituency and which I believe are also of strategic importance to the west of Scotland. They are, of course, the upgrade of the A82 and the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line. I dare to correct the minister on the latter: it will enable direct travel from Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the west right through to Edinburgh Waverley in the east.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I acknowledge that.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I turn first to the A82. I welcome the inclusion of the A82 in the strategic transport projects review. I praise the A82 campaigners for their persistence and imagination in putting the issue centre stage. However, my question to the minister is this: when will the funding, which is estimated at £100 million to £250 million, be committed to enable the necessary work to start? Transport Scotland has committed £16 million, which is welcome, but the phasing of the remainder of the investment is of interest to the local community.

As I travel around my constituency, I spend much of my time on the A82 between Bowling, Dumbarton, Balloch, Luss and Tarbet. I am very familiar with the traffic gridlock that results from but a few minor accidents. I am equally familiar with the 30-year-old temporary traffic lights just past Tarbet at Pulpit Rock. There is no doubt that it is a challenging stretch of road. There is a sheer rock face on one side and Loch Lomond on the other, with very little space for manoeuvre. However, any engineering solution should not be so difficult as to make improvement impossible. After all, it is more than four decades since we put a man on the moon. Surely we can tackle those temporary traffic lights and widen that stretch of road to make it fit for purpose.

The A82 is undoubtedly a lifeline for communities from Glasgow to those throughout my constituency and those north to Fort William. The road is essential for tourism in the west of Scotland. Each year, it carries hundreds of thousands of visitors from home and abroad to the very many delights of our country. It is equally essential for our haulage industry and local businesses. There is no doubt that the A82 has a value to the everyday life of many Scots and our local and national economy.

There is equally genuine and long-standing concern about the A82's safety record. Previous route accident reduction plans resulted in a lowering of the number of accidents and fatalities, but the figures that I have seen for 2007-08 indicate that the numbers are rising again. Indeed, there are more accidents and fatalities on the A82 than even on the A9. It is perhaps not surprising that the majority of accidents happen on the single carriageway stretches. If someone arrives in Scotland from abroad at Glasgow airport, picks up their hire car and heads north, they are on a dual carriageway from the moment they leave the airport until they get to the Stoneymollan roundabout. With little warning, they then find themselves on a single carriageway with cars rushing past them at around 60 miles an hour. I am thinking in particular of the stretch of the A82 near Firkin Point, where the single overtaking lane along Loch Lomond is on an uphill gradient and near to a relatively sharp curve in the road. There have been a number of accidents on that stretch of road. I invite the minister to look into that and consider erecting central barriers to define clearly the roadway, if dualling proves too difficult.

Another issue is the stretch of the A82 at Dumbarton between the Dumbuck junction and the Dunglass roundabout and onwards to the Kilbirnie roundabout in my colleague Des McNulty's constituency. When, very happily, the previous Scottish Executive removed the tolls from the Erskine bridge—an issue in which the Presiding Officer has an interest—a commitment was given to consider the impact of the anticipated increased traffic volume on the surrounding roads. I would welcome a commitment from the minister to consider the congestion that is evident at the Kilbirnie roundabout and to work with West Dunbartonshire Council on a proposal for a new road at the pinchpoint on the A82 between the Dumbuck junction and the Dunglass roundabout. That would enhance substantially the local transport infrastructure.

I turn to rail, specifically the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line, which was approved by the previous Scottish Executive. The line is, of course, the missing link between Helensburgh and Dumbarton in the west and Edinburgh Waverley in the east. The rail link will bring enormous benefit to commuters in my constituency and our local economy. My concern relates to the implementation of the rail line and investment in rolling stock. I have bored the minister and his predecessor with successive parliamentary questions on the subject. In their answers, I have had promises that sufficient rolling stock will be procured in plenty of time and that it will more than cover the increase in patronage. I refer to the 3 per cent per annum passenger growth that was identified in the network utilisation strategy. It is anticipate that there will be 4.1 million extra boardings per annum on the Airdrie to Bathgate rail line alone.

I would welcome the minister's assurance that there will be sufficient rolling stock capacity to cope with projected demand. I also seek his assurance that the class 334 Juniper—I am becoming a trainspotter in my old age—is the preferred train and that there will be no delay in delivering the rolling stock to allow the rail link to commence in December 2010.

I associate myself with Des McNulty's comments on potholes. I fear that the potholes in Argyll and Bute are merging to form craters the size of the craters on the moon. I urge the minister to help hard-pressed local authorities.

I hope that we will see investment in transport in the west of Scotland, not least because we need to retain the region's competitiveness, attract jobs and retain skilled people in the area.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Having read the motion and amendments a number of times, I believe that six minutes is not enough time in which to focus on the many points and issues that I want to raise. I will touch on a few, leaving Glasgow city centre to other members who I am sure will raise it.

The potential for transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland is limitless. We have heard on a number of occasions about the issues and projects that could be taken forward. One suggestion that could be put into the mix is the greater use of the River Clyde. I am thinking of river taxis from Braehead to Glasgow city centre and a river boat from the tail of the bank to the city centre. Another suggestion is for more trains on the Wemyss Bay to Glasgow line. At the moment, one train runs per hour, despite a massive westward shift in population in the Inverclyde area. I have raised the issue with the minister. Also, the Gourock to Dunoon Caledonian MacBrayne ferry saga must be finalised, one way or another.

The road infrastructure could be improved, with Transport Scotland adopting some roads in the East Dunbartonshire area where there are no trunk roads at the moment. If Transport Scotland adopted some roads in the area, it would aid investment and relieve pressure on the local authority. Also, consideration could be given to a bypass around Inverkip and Wemyss Bay to address the traffic chaos in the area. There is also the saga that is the Gourock interchange project, about which the minister knows a great deal.

Those are only some of the issues that have been a problem for many years and which the present Scottish Government inherited on coming into office in 2007. If Government ministers solved all of the issues in four years, they would be miracle workers. That is even more the case following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget yesterday and the cuts that are coming Scotland's way in the near future.

Some time ago, numerous constituents contacted me about the Inverkip situation. I conducted a survey in the Inverkip and Wemyss Bay villages on the danger of trying to cross the A78 at Inverkip. Delay in crossing the road is bad enough, but at peak times—particularly in the morning and evening—the manoeuvre can be akin to taking a chance with one's life. I mailed out 2,150 survey forms, and the response rate was a massive 41 per cent. With 41 per cent of the population having taken the time to voice their concerns, the issue cannot be ignored.

After a disappointing initial response, I persisted in contacting Transport Scotland. As of this week, Transport Scotland has agreed to undertake a three-month survey and to let me know its results at the end of the summer. Two junctions lead from the A78—one to Inverkip village and one to Kip marina. The amount of traffic that zooms up from North Ayrshire in the morning and from the villages to Greenock is one important issue, but we must also consider the safety element. The local authority has built a new secondary school, with approximately 900 pupils, only 2 miles up the road. Because of the amount of traffic that uses the road, it is dangerous for pupils to go on to it. I am delighted by the action that Transport Scotland plans to take, which is a step forward. I look forward to seeing the results of the survey.

There are many reasons why investment in road infrastructure is vital. I have already mentioned safety. I highlight to the minister and to the chamber the tremendous shift in population to the western part of Inverclyde. Many more properties are being built in Inverkip and Wemyss Bay, and there now seems to be a shortage of people in the eastern part of the district, compared with the west. That is a really important issue. The minister and I have spoken about it before, and I am sure that we will speak about it again; no doubt it will be discussed later this morning.

A further issue that exacerbates gridlock is the lack of investment by the proper authorities in flood prevention measures. As you know, Presiding Officer, when there are heavy rains in Inverclyde, floods can block off part of the district, especially at the Newark roundabout in Port Glasgow. As Inverclyde royal hospital no longer has consultant services, ambulances must take people to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley or the Southern general. Sometimes every second counts, so it is important that the whole transport infrastructure and flood prevention measures are taken fully into account.

I could go on, but I am running out of time and must close. I agree that there should be more investment in west of Scotland transport infrastructure, but I wish that members of the previous Administration had thought the same, instead of burying their Executive heads in the sand and realising only in May 2007 that there were shortfalls in our infrastructure.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Stuart McMillan's final point, that there is sometimes a mismatch between what Administrations say on transport and what they do, is fair. I will develop it in my speech, but I will not reserve it for the previous Administration—rightly and fairly, a significant amount of criticism will be levelled at the current Administration, too.

Des McNulty's motion asks us to note

"the need for investment in transport infrastructure".

No one could disagree with that statement, which contains an almost non-existent level of specificity. Perhaps if the motion had been specific about the kind of transport investment that the previous Administration pushed, against all the facts and even the conclusions of a public local inquiry, when it approved the M74 extension, there would be only two votes against it—not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last. From the two Liberal Democrat speeches so far, it is clear that the Liberal Democrats' enthusiasm for the worst environmental decision taken by the previous Administration has not dimmed since they left the coalition.

My case is that we need not incremental improvements to the existing system but transformational change—a dramatic shift to walking, cycling and public transport, not as an addition, but to produce far lower levels of car traffic. I have made that point before and will do so again. Creating such transformational change would require substantial investment. Every political party and MSP who talks a good game on sustainable transport should ask themselves why schemes such as Glasgow crossrail have gathered dust on the shelf for so many years. Perhaps Christina McKelvie's intervention earlier in the debate gives us a clue as to the reason: some simply cannot help taking every opportunity to attack a public transport scheme for being expensive, while supporting consistently for years, at immense cost, schemes to increase the capacity of the road network. Des McNulty should not dismiss as a financial overhang—as though it can be forgiven on that basis—the absurdity of sinking hundreds of millions, even billions, of pounds into increasing the capacity of the road network, either in Glasgow or over the Forth. In fact, that is an appallingly damaging example of 1960s thinking and an utter waste of money.

Rightly, the Labour motion raises the issue of social justice in the context of transport, which is important. I ask Des McNulty and the colleague who will close for Labour to follow through on the logic of that by making bus users, rather than car users, the priority. The road or motor lobby is phenomenally powerful in political terms, but bus users barely have a voice. I ask Labour members to think about the impact of pollution from schemes such as the M74 extension and other projects that increase road traffic levels. Clearly, pollution has a disproportionate impact on communities that already suffer from multiple forms of deprivation. Both pollution and the impact of transport are social justice issues.

