Alasdair Morgan: Is Mr Johnstone saying that whatever standard is decided at Westminster is the correct one, and that any difference to our standard-whether it is in the detail, higher or lower-is therefore wrong? That is the logic of what he is saying.

Alex Johnstone: I hope that Mr Morgan will accept that the logic of what I am saying is that we need a common standard within a common market. We need a level playing field. Scotland's farmers have already experienced the disadvantage of having a higher standard imposed on them, and we cannot afford to allow the Scottish food production industry to be penalised by similar efforts being introduced in other areas of food production.

Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Given the new-found spirit of co-operation between the Conservative group and the Administration, can I assume-not that I wish to predict the result of the vote-that the motion will be passed? As an early shot, to get an oar in for the north-east of Scotland, I wonder whether Alex has seen my motion on establishing a Scottish branch of the food standards agency in the north-east, and whether he would give his support to that.

Alex Johnstone: I will discuss the matter with Mr Rumbles at a future date, and I will consider supporting his proposals.

A single UK standard is best for Scotland's food producers and for its farming industry. Ideally, that standard must be Europe-wide, in order to prevent unfair competition within the European single market.

16:21

Kay Ullrich (West of Scotland) (SNP): If new Labour wants a UK-wide food standards agency, the great mystery is why it bothered to make that a devolved matter in the first place. Perhaps the mystery is not so great. Perhaps this is a sign of more to come. Perhaps what we are witnessing is evidence that what new Labour gives, it can take away; or could it be confirmation of Enoch Powell's statement that power devolved is power retained?

This is exactly the type of legislation that should be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. If we are to address Scotland's dreadful health record, and the undoubted link between poverty and ill health, then we must address the inequality of access to fresh, nutritious, safe food. If people are poor, and 

Let me put it this way. If someone owns a car, they can nip into Tesco's and buy a loss-leader loaf for 7p. Try getting a loaf for that price in a corner shop or a village store. Those outlets cannot compete with supermarkets in terms of price or the range of goods available, but people cannot get tick at supermarkets and that is an important factor when they are living, quite literally, from hand to mouth.

The main aim of a mother living on benefit is to ensure that her children are not hungry. That means buying the most filling foods at the lowest possible cost-lots of chips, pre-packaged beef-burgers and pulped fish-fingers. Those foods are all high in additives and low in nutritional value, but they serve the immediate purpose-the children do not go to bed crying from hunger.

I have spoken about nutritional inequality on many public platforms. I can lay money on the certainty that someone will be sure to say, "Why don't they just make a good pot of soup? It's very nourishing and it doesn't cost much money." I can see smiles from colleagues all around the chamber who have obviously heard that too. I call those people the "Let them eat soup" brigade.

The ingredients for soup-fresh vegetables and a good stock-are not readily available and are certainly not cheap in corner shops and village stores. The art of soup making is learned at granny's knee, and has been lost through the dispersal of families or the sheer grind of poverty.

Ben Wallace (North-East Scotland) (Con): Point of order.

Kay Ullrich: He is going to give us his granny's recipe.

Ben Wallace: I simply want to raise a point of order. I wonder if Mrs Ullrich would get to the point. We are debating the food standards agency, not cooking with mother.

Kay Ullrich: I was trying not to say so, but it is usually from the Conservative party that we get the "Let them eat soup" question. I do not know whether he learned to make soup at his granny's knee, but it is a lost art form.

Dr Elaine Murray (Dumfries) (Lab): I agree with virtually everything that has been said, but I do not see its relevance to the food standards agency.

Kay Ullrich: I am pointing out that the greatest problem that the Parliament must address is that of the poverty that afflicts one in three children in 

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ms Patricia Ferguson): Could you begin to wind up, Mrs Ullrich.

Kay Ullrich: The parliament can do much to improve not only nutritional inequality, but inequalities across the range of policy issues that impinge on the health and well-being of our people. In effect, we must ensure that all policy is poverty-proofed, at a pre-legislative stage. The food standards bill presents this Parliament with an ideal opportunity to do just that. We should not give away that power.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Susan Deacon to wind up the debate.

16:26

Susan Deacon: I found the debate both intriguing and enlightening. I will certainly take on board Mrs Ullrich's guidance on soup making; those close to me will know that I definitely need to take that on board. Perhaps I can assist Mrs Ullrich by drawing out one particularly relevant point in her speech, which is the important role of the agency in giving advice on nutrition. It is important that consumers get good advice about what to eat in order for them to be informed consumers.

I am pleased that consensus has broken out across the chamber in this debate. In the spirit of the new politics, about which we talk so much, I am keen to build on that consensus. Having said that, I cannot resist saying a few words about the approach of the members of the SNP to today's debate. Unfortunately, the approach that the SNP has adopted in relation to this issue is all too typical of the one that it adopts on many issues and it is unacceptable.

In his opening remarks, Alasdair Morgan said that he wanted to concentrate on the constitutional aspects of the debate. Now that we have a devolved Scottish Parliament, I want to make a genuine appeal to SNP members to stop reducing every issue to sterile, narrow constitutional points, and to start getting on and engaging with the real issues before us.

I am delighted that the Parliament is able to take the decision to endorse the establishment of a food standards agency. It would have been nonsense if we had postponed consideration of the issue or if we had asked Westminster to postpone the establishment of the agency or consideration of the bill, simply so that we could adhere to some ideological purity about discussing the matter in the Scottish Parliament at a later 

Alasdair Morgan: Will the minister explain why making up our own mind means that we will have to postpone anything? As far as I can tell, the clauses that relate specifically to Scotland-and any other general clauses that affect Scotland-are already written. On 2 July we are going on holiday for two months. What about giving up our holiday and passing the bill ourselves?

Susan Deacon: Mr Morgan has just answered his own question. Perhaps I can remind him of some of his earlier comments, with which I am now very familiar because he made the same points in Westminster earlier this week. I am pleased to see that he is recycling his speeches effectively. He said that it was only a matter of days before the power was transferred to this Parliament and, therefore, the bill should have been put off until after that. How do we put it off until after that? If we had put off the issue until after the summer, we could not have got on with the job of establishing a food standards agency. The debate is not just about the establishment of any food standards agency; it is about the model on which this one is based.

