I invite those members who want to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

I ask Ross Finnie to speak to and move the motion. Mr Finnie, you have 10 minutes.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to open the debate on the Executive's spending plans. The plans will focus on our resources and on delivering a growing Scotland and a Scotland of opportunity for all.

The proposals that we have set out will deliver results for individuals, families, communities and businesses throughout Scotland. That will be done by improving public services, creating opportunities for our children and young people, investing in our infrastructure and growing Scotland's economy. All that represents sound management of our resources, investing now to secure benefits for the long term.

Today's announcement is a culmination of six months' intense scrutiny of our budget plans—not just proposals for additional expenditure, but spending built into our baseline budgets. The process has not been easy and, as one who was part of the strategy group, I know that. However, I believe that it has delivered the right results.

The easy approach would have been for us to copy Westminster's spending plans. Some people might even think that we should just apply a crude percentage increase to each portfolio. However, that is not what devolution is about. It is not what having a Scottish Parliament is about. We are putting resources into the things that matter for Scotland: delivering growth, meeting priorities, responding to needs and creating opportunities.

We have set out an ambitious approach that will deliver long-term change for the better. We are laying the foundations for a better Scotland—a Scotland that is prosperous and ambitious, and a Scotland where everyone can benefit from the opportunities available to build a successful, sustainable and healthy life for themselves, their families and their communities. We want a fairer Scotland, founded on the values of equality and non-discrimination in which everyone can achieve their full potential and where no one is excluded. We want a Scotland whose modern, dynamic, inclusive society defines the image that we present to the outside world.

We are clear about what we want for Scotland. We want a Scotland that is healthier, with lower crime, improved attainment in schools, effective transport services and opportunities for employment for all. We want a Scotland full of opportunity, where everyone can reach that full potential. The achievement of our desired outcomes will depend in part on others, not just the Executive. We will work with partners in the United Kingdom Government, local government, the business community, trade unions and the voluntary sector to ensure that those changes happen. The Executive can and should lead by example, delivering on its own commitments. To gauge our performance, we have, where possible, described measures of those outcomes and set targets for them, to let the public see whether we are delivering on our commitments.

The Executive has given us an interesting document, in which it has laid out—clearly, I hope—what it intends to do. I direct the minister's attention to the heading, "What we will do", in the transport section. It is noticeable that, despite what Mr Kerr said this morning, there is no mention whatever of what the Executive will do with regard to the congestion problems around Aberdeen.

The Minister for Finance and Public Services was asked that question and he made it very clear that the studies that are presently going on there are not yet complete.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Members will find it astonishing that the minister who gave the statement this morning is not present in the chamber even to listen to the debate, let alone to respond to the scrutiny. Will the Presiding Officer consider the implications of that for this Parliament?

I am sure that we will consider the implications, but I ask the minister to continue with his speech now.

We have said that we will announce plans when those studies are completed, and that is what we will do. The studies are not yet complete. The Minister for Finance and Public Services made it clear that, on receipt of those studies, we would take the appropriate action. He made that absolutely clear this morning, and there should be no ambiguity about that.

We have set out what we want to deliver. We want to improve productivity in higher and long-term growth. We will provide 300 new or refurbished schools. Public transport projects will ease congestion and promote more sustainable transport. As we announced, there will be more apprenticeships, and more than 25,000 young people will have educational maintenance allowances.

Will the minister accept an intervention on that point?

No. I must make a little more progress before I take further interventions.

I want to highlight two areas in particular where we are taking a more radical path. We will build sustainable development into everything that we do, and invest in health as well as in our health services. Sustainable development was one of the key cross-cutting themes of the review. It is a question not of where we spend our money, but of how we spend it.

Is the minister aware that, 10 months ago, a report was sent to his office stating that urgent work was needed on the aqueducts carrying drinking water to Glasgow? The cost of that work would be extremely high, but it is vital because those aqueducts are likely to have been the source of the most recent cryptosporidium problems in Glasgow. Did the minister know about the report's contents, and will the money be made available?