I will use the second part of my speech to be a little more positive—it is not unrelenting criticism. The amendment that I lodged referred not only to walking, cycling and public transport as parts of a sustainable transport system but to the use of the River Clyde, which has been much ignored. The river has a substantial history of use as a commuter and transport route, and it is good that attempts are beginning to be made to return it to that use. It could again be a major transport route for the west of Scotland, serving some of the communities that Jackie Baillie mentioned in the context of roads, which could use the river as a more sustainable transport route.

The findings of a recent study by Glasgow City Council demonstrate that there is core demand for a water bus service. The council believes that that demand will increase once it has been provided for. A water bus service could encourage modal shift. We must think about what modal shift means. Often what we see is modal spread—more of everything—but what we need is modal shift. The council argues that a water bus service would support on-going economic development and regeneration along the waterfront and—in yet another use of my least favourite form of jargon—talks about improving connectivity between the north and south banks of the river. The point is fair, even if the jargon is a bit unwieldy for my taste. The council also argues that the service could be seen as part of a world-class public transport network in Glasgow. What a vision that could be. Oh for the day when it is made a reality, instead of our pouring ever more concrete into the transport system, with all the impact that that has.

I will support the Labour motion, but I cannot welcome the Conservative amendment. I express no disappointment at all at the fact that the M74 extension was delayed; I wish only that it could have been delayed by a few more decades.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Members must now stick to their time limits.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

In a debate of this type, it is inevitable that we will hear a lot of localised complaints and special pleading—that is perfectly understandable. However, if we could apply our minds, there would be general agreement that a good transport system should include speedy, efficient business connections and comfortable, convenient commuter links. I even support Patrick Harvie's view that, where at all possible—in most cases, it should be—such links should be provided on a sustainable basis.

Another key word should be integration. Mr Carlaw and I were speaking earlier about the city of Vienna, where there is a high level of integration. The transport system there works very well, with an underground system and a fast and accurate surface system, consisting largely of tramcars. It works. However, we are where we are and if we had started off with a blank sheet of paper, we would probably not be where we are at the moment. We have to live with the situation.

We need to consider the question of integration. There is a compelling argument for the crossrail project, which would affect not only Glasgow. As Robert Brown pointed out, it would have a significant effect on areas outwith Glasgow, including Ayrshire. It would benefit everyone who goes to Central station and requires to continue their journey from Queen Street station, as well as those who commute on a more localised basis within Glasgow city centre. There is a clear argument for crossrail.

We should give some thanks to our enlightened Victorian predecessors—to the city fathers of Glasgow—who introduced a subway system that was primitive although still years ahead of its time. The problem is that to institute a substantial extension to the subway system, which I think Des McNulty was suggesting, is likely to be technically very complicated. As such, it would inevitably be very expensive. Like every other argument and debate that we are likely to have in the years ahead, the argument about that extension must be predicated by the fact that the economic situation that we are confronted with is grim. We must remember that.

I take issue with Mr McNulty's criticism of Gavin Brown's remarks on the M8. It depends where we define the start and finish of the west of Scotland, but we cannot detach Glasgow—much as we might sometimes wish to, given its enlightened position—from the rest of Scotland. The fact is that those who commute into Glasgow contribute to Glasgow's economic infrastructure. Cathie Craigie's constituents, for example, need to make their way into the city. The new part of the M80 is certainly helpful, but there are bottlenecks elsewhere that require to be eradicated. We need to face up to that problem. The issue of the Edinburgh to Glasgow train link is vital—preferably for coming in the one direction, one might be tempted to say. Speedy links are absolutely vital from the business perspective.

I turn to the question of commuting. The vast majority of commuters going into Glasgow from elsewhere in the west of Scotland do so by train, but not all of them do. Many travel by bus—I do so myself, and I know that others do likewise. We must ensure that bus services are safe and convenient, and are of a standard of comfort that attracts people to use them. In that respect, and taking into account the difficulties that have manifested themselves from time to time with regard to routing, it was a great pity that the previous Executive saw fit to emasculate SPT, and we should bear in mind the fact that it was a creature from the days when Labour—in the guise of Mr McNulty and Charlie Gordon—ran Strathclyde Region. I found it surprising that they attempted, in the words of Councillor Alistair Watson, to reinvent the wheel. There are arguments that we should be considering how a regulatory body might be made somewhat more specific to the west of Scotland, compared with the degree of uniformity that Labour always seems keen to impose.

The issue of the regulation of buses frequently raises its head. In all sorts of things, I am a great believer in learning from lessons elsewhere. For example, we might consider the undoubted success story that has been Lothian Buses, which has benefited from a very light level of regulation. Perhaps we in the west of Scotland should consider that too, to explore whether it might add some benefits to the existing system.

Transport will be a vexed issue in the years ahead. Given the financial situation, everything else will be a vexed issue, too. However, some of the ideas that are around could be used with advantage as we consider the transport infrastructure of the west of Scotland. I look forward to the argument continuing.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

When the Vestas plant in Campbeltown, the Inverurie paper-mill and the NCR plant in Dundee announced either a closure or major job losses, ministers were falling over themselves to make it clear that the Scottish Government would do everything in its power to help, and quite rightly so.

What a pity, therefore, that, when Vion in Cambuslang, Freescale in East Kilbride, Corus in Mossend, in my constituency, and too many other Lanarkshire companies made similar announcements, that same rush to offer direct assistance was missing. Why should that be? I believe that it is because Lanarkshire does not attract the same interest from the Government as those parts of Scotland that favour the governing party. For more evidence of that bias we need look no further than the strategic transport projects review, which clearly favoured projects in other areas of Scotland over those in the west of Scotland.

At a time when unemployment levels in Scotland's traditional heartlands are on the increase, it is nothing short of shameful that the Government's concerns for those areas are diminishing. Only yesterday the latest figures revealed an increase to 5.7 per cent unemployment in my constituency. It would be wrong to blame the Government for the demise of many of the companies that have failed as a result of the worldwide economic downturn, but we can ask the Government where the investment is that is urgently needed to alleviate that adverse economic impact.

For example, Terex, in my constituency, has made more than 100 people redundant in the past six months. I met representatives of the management there a few weeks ago. I used to work for that firm as an apprentice, and I have a vested interest in seeing the company continue. I asked managers what they needed to happen, in this economic climate, for the company to return to being the thriving business that it once was. They made it absolutely clear that they needed more infrastructure projects. The company makes earth-moving equipment to lay the groundwork for roads and houses, and other capital infrastructure projects. We need investment in that area to allow companies such as Terex to make a comeback.

In Lanarkshire, we know from our experience of previous recessions that the road network, which centres on my constituency, with the M8 and M74 just 2 miles apart, and with the M80 and major trunk roads in close proximity, forms the basis on which we can combat some of the economic problems that we face. The area has become synonymous with distribution and logistics, which, in the past, have helped to attract numerous major employers, corporate headquarters and inward investment to locate in the many excellent commercial locations across the county, such as Eurocentral. However, rather than the major works that are in the pipeline being advanced, there are signs that they are being subjected to delays. Those projects would benefit from the type of intervention that that the Government pledges to its favoured areas.

The M74 link is now under construction, but the equally vital upgrade of the remaining section of the A8 to motorway status concerns many people in my area. One company in particular, which seeks to build a connecting road to the existing A8, has brought to my attention the fact that a decision on the road, which was expected in the autumn of 2008, is still no nearer.

The key junction upgrade at the Raith interchange needs to be completed as quickly as possible to secure the full economic benefits of forthcoming schemes and to eliminate unnecessary congestion. Local knowledge is telling us that the timetable for the underpass work at the Raith is slipping. I urge the minister to tell us what he is doing to progress the matter. Delays will bring huge cost to the taxpayer and will mean that people will continue to get caught up in traffic jams at the Raith interchange every day, especially at peak times. The jams can stretch back dangerously far from the roundabout, on to the inside lane of the southbound M74.

In addition, there are delays to the Ravenscraig development, mostly due to the development's having been downgraded from a national project to a regional project. The biggest brownfield development in Europe is no longer regarded as a priority by the Administration, in yet another sign of anti-Lanarkshire bias. The subsequent shortfall in investment has delayed the dualling of the A723, which connects Ravenscraig to the A8 via Holytown.

Time does not permit me to go into detail about the many consequences of the Government's continuing failure to invest in transport infrastructure projects in the west of Scotland. I have been able only to scratch the surface of the problems that are being caused by this Government's applying of the brakes to our transport projects. I urge the minister to get investment into the fast lane and to start applying the accelerator.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am a resident of Glasgow and I frequently travel around the city and beyond, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I cannot possibly cover everything that I would like to mention—from potholes to trunk roads to the Clyde tunnel—but I will do my best in the short time that I have.

I welcome the Government's commitment to the building of the Glasgow airport rail link, which will bring huge benefits to business and tourism in the city and will enhance Glasgow's already enviable reputation as a world-class, dynamic and cosmopolitan city that embraces the 21st century.

Other dynamic projects are going on throughout Glasgow. I recently travelled through the long-awaited refurbished Partick railway station and was hugely impressed by its design and functionality. I put in a plea to SPT for public toilets at the station, because people constantly write to me about the facilities in the station, which I think amount to just one disabled toilet—I hope that SPT is listening. Scotland's fifth busiest station, which is a major hub and gateway to the west, offers a perfect opportunity to promote an integrated transport model. The newly reopened Partick station is welcomed by people in Glasgow and beyond.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

Does Sandra White accept that someone who travels from Partick to Dalmarnock station for the Commonwealth games will have a slightly different experience? Does she support my call for the Government to give serious consideration to the need for investment in Dalmarnock?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I certainly support the member's call for investment in Dalmarnock. It is important that we have an integrated rail system.

Michael McMahon painted a picture of doom and gloom in his bitter speech. Des McNulty also painted a picture of doom and gloom in Glasgow and the west. They are right to point out that we are experiencing an economic recession. However, the recession was caused by the Labour Government at Westminster. Scotland has its own Parliament and Government and we must get on with doing our best for Scotland. Labour members should not shed crocodile tears when their Government is responsible for what is happening.