Mr Morgan also asked for consultation. Perhaps he has missed the point that there was an extensive consultation process in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK that led up to the publication of the bill. The principle of the establishment of a UK food standards agency is one that has been endorsed both north and south of the border.

However, let me not fall into the trap of concentrating on constitutional issues. In the few minutes that I have left, I want to pick up some of the other points that have been raised. First, on the point about the levy, much as I would like to say that it was David McLetchie's intervention in the issue that caused a change of heart on the part of the Government, I suspect that it was the widespread view that was expressed across the country. I am pleased that in this case we have seen a listening Government in action.

A couple of members raised the question of the location of the Scottish arm of the agency. As Lewis Macdonald said, the establishment of the agency will be a matter for consideration in the future, after we have endorsed the principle of the bill.

Many detailed points were raised about charges relating to the meat hygiene service and the issue of labelling, and reference was made to genetically modified foods. We do not have time to enter into the details of those issues today, but I make two points. First, the complexity of the legislative position that governs those issues is an illustration of why it is important to have an agency that can assist us in the process of interpreting legislation 

Secondly, now that this Parliament is in place we have a real opportunity to discuss all those issues sensibly. I am struck by the fact that members from all parties have said, during this debate, that they agree with the principle of having measured and reasoned consideration of food safety matters, and by the fact that they have also stated the importance of accepting medical and scientific advice on such issues. I hope that the same approach will be taken when we discuss specific food safety issues, such as genetically modified foods and beef on the bone. The Executive is determined to take scientific and medical advice on board when considering such matters.

Finally, mention was made of Sam Galbraith's contribution to the development of the bill that we are now discussing and the consultation process surrounding the creation of the agency. I, too, pay tribute to his role in that process. I am very pleased that we now have the chance to establish the agency. It is the right thing to do for Scotland, and we will have a strong voice in its establishment. It will provide an opportunity for us to rebuild consumer confidence in food and to give good advice to people about food safety matters. I hope that we can use the powers and processes of this Parliament effectively in dealing with this issue, and I hope that all members will support this motion.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle of a UK Food Standards Agency as set out in the Food Standards Bill and agrees that the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: The next section of the debate will be on motion S1M-61, which covers the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the electronic communications bill and the limited liability partnerships bill. Members who want to speak in this debate should press their request buttons as soon as possible. I call Angus Mackay to speak to and to move motion S1M-61.

16:33

The Deputy Minister for Justice (Angus Mackay): I have a slightly lengthy speech to make. I shall be as brisk as possible, to ensure that all members who want to participate will have time to do so. I am speaking to this motion, which has been lodged by the First Minister, as the three bills that it concerns fall within the field of civil law.

As the First Minister said in his statement to the Parliament on 9 June, both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government expect that, by 

This motion relates to three bills, each of which has some impact on Scots private law. None of the bills in itself changes the law in devolved areas, but there is some impact. In the interests of maximum openness and transparency, we have agreed that this Parliament should be informed of those matters and that its consent should be obtained.

The first bill is the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was introduced at Westminster on 17 June. It does not make any provision that would have been within the competence of this Parliament but it has an impact on bankruptcy law, which is devolved.

The purpose of the bill is to set up a single regulator for financial services and markets. The regulator will be a continuation of the existing Financial Services Authority, which will be given additional powers. The FSA already regulates banking and investment business but the bill will bring all financial services, such as insurance, under its control.

Mr John Swinney (North Tayside) (SNP): The minister said that the purpose of the motion is to obtain the consent of this Parliament to allow Westminster to proceed on this issue. The Law Society of Scotland is concerned about some of the components of the Financial Services and Markets Bill; it is concerned that the bill does not create a single regulatory body for solicitors who provide financial services, but, in effect, produces double regulation as both the Law Society of Scotland and the Financial Services Authority will be involved. Will the Executive support the representations of the Law Society of Scotland and other organisations in Scotland on this important matter to the Treasury, which has signally failed to listen to those representations?

Angus Mackay: I know that Mr Swinney has concerns about this matter and that the Law Society of Scotland has made representations to both the FSA and the Treasury. I intended to cover that point in my speech or in winding up, but I will say at this point that our legal officers will examine the details as we do not want there to be double regulation. It may well be that the legislation that 

Among the sanctions available to the FSA will be the power to petition for the bankruptcy of a sole trader. That sanction will be available where a sole trader appears to be unable to pay a regulated activity debt-a debt relating to the provision of financial services-or to have no prospect of being able to pay such a debt. A typical sole trader is an independent financial adviser. Often someone who advertises services as an independent financial adviser trades as an individual rather than a company, and is therefore open to being sequestrated as an individual for business debts.

The bill enables the FSA to ask the court to sequestrate the estate of an insolvent sole trader to minimise the loss that might otherwise be sustained by consumers doing business with them. In Scots law, bankruptcy is normally a creditor-driven process. Usually, the creditor petitions for the bankruptcy of an individual, but that can also be done by the debtor, or by a trustee under a trust deed. The bill will create a precedent in Scots bankruptcy law, as the FSA will not be a creditor, but will act on behalf of individuals who might sustain loss through the continued activities of a sole trader. The Scottish Parliament could not pass legislation to give the FSA that power, as regulation of financial services is a reserved matter.

I hope that we can agree that it is important that the protection offered by the FSA to investors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be available to the same extent in Scotland, and that it is appropriate for the bill to make this provision.

The UK Government plans to introduce an electronic communications bill before the recess. This important bill will create a framework for the increased use of electronic commerce throughout the UK. Electronic commerce involves marketing goods and services by electronic means. It can involve the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as money transfers, advertising, and transactions with the Government.

The bill will provide powers to create an approvals regime for bodies that offer electronic signature and confidentiality services that enable people to check who has signed an electronic message and that the message has not been tampered with, but has been kept confidential.

The bill will not contain any devolved provisions, but it will provide that existing legislation may be modified by statutory instrument for the purposes of authorising, facilitating or encouraging the use of electronic commerce or electronic storage. That could, for example, involve changes to the 

The electronic communications bill would not have been within the competence of this Parliament. It would of course be possible for this Parliament by primary legislation to amend the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 to provide for documents with an electronic signature to be valid. However, the bill will make it possible for a Scottish minister to introduce by secondary legislation a complete package of rules on reserved matters, with the consent of a UK minister. That will be done in this Parliament, but it will not be possible if the UK Parliament does not provide for it in the electronic communications bill. I hope, therefore, that the Parliament will agree that it is appropriate to give consent to that part of the bill.