As Mr Crawford should be aware, those reports were studied carefully by West of Scotland Water and the technical solutions involved were considered fully. As he well knows, money has been made available for dealing with those problems and for building a new waterworks at that site.

This is about building sustainable development principles into our key investment programmes in schools, hospitals, transport and housing. It is about growing Scotland's economy, but in a more sustainable way. It is about encouraging shifts in public behaviour through education and making sustainable choices the easy choices. That activity is spread across the whole work of the Executive.

I shall give some examples. We want to build sustainable development into the Glasgow stock transfer to ensure that that investment produces homes that are warm, dry and energy efficient. We shall assess applications for regional selective assistance against sustainable development objectives. We want to promote the modernising Government fund projects, helping to reduce or eliminate the need to travel to access public information, advice or services through contact centres, one-stop shops and videoconferencing. We want to support NHS Scotland's good record on energy efficiency through the Greencode environmental management tool, and we want tourism businesses to become more sustainable through the VisitScotland green tourism business scheme.

In my portfolio, the most significant investment that we will make over the next three years will be in waste management. We are allocating more than £170 million during the spending review period to secure real progress in the implementation of the national waste strategy. Our key target is to achieve 25 per cent recycling and composting of municipal waste by 2006 as a stage on the road to sustainable waste management. That will allow us to make a step change in the way in which we deal with Scotland's waste, reducing local authorities' chronic over-reliance on landfill, bearing down on waste production and developing recycling.

The commitment that we are making to sustainable development in general, and waste in particular, in this spending review should come as no surprise. Of course, the resources that are needed to meet our ambitious new target will, in part, depend on decisions on the landfill tax and other reserved policy measures. However, we are committed to meeting our 25 per cent target and we will commit what further resources are necessary when the decisions are announced later in the autumn.

We are building on a record of commitment to the environment that is exemplified in our achievements. We have spent some £1.8 billion on water and we will spend more than £2 billion more for the 21^st century. I have referred to our ambitious targets for national waste. We have increased our target for renewables to 18 per cent by 2010 and we are consulting on a target of 40 per cent. We are also tackling climate change through our climate change programme.

There is a lot of welcome stuff in the report and promises of money to be spent. What is the Executive doing to improve the delivery of the services? Hitherto, that is something that it has failed to crack. Can the minister promise that the excellent money that is to go to sport will produce more boys and girls playing games, especially football, so that, in 10 years' time, we might not have such a bad team?

I am not sure that I am authorised by the Minister for Finance and Public Services to assure members that we are going to have a better football team, much as I would like to do so.

Donald Gorrie's point is well made. The report is not just about announcing sums of money; it is about ministers' having to set targets for the achievement of outcomes. That will force ministers and others to ensure that the delivery mechanisms are properly put in place.

One of the most exciting elements of our plans is the commitment to investing not just in our health service, but in Scotland's long-term health. That means a doubling of our expenditure on health improvement but, more important, it means a different way of achieving health improvement. We are taking a much longer term view of Scotland's health care and not only improving services for patients now, but building a healthier nation for the future. As the First Minister put it when the health budget was announced:

"There is little point in us speeding up operations for today's adults if today's children replace them on the operation train."—[Official Report, 18 April 2002; Vol 3, c 11009.]

Our efforts are therefore focused on our children and young people. We are providing more support for families and children in the early years; healthier school meals; and activities in our schools and communities to encourage children to get involved in sport. The spending plans that we have set out today will deliver improvements in public services and will mean tangible improvements in the quality of people's lives. However, the most important investment that we are making is in our children and young people. That is an investment for the long term, an investment for the future, and an investment for a growing Scotland that will be full of opportunity for all.