People still want to invest in Glasgow and Scotland. Last Friday, plans were announced for the creation of a £90 million office, retail and leisure complex in the burgeoning financial services district, which will create around 2,500 jobs. As we know, the district used to contain warehouses and was the departing point for the Clyde ferries and Irish steamers during the early 20th century. Jim Fitzsimons, the chief executive of Capella Group, which is behind the investment, said:

"We believe the city is far better placed than most other UK cities to quickly come out of the current downturn".

That is the opinion of a professional.

Another professional, Peter Wood, the boss of insurance giants Esure Insurance, recently announced the major expansion of the firm's Glasgow office and said that he wanted to bring the posts to his favourite city because of Glasgow's workers' can-do attitude. He claimed that he would "need his head examined" to do business in London, because of the city's high costs and transport problems. The two examples that I have given demonstrate that we are attracting major investors as a result of Glasgow's unique attractiveness and ability to embrace new technologies and opportunities.

However, more could be done. I welcome GARL, but consideration must also be given to high-speed rail and other rail connections and to road upgrades, for the benefit of Glasgow's wider community and Scotland as a whole. In that context, I agree with Des McNulty and other members that the Glasgow crossrail project has been on the drawing board for far too long, gathering dust when it should have been gathering speed. Members might be interested to hear that I corresponded recently with the new chief executive of Transport Scotland, David Middleton. I was assured that the linking of rail services across Glasgow is a priority, that an initial meeting of the steering group has taken place to drive forward that aim and that the outcome will be known by June. Given the need for GARL and crossrail to be in place before the 2014 Commonwealth games, will the minister say whether minutes of steering group meetings will be published and whether the outcome of the group's deliberations will be available for the Parliament to debate before the summer recess? The 2014 games present a fantastic opportunity to create a lasting legacy and to showcase Glasgow's transport infrastructure to the world.

We all want the Commonwealth games to be as green as possible—I bow to Patrick Harvie on that. The games offer an opportunity to develop the city's green transport network. It is essential that when we consider the transport needs of Glasgow and the west, we include among the many priorities the need to encourage people to walk, cycle and travel by boat. It would be wonderful if we could open up the river and make it the dynamic asset that it should be, so that Glasgow's people and visitors could use it to get around and see what our beautiful city has to offer. Perhaps the minister will say whether such issues fit into his vision of the overall transport infrastructure in the future.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

By and large, members have acknowledged that the development of transport infrastructure is very much a long-term process, which spans the period from the conception of the general idea and working up of plans—as the minister graciously acknowledged in an intervention, we must have due regard to the planning process, even if it sometimes takes longer than we want it to take—to procurement and delivery. It is therefore inevitable that the development of projects spans several Governments.

At the heart of the motion lie the continuing structural economic problems in the west of Scotland. Many Governments have attempted to address those problems since the collapse of shipbuilding and heavy engineering. It is important that we recall that, under the previous Government, the location of urban regeneration companies was specifically directed to such areas. It is regrettable that the structural economic problems continue, despite Governments' efforts. I do not want to be pessimistic, but the fact that the area's unemployment statistics have rocketed demonstrates that the structural problems remain, which must concern all members.

Consideration of what to do about transport infrastructure is always part of the response to structural economic problems. We all acknowledge that we are considering the long term and that priorities must be set. However, the focus of the debate has been not just the call for a pan-Scotland approach and the questioning of what the Government regards as its top priorities, but a probing of the Government to ensure that it does not neglect areas that have structural economic problems.

Bill Aitken—I am sorry that he has left the chamber—referred to SPT's proposals. I do not think that SPT has been as emasculated as he would have us believe, but its proposals for the west of Scotland must be encouraged. The fastlink scheme is important and deserves more attention, as does crossrail. Crossrail raises an issue to do with links to Ayrshire, which have not been mentioned much. In the west of Scotland we make the mistake of not understanding the north-south dimension and the great difficulty of ensuring that there are economic links from Ayrshire—an integral part of the west of Scotland—to Renfrewshire and areas north of the river. There are important projects in that regard.

Stuart McMillan and other members talked about using the river, which is important. Much structural development has made the river banks more attractive and accessible, thereby making the use of the river itself more possible and likely.

Of course, there are also road projects. The Liberal Democrats are much more concerned about infrastructure projects that deal with the public transport aspect of rail, particularly in the west of Scotland, but the road projects that have been mentioned are important. Jackie Baillie referred to the A82, and I well remember an uncomfortable journey in which the bus I was on had to reverse for more than a mile and a half along the side of Loch Lomond. I pay tribute to the skill of the bus driver, but I was still a nervous wreck when I concluded the journey. I will not tell the minister the speed at which the bus driver seemed to go backwards. It was a most unsettling experience, but it highlighted the enormous difficulty of the A82 being a major road link. The same is true for the A77, particularly its southern end, which takes me back to the links with Ayrshire.

The Government ought to keep continually at the top of its agenda the structural effect of all those issues on the difficulties of economic regeneration within the west of Scotland as a whole. The Liberal Democrat amendment specifically relates to the station at Dalmarnock.

My colleague Robert Brown eloquently made the case for the redevelopment of the station being part of the developments that will be discussed this afternoon in relation to the Glasgow Commonwealth games, and I was glad to have Sandra White's support for the proposition. However, the project seems to slip down behind several pages and, given the timing of the games, it is important that we have a more encouraging response from the Government about giving some priority to ensuring that people who arrive at our Commonwealth games arrive at a station that is worthy of Scotland and the games.

We commend the motion and the amendment in Robert Brown's name, which call on the Government to take seriously the real economic structural difficulties that continue to obtain in the west of Scotland and to give due and careful attention to the transport infrastructure that will support a sustainable economic recovery.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Some of us were somewhat astonished at the Labour Party's chosen subject for debate. In the 24 months that I have been in the Parliament, barely a Labour motion has gone by without a ritual demand that we prostrate ourselves in tribute to its grand assessment of its record in office in one respect or another but, today, the Labour Party has extended us a rare opportunity to examine in its own time its lamentable transport record, as the previous Scottish Executive was a model of dither and delay.

I am reminded of an observation by one of my favourite actors, the late David Niven—a man who was proud of his Scottish heritage. Interrupted, when presenting an Oscar, by a streaker who sought to dazzle the audience with his talent, Niven observed without missing a beat that it was unfortunate that, for the rest of his life, the man would be remembered chiefly for his shortcomings. As far as transport infrastructure in the west of Scotland is concerned, there can be small doubt that the previous Labour-led Executive will be remembered chiefly for its manifest shortcomings.

I waited in vain this morning for a heartfelt proposal from the Labour Party to raise by public subscription the funds to erect a statue to my good friend Lord Selkirk—Lord James Douglas-Hamilton—who, as transport minister in the Scottish Office, was a positive transport visionary and genius in comparison with those who followed after 1997. Many a time, Labour members berate the Government's school building programme as merely a completion of their previously planned projects. In transport terms, that is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

How can those of us who were in business in Glasgow in 1997 forget the orchestra that accompanied Labour into office? There were bags of wind led by John Prescott, who had talked relentlessly in opposition of integrated transport policies, which transpired in office to mean no more than that he should have two Jags. Depressingly, his integrated policy was fuelled by nothing more than an anti-car prejudice, which delayed all developments in its wake, including in Scotland. The M77, a road that is now completed and regarded as vital by all who use it throughout the west of Scotland, was delayed by Labour, while its obfuscation and dithering in relation to the completion of the M74—a project that, under Lord James, would by now have been a reality—must stand as a monument to the Labour Party's colossal failure.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I must object. Would Jackson Carlaw not be generous enough to note that the environmental campaigners who risked so much and put in so much of their own time and energies are due some of the credit for those delays?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I was not going to miss the opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Harvie. As someone with 25 years' involvement in the motor industry, I must say to him that the vast majority of Scots regard his views on the development of Scotland's roads as supreme bilge. To be frank, I regard the extension of car ownership in Scotland to be one of the most socially liberating changes of the past 50 years.

Even last year, in its budget submission, the Labour Party sought to cut the capital works budget for roads yet again, despite Mr McNulty's acknowledgement that business has long held the completion of the M74 link to be vital. Disconcertingly, Labour in government allowed fence-sitting on major transport decisions to become an art—and who was better experienced to sit on the fence than the Liberal Democrats to whom Labour regularly awarded the brief? Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott, with generations of political fence-sitting in their genes, predictably played their part.

At last, the M74 extension is under way. We welcome too the Government's planned programme of improvements to the Glasgow to Edinburgh rail service and continuing improvements to the M8.

I noted in the strategic transport projects review the Government's willingness to consider the possible adaptation and use of hard shoulder on the M8. My sister-in-law now lives and works in the south of England and, when visiting her and using the M42, I have been impressed with the success of the scheme that has been piloted there to make use of the hard shoulder, particularly at peak times. It is not that the hard shoulder becomes a generally accessible, additional lane of stalled traffic; rather, it becomes accessible in advance of exit junctions, which allows those who are leaving the motorway to move out of the on-going traffic, providing them with a speedier exit and everyone else with a more continued traffic flow. The M8—a road that we all acknowledge would be difficult to widen along its length—would be ideally suited to an M42-type scheme, and I encourage the Government to investigate fully the benefits of that.

I have some sympathy with Stuart McMillan regarding the Inverkip junction and hope that progress can be made on that local concern. I also enjoyed the case that Jackie Baillie made for the A82. As so often when I hear her passion in opposition, I wonder where she was in government, but she is right that the temporary lights past Tarbet cause any—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

When I finish the sentence. She is right that the temporary lights past Tarbet cause any traveller to shake their head in bewilderment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Perhaps Jackson Carlaw would care to reflect on the numerous parliamentary questions and motions on the A82 that have been lodged in my name and withdraw his comment.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I refer only to the fact that, in the eight years in which the Labour Party was in power, Ms Baillie was singularly unable to influence the Government and now seeks to influence the Scottish National Party Government instead.

Although I found little to commend in Labour's record in the Parliament, I happily acknowledge the positive contribution of Councillor Alistair Watson. He has not only a considerable command of his subject but a passion and evident enthusiasm for it. On crossrail, I hope that the Government will listen a little more carefully to him and others who seek to progress a practical development plan, such as the Conservatives have previously supported and encouraged. To be frank, the suggestion in the strategic transport projects review for some new complex to replace both Central and Queen Street stations is far fetched.