The limited liability partnerships bill, which has not yet been introduced, will create a new form of business association-a limited liability partnership-which would be a body corporate in which the liability of the partners would be limited to the extent of their stake in the business. It would not be within the legislative competence of this Parliament to introduce such a bill, as it deals with a reserved matter: the regulation of business associations.

The bill will not contain any provision on devolved matters other than a power to make regulations on the process of winding up a limited liability partnership, because the law on the process of winding up business associations in Scotland is devolved. It would, therefore, be for a Scottish minister to make any regulations needed for the process of winding up limited liability partnerships in Scotland. The law concerning Scottish partnerships, such as, typically, firms of solicitors, will not be affected by the bill.

The bill will provide useful additional flexibility for Scottish business and I hope that members will have no difficulty consenting to the provision to make regulations on the process of winding up.

I would now like to say a few words about the more general matter of the UK Parliament legislating in devolved areas. The usual rule will be that legislation in devolved areas will be enacted by this Parliament. From time to time, however, it may make sense for a UK act to include provisions about such matters. The bills that we are considering today provide examples of circumstances in which that may be appropriate. As I said earlier, our expectation is that, by convention, the UK Parliament will not usually legislate on devolved matters without the consent of this Parliament. It is important, therefore, that this Parliament should be kept informed of such proposals.

Whether time should be found for a debate on such a motion will be a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau, but I do not expect that it will be necessary to debate the detail of every bill as we are doing today. With bills such as these, whose effect on devolved matters would be minor, we expect that a Parliament debate will be thought unnecessary. If the bureau thought it necessary, perhaps the appropriate committee could be asked to make a recommendation. However, when the effect on devolved matters would be more significant, the Executive will certainly consider sympathetically the case for a debate.

Thereafter, it will be necessary to keep this Parliament informed of the development of any such legislation. Our intention is that that should be done by means of supplementary memorandums should there be any change to the legislation during its passage that materially affects the extent to which it impacts in devolved areas.

I hope that the Parliament will agree that this represents a sensible approach.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Electronic Communications Bill and the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

16:43

Alasdair Morgan: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Presiding Officer, as I had a fair kick at the ball last time.

The bills that we are discussing are important for Scotland-particularly those in relation to financial services, which is an area in which Scotland has some pre-eminent institutions. They are also important in the fast-growing field of electronic commerce. Scotland has a lot to gain from the development of that industry, in which the rural and more far-flung areas of the country can begin to compete on a level playing field with other areas that are nearer centres of population.

As the minister said, these bills are different from the bill to establish a food standards agency in so far as they deal largely with reserved areas 

We have an example of that in relation to the electronic commerce bill. I am unclear about the name of that bill. I think the minister referred to electronic commerce-which was my understanding of the title-but I see that the motion refers to electronic communications. Perhaps they are the same thing.

The House of Commons Trade and Industry Select Committee's seventh report this session examined the Department of Trade and Industry's consultation document on the electronic commerce bill and said that the

"consultation document does not reflect the differences between the English and Scottish legal systems in its discussion of changes to the ways in which courts deal with electronic signatures."

In fact, the DTI had simply ignored the fact that Scotland deals with those matters differently. The select committee said:

"We consider it a potentially serious omission that DTI has not indicated how its proposals for electronic signatures would affect Scottish law".

That example illustrates my point of concern about UK legislation that affects Scottish matters.

The minister alluded to two bills that have not yet been published, so in effect we are discussing something that we have not seen. Even the Financial Services and Markets Bill-more than 200 pages of it-was published only last week. I suspect that not all members have read all of it. It is stretching credibility to expect us simply to say, "Yes, it is okay for the UK Parliament to go ahead with this bill, which does not yet exist, but which will touch on some devolved matters." That is not satisfactory. At the very least, we should have the bill in front of us when we are considering a motion such as this.

I welcome the introduction-after the event-of a procedure to deal with the incidental changes that are often made to Scots law as a result of UK legislation, but the procedure must deal with legislation both before it goes to second reading and after it comes from its final stage in the Parliament down the road, because a lot can happen to a bill from its first publication to its entry in the statute book.

SNP members still have considerable concern about this method of working. I accept the minister's assurance that we will be given the opportunity to scrutinise bills, but I would hate it to 

16:47

Miss Annabel Goldie (West of Scotland) (Con): It is a little difficult to bring any sense of passion to this debate, with topics such as the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the electronic communications bill and the limited liability partnerships bill. It would be an exaggeration to say that the people of Scotland talk of little else.

Mr Mackay will probably be relieved to hear that Conservative members are broadly in agreement with what he proposed, but I have been asked to flag up one or two specific concerns relating to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Mr Swinney has already alluded to the concerns that I hold and to which I was alerted by the Law Society of Scotland. If I speak with conviction, it is that of the zealot of poacher turned gamekeeper. From a previous existence as a solicitor dealing with investment work, I know that no body could have been more rigorous, robust or harassing than the Law Society in its regulation of solicitor members.

That brings me to the more serious point that the bill apparently does not seek amendment to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, which is the primary legislation governing Scottish solicitors and regulates what solicitors handling investment business must do or should not do. There is grave concern that a dangerous duplication will arise: not only an unwelcome one for solicitor members in Scotland who may find themselves subject to two lots of administrative charges-which at first estimate will be hefty-but one which could cause confusion for consumers. That is distinctly undesirable.

There is a perception-and it may be worth investigating-that the Law Society of Scotland and its member solicitors would be content to remain with the existing adequate framework. In Scotland we have the unique virtue of an independent legal system and we have in place a satisfactory framework for the regulation of solicitors who handle investment business. Allowing a duplication to arise is an unnecessary complication and an unwelcome expense.

I hope that the minister will look carefully to see whether any steps can be taken to preserve the integrity of what already exists in Scotland and is in every respect admirable, to avoid bringing in any unnecessary confusion.