I commend the spending proposals to the Parliament and move, That the Parliament commends the Executive's spending plans for 2003-04 to 2005-06.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I raised a point of order about the Minister for Finance and Public Services, who obviously does not take his own spending review seriously—therefore, how could the people of Scotland? I seek your permission to move a motion without notice to suspend the meeting until the Minister for Finance and Public Services appears at this finance debate.

The Executive is collectively responsible to the Parliament. There is no matter of standing orders here. Mr Russell's points are political. They may or may not be correct in the political context, but there is no issue of standing orders that would justify my accepting such a motion. However, Mr Russell's point is now on the record twice.

I look forward to examining the detail of exactly where any resources that are provided to the environmental headings will be applied in the Executive's spending plans for 2003-04 and 2005-

06. The resources may be belated, but if they are genuinely being allocated to environmental budget headings, perhaps—just perhaps—there is hope that, in future years, a real difference can be made. However, as is usual with the Executive, it is difficult to separate the spin from the reality.

What is being announced today does not always reflect the reality of what we will find tomorrow. Much of what was expected from today's spending announcement, particularly on the environment, was played up highly by the minister. We saw the spin on the mind-blowing amounts to be invested in recycling in the Sunday Herald just a few weeks ago. The headline said:

"McConnell to spend billions on tackling waste".

Today's announcement amounts to a much more modest sum. Nevertheless, I welcome the small step taken.

We know that it is not just a matter of the amount of money that is made available, but of how Executive ministers make use of resources.

For the avoidance of doubt, could Bruce Crawford let us know how many billions the Scottish National Party would spend on tackling waste?

It does not matter whether it is the Labour finance minister, a Liberal finance minister, a Conservative finance minister or us. We all get the same whack o money from Westminster; we cannae do much else than get that cash. The difference is that, with independence, we could make a heck of a better job of it.

The real question is how the money will be used to ensure that Scotland no longer has to suffer the shame of being at the top of the European cowp league while being at the bottom of the European recycling league.

We have heard what Ross Finnie intends to do on waste. What he has not told us is that the water budget is to be slashed by £190 million over the three years of the new spending plans. That cut has been made from the net new borrowings budget head. It was the money that was meant to support the desperately needed capital investment programme for Scottish Water.

The Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services, when he sums up, has to tell us—

rose—

I see that the minister is going to tell us now.

sat

.

In his summing up, the deputy minister has to tell us how that cut will impact on the investment programme or on the charge payer. He has to tell us—

rose—

The minister had his chance. The deputy minister has to tell us whether that money would have helped us get nearer the enhanced option for improving the quality of Scotland's water. Is it not a disgrace that, in the 21 ^st century, the quality of Scotland's water still comes nowhere near that of England? I want to know from Ross Finnie—or perhaps from the deputy minister, who might be able to give a better answer—by the end of today, the Executive's target for ensuring that Scotland's water quality matches that of England, now that he has robbed Peter in water to pay Paul in waste.

Will Bruce Crawford give way?

Certainly.

I say to Mr Crawford—

Will the minister keep standing on his feet this time?

If Bruce Crawford wants to extend his question, I will allow him to do so as a matter of courtesy. If he does not find that courteous, that is entirely his judgment, not mine.

Fine.

Good. It is entirely his judgment, not mine.

Does the member accept that the actual reductions, which he very properly pointed out, and which can be found in the table on page 51 of the expenditure report, are in fact the reductions that are required by the water industry commissioner, relating to the efficiency that the commissioner has sought, and that there is absolutely no reduction in the capital commitment plans for improving the quality of water in Scotland?

That is hardly the point. The point is that the water industry commissioner makes recommendations to the minister about how much is being spent. The money could have been used to attain the enhanced option that we discussed during last week's debate. The opportunity has been spurned, however, so we will never get near the water quality that prevails in England.

When I intervened on the minister to ask about the modernisation of the aqueducts that carry Glasgow's water supply, I was far from impressed with his answer. The ducts are very old and very long; one is 115 years old, while the other is 145 years old. According to public health officials, it now seems very likely that those aqueducts and the cattle living alongside them were the source of Glasgow's most recent cryptosporidium problems.