The Government has an opportunity to make success out of Labour's failure and will now be judged on what it achieves. Where it acts sensibly, it will have our support.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It has been a pretty good debate. A great deal of ground has been covered one way or another, and it is clear that, in my remarks, I will not be able to address every detail that members have raised today. However, members should be assured that we will examine the Official Report afterwards and, if it is appropriate, write to them on matters that I do not manage to cover in my eight or so minutes.

Des McNulty said that the improvements to the Baillieston to Newhouse stretch of the A8 should be in the NPF. That, of course, would delay that project. We want to deal with the planning issues that are associated with it in a shorter timescale than the NPF would allow but, ultimately, communities that have issues with transport interventions of whatever nature have an absolute right under the planning system to make their views known and ensure that their issues are dealt with.

I warmly welcome Des McNulty's acceptance that the minister does not have the money to do everything—ministers of whatever political complexion will always find themselves in that position. That is a genuine issue with which ministers must always engage when deciding spending priorities, and the STPR is primarily about identifying key priorities.

Let me turn to the west of Scotland strategic rail enhancements. A number of people, including Sandra White, referred to the work that is going on between the Scottish Government and SPT, which I think is going well. We are looking to have a delivery plan for project 24 in the STPR by the summer. It is genuinely important that we understand the long-term implications because they involve not just the stations but the network capacity, particularly to the south of Glasgow Central. A range of projects, some initiated by us and others by previous Administrations, will load into the network capacity and reduce the number of paths that are available for further update. We could choose to have a short-term fix, but that would create long-term problems. It is important that the constructive dialogue continues.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does the minister accept that, while station improvements, the fast-link scheme and some parts of the crossrail scheme could be achieved in advance of the Commonwealth games, crossrail as a full scheme is unlikely to be in place before the games come to Glasgow?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The interventions that we are considering will happen over a long rather than a short time. As I said in my opening remarks, they will have to take account of high-speed rail as well, because we need somewhere effective for that to land when it arrives in the west of Scotland.

I think that Mr McNulty made the point that car use in the west of Scotland must not rise because it is a climate change issue. Glasgow has one of the lowest figures for the number of cars per households—I am prepared to be corrected, but my recollection is that the figure is 47 per 100. Of course, in many socially deprived areas, one of the first aspirational things that people wish to do if their circumstances improve is acquire a car. I acknowledge that we must capture those people for public transport rather than have a rise in car ownership, but we should not underestimate the nature of that challenge. The different tiers—local authorities and central Government—must work together on it.

Gavin Brown and others highlighted the A82 as a key part of the west of Scotland's transport infrastructure and, indeed, of that of the north of Scotland. Of our major roads in Scotland, it has the highest rate of people who are killed and seriously injured. It comes in at number 1 in the top 20, as would be shown by a reworking of the numbers that I gave in an answer to John Scott some months ago. We are very much focused on that issue, although road engineering is only one way in which to reduce deaths on our roads, because about two thirds of deaths are down to drivers and one third could be attributable to the roads.

Gavin Brown referred to there being plans for six trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow, but that is only for the route through Falkirk High station. When we take all the different routes into account, there will be 13 trains an hour between Edinburgh and Glasgow. I am not sure that prioritisation has anything to do with whether projects come in on time and on budget; I think that that is a different discipline, but we will look at it.

Robert Brown's speech focused on Dalmarnock station, and in his intervention later in the debate he asked us to look at financing its development. His amendment to the motion is a bit more prescriptive, so I say to him that, because we are still discussing the issue, we will abstain on his amendment but vote for the motion, whether amended or not, thus reflecting the fact that we are not yet in a position to commit but have sympathy with the point being made.

Longer trains were talked about in the context of a variety of options—I think that Jackie Baillie made that point. We are looking at having 23m coaches, which have greater capacity, and trains with up to eight coaches, so we are making the changes that will increase capacity. Incidentally, there is already a train between Helensburgh and Edinburgh, but it leaves Edinburgh at 4.45 in the morning and involves a seat on the sleeper. The Airdrie to Bathgate line will perhaps benefit those commuters who wish to travel during more normal hours.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Incidentally, it is not quite four decades since men landed on the moon; that will not be the case until July 2009. I am a geek, Presiding Officer, and I just cannot help it.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

Hear, hear!

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The figure of 3 per cent growth in the rail network grossly understates the growth that we have seen in recent years, so we must be conscious of that.

On water taxis in the Clyde, we need to get the balance right because the CO2 cost per passenger mile on water is the highest for all transport modes. In order to balance that higher CO2 cost, we must ensure that putting people on the water reduces the overall length of the journey. Nonetheless, the principle of water taxis is sound.

I congratulate Stuart McMillan on his active engagement with local interests on the issue of the A78. Patrick Harvie made various points about transport. I hope that one thing that the RTPs will do over the next while is work hard to ensure that bus lanes are better enforced because that would deliver terrific benefits at relatively low cost.

On Bill Aitken's reference to regulation, we should use the options available in the powers for statutory bus partnerships. I say to Jackson Carlaw that we are looking at hard-shoulder running. There are significant safety problems—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that the minister's time is up.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I apologise for my late arrival to the debate. To be fair, it was not attributable to the west of Scotland's transport system but entirely my own fault.

The west of Scotland—the Clyde valley, if you will—is a spatial reality as a travel-to-work area. It used to be a political reality, although it is not any more, but political reality today does not change the spatial reality. Improvements in the connectivity—a word that annoys Patrick Harvie, so I will use it incessantly—of the region can bring local as well as regionwide benefits, depending on the projects prioritised. Strathclyde Regional Council proved that point in the 1980s and 1990s in developing the second-largest but best suburban rail network in the UK.

It can be the same with roads—for example, the M77. Incidentally, Jackson Carlaw was wrong to say that Labour delayed the M77. I was the Labour transport convener of Strathclyde Regional Council, which built the first phase of the M77. That road has helped to create well over 2,000 jobs in Pollok town centre, whose regeneration would not have happened without it. Similarly, the second, trunk-road phase of the M77 has led, among other things, to the development of new homes in the Kilmarnock area. In addition, the completion of the M74 will bring new jobs and homes to the east end of Glasgow and benefit the whole city region by relieving pressure on the M8. Any MSP who purports to represent Glasgow ought to support that rather than bemoan it.

Jackie Baillie has persistently made an eloquent case for treatment for the A82, especially that bizarre pinchpoint at Pulpit Rock. I usually buy into the notion that there are no bad roads, only bad drivers, but I think that the A82 at Pulpit Rock is the one exception that proves the rule, and getting it sorted out is long overdue. I congratulate Jackie Baillie on becoming a trainspotter in her—I was going to say her middle age rather than her old age.

Jackie Baillie mentioned potholes, something that I have looked into a lot in my work as an MSP as well as in my previous incarnation. Regarding the pothole epidemic in the city region, it is nonsense for grant support for local government to be based on road length rather than traffic volume. It is perfectly possible to count traffic volume, and a change in the formula would bring immediate relief to the city region, as would a rebate in the business rates. Such a sum would probably be spent first on fixing the potholes.

Patrick Harvie twittered on in a way that was against integration. There must be a role for roads—and, indeed, for the car—in an integrated transport strategy.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

rose—

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

We have heard enough from Patrick Harvie in this debate; we need to hear a wee bit more from me.

Patrick Harvie wants to be against the car but ends up being against the roads. He must understand that vans and lorries do not use public transport.

Bill Aitken also talked about integration. That was somewhat rich for a member of a party that abolished Strathclyde Regional Council and deregulated the buses.

Michael McMahon made a powerful case in listing the human cost of rising unemployment in his part of the west of Scotland. That underlines the point that the Clyde valley is Scotland's largest single economic unit and that new and integrated transport infrastructure must be moved up the political agenda as part of our response to recession.

Sandra White asked us not to be gloomy about Glasgow. I, for one, never have been. She praised—correctly, in my view—the city's can-do attitude.

Ross Finnie pointed out the continuing and structural nature of some of the region's economic problems. He rightly reminded us that crossrail would bring enormous benefits to the Ayrshire ports and to Prestwick airport.

Jackson Carlaw came over like, well, Jackson Carlaw. Usually, that would be enough said, but he was also wrong about Labour's role in the M77.

The minister nodded in the direction of various local concerns, which is fair enough. However, in his opening speech, he wandered out of the region in the direction of the Clackmannanshire bridge and even the Edinburgh tram, so I started to lose a wee bit of interest. In no sense did he show that he has grasped the joined-up nature of the west of Scotland's strategic transport needs. I agreed with the minister on one point—when he described himself as a geek—but he gave no commitment to money or dates in speaking about the region's transport needs.

Labour will vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment. We will not vote for the Tory amendment because it comes over, well, too much like Jackson Carlaw.