I also draw the minister's attention to some of the definitions in the proposed bill, specifically to the distinction between an investment and investment business. In the interests of clarity and legal certainty that should be defined in the 

I referred in my general remarks on the possible confusion to the cost of regulation. The Law Society of Scotland has ascertained from the FSA that the likely cost to Scottish solicitor practitioners will be a minimum of £1,000 for authorisation. That contrasts sharply with the existing charge of £135 imposed by the Law Society. I gather that the FSA has accepted that it will be neither as efficient nor as economical as the Law Society in regulating the investment business of Scottish solicitors. The minister may wish to give significant attention to that.

On a matter of corporate governance, the Hampel committee on corporate governance confirmed the recommendation of the Cadbury committee that in principle the roles of chairman and chief executive officer should, for obvious and understandable reasons, be kept separate in every public company. It is logical that that principle should be extended to comparable positions in the FSA. That is in no sense meant to denigrate or diminish the stature of Mr Howard Davies, who has a fine reputation; it is meant to point out that a distinction should be drawn between those two very separate roles. The Conservatives welcome Mr Mackay's proposal, but we hope that regard will be given to the very real concerns of the legal system of Scotland and its practitioners.

16:52

Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastwood) (Lab): I welcome the minister's explanation of why these measures would clarify Scottish law and benefit Scottish business. In the interests of brevity, I will confine myself to welcoming this opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to show how we see ourselves as part of the devolution process.

Many times in the past we have seen that Parliaments have a tendency to accumulate power to themselves. A fear that this Parliament would do that, adding another layer of government, has been widely expressed. It was feared that we would waste time and energy in conflict with Westminster rather than work to the benefit of our communities.

If we are to make devolution work for Scotland, we should ensure that we have a creative tension with Westminster. That means being part of a two-way process, give and take. I welcome this chance to show that when it is in the best interests of our country we can give our consent to Westminster considering appropriate legislation. In the 1980s in particular, we saw the dangers and pitfalls of excessive deregulation. We do not want to replace 

The business community in particular has told us how much it wants to avoid unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and duplication of procedures in Holyrood and Westminster-a point that Annabel Goldie made very well. The business community would appreciate-as we all would-clarity in decision-making. Most of all, it would appreciate a level playing field so that it can compete in the internal market that is the United Kingdom.

The proposed legislation will help to maintain a level playing field. Our agreeing the motion will also show that the Scottish Parliament appreciates that it does not have a monopoly on power and that sometimes there are other bodies, whether at UK or local authority level, who can take decisions that are in the best interests of the Scottish people. I commend the motion.

16:54

Angus Mackay: Some concerns have been raised twice and I have addressed them already. I understand that the FSA is in the process of issuing-if it has not already done so-a consultation paper that may address some of the concerns raised by the Law Society. There are 72 Scottish MPs at Westminster who are perfectly capable of raising those concerns during the passage of the bill if they relate to legislation on a reserved matter. I hope that that answer covers most of the concerns that have been raised.

Mr Morgan raised a couple of points, which I do not think were substantive criticisms of the motion. I think that he is largely happy to accept that the bills do not impact excessively heavily on devolved matters.

I will address the issue of legislation that is altered substantially between the time we first consider it and when it is dealt with at Westminster. I spoke earlier about the need to be able to examine any substantial changes that emerge by bringing them back to the Parliament.

Mr Swinney: It is difficult to judge how legislation has changed materially from when it is agreed to in principle by this Parliament when it has not been published. Will Mr Mackay explain how the blank cheque is filled in by this process?

Angus Mackay: What is important is that, when it considers bills, the Parliament is clear about the scope and nature of their impact on devolved matters. As long as that is clear and the Executive and the Parliament have the opportunity to make it clear, the Parliament should be able to come to a rational conclusion about whether it accepts bills being passed at Westminster.

I do not feel that there are any real grounds for concern about the bills in the motion. The Scotland 

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ms Patricia Ferguson): We now move on to two items of Parliamentary Bureau business, both of which will be taken without debate. The first is motion S1M-62, in the name of Tom McCabe.

The second motion is S1M-63, also in the name of Tom McCabe, on the days on which the office of the clerk will be open.

16:57

The Minister for Parliament (Mr Tom McCabe): This statutory instrument was made under section 93 of the Scotland Act 1998 and it was laid before this Parliament on 10 June. Its purpose is to allow ministers of the Crown to enter into agency agreements with the Scottish Ministers to allow for particular functions of one to be exercised by the other and vice versa.

I move,

That the Parliament considers the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 1999.

Mr McCabe: I also refer to motion S1M-63, on the days when the office of the clerk will be open. The days are outlined in today's business bulletin.

David McLetchie (Lothians) (Con): Will Mr McCabe explain why in this motion we in this Parliament are apparently being allowed to skive off on 30 November, when everybody else in Scotland will be at work? Will he confirm that it does not signify support on the part of the Executive for the misguided campaign to make 30 November a national holiday? In Scotland we may need to rationalise our timetable of local and national holidays, but the last thing that people in Scotland need is a holiday in the middle of the week on a dreich day in November.

Mr McCabe: The debate at the Parliamentary Bureau did not mention the words skiving off. It is recognised that it is not a holiday. There was a feeling within the bureau that it would be good to mark that particular day. However, the office of the clerk is open; members are not on holiday and are still able to carry out a variety of their functions.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that-

(a) the Office of the Clerk should be open on each of the following days:

5 July to 9 July; 12 July to 16 July; 19 July to 23 July; 26 July to 30 July; 2 August to 6 August; 9 August to 13 August; 16 August to 20 August; 23 August to 27 August; 30 August to 3 September; 6 September to 10 September; 13 September to 12.30 pm on 17 September; 21 September to 24 September; 27 September to 1 October; 4 October to 8 October; 11 October to 15 October; 18 October to 22 October; 25 October to 29 October; 1 

(b) the autumn recess should begin on 11 October and end on 24 October and the Christmas recess should begin on 20 December 1999 and should end on 9 January 2000 and

(c) there will be no meeting of the Parliament or of any committee on 30 November 1999.

16:59

The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): We now move to decision time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business.

The question is, that motion S1M-60, in the name of Susan Deacon, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should vote yes to agree with the motion, no to disagree with the motion and abstain to record an abstention.