The incident control team report will, in all likelihood, confirm that.

The minister told us that the sheep in the Loch Katrine area were the cause of the outbreak. It appears on this occasion not to have been those much-maligned sheep but cattle living near the aqueducts that caused the problems. The question that everyone is asking now is whether Ross Finnie knows the difference between his cattle and his sheep. Let me show the minister these two pictures: the first one is a coo; the second one is a sheep.

More seriously, why has no action been taken since the report on the aqueducts landed on the minister's desk 10 months ago? Will he confirm that Scottish Water will have the necessary resources to carry out the costly modernisation of the aqueducts?

This is an important debate. Spending figures aside, the debate is also about honesty on targets, on track records and on the resources that are available. Two years ago, almost to the day, Jack McConnell, in his capacity as Minister for Finance, announced the spending allocation designated for Scotland following the 2000 UK spending review. He not only announced the spending levels for 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, but said what the resources would be spent on. He announced new targets for transport, education and health and the amount of money that would be spent on those key areas. It is simply unacceptable for a minister with responsibility for finance to appear two years later and announce the same money again. It is equally unacceptable for ministers to claim that a new method of presenting money on a balance sheet represents new cash injected into the Scottish budget.

Of course, new resources and uplifts in the budget are welcome, but there should be honesty and transparency rather than double dealing and misrepresentation. Such behaviour does no good to the Executive and the reputation of the Parliament.

Whenever I listen to a Government minister making a spending announcement, I am reminded of a schoolboy showing his friend the latest card trick. It does not matter how often the trick has been done or how obvious it has become—he insists on playing the same card trick time and time again. I say to the minister that the trick is an old trick.

I close with an appeal. Let us drop the chicanery and get on with the delivery.

I move amendment S1M-3382.1, to leave out "commends" and insert "notes".

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that the extra money that we are discussing is not the result of great personal philanthropy on Gordon Brown's part. Despite what many Labour, Liberal Democrat or SNP politicians may fondly imagine, money does not grow on trees. A price in higher taxes and slower economic growth must be paid for such largesse.

The chancellor has now made explicit his tax-and-spend approach to public sector reform, having previously followed a policy of taxing people by stealth. Such a stealth tax policy has already had disastrous consequences. Gordon Brown's pensions tax has created a crisis in employer-funded pension schemes by reducing their income by £5 billion a year and his increases in petrol tax have hit motorists hard, particularly those in rural communities.

In the chancellor's 2002 budget, he has finally come clean and imposed his tax on jobs through the increase in national insurance contributions. That will not only hit people in their pay packets, but will, I regret to say, lead to higher unemployment by making it more expensive to employ them.

The hard-pressed Scottish taxpayer is paying for the billions that are being blithely bandied about today and we should never forget that. There are wider economic costs of public spending. It is clear that Mr Brown thinks that there is no growth penalty from increasing public spending above the growth rate of the economy as a whole, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. The effects are already evident in Scotland, where our growth rate has slowed to the point at which we recently tipped into recession. In the UK as a whole, there has been a marked deceleration in productivity growth, which averaged 2.2 per cent per annum in the 17 years to 1997, but fell to 1.8 per cent in succeeding years.

Therefore, the great myth of Gordon Brown as a miracle-working chancellor is in urgent need of reconsideration. The extra money that he has poured into our public services has not brought about real reform or improvements. Year after year, we have been promised better public services in return for higher taxes, but higher taxes are all that we have received—to date, there have been 53 in total.

The approach works no better in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. Mr McConnell and Mr Kerr boast of all the extra money that Labour is investing in its key priority areas, but where are the benefits? The Scottish public will not be seduced by the Scottish Executive's spin when they see for themselves that our public services are deteriorating. That is exemplified by longer waiting lists for hospital treatment, far too many schools being plagued by indiscipline, and rising levels of violent crime. The statement offers nothing to suggest that things will change. Mr McConnell's stewardship has been merely a continuation of the failed policies of his predecessors.