This has been an opportune debate, which is probably a sign that transport infrastructure is moving up the political agenda in the Parliament. Some members—notably the Tories—made the point that there was perhaps a loss of momentum under the previous Scottish Government. I could be unfraternal by pointing out that most of the transport ministers in the previous Government were members of another party, but I make no bones about the fact that, although Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority and Strathclyde Passenger Transport Executive were correctly retained even by a Tory Government when it abolished Strathclyde Regional Council in 1996, it was probably a retrograde step for the previous Scottish Government to allow SPT to be downgraded further into a voluntary partnership. However, there is plenty of evidence—this is certainly my experience—to suggest that less formal coalitions can come together in regions to deliver on transport. Institutional issues should not be a pretext for not continuing to focus on the west of Scotland's transport needs, which should be delivered.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to improve road safety. (S3O-6657)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The Scottish Government will shortly publish a new road safety framework for Scotland for the period to 2020. We provide £1.3 billion for infrastructure funding to Transport Scotland to ensure a safe strategic road network and we fund significant educational initiatives through Road Safety Scotland.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

As I highlighted in this morning's debate, when I undertook my survey in Inverkip, which achieved a response rate of 41 per cent, some 81 per cent of respondents said that they want action to be taken on the A78 junction at Inverkip. I welcome the fact that Transport Scotland will now undertake a survey, but I ask the minister to accept my invitation to come to Inverkip to see for himself the dangerous and potentially life-threatening junction. Will he agree to meet members of the Inverkip and Wemyss Bay community council to hear their concerns and to discuss the matter further?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

As I said in the previous debate, the member's engagement with local communities on the issue is impressive. I will certainly seek to make time available in my diary to visit Inverkip to see the junction for myself and to meet members of the community council.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

It is understandable that blind and partially sighted people, as well as other disabled people, have concerns about the development of shared-surface schemes in some of our towns and cities. Will the Scottish Executive consider a moratorium on new shared-surface schemes until the completion of research, either by taking part in the Department for Transport's research or by conducting its own research on the issue?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The member makes a fair point. When I met representatives of blind and partially sighted people some time ago, I was given a clear exposition of the real difficulties that can arise when we share space. The history of such schemes, particularly in the Netherlands, is generally good, but I think that we have cultural as well as engineering issues to consider. I will not make the commitment that the member asked for at this moment, but he can be assured that I am aware of, and we are engaging on, the issue.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps have been taken to ensure that adequate business support and advice is available to companies in the north-east. (S3O-6643)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Business support and advice is available to companies in the north-east mainly through the business gateway, which provides advice and support to all businesses via its website, inquiry centre and advisers. Responsibility for business gateway delivery was transferred from Scottish Enterprise to local authorities on 1 April 2008 to provide a more local delivery of service and to reflect the fact that businesses already interact with local authorities on a range of local issues. Complementing that activity, Scottish Enterprise also provides support and advice in the north-east, with a focus on companies of high growth potential and key sectors. Scottish Enterprise's activity in the north-east is informed by its regional advisory board—Aberdeen city and shire economic future—which brings together the public and private sectors to shape delivery.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As the minister will be aware, since the management of business gateway contracts was transferred from Scottish Enterprise to local authorities, concerns have been raised about the use of local contact details. Scottish Enterprise precludes the use of local phone numbers by contractors who wish to advertise services. As a result, the contractor that delivers the enterprise service in Grampian and Tayside has reported a 75 per cent drop in first inquiries, which makes it extremely difficult for them to hit targets. I have no objection to challenging targets, but will the minister address the issue of using local telephone numbers?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We do not preclude the use of local telephone numbers once contact has been established and things are moving forward, but the ethos of business gateway is based on the assumption that inquiries should go to a central location to avoid confusion, to create better effectiveness and to maintain the brand. Officials from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and from the Scottish local authorities economic development—SLAED—group accept that position. It is interesting that while the target for total inquiries was 40,000, the actual figure was 39,543, which is 98.9 per cent. We hear what the member is saying, but I think that local telephone numbers are used in on-going inquiries.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister recognise that, through no fault of their own, several well-run, enterprising small companies in the oil and gas sector in the north-east currently face difficulties with overdraft facilities? What action has Scottish Enterprise taken to ensure that companies in that position have ready access to advice and, if need be, to short-term funding?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Enterprise is openly engaged with such companies. The Scottish Government has been pressing the banks to ensure that contacts are made and that funds flow through. The member will be aware that that has been the focus of activity of the United Kingdom Government as well as of the Scottish Government. We are now beginning to see signs that funds are flowing through, but we will maintain our focus and will continue to make the necessary contact. We will listen intently to concerns about particular situations in which good, viable companies struggle to get the funding that they need.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether consideration was given to the recognition of bus passes across the United Kingdom in its review of the national concessionary travel scheme. (S3O-6594)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The review of the Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme for older and disabled people is almost complete and we expect the report of the review to be published early in May. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the report and its wider considerations at this time.

Jim Tolson (Liberal Democrat, Dunfermline West)

I welcome the minister's statement that mutual recognition of bus passes throughout the UK has been considered by the Government's review of the concessionary travel scheme, which is due to report back imminently. Can he confirm that the stakeholders who were consulted during the consultation process included various user groups? Mutual recognition of bus passes throughout the UK would be of great benefit to people such as my constituent, Graham Chandler, whose parents, who reside in England, plan frequent trips to Scotland to assist their son with child care.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It is clear that an extension of the free bus travel scheme and the reciprocity that would have to be part of that could deliver benefits. Indeed, I have been in correspondence with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly on the subject, in which they have a shared interest.

However, the schemes in the different jurisdictions are very different. The one in England is essentially a local, off-peak scheme. It is relatively new and some difficulties are still being experienced. The member will need to wait just a little bit longer for our final determination on the subject.

Ian McKee (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the Government have plans to follow the Labour Government at Westminster by withdrawing many travel concessions from those who are entitled to them?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I think that I have said on a previous occasion that we intend to augment the free bus travel scheme by extending it to cover disabled ex-servicemen. It is certainly not our intention to impose restrictions or to reduce the concessions that have been made available in the past.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Government how it intends to roll out the NHS Aroma cafe concept. (S3O-6625)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

A trial involving two Aroma sites, at Glasgow royal infirmary and the Southern general, is under way. The new Stobhill and Victoria hospitals are expected to join the trial, and a further two sites are planned for the NHS Highland area.

NHS Health Facilities Scotland will fully evaluate the trial in the autumn to ensure that it offers an improved service to staff, visitors and patients, and that any income generated is ploughed back into the NHS. If the outcome of the trial is positive, NHS Health Facilities Scotland plans to offer the concept to all health boards. It will be up to boards to decide whether to take it up. The concept will not be rolled out or offered for roll-out before then.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer and I have noted her public comments. I accept that the Aroma cafe concept that she has endorsed has some merit, but I hope that she accepts that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate and that Aroma cafes should not displace hard-working charities and volunteers, such as the league of friends at Inverclyde royal hospital.

The cabinet secretary is aware that the chairman of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Andrew Robertson, is to visit the tea bar at Inverclyde royal hospital in the coming days, after 5,000 people signed a petition in support of the volunteers who run it. Will she ensure that Mr Robertson takes with him a message of gratitude for their efforts, an apology for the shabby way in which they have been treated over the past few weeks and, most important, an assurance that they will be allowed to continue their good work for the hospital and the wider community for a very long time to come?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I echo Duncan McNeil's comments about the league of friends and similar organisations, which do a fantastic job on behalf of the national health service. I know that all NHS boards respect and value that work, and I would fully expect Andrew Robertson or any other health board chair to communicate those sentiments to volunteers who do such work.

As I have said, the trial of the Aroma cafe concept is under way. It is important to stress that the brand is owned by Health Facilities Scotland rather than by any particular health board. Health Facilities Scotland has made it clear that it will not agree to any further roll-out beyond the sites that I have mentioned until the trial has been fully evaluated. At this stage, it is premature for any board to commit to an Aroma cafe at any hospital that is not involved in the trial. The IRH is one such hospital. I understand that Health Facilities Scotland will meet NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde shortly to emphasise that no decision should be taken prior to the evaluation of the trial.

If the Aroma cafe concept is to be rolled out in the future—I am glad that Duncan McNeil accepts that it has merits—I believe that great scope exists for partnership working with existing voluntary organisations that already provide services. Health Facilities Scotland is to meet the WRVS to explore those opportunities, and I would be happy to ask it to meet the league of friends as well.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its view is on the recommendations in the report on damages for wrongful death published by the Scottish Law Commission. (S3O-6602)

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

Officials are currently considering the report on damages for wrongful death alongside the Scottish Law Commission's two other recent reports on damages. We will take a view about our response to the recommendations in those reports and the timing of any bill in due course.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his extremely cautious response. He will be aware that reform of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 would, among other things, remove the need for some cases to go to court, thereby allowing victims and their relatives to access the compensation to which they are entitled more swiftly and avoid a stressful and potentially intrusive court process. It would also guarantee a fair, standard level of compensation for loss of earnings.

I intend, in the next few days, to introduce a member's bill that will be based firmly on appendix A of part 4 of the Scottish Law Commission's report. Will the Government support that bill, perhaps by way of a handout bill-type process?

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

As I said to the member earlier, I appreciate his interest in the matter. Professor Thomson's report has been welcomed, but it must be considered and reviewed by all the stakeholders who have an interest in it. First, we must consider carefully the terms of the report and see whether they will fit precisely into a legislative framework.

Secondly, the report is the third in a series of recent reviews by the Scottish Law Commission of the law of damages. It is accepted universally that the law of damages in Scotland needs to be updated; after all, we are in the 21st century. Those who, like me, practised some 10 years ago are aware that the law in the area has not changed radically—the recent changes such as those on asbestos have been relatively limited. Whether it would be better to make such change piecemeal through a single action or a single piece of legislation that dealt with a specific aspect of the law of damages or whether it would be better to take time to adopt a more consolidated approach that sought to tackle all the aspects that have been raised rather than just one of the Law Commission's reports is a matter that we will consider and which I will be happy to discuss with the member in due course.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will publish its 10-year road safety strategy. (S3O-6584)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will announce the date of publication within the next few weeks.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

When the minister came to office he stated that road safety was a priority, but it seems to me that the Scottish National Party is in a different time zone from the rest of us—it has taken two years to produce the road safety strategy.

The tally of fatalities on rural roads is disproportionate—accidents on rural roads account for 62 per cent of fatalities, even though they carry only 42 per cent of the traffic. Does the minister support the Department for Transport's view that speed limits on rural roads must be reviewed? If so, will he advise how and when that will be done?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The framework for speed limits is, of course, created by the DFT, not by us. A review of speed limits on roads that councils are responsible for is under way. We are working closely with DFT colleagues and have provided input to the consultation on driver licensing and on speed limits. We will continue with such work, because the member makes a perfectly good point—night time and rurality are particular vectors of risk that we need to understand and respond to.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent research by the Institute of Directors that suggested that Scottish workers may have to work until over the age of 70 to pay for public sector pensions, whether the Scottish Government intends to conduct a review of public sector pay and conditions. (S3O-6579)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I note the Institute of Directors report. Occupational pensions, including public service pensions, remain a matter reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, public service pensions in Scotland have been reformed in recent years, including the introduction of new schemes for teachers, police, firefighters and NHS staff, and, as recently as 1 April this year, a new scheme for local government staff.

It is, of course, the case that public sector workers contribute to the cost of their pensions through employees' contributions and through income tax.