FOR

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) 
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) 
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) 
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con) 
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) 
Dewar, Donald (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con) 
Ferguson, Ms Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) 
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con) 
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) 
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) 
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) 
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) 
Home Robertson, Mr John (East Lothian) (Lab) 
Hughes, Janis (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab) 
Jackson, Dr Sylvia (Stirling) (Lab) 
Jackson, Gordon (Glasgow Govan) (Lab) 
Jamieson, Cathy (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (Lab) 
Jamieson, Margaret (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab) 
Jenkins, Ian (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD) 
Johnston, Mr Nick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 
Johnstone, Alex (North-East Scotland) (Con) 
Kerr, Mr Andy (East Kilbride) (Lab) 
Lamont, Johann (Glasgow Pollok) (Lab) 
Livingstone, Marilyn (Kirkcaldy) (Lab) 
Lyon, George (Argyll and Bute) (LD) 
Macdonald, Lewis (Aberdeen Central) (Lab) 
Macintosh, Mr Kenneth (Eastwood) (Lab) 
Mackay, Angus (Edinburgh South) (Lab) 
MacLean, Kate (Dundee West) (Lab) 
Martin, Paul (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab) 
McAllion, Mr John (Dundee East) (Lab) 
McAveety, Mr Frank (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) 
McCabe, Mr Tom (Hamilton South) (Lab) 
McConnell, Mr Jack (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab) 
McGrigor, Mr Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 
McIntosh, Mrs Lyndsay (Central Scotland) (Con) 

AGAINST

Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP) 
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP) 
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP) 
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) 
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) 
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP) 
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 
Ingram, Mr Adam (South of Scotland) (SNP) 
Lochhead, Richard (North-East Scotland) (SNP) 
MacAskill, Mr Kenny (Lothians) (SNP) 
MacDonald, Ms Margo (Lothians) (SNP) 
Marwick, Tricia (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 
Matheson, Michael (Central Scotland) (SNP) 
McGugan, Irene (North-East Scotland) (SNP) 
McLeod, Fiona (West of Scotland) (SNP) 
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) (SNP) 
Neil, Alex (Central Scotland) (SNP) 
Paterson, Mr Gil (Central Scotland) (SNP) 
Quinan, Mr Lloyd (West of Scotland) (SNP) 
Reid, Mr George (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) 
Robison, Shona (North-East Scotland) (SNP) 
Russell, Michael (South of Scotland) (SNP) 
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow) (SNP) 
Swinney, Mr John (North Tayside) (SNP) 
Ullrich, Kay (West of Scotland) (SNP) 
Welsh, Mr Andrew (Angus) (SNP) 
White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

ABSTENTIONS

Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) 

The Presiding Officer: The result of the division 

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament endorses the principle of a UK Food Standards Agency as set out in the Food Standards Bill and agrees that the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The Presiding Officer: The second question is, that motion S1M-61, in the name of Angus Mackay, be agreed to. Are we all agreed?

Members: No.

The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should vote now. [Interruption.] Sorry, members should vote now.

The result of the division is as follows: For 70, Against 25, Abstentions 1.

The third question is, that motion S1M-62, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament considers the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) Order 1999 (No. 1512).

The Presiding Officer: The fourth question is, that motion S1M-63, in the name of Mr Tom McCabe, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that-

(a) the Office of the Clerk should be open on each of the following days:

5 July to 9 July; 12 July to 16 July; 19 July to 23 July; 26 July to 30 July; 2 August to 6 August; 9 August to 13 August; 16 August to 20 August; 23 August to 27 August; 30 August to 3 September; 6 September to 10 September; 13 September to 12.30 pm on 17 September; 21 September to 24 September; 27 September to 1 October; 4 October to 8 October; 11 October to 15 October; 18 October to 22 October; 25 October to 29 October; 1 November to 5 November; 8 November to 12 November; 15 November to 19 November; 22 November to 26 November; 29 November; 1 December to 3 December; 6 December to 10 December; 13 December to 17 December; 20 December to 24 December; 29 December and 30 December 1999; 5 January to 7 January 2000;

(b) the autumn recess should begin on 11 October and end on 24 October and the Christmas recess should begin on 20 December 1999 and should end on 9 January 2000 and

(c) there will be no meeting of the Parliament or of any committee on 30 November 1999.

Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP): I wish to raise a point of order about the motion in the name of Angus Mackay. There might have been some difficulty with the voting system. Would it be possible to put the question again?

The Presiding Officer: The result of the vote was: For 70, Against 25, Abstentions 1. I do not think that-

The Presiding Officer: I think I can explain the problem, which was partly my fault as I moved very quickly to the vote. If members press a button before the red light comes on-which indicates that they should vote-their vote is not recorded.

There seems to be some doubt at the clerk's table about that result, so I will take the vote again. I think that the noes and the abstentions were transposed, and I am seeking advice. It is possible that that is what happened.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will put the question again, that motion S1M-61, in the name of Angus Mackay, be agreed to. The voting will start now.

Ms Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab): On a point of order. I am not clear about what is happening. We cannot hear from here.

The Presiding Officer: I am sorry. There was a little exchange on this side of the chamber. There is some doubt about the result of the vote on motion S1M-61 in the name of Angus Mackay, although I now understand that it was the correct result. However, the result has been challenged and there is some doubt. We will take the vote again.

The question is, that motion S1M-61, in the name of Angus Mackay, be agreed to. Members should vote yes to agree to the motion, no to disagree with the motion or abstain to record an abstention.

FOR

Aitken, Bill (Glasgow) (Con) 
Alexander, Ms Wendy (Paisley North) (Lab) 
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) 
Barrie, Scott (Dunfermline West) (Lab) 
Boyack, Sarah (Edinburgh Central) (Lab) 
Brankin, Rhona (Midlothian) (Lab) 
Brown, Robert (Glasgow) (LD) 
Chisholm, Malcolm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab) 
Craigie, Cathie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab) 
Curran, Ms Margaret (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab) 
Davidson, Mr David (North-East Scotland) (Con) 
Deacon, Susan (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) 
Dewar, Donald (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab) 
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James (Lothians) (Con) 
Ferguson, Ms Patricia (Glasgow Maryhill) (Lab) 
Fergusson, Alex (South of Scotland) (Con) 
Finnie, Ross (West of Scotland) (LD) 
Galbraith, Mr Sam (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (Lab) 
Gallie, Phil (South of Scotland) (Con) 
Gillon, Karen (Clydesdale) (Lab) 
Godman, Trish (West Renfrewshire) (Lab) 
Goldie, Miss Annabel (West of Scotland) (Con) 
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) 
Harding, Mr Keith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 
Harper, Robin (Lothians) (Green) 
Henry, Hugh (Paisley South) (Lab) 

ABSTENTIONS

Adam, Brian (North-East Scotland) (SNP) 
Campbell, Colin (West of Scotland) (SNP) 
Canavan, Dennis (Falkirk West) 
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perth) (SNP) 
Elder, Dorothy-Grace (Glasgow) (SNP) 
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber) (SNP) 
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) (SNP) 
Fabiani, Linda (Central Scotland) (SNP) 
Gibson, Mr Kenneth (Glasgow) (SNP) 
Hamilton, Mr Duncan (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) 
Hyslop, Fiona (Lothians) (SNP) 

The Presiding Officer: The result is very different: For 82, Against 0, Abstentions 31.