The spending bonanza may prove to be short lived, which is why I believe that extra resources should go into capital investment, particularly in our transport infrastructure. The Conservatives have advocated that as a priority for a considerable time. That area has been neglected by the Executive. That the Executive, which halted our roads programme on entering office, is proceeding with a number of those projects is a welcome U-turn, but we should reflect on the price of five long years of delay.

We all know that the SNP opposes the use of private finance to improve our public services, which thereby exposes the fact that its so-called pro-enterprise credentials are no more than the fanciful figment of Andrew Wilson's imagination. However, I find it hard to take seriously the missing Andy Kerr in his new role as promoter of public-private partnerships and the personification of financial prudence. The missing Mr Kerr is, after all, the same Andy Kerr who relentlessly harried and monstered Sarah Boyack when she awarded the management and maintenance of our trunk roads to private sector contractors.

That decision, I remind members, is now on course to save the public purse £190 million over the five years of the contracts—contracts that last week's independent report by the performance audit group found to be working well. At the time, Mr Kerr called Miss Boyack's decision

"one of the Parliament's worst decisions in its short life."—[Official Report, 25 January 2001; Vol 10, c 579.]

I call that decision a pretty good day's work, and I wish that there had been more of them from the Executive.

What does that tell us about Mr Kerr's judgment? He would have cheerfully chucked £190 million down the drain to satisfy his union paymasters. Given that track record, how can we have any confidence that the billions of which he boasted this morning will be spent sensibly? It is, of course, entirely typical of the Scottish Executive that Sarah Boyack was sacked for making the right decision while Andy Kerr was promoted for making the wrong one.

The record to date is poor, the management is unconvincing and the figures in themselves are wholly meaningless. The reality is that our people are paying the price in the form of higher taxes, and they want to see some results. That is the real test of this spending review.

I move amendment S1M-3382.2, to leave out from "commends" to end and insert:

"notes the Scottish Executive's spending plans for 2003-04 to 2005-06, which are funded as a result of the swingeing increases in taxation which were a feature of the 2002 UK Budget; expresses concern about the sustainability of such levels of expenditure; believes that without major reform of public services the proposed spending increases will not produce the value for money improvements expected by the Scottish people, and calls on the Scottish Executive to provide a boost to the economy by reducing the burden of business rates."

Possibly the clearest illustration of the SNP's idea bankruptcy is its amendment to the motion. Its contribution to probably the most important debate that we will have in Parliament this year or next year or the year after—because it is the debate about the money—is an amendment that seeks to substitute the word "notes" for "commends". That is the summary of the SNP's ideas. There were no alternative visions and no suggestions for spending reprioritisation—only, as we heard earlier in the response to the spending review statement, the convoluted logic of Andrew Wilson, which only three of his SNP colleagues waited to hear.

Given the huge importance that Des McNulty has just ascribed to this debate, can he tell us where the Minister for Finance and Public Services is?

Where were SNP members this morning? At the end of the morning there were four SNP members in the chamber, and most of the time there were six. Why are they so ineffective as the Opposition? It is the straightforward issue of competence. John Swinney and his colleagues need better researchers than the ones who prompted him to say that there were no real increases in the Scottish budget in the context of the spending review 2002.

The figures provided to the Finance Committee in the annual expenditure report show a Scottish departmental expenditure limit of £18.7 billion in cash terms, which corresponds to £18.2 billion in resource accounting and budgeting. If we compare on the basis of RAB, the spending review figure is £19.7 billion, which includes £224 million in consequentials from the UK budget for health that was announced in April. In other words, the increase in spending is, as Andy Kerr said, £1.5 billion between 2002-03 and 2003-2004, or more than £1 billion if we take out inflation.