I pay tribute to the dedication of the thousands of teachers, nurses, police officers and firefighters who make up the bulk of the public sector workforce and contribute to services that are essential to Scottish life. Pensions are only part of an overall remuneration package that is designed to ensure that the public sector attracts and retains appropriately skilled workers.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is it time to examine the financial viability of the existing local government and other public sector pension funds to alleviate the need in future for emergency cash injections from taxpayers to those pension schemes?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I said in my original answer, we have very recently completed a process, which was started by the previous Administration, to review the local government staff pension scheme. I assure Mr Wilson that there is regular dialogue and interaction between the Scottish Government and the Treasury on the financial health and sustainability of public sector pensions. The issues that Mr Wilson has raised today about the sustainability of pensions are material to honouring the commitments that have been made to public sector workers who have contributed to their pensions.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it expects its review of the Scotland rural development programme to be concluded. (S3O-6632)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

Our external reviewer, Peter Cook, is in the process of finalising his advice and will be submitting it to the Scottish Government shortly. That will enable the Government to make any decisions about changes to the Scotland rural development programme, in the light of that advice, during May.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware of the dismay of NFU Scotland and crofters at the recent postponement of the next round of rural priorities applications. The NFUS described the decision as having left many of its members in limbo. Will the review of the SRDP consider that decision? Will the minister explain to Parliament the reasons for the decision that has disappointed so many crofters and farmers, who have spent a lot of time and money preparing applications?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

There have been four funding rounds in the past seven months, which even the member will agree is quite a considerable number. The funding round in February led to more than 1,000 approvals. In a sense, we were a little a victim of our success. We have extended the deadline for the next funding round and we will fix a date for that to be finalised as soon as we can. It is a matter that Peter Cook, who is an independent reviewer, may be considering—we will find out when he presents his report to us—but the success of the previous funding round flies in the face of all the people who were bemoaning how difficult it was to get money out of the SRDP and bodes very well for the future.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As Peter Peacock suggested, Scottish farmers and crofters incur sizeable costs when preparing proposals for the SRDP. Does the minister accept that, given the seasonal nature of many activities supported under rural priorities, her decision to cancel the next round of regional project assessment committee meetings will, as well as cause confusion, at best require proposals to be recast and at worst require them to be dropped entirely for a year or more, with all the costs that that would entail?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

No. I do not think that that is necessarily the result. The existing applications will still be able to go forward. We have not cancelled anything. All we have done is extend the deadlines. We have had four in seven months, which by any standard beats previous records. I think that we intend to go on doing so.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Scottish Football Association about the proposal for a GB football team at the 2012 London Olympics. (S3O-6653)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Scottish Government, at official and ministerial level, has been in regular contact with the Scottish Football Association about a range of issues. The SFA has categorically stated its opposition to the concept of a GB football team. The Scottish Government whole-heartedly backs that position and the Scottish ministers are on record expressing their concerns that a GB football team would jeopardise the future of Scotland as an independent footballing nation.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

Will the minister assure me that she will continue to work with the SFA in opposing the idea of a GB football team, which could jeopardise the future independence of Scottish football, and that she will work with the SFA to ensure that the damaging proposal never sees the light of day?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I very much agree with the member. The Scottish Government has always made it clear that it wants to increase the opportunities for Scottish teams to compete on the international stage. The existence of a GB football team could put that at risk, so we will continue to support the SFA's position strongly.

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-1623)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland.

Today is 23 April, St George's day, so I think it appropriate to congratulate the people of England on their national day.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The whole country wants to see all politicians, all parties and all sectors working together to help hard-working families through the global economic downturn. Yesterday's United Kingdom budget included £400 million for Scots seeking work, pensioners paying their fuel bills, and families bringing up children. It included new support for Scotland's oil and gas industry and for our renewable energy industry. It also showed that the Scottish budget will, in the teeth of a recession, grow by £2.2 billion over the next two years. Can the First Minister confirm that?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am afraid that Iain Gray will have to come to terms with reality. If yesterday was a day of reckoning for Labour at Westminster, today is the day of reckoning for Labour in the Scottish Parliament.

Since November, Iain Gray has been saying of the cuts that are planned for next year that the amount might be less than £500 million. He has been appealing to his financial guru Andy Kerr for advice, who also says that it could not possibly be worked out. This morning on the radio, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it could still not be worked out. Well, we can work it out. The total cut by Labour on Scotland for next year is £496,682,000. That is the reality of what Labour in Westminster is forcing on the Scottish people.

Does Iain Gray understand that that level of reduction in funding for vital services in Scotland is not only bad for the economy and bad for public services, but threatens 9,000 jobs in Scotland?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Last week, the First Minister was caught out by the old trick question: what do you get if you divide by zero? The correct answer is that the question is meaningless—and so is his budget arithmetic.

Since November, I have been saying that the First Minister's budget would in the next year increase, and that in the year after that it would increase. So—let us do a bit of reckoning, and let us keep it simple. The First Minister's budget is £33.3 billion in 2008-09, £34.8 billion in 2009-10, and £35.5 billion in 2010-11. Is his budget going up, or is it going down?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Iain Gray will find the answer on page 241 of the red book that is published with the budget. This year, total managed expenditure for the Scottish budget is £29.1 billion. That is revenue and capital. Next year, it will be £29.3 billion. In real terms, that will be the first cut in the Scottish budget since the Tory years. In real terms, next year's figure will be £28.8 billion.

Now, I know that Iain Gray was a maths teacher, and I have to say that the BBC made one of its few apologies to me as far as the maths question was concerned. I know that he has been out of teaching for some time, but even Iain Gray must recognise that 28.8 is less than 29.1. Whatever way it is divided, that is the first real-terms cut in Scottish expenditure since the Tory years—something, of course, that the Labour Party said it would never do.

People in Scotland must find extraordinary the contrast in the rhetoric of the chancellor and the Prime Minister, who at Westminster berate the Tory party on cutting public services, when that is exactly what they propose to do next year in Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The First Minister can play around with his annually managed expenditure, his total managed expenditure and his departmental expenditure limit until he gets the figure he wants. However, any honest appraisal of the figures shows that his budget is still going up year on year, increasing by more than £2 billion in two years. The real question is this: What choices will the First Minister make with that budget? Labour at Westminster has promised to safeguard front-line services and to maintain budget increases of 5 per cent for local health services and 4 per cent for schools. Will the First Minister make the same promise for Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I will tell Iain Gray the choices that we would make if we were in government at Westminster. We would not choose to spend £25 billion on Trident nuclear missiles. Labour at Westminster has also chosen to spend £5 billion on a national database for identity cards that will do nobody any good. That is an extraordinary position. Those are the real political choices. Hands up who in the Labour Party wants to spend £100 billion on Trident while cutting public expenditure in Scotland. Lord George Foulkes is the only Labour member to put his hand up.

Iain Gray will have to come to terms with the fact that this is not playing around with financial aggregates. What Labour proposes is a cut of 9,000 jobs in Scotland—real jobs and real people are at risk of redundancy because of Labour.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Were we to cancel Trident, we would cut 11,000 jobs in the west of Scotland. Is that really the First Minister's brilliant idea to save the Scottish economy? We know the choices that the First Minister makes because he has been making them for two years. There have been cuts in teacher numbers—his cuts—and cuts in school building programmes, which are his cuts. Twenty thousand construction jobs have gone already and there have been cuts in housing completions—his cuts. There have been cuts in apprenticeship programmes—his cuts—and pensioners have been cut out of the central heating programme by means testing. Those are his cuts. Those cuts have nothing to do with next year's budget, the year after's budget or the budgets in 2013 and 2014. They have got nothing to do with Westminster; the person who is responsible for them is right here. The First Minister's budget is going to grow by £2.2 billion. When will he grow up, take responsibility and get on with the job?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We have already demonstrated that the cuts that Labour has refused to acknowledge since November will come in the Scottish budget next year—the first cuts since the Tory years.

I am interested in Iain Gray's inability to understand the difference between reinvesting in public services and top-slicing from the Scottish budget. I was also interested in Andy Kerr's analysis on "Newsnight Scotland" last night, in which he attacked the Scottish National Party. He said:

"They've, you know, reduced expenditure in Scotland by £1.6 billion worth of cuts. They've spent to the hilt."

In one breath, Andy Kerr said that we have been both cutting and spending "to the hilt." The difference is that the efficiency savings that are being made in Scotland are going back into local government and the health service, whereas the Darling-Gray cuts will be top-sliced from the Scottish budget and will cost 9,000 jobs in Scotland. It is not only the SNP that is arguing that: the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities share our concerns. Every social partnership in Scotland knows the difference between investment by the SNP and cuts in public spending by the Labour Party.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-1624)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I may well bump into the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday, when I will explain the damage to Scotland and the Scottish economy that will result from the Labour Party's budget.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Labour's recession has landed the country in an appalling mess. No one is blaming the First Minister for the terrible state of the country's finances, but we are where we are. The Scottish budget is going to be squeezed by around £500 million, based on Labour's wildly optimistic estimates. Scotland needs a First Minister who does not just bawl and shout at Westminster but who confronts reality. What will the First Minister do to deal with Labour's £500 million budget squeeze?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The first thing every member of this Parliament should do is recognise that the Scottish economy will be driven into ruin and redundancy if we continue to be at the mercy of decisions that are made by London chancellors.

In Scotland, we have made real efficiency savings in the Scottish budget, which have been reinvested in our public spending programmes. That is the right policy in economic and political terms. However, there is a world of difference between efficiency savings that are reinvested in public services and top-sliced cuts from Westminster.

Annabel Goldie is correct: the chancellor in Westminster has managed to make an error of £60,000 million in the course of four months in estimating public borrowing. I point out that Mr Swinney, as the minister who is responsible for finance in Scotland, makes no error whatsoever, puts into the Scottish economy exactly what he has to spend, and has not borrowed a penny more than the budget allocation.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West of Scotland)

There he goes again. I will draw the First Minister back from the land of fantasy to the real world of Scotland. He might choose to be long on bluster and short on detail, but in these testing times Scotland needs a First Minister with the courage to make difficult decisions. I cannot believe that this First Minister has not given thought to this, considered the options, worked out a plan and faced up to the unpalatable reality, so I will ask my question again. What are the options? How, exactly, is he going to deal with Labour's budget squeeze?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We will do it with the efficiency and competence with which we have approached the budget process in Scotland, as opposed to the inefficiency and total incompetence that we have seen from Westminster.