Motion agreed to.

That the Parliament agrees that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the Electronic Communications Bill and the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel): We now come to members' business. Will members who are leaving do so quietly in the interests of the member who has lodged the motion? The debate on motion S1M-47, in the name of Brian Adam, on the peripheral route around Aberdeen will last for 30 minutes and members who wish to speak should press their buttons now. I call Brian Adam to open the debate.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament calls upon the Scottish Ministers to investigate all available means to expedite the building of a peripheral route around Aberdeen.

17:06

Brian Adam (North-East Scotland) (SNP): The local Aberdeen Evening Express kindly referred to me recently as a real north of Scotland MSP. I certainly hope that the paper does not consider some of my colleagues to be unreal MSPs, because I greatly value the cross-party support for the motion.

Most unusually for a proposed roads development, there is widespread support throughout the north-east for the principle of the western peripheral route. The scheme involves economic, safety, environmental and congestion considerations, which reflect national as well as local perspectives. Representations have been made to me about the impact of Government proposals on the review of the trunk road network and on regional transport partnerships and about the key part that those proposals will play in an integrated transport strategy for the north-east.

Other members will undoubtedly wish to highlight particular concerns about the scheme, but I want to leave the Minister for Transport and the Environment in no doubt about the depth of feeling about and support for the western peripheral route.

According to the local newspaper, the proposal first saw light of day 50 years ago. Since then, the outer ring road around Aberdeen has become an inner ring road with substantial housing and other developments to the west of Anderson Drive. The city of Aberdeen and its hinterland have been the engine room of much more than just a regional economy over the past 30 years but, for most of that time, the area has been labouring under the handicap of an inadequate roads infrastructure. There is now a significant undersupply of accessible land in the city for business and commercial development.

Aberdeen City Council's document, "A Transportation Strategy for Aberdeen", says:

The document goes on to say that all trunk roads south of Aberdeen are of at least dual-carriageway standard and that no traffic lights exist between Aberdeen and the channel tunnel. However, Anderson Drive-which is hailed as Aberdeen's main trunk road and which, in one of the Conservative Government's last acts, was given trunk road status-has 17 sets of traffic lights. I have to confess that I bear some responsibility-in my previous existence as a councillor-for three sets of those lights.

The traffic lights are necessary for pedestrian safety, but the Scottish Office document, "Sustainable Transport for Aberdeen", states that road safety is still a major concern on the A90 at North Anderson Drive and on some routes through the city. Furthermore, the same document says that North Anderson Drive, North Deeside Road, Riverside Drive, Great Northern Road and King Street have major problems with noise and that those areas suffer greatly from carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide pollution.

The Aberdeen city plan estimates that congestion in the city costs the local economy about £100 million a year. I want to point out to the minister that the cost of the current scheme for the western peripheral route has been estimated at only £85 million.

It will be no surprise to the minister that, given the lack of an integrated transport system in Aberdeen, I am not a supporter of the toll tax or even of road pricing. To be constructive, I refer her to the Government's idea of a Scottish transport bond, as described in "Pathfinders to the Parliament"-I believe that Andrew Wilson referred one of her colleagues to it earlier. The transport bond proposal is not that different from the SNP's Scottish public service trusts scheme, which would be a suitable vehicle for piloting it.

The Aberdeen chamber of commerce and the city's traders association have stated that

"a western peripheral route would be beneficial in taking unnecessary traffic out of the city centre"

and would help to

"promote a new corridor of investment and development"

around the city. That relates to the current lack of suitable development land.

I have had representations from people from a wide variety of public and private interests who support this motion. Some 90 per cent of the 50 million tonnes of freight that is carried to, from or within Grampian is transported by road. That is equivalent to 1.8 million 38-tonne-lorry journeys 

Fish lorries from Fraserburgh heading for the continent have to pass through Aberdeen; cattle trucks from Thainstone mart near Inverurie heading south have to pass through Aberdeen; travel from Portlethen to Peterhead or from Mintlaw to Manchester involves trips through the city. Why? Because Aberdeen is the only place of its size with no bypass-there is no western peripheral route. Why has Aberdeen been denied a decent bypass over many years when just about every other comparable city in Europe has one? We have perhaps been a bit slow in pressing our case, but that has not been so in recent times. The minister is undoubtedly aware of the depth of feeling and I hope that this debate will reinforce that.

After extensive public consultation, the former Grampian Regional Council decided that the route should run from the Charlestown interchange on the A90 south of Aberdeen to the A96 at Craibstone and on to the A90 north of Parkhill.

Other members will put their points to the minister, but my principal case is that the present infrastructure is totally inadequate to serve the needs of a strategic national economic resource-that is how the minister should approach the issue. The construction of a western peripheral route round Aberdeen is not just a local solution to a local problem, but a national solution to a national problem, requiring a major financial input from the Scottish Government. I trust that the minister will be able to give a positive response.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid): Nine members have indicated a wish to speak. Not all will be called, but more will be called if interventions are kept brief.

17:13

Elaine Thomson (Aberdeen North) (Lab): I thank Brian, my north-east colleague, for initiating this debate. I am glad that we from the north-east have been able to come together on the issue. Brian raised many relevant points about the western peripheral route round Aberdeen.

The route has been long in the planning and the need for it becomes more urgent daily. Aberdeen is Scotland's third city and the oil capital of Europe. Oil-related economic activity in Aberdeen has contributed billions of pounds to UK finances and will continue to do so for some time. As Brian mentioned, there are the traditional industries in the north-east: fishing, agriculture and, in my constituency of Aberdeen North, paper making. 