As Andy Kerr also pointed out in his statement, a cumulative increase of £8 billion over the three-year period of the spending review will allow the delivery of unprecedented improvements in public services, public infrastructure and support for growth in the Scottish economy. Those are all things that we are delivering, and all things that the SNP is walking away from.

When the SNP gets its sums so spectacularly wrong, how can it expect to be taken seriously? One can only guess at what kind of electoral strategy is served by the SNP's lack of concrete suggestions. The Labour party is clear about what the public wants. The Minister for Finance and Public Services has come up with substantially increased expenditure and he has developed in the spending review a framework within which priorities are clearly identified, aims and objectives are specified and monitoring of expenditure is put in place to ensure effective delivery for the public. That is not the blank cheque for which Kenny MacAskill has asked in his several portfolios.

The member talks about priorities and the Minister for Finance and Public Services mentioned that the top priority rail projects will be delivered. What are Labour's top priority rail projects? Are they a regurgitation of the Larkhall rail link or the Stirling-Alloa-Dunfermline line, which we have heard about for nigh on a generation?

If the SNP transport spokesman had been at the seminar on the central Scotland rail study that I attended before the recess, he would have heard about the plans that are being considered, which the minister is committed to taking forward.

People will be impressed by the progress that has been made on the ground. The SNP will talk about the theoretical intricacies of fiscal freedom, which would cut off Scotland from the benefits that it derives from operating in the UK market and in partnership with other areas of the UK. If Scotland were ever to embrace the separatism of the SNP, the measures that Andy Kerr announced this morning and many of the measures that have been put in place since the electorate's dismissal of the Conservatives in 1997 would have to be withdrawn. Thankfully, the SNP's failure to engage in the real debate about Scotland's future and the most effective use of resources—as illustrated by the amendment, which would simply change one word in the motion—means that the SNP's chances of success are increasingly remote.

I put on record how discourteous I find it that the Minister for Finance and Public Services is not present for what is essentially a debate about finance. I am also concerned that the Minister for Health and Community Care has chosen to leave the chamber, given the importance of health matters to the debate. I hope that Ross Finnie's knowledge of health is better than his knowledge of sheep.

The SNP always welcomes investment in the health service, but the question is what has happened to that investment. What has been done with the £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money? The debate is not only about the size of the investment, but about what has been done with it.

Will the member take an intervention?

Let me get going. The Minister for Health and Community Care and the coalition are culpable over that issue. It is incredible how little has been achieved with the £1.5 billion. I will outline the situation after Des McNulty's scintillating intervention.

Does Shona Robison accept that there is a £1.5 billion increase? Her leader did not accept that earlier.

My leader asked what has been done with the £1.5 billion, which is exactly what I am asking. If Des McNulty can tell me, I would be extremely grateful. On what we have got for that £1.5 billion, the facts speak for themselves. Since 1997, waiting times for out-patients have gone up by 14 days; waiting times for in-patients have gone up by three days; and the NHS has seen 46,000 fewer out-patients and 46,000 fewer elective in-patients, which means that around 100,000 fewer people have been treated, as John Swinney mentioned during question time. Even if we accept that more people are treated in clinics—although the figure is certainly not 100,000 more people—we must ask why waiting times are up. If people were being treated elsewhere, surely waiting times would come down, but they are not coming down. It is nonsense to say that people are being treated elsewhere in the health service.

There has been a loss of more than 60 residential care homes and there are more than 1,500 fewer residential care beds. The coalition tells us that community care is at the heart of its policy, but 18,000 fewer home care clients are being looked after in their home. The coalition's assertion is obviously the case in theory, but not in practice.

There has been a 13 per cent rise in the number of nursing vacancies since last year and the figure has risen by 46 per cent since 1999. The number of blocked beds has risen to nearly 3,000, which is almost double the 1999 figure. That hardly amounts to success on a plate for £1.5 billion worth of investment. The results are poor. We know that health service staff are working harder than ever, so the only conclusion that I can come to is that the problem is the Executive. The Executive's government and stewardship of the NHS have been a dismal failure. The facts speak for themselves.