Annabel Goldie and everyone else in this chamber should recognise that we have, since November, been warning of the implications to public services of a £500 million cut. She should equally understand that the political process requires people to put forward different points of view. Unfortunately, the only difference that I can see between the Tories at Westminster and Labour at Westminster is that the Tories want to introduce the cuts this year instead of next year. For the life of me, I cannot understand how introducing the cuts one year early is going to help Scotland out of recession.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-1625)

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)

After yesterday's budget, politics and government are, more than ever, about choices. Everyone faces 10 years of pain because of Labour, so Governments should account for the choices that they make.

The Scottish National Party queued up with Labour at Westminster to vote for the short-term VAT cut. That has not worked. Unemployment is soaring. Our Government could have used the same money to build for the long term, with investment in 95,000 green jobs and public transport. Does the First Minister regret making that short-term choice back in December?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Tavish Scott might remember that, back in December, I published information from the Scottish Government input-output model that showed precisely that we could have got twice as many jobs in Scotland through a capital investment programme as would be delivered through the VAT policy. What is more, as opposed to there being a cut in VAT, we would have been left with hospitals, schools and roads. There was a need for a fiscal stimulus, but there was also a need for it to be the right fiscal stimulus.

If Tavish Scott casts his mind back to last December, he might recall that, at that point, he was arguing for a cut in Scottish public spending not of £500 million, but of £700 million. The reason why he abandoned that during the budget process was that, in the months leading up to that point, he had not managed to identify anywhere that the cuts could be made.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That still begs the question why Alex Salmond voted for the VAT cut.

It is business as usual with the choices that the Scottish National Party Government makes. Money is to be spent on free school meals for rich kids, on reintroducing beavers to Argyll and on the referendum campaign, but which can never be cut, no matter how bad Government finances get or how high our taxes have to go.

Let us consider the construction industry. The SNP has announced and re-announced its capital spending. Yesterday's growth figures show that the Scottish construction industry is down by 4.7 per cent—the worst hit of any sector in the economy. Even under disastrous Labour in London, it is only 1.1 per cent. Why is it worse here than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the First Minister tell us whether that is anything to do with the choices that his Government has made?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I have the gross value added figures for construction in front of me. Tavish Scott is absolutely right: 4.7 per cent is a serious decline in the construction industry, indicating the depth of the recession that is confronting the UK.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

That is the Scottish figure.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, that is the Scottish figure—and the UK figure is 5 per cent.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

No, it is not.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, it is. The quarterly figure is 5 per cent. I will go through the other quarterly figures. In quarter 2, there was an increase of 1.4 per cent in Scotland and a decrease of 0.5 per cent in the UK and in quarter 3, the figure was 0.5 per cent in Scotland and 1 per cent in the UK. If Tavish Scott wants to bandy figures, he should bring the figures along with him so that he can get them right.

There is a £3.5 billion investment programme in Scottish public capital expenditure, which is sustaining 50,000 jobs in Scotland. I do not know how much of that Tavish Scott thought he could cut in his attempt to reduce public spending by £700 million, but members can be sure that if he had managed to persuade the rest of the chamber, there would be fewer jobs in construction, and elsewhere in the economy in Scotland than at present.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Salmond is right: the figures in the tables for Scotland are 4.7 per cent down and for the UK they are 1.1 per cent down. It is as simple as that. Those are the published figures. Would he like to explain or is it, as usual, someone else's fault?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As I remember things, every time Tavish Scott accuses me of misleading the chamber he ends up making an apology, of a sort. The figure is 4.7 per cent for Scotland and I am afraid that it is 5 per cent for the UK. It is the quarterly gross value added figure in the construction index.

What is important is that we put into the Scottish economy the capital spending that is required to sustain jobs through the recession—the 20,000 jobs that result from the Scottish Government programme over the past year. In contrast, the United Kingdom chancellor managed to cut or threaten 9,000 jobs in a single day. That is why people in Scotland will prefer the investment programme of the SNP to the cuts programme of the Labour Party.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I will take a constituency question from Michael Matheson.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The First Minister is aware that more than 500 jobs are at risk because of T-Mobile's decision to move work from a Scottish company to the Philippines. The decision impacts not only on Telecom Service Centres Limited workers in my constituency, but on workers in Greenock.

A letter from T-Mobile states that it is

"working closely with TSC to minimise and mitigate the losses".

However, my constituents tell me that there is no evidence whatever of that.

The workforce is rightly angry that they have been dumped for a cheaper overseas option after years of dedication. They are highly skilled professionals offering an industry-recognised and proven high-quality service.

Will the First Minister assure me that he will use the full resources of the Scottish Government, first to try to dissuade T-Mobile from taking those jobs overseas or, if that fails, at least to ensure that T-Mobile lives up to its promise to minimise and mitigate the job losses?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I share the disappointment of the constituency member and all members in the chamber in hearing that TSC is faced with making those redundancies. It is clear that that is not a reflection on the highly-skilled and valued workforce.

Ministers have been closely involved in the issue. We welcome the assurance from TSC that it would not off-shore any of the jobs. Mr Mather is writing to the parent company, T-Mobile, to argue the case to retain that business in Scotland.

The Government is committed to assisting all companies in the current climate to safeguard existing jobs and look at opportunities for expansion.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

First Minister, I was delighted to hear you say that the Government would get behind this company, but could you start by ensuring that your minister, Jim Mather—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Through the chair please, Mr McNeil.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Sorry. Could you make sure—[ Laughter. ] Could you make sure, First Minister—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

"Could he make sure?", Mr McNeil.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Could he make sure—[ Applause. ] Thank you for that, Presiding Officer; I was not expecting to be called.

Could the First Minister ensure that his minister Jim Mather takes action for the TSC workers in Greenock and Falkirk? Mr Mather has known about the situation for a number of weeks—indeed, months—and I have been very disappointed by his complacent response. This important issue concerns not only TSC workers but the whole of Scotland's call-centre sector, so I hope that action will be taken.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Both Mr Mather and Mr Swinney are involved in this issue. The situation is serious and should be treated as such.

However, I point out to Duncan McNeil that not so long ago this Government's direct and rapid intervention saved 900 jobs at a call centre in Cumbernauld. He can be absolutely certain that in confronting these serious challenges Scottish ministers will do their utmost to minimise the recession's damage to the Scottish economy.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government has taken in light of the Audit Scotland report, "Drug and alcohol services in Scotland". (S3F-1632)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

I am pleased that on Monday we were able to hold an alcohol and drugs delivery summit—fulfilling a commitment that I gave last month to Annabel Goldie and indeed this Parliament—and that Annabel Goldie, Richard Simpson and Ian McKee were able to attend the event. I know that they found it valuable.

At the summit, we and our social partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities launched a new framework for action on alcohol and drugs, which directly addresses the problems that the Auditor General for Scotland recently highlighted. Indeed, I was pleased to hear that the Auditor General, who also attended the summit, welcomed the new framework.

We have already ensured that the right strategies and the right investment are in place. Having the right delivery framework now in place gives us the best possible chance of success in tackling together the significant problems that we face.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Everyone in Parliament knows that alcohol abuse is a major problem in Scotland, and is aware of its £2.5 billion cost implications for the national health service. Does the First Minister agree with former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish, who has said that the Scottish Government must press ahead with its proposals for minimum alcohol pricing?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

Yes, I do. The former First Minister's analysis of the situation and support for the Scottish Government's position were comprehensive. His is a powerful voice and we are delighted to have his support.

As far as the overall reach of our campaign and strategy for tackling alcohol and drugs abuse in Scotland is concerned, we recognise that not everyone will agree with every one of our proposals. However, we hope and believe that we will find areas of agreement in key parts of the programme. In that respect, I welcome the fact that Annabel Goldie described as a "milestone" Monday's announcement of the delivery mechanisms to bring the strategy into practice as we deal with these social problems.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I join the First Minister in welcoming Monday's summit, which was indeed very useful. However, does he agree that there should, given the significant waiting times that are faced by too many addicts seeking treatment, and the stress of such situations on them, their families and—in some cases—their children, be a commitment to achieving in Scotland a similar waiting time for drug misusers to that in England, which is now less than four weeks?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are catching up with some areas south of the border, where the scale of the problem was recognised quicker than it was in Scotland.

I remind Richard Simpson that we are investing £94 million in drugs services over three years, which is an increase of 13 per cent, and that we have increased hugely the budget for tackling the blight of alcohol. I welcome not only his attendance at Monday's forum but his constructive support in a number of areas in the battle that we must, as a Parliament and as a society, fight together.

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

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that the inclusion of voluntary first responders in the statistics provides the public with an accurate representation of ambulance response times. (S3F-1641)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

First, I take this opportunity to thank all the people throughout Scotland who participate in volunteer first responder schemes, which are fantastic schemes. They account for a very small proportion—only 0.5 per cent—of total responses and are always backed up by ambulances. Those volunteers play a valuable role as part of the overall ambulance service response and have done so since the scheme was introduced in 2002.

The contribution of first responders should be included in the statistics as they form part of the overall resource that is managed and monitored by the Scottish Ambulance Service. Since the service started recording performance across Scotland against its category A target, first responders have always been included.

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

I thank the First Minister for that answer, but I am not sure that the public will be entirely reassured, given that some concerns have been expressed, from the Scottish Ambulance Service unions in particular, that first responders have been used at incidents for which they have not been trained properly.

Is the First Minister aware of concerns that the current time-only target does not give a true picture of effectiveness? For example, arrival two minutes after the target response time, where there is a good outcome for the patient, is not deemed to be a success. Will the First Minister ask his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing whether the time is right to review the targets for the ambulance response times in order to have a more sophisticated measurement?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

The eight-minute target for category A incidents is widely recognised internationally as being absolutely crucial. The figures for the Scottish Ambulance Service are improving all the time. For the first time, the 75 per cent target has been met—I think, in March this year. For the first time since that valuable target was introduced, the Scottish Ambulance Service, through its efforts and the work that it does, is meeting the target of getting to 75 per cent of life-threatening emergency situations in category A within eight minutes. I point out to Cathy Jamieson that not only have we met the target for the first time, but that the target would have been met regardless of whether the first responders were included in the figures. In looking at this issue, instead of doing anything other than welcome and support those who work in the public services—those working full-time in the Scottish Ambulance Service and the volunteers who are turning in these remarkable statistics for the first time—cannot we as a Parliament get behind them and say collectively to our ambulance service, "Well done and keep on going"?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the First Minister agree that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government and the Scottish Ambulance Service has met, and indeed exceeded, its targets, even when first responders are removed from the figures—we have done that in any event—the rather spurious attack that has been launched by Labour denigrates the reputation of first responders, who play a crucial and additional role in urgent circumstances, particularly in rural areas?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

It is important to say that even if the first responders had been excluded from the target, the Scottish Ambulance Service would in March have reached 76.6 per cent of category A incidents within eight minutes, thereby achieving the target for the first time.