There are environmental problems. Increasing air pollution in Aberdeen city centre affects the health of citizens and the quality of life there is generally reduced because of the heavy volume of traffic. Part of the solution is to encourage people to use buses, walk and cycle or to be more selective about their journeys by car. The other part of the solution is to move the heavy goods traffic out of the city centre altogether, allowing people to go round the city, not through it.

The western periphery route has been on the drawing board for a total of almost 50 years. It is included in the 1997 Grampian structure plan and in the Aberdeen city transportation strategy. It is fully supported by Aberdeen City Council and the other partners in the north-east economic development partnership, such as Grampian Enterprise and Aberdeenshire Council.

The planned route goes round the city, from the A90 in the south to the A90 in the north. It is a key part of the local transport strategy for Aberdeen and its surrounds. Other parts of the transport strategy-the bus lanes and the park-and-ride scheme-will work best only with the western peripheral route; for example, the park-and-ride schemes are designed to intersect with the western periphery route.

My constituents in the Bridge of Don and all those living beside North Anderson Drive and Auchmill are daily suffering the ill effects of living beside heavy traffic or the frustrations that result from congestion when they are driving from one part of the city to another. They live beside or have to travel on roads that are not suitable for use as trunk roads, but which have a high volume of traffic thundering down them every day because they are the only roads available.

The roads are not motorways and they are not well separated from housing. Anderson Drive is a dual carriageway on to which houses open and which children cross regularly. Brian mentioned the 17 sets of traffic lights. Those are for the pedestrian crossings along Anderson Drive and are completely inefficient on a trunk route, but necessary because of the proximity of housing and people. That is not to mention some pollution-sick roses down the middle of the carriageway beside Haughigan roundabout. Members may wonder why I am talking about roses, but we Aberdonians are proud of our city and the quality of life there, despite the fact that that quality is increasingly suffering because of the heavy traffic and other transport problems.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: Wind up, please.

Elaine Thomson: I will.

Given the geography of Aberdeen and its hinterland, transport by road will always be necessary, as there will always be areas where public transport is not an easy option. I am delighted that public transport will be given the support that it needs in the forthcoming transport bill, but it must be considered together with roads. I believe that roads, where necessary-and I would say that the western periphery route is necessary-and the other measures in the bill will meet the transport needs of Aberdeen in the next century.

17:18

Ben Wallace (North-East Scotland) (Con): I live in Alford, not far from one of the proposed routes, and on many occasions I drive through Aberdeen on what has now become a rat-run down the Netherly route.

Road safety is one of the problems that would be best solved by a peripheral route. Last year, there were 56 road deaths in Grampian alone, which is a terrifying amount. The lack of a peripheral route contributes towards those accidents.

The funding proposals over the past few years have encouraged the wrong solution. I have been to a number of meetings, including those of the Greenwedge in Netherly, at which people have expressed concern about how the council has sought funding because central Government will not provide it. Then planning gain comes into play; for example, Stewart Milne Developments has offered a £12 million planning gain for building a new town. Those things do not work for the benefit of Aberdeenshire and slow up the whole process.

I am in favour of the peripheral route. Central funding is needed to expedite the building of the road, as the motion proposes, so that Aberdeenshire can have the services that it deserves. I support the motion.

Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): I support the motion. Many good points have been raised, but I would like to add one other major issue. I see this as one element of a larger issue: the process of establishing an integrated transport system in and around Aberdeen. I do not want to add to the special pleading for money from central Government-Brian has already mentioned that this project could cost in the region of £80 million-but the issue of an integrated rail transport system from Inverurie to Stonehaven is extremely important and needs to be addressed at the same time as the western peripheral route.

One of the criticisms that might be made of the western peripheral route is that it could generate more traffic, as is the case with many new bypasses and roads. I suggest that a bypass around Aberdeen should have very few interchanges. We have heard the points that have been made about through traffic, from north to south and from south to north. If we restrict the number of interchanges, that will deal with the criticism that the road would only increase traffic. That is an important point.

I will keep my contribution short so that other members can take part in the debate.

17:21

Irene McGugan (North-East Scotland) (SNP): I, too, wish to support the creation of the western peripheral route, which will contribute to and be important for the economic future of Aberdeen. I echo the calls for the project to proceed with the full financial support of the Scottish Executive and without delay.

However, I want to reflect some of the concern that is felt by residents of communities to the west of Aberdeen, who favour serious reconsideration of the proposed route. As recently as 1994, there were still around 15 options under review, and the current route was confirmed by Grampian Regional Council only shortly before reorganisation in 1996. This has never been a single-option project.

A strong argument against the proposed route, which was expressed by respondents to a household survey that was carried out in the area, is that the western peripheral route should go round the city and not through it. Aberdeen has an eccentric shape and extends out through Cults to Culter, and many people feel that the western peripheral route should skirt the western margin of Culter.

The current option was selected in preference to that because it was claimed that routes further out would do little to relieve traffic congestion in the 

As has been mentioned, Aberdeen chamber of commerce and the city traders association have acknowledged that the western peripheral route will help to promote a new corridor of investment and development. Although it is accepted that land is needed for residential, industrial and commercial development, residents feel that the western peripheral route is putting the green belt at risk. The city should be proud of the way in which, over the decades, green belt policy has achieved what it set out to do, especially the aim of preserving areas of unspoilt countryside as close to the city as possible and for the benefit of the whole population of Aberdeen.

Among the natural assets that would be badly affected are the Newton Dee and Camphill Rudolf Steiner schools. People on those campuses would suffer greatly from the noise and disruption. Moreover, to run a dual carriageway through land that includes one of the longest-established organic farms in the north-east is not acceptable. In the 1994 environmental impact assessment it was concluded that

"the deleterious effects of the Western option on the Camphill Estates are severe and may be sufficient to make that route unacceptable."

While fully endorsing what has been said about the benefits to Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire of the western peripheral route, I suggest that the location of the route may warrant some reconsideration.

The Deputy Presiding Officer: I apologise to members who have not been called. The remedy is to keep interventions brief. I call Sarah Boyack to wind up the debate.

17:25

The Minister for Transport and the Environment (Sarah Boyack): I thank Brian Adam for raising this issue and thank all members for the level and quality of the contributions that they have made to the debate.