The shortage of nurses in Scotland is a crucial issue that must be tackled. It underpins many of the problems in the health service. The coalition has failed to tackle the shortage—it has let graduates slip through the net to go and work in other health services. The resultant increase in reliance on agency staff is costing the NHS £24 million a year. The SNP will not fudge the issue in the way that the coalition has done. It will go to the heart of the matter—pay and conditions for nurses. As a first step, an SNP Government would increase the pay of all nurses and midwives by 11 per cent, which would give them equity of pay with teachers. Nurses have already embraced change in the way in which they work and so far they have received little recognition or reward. An SNP Government would give them that reward. The sooner it comes, the better.

I welcome the spending review announcement. I welcome it for my pensioners, for my young people and for those in my community who will be protected by a £270 million investment in front-line policing. I welcome it for my school kids, who will be taken out of crumbling classrooms as part of the largest ever school-building programme. I welcome it for the local national health service. There will be a doubling of spending on health improvement in my area, which is blighted by some of the worst heart disease and cancer rates in the country.

I welcome the spending review for the young people who will not be branded as failures just because their first choice after school is not college or university. They will benefit from the expansion of modern apprenticeships. I welcome it for every man, woman and child in Scotland who is sick of litter in their streets, dog mess on the pavements and graffiti on the walls, all of which drag down their communities and neighbourhoods.

I particularly welcome the announcement for my local college, which will receive a share of the additional £120 million for further education. That investment will allow a record figure of 500,000 Scots of all ages each year to reap the benefit of lifelong learning. Lifelong learning equals a highly skilled work force, which will close the productivity gap, will make our companies more competitive and will broaden and strengthen our economic base. The spending review is good not only for business; it is good for workers and for the acquisition of skills, which, as we all acknowledge, are a passport to a better paid and more secure job.

More money alone is not enough. We must get more bang for our buck. The investment that has been announced must be matched by change. To return to the topic of lifelong learning, there are several examples of how a bit of reform, co-operation and flexibility could deliver results by providing the sort of services that working lifelong learners want.

In my constituency, there are many contract workers who work intensively.

Will the member take an intervention?

I do not have much time and I would like to get through my speech.

Those contract workers work intensively for six or nine months and do nothing for the rest of the year. Many of them want to use those three or six months constructively, to learn or improve skills. Introducing more flexibility into the traditional academic year could allow them to do that. There are also many shift workers who are disadvantaged because the colleges close when they are ready to study or because they cannot submit coursework online. All those issues are important and have been identified in the spending review.

We cannot ignore the recurring theme of delivery. We all share the frustration of constituents who wait for buses that do not turn up and who cannot obtain a place in a residential care home. We need to tackle that issue effectively.

I welcome the Executive's recognition that we need to work with the UK Parliament, the trade unions, business and local government to make the investment work for the people of Scotland. Let there be no mistake: we need to deliver.

Political spin is another theme about which we have heard much today. The SNP has been working overtime.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

That party fears good news more than Dracula fears the silver bullet. The nationalists have been working overtime to rubbish our investment in Scotland, but they are kidding no one. They will not kid the Scottish people. The best answer to the ridicule that the SNP has poured on the announcement all week is to deliver for the people of Scotland. We will deliver despite the SNP, not because of it.

Echoing the comments that were made earlier, I am amazed that the Minister for Finance and Public Services is not present. This morning, while he was ducking and diving and not answering questions, he said that there would be time for a full debate this afternoon.

Will the member give way?

In a moment.

I had naturally assumed that the minister was making an offer to come to the chamber. Mr Kerr is the accountable minister. According to the press, he decides on and approves what the other ministers get to spend.