I am totally bemused by the Labour Party's attitude. Previously, Richard Simpson, for example, has been extremely supportive of the 75 per cent target as being entirely realistic. In welcoming the valuable work of first responders and recognising the wonderful performance of our Scottish Ambulance Service in meeting the demanding target for the first time, cannot we acknowledge that those who are charged with saving lives in Scotland are doing a first-class job?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the management, staff and unions of the National Trust for Scotland on its future. (S3F-1626)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

We are disappointed at the potential implications of the National Trust for Scotland's announcement about its properties at risk and appreciate the impact that that is having on the affected staff and their families.

The Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution met the chair and chief executive of the National Trust for Scotland on 2 April 2009. Scottish Government officials have also met representatives of the trust several times since it announced in March plans for closures or changes to the operating arrangements at several of its properties.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

What are the First Minister's views on the campaign by in trust for Scotland to force an extraordinary general meeting of the National Trust for Scotland? Will he do everything in his power to protect the future of National Trust for Scotland properties and jobs, particularly in the Ayrshire area, such as the Robert Burns birthplace museum and Culzean castle, which are vital attractions in the year of homecoming?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

As John Scott well knows, we have confirmed grant funding of £5.5 million to the Burns birthplace museum project. When the minister met the National Trust for Scotland, he was assured that that project is on time and on budget.

Ministers are anxious to help in any way they can. The National Trust for Scotland is a private charity that must be allowed to organise its affairs without Government interference, but if Government support in several areas can be of even further help to the National Trust than is the extensive help that it is receiving for its new projects, we are of course willing to listen.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The First Minister knows that two properties that are under threat are in my constituency—the Hill of Tarvit mansion house and Kellie castle, which are important in their own right and as tourist attractions. Local people want the opportunity to develop new business models for those properties. Will the Scottish Government work with the National Trust to ensure that those properties stay open this year, to provide sufficient time for new business models to be developed?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Gordon)

There are also two properties under threat are in my constituency. Iain Smith will recognise that, given that 11 of the 130 properties that the National Trust for Scotland controls are threatened with change to their operations or closure, many of us have much understandable constituency concern.

It is clear that the Government cannot and should not seek to direct the affairs of an independent charitable association. However, it is equally clear that the reason for having meetings with the National Trust for Scotland is to consider whether the Government can offer realistic assistance over and above the substantial assistance that is being offered with the exciting new projects that the National Trust plans.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — Education and Lifelong Learning

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to extend the teaching of Chinese culture, history and language. (S3O-6662)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We have taken a number of steps to extend the teaching of Chinese culture, history and language over the past year, including launching eight Confucius classrooms in Scotland and several national qualifications in Chinese languages, increasing the number of teachers of Chinese, and funding 51 young people to undertake a study visit to China this summer.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

I thank the Government for the introduction of Chinese language teaching at school level and commend Angus Council's on-going pioneering work to promote direct cultural, educational and commercial contacts, which I originally instigated and which now leads the whole of Scotland. That work shows what can be done by positive co-operation and action at local government level.

Will the cabinet secretary further encourage the teaching of Chinese language, culture and history at school, college and university levels to promote mutual understanding and friendship between and economic benefits for Scotland and China? One of the world's oldest civilisations is now reaching out to the world. Through knowledge, we can break down any barriers to communication.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I congratulate the member and Angus Council on leading the way in many ways on relationships with China and particular areas of the country. I want language teaching to be encouraged in colleges and universities. Qualifications in languages for work purposes, which will include units on Cantonese and Mandarin, are among the interesting new qualifications that are coming on board. I think that those qualifications will readily lend themselves to a college or university situation.

I completely agree with Andrew Welsh. Having returned from my visit to China, I realise the importance of ensuring that we can communicate with one of the oldest cultures and societies in the world and one of the biggest growing markets in the world. The economic and educational links certainly bode well for Scotland in the future.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

When the cabinet secretary was in China, did the Chinese say whether they have maximum class sizes or whether they determine the number of pupils in classes by the subject that they are studying, the teacher's experience of teaching that subject and the socioeconomic range that the school caters for?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The classes that I saw in China—certainly in Shanghai—were slightly larger than those in Scotland. However, there is an important message for Scotland. When I was in Hong Kong, it was clear to me that people there had just embarked on educational reforms that are very similar to the curriculum for excellence reforms. They were concerned that the previous rote learning in large classes, which was done in a chalk-and-talk way, was no longer fit for purpose. We have agreed to collaborate closely with the Hong Kong Government in particular. They are several years ahead of us, but it is clear that there are lessons that we can learn from them. Individuals learning to learn is becoming increasingly important. It should be remembered that Hong Kong performs strongly in the international tables, particularly in science and maths. There is a lot to learn both ways about education and schools in China.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

There is no teaching qualification in the Scots language. However, the higher education institutions that offer initial teacher education are committed to preparing all new teachers to deliver the curriculum for excellence, which contains a clear commitment to the promotion of Scottish history, culture and languages. Therefore, all teachers should be prepared to build on the diversity of language that is represented in the communities of Scotland and value the languages that children and young people bring to school.

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

In light of the compelling testimony from front-line teachers that increased provision of the Scots language can enhance literacy, social inclusion, English skills and the understanding of Scots culture, does the Scottish Government have plans to significantly increase investment in Scots in schools? Does it have plans to commission research into the provision of Scots education?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

As Bill Wilson knows—or as he kens fine, as I should perhaps say—local authorities are responsible for allocating budgets to their schools to meet the demands and priorities in their local area. It is for schools, in the light of the curriculum framework within which they operate, to determine how best to organise the syllabus for all subjects, including Scots in schools. There is no extra funding for Scots and the Scottish Government has no plans to increase significantly investment in Scots in schools.

The member will be aware that, at the Equal Opportunities Committee's meeting on 24 February, it agreed to refer points relating to the Scots language audit report to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee. Those included the suggestion that the Government consider commissioning further research to explore attitudes to the Scots language in teaching and the finding that provision appears more frequent in primary than in secondary schools. I can confirm that Scottish Government officials met on 18 March to consider how further research could build on the findings of the recent Scots language audit to provide an understanding of the barriers to provision in secondary schools.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The Scottish Government is investing record levels of funding in local government, with £23 billion for the period 2008 to 2010. It is for each local authority, in the light of local needs and priorities, to determine how much funding is allocated for the education of children with additional support needs.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

The minister's answer closely follows the response of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning to my question on 5 February, when she used the same figure of £23 billion and suggested that the level of support to local government this year, 2009-10, is a 9.9 per cent increase on the 2007-08 figure. Given that, is the minister willing to condemn any real-terms reduction in spending on additional support needs over that same period, in which the Government boasts of a 9.9 per cent increase in resources to local government?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Frankly, I do not recognise Ms Alexander's figures. We have talked about a 5.5 per cent increase in expenditure on education in local authorities in the previous financial year. In the member's council area of Renfrewshire, there has been a significant uplift in spending. Frankly, I do not recognise the situation to which Ms Alexander refers.

In addition to the spending that we direct through the financial settlement to local government, the Scottish Government is investing more than £15 million in national initiatives that are designed to support the education of children with additional support needs. That includes a grant of £11.2 million to grant-aided special schools, £2.4 million for training initiatives and more than £1.4 million on special services, such as the Enquire helpline.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps universities are taking to improve the career prospects of graduates. (S3O-6573)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Universities are taking a range of steps to improve their graduates' career prospects. In the letter of guidance that I issued to the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council last November, I asked the council to develop entrepreneurial capacity and employability among graduates. Through initiatives such as learning to work, the council is helping to support universities in their work to improve their graduates' employability.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the University of Aberdeen recently announced plans to reform its curriculum to bring about increased flexibility and a wider range of educational choices. Does she agree that the reforms will boost the employability of the university's graduates and help to make the north-east of Scotland a more attractive place for economic investment?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Yes. I visited the University of Aberdeen at the end of March to hear at first hand about the exciting work that it is doing in the reform of its curriculum to enhance the Aberdeen learning experience. The reforms will mean that the university's graduates are better informed, more rounded and more intellectually flexible. A key focus for the university is the employability of students, but the focus is also on developing graduate attributes such as academic excellence, critical thinking, effective communication, openness to learning and personal development and active citizenship, all of which reflect some of the capacities in the curriculum for excellence. The focus in the university's new curriculum reflects initiatives from around the world. Indeed, when I met the universities of Aberdeen and Hong Kong, I heard how some of the developments there reflect some of the same types of curriculum reform. It is a very interesting development and can only help to improve the employability and economic circumstances of graduates contributing to the north-east of Scotland.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is the cabinet secretary aware that 22 dietetic students at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen are waiting for a placement in the national health service so that they can complete their degrees and that there are similar problems at Queen Margaret University and Glasgow Caledonian University? At a challenging time for graduate employment and employability, it is vital that that obstacle is removed so that those students can complete their courses. Will the cabinet secretary pledge to work with her health colleagues to ensure that every dietetic student gets a placement as soon as possible?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Clearly, dieticians and their placements are a matter for those students, Robert Gordon University, the other universities and the national health service. As cabinet secretary, I am frequently asked to intervene in individual university courses at the same time as being accused of interfering with academic freedom. I cannot do both of those things. By law, I am deliberately prevented from interfering in particular courses and particular universities. However, I recognise the frustration that many such students might feel. I know that North East Scotland MSPs such as Nigel Don have been proactive in contacting the NHS and the university to try to find a resolution that meets the students' needs. There is clear concern about the situation, but I hope that Claire Baker reflects on the limit of what I can do as cabinet secretary.