I hope to travel to Aberdeen on 6 July. The comments made today will be useful when I visit the city and look at its transport problems. As members have said, this proposal has been around for a long time and has widespread 

The route would cost a very large sum, as Brian Adam correctly identified. Early estimates suggest that the cost would be in the region of £85 million, which is far in excess of the sums that would be possible for such schemes with conventional funding. I will come back to that point later, because I think that it is a key issue.

I want to address also the wider context of this proposal, because it cannot be examined in isolation from the overall transport strategy for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire.

I am delighted to put on record the extent to which Aberdeen City Council has promoted innovative and radical transport strategies. We have already heard about the sustainable transport strategy implemented in Aberdeen last year. It was funded in partnership, which is extremely important, as it set the context for an overall transport strategy.

Improvements are taking place. Key examples are the park-and-ride site at Bridge of Don, the bus priority measures along the A944 from the previous transport challenge fund, this year's public transport fund approval for bus priority measures, park-and-ride sites on other important corridors into the city, and other proposals being developed by the council for bus priority measures in other parts of the city.

Progress has also been made on rail issues. Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council have worked effectively with ScotRail to develop rail services in and around the Aberdeen area. There is also the possibility of a feasibility study into a half-hourly service between Stonehaven, Aberdeen and Inverurie. Those are important developments.

Key service improvements have been introduced by ScotRail in the past two years. There are seven additional services through Stonehaven and five additional services through Dyce.

Mr David Davidson (North-East Scotland) (Con): Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack: No, thank you. My speech is too long for the time available.

Two additional services from Edinburgh now also stop in Inverurie. Improvements are coming into place. ScotRail has also made proposals to redevelop the former Guild Street rail freight depot. That is important, because it will provide 

Things are happening in Aberdeen that are important in the context of this debate. We look forward, through the local transport strategy and the bids that will be submitted in the next round of the public transport fund, to further ideas for developing the strategy in Aberdeen.

Richard Lochhead (North-East Scotland) (SNP): Will the minister use the opportunity of her visit to Aberdeen to drive through the city and to encounter at first hand the difficulties experienced by people living in the north-east of Scotland?

Sarah Boyack: It is my intention to travel through the city and to see the different transport problems that are being experienced.

As well as the local transport strategy, there is a new joint structure plan for the area covered by the Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire authorities. The combination of those two documents presents the councils in the area with the opportunity for a full discussion with the communities about the opportunities that are available.

We need fully developed transport and land use strategies. All the speakers today have mentioned that. We need to ensure that we have an integrated approach, which will require a lot of effort from the councils.

I want to flag up two key issues that I expect Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council to address: the importance of the western peripheral route relative to sustainable transport measures in the city centre, such as walking, cycling, increased bus priority and improved bus frequencies; and the extent to which bus priority and other measures in the city centre are dependent on early progress of the bypass. I understand that the Oscar Faber study drew at best a modest link between the two.

The land use implications of the bypass and the possible knock-on effect on transport demand also need to be addressed, especially the effect of any future greenfield developments on car-based demand, as speakers today have mentioned.

Finally, we need to consider how best to integrate the proposed western peripheral route into a comprehensive transport strategy for the city and its hinterland.

Mr Davidson: I deeply regret the fact that the minister has not highlighted the problems of people who live to the north and north-west of Aberdeen. Vital industry is at risk because of a lack of transport infrastructure, and I am disappointed that the minister has not addressed that. Before she sits down, I hope that the minister 

Sarah Boyack: The key point that I am trying to get across concerns the relationship between Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, the city and its hinterland. We must have a transport strategy that meets the objectives of those different areas.

Mrs Margaret Ewing (Moray) (SNP) rose-

Sarah Boyack: No, I will not give way, because I want to get on to funding, which is a key issue that several members have talked about. To avoid any doubt, I have to make it clear that the western peripheral road is not under consideration in the trunk roads review, nor has any Government made any commitment to incorporate such a road into the trunk road network.

Members might ask why the Scottish Executive cannot, nevertheless, trunk this route and fund its construction. That question deserves a straight answer and I want to be as open as possible. The severe pressures on the trunk road budget mean that trunking would be an empty gesture-in the foreseeable future there is no realistic prospect of funding the western peripheral road from the trunk road programme.

Many members have approached me over the past few weeks about road schemes in their localities. There is nothing wrong with their doing that: it is their job to represent the views of their constituents and local businesses. However, if I were to accede to every request, I could spend the trunk road budget several times over. Even if persuaded of the case for doing so, the Government could not build all those roads while meeting its priorities in education, health and housing. Somebody has to be disappointed. I therefore urge those from the north-east to consider alternative means of progressing this scheme, along the lines that I am about to suggest.

Members will be aware that last week the Government announced its intention to introduce a transport bill in the next session. Among other things, the bill will permit local authorities to introduce charges for the use of existing local roads in a designated area, and will give them powers to levy workplace parking charges. We intend to consult widely on those issues, and to publish details of our charging proposals very shortly. I note Mr Adam's suggestions, and I encourage him to make them again during the consultation process.

Any proposal by a local authority to introduce charging would require the consent of the Scottish Executive. In considering such a proposal, ministers will be mindful both of the extent to which the authority has won the support of its local 

The new western peripheral road could be promoted using existing powers in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 for tolling new roads. Those powers are being used by the promoters of the Birmingham northern relief road, although that particular project has attracted a fair degree of controversy on other grounds and may not be the best of models. However, the 1991 act is worth considering.

Inevitably, it will take time for people in Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen to develop and refine their thinking on strategy, including plans for the western peripheral. That will have been time well spent if the end result is a more integrated and sustainable set of proposals that address the transport problems of the north-east in the round.

Officials met the councils last year and stand ready to do so again. I intend to be fully involved in the development of strategies and in the consultation on charging. I look forward to the development of today's debate, and to informed and balanced debate about how we might meet the needs of road users and public transport passengers alike. However, members must be under no illusions: there is no piggy bank sitting at Victoria Quay waiting to be raided. If the western peripheral is to have a place at the heart of Aberdeen's integrated transport strategy, it will require innovative funding sources and brave decisions by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire councils working in partnership with their local communities. There is no ducking that hard reality. To say otherwise would be to raise unrealistic hopes in the minds of members and their constituents.

Meeting closed at 17:34.