Let me inform Mr Davidson that Mr Kerr is at a business meeting, which has kept him away from the debating chamber. I also point out that, when the minister made his statement, the SNP members left the chamber. They did not take advantage of the opportunity to speak to the minister.

I recognise Mr McNeil's view, but let me proceed with the matter in hand.

This morning, we received a very thin set of answers—if we received any at all—even to questions from the minister's own back benchers. Many of us have taken the time to look carefully at "Building a Better Scotland", which is the document to which he kept referring, but we cannot find the detail behind the broad statements that were made in this morning's printed statement. The minister talked about the congestion difficulties in certain cities, but the document gives no detail other than a throwaway line about park and ride in Aberdeen.

Perhaps Mr Finnie is here because he is the minister responsible for waste. I begin to wonder whether the document is a wasted document, because it does not give any detail on the budget declarations of this morning.

As my colleague Mr McLetchie said, the money comes from Scotland's hard-working people and businesses. The minister grudgingly admitted that this morning. However, the money comes not just from the actions of the chancellor but from the raids on the pockets of the Scottish people by the Executive. In that case, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are equally guilty. Or are they? Did both parties agree to every part of the budget statement? The minister certainly ducked a question on that this morning.

Since 1997, when Labour took office in Westminster, council taxes have risen by 24.5 per cent. Since the Parliament opened, they have risen by 14.5 per cent.

We have also had the graduate endowment, which is a tax masquerading under another name.

That tax puts our home graduates further into debt once they start work and, using Treasury inflation projections, will account for some £30.5 million in 2007. That flies in the face of the caring, sharing, touchy-feely Executive that looks to give young people opportunity. Getting more young people into university is fine—as long as the universities are properly funded—but those who come out of university are now faced with a ball and chain of debt as they start their lives. This Executive put that in place.

Scotland's businesses suffer from the 4p difference in the business rates poundage.

Will the member give way?

In one moment.

Let us look at the Executive's push for the economy and at its budget for growth and expansion. When the Executive had the money in its hand, why on earth did it not invest that money to free our businesses from such an unnecessary burden and to return to them the competitiveness that they desire? Only through the wealth creation that businesses provide do we get employment. If we do not have employment, there will be no taxes and no future. We will lose people because, as has been said, they will drift away to find work elsewhere because Scotland is not a competitive place in which to invest.

We have seen a lot of flim-flam today, which has been a wasted opportunity. At the beginning, the minister said that he considered the announcement to be six months' hard work well delivered, yet no facts and figures and no statistics have been provided. Instead, we have had wobbly promises without any reference to the costs that the Executive has put on Scotland or the manacles and chains that are developing as we see the policies roll out.

I welcome the statement, because it delivers on a number of priorities in which the Liberal Democrats believe strongly. The health promotion budget has been doubled, which is important, and there is money for additional nurses and doctors, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for considerable time. I agree with some of the points that the SNP made, in that the Westminster Government should have started to tackle the shortage of doctors and nurses in 1997. We in Scotland are at least now beginning to tackle that crisis.

Waste recycling is extremely important. I have banged on about it in the Parliament for years. The Scottish Executive is now putting real money into that. The funding necessary to ensure that we have record numbers of police on our streets has also been maintained, and there is significantly more money—£1 billion—for local government.

I have a brief question. I notice that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have decided that more money will go into investment in police. Will the member tell us what his Executive ministers told him about how many new policemen will be on the beat?

Mr Davidson has not read "Building a Better Scotland" as closely as he thinks he has. It states:

"our aim is to maintain frontline officer numbers at present levels."

Those are record levels. That is the point: the numbers are already at record levels.

I will be fair. The debate is supposed to be about the spending review. At least the Conservatives have come up with some alternatives, even if they are not very bright alternatives. Essentially, the Conservatives want to turn down the extra money that is on offer. They want no tax increases and no additional investment in our spending. They would refuse the extra money that is available to deal with the waiting list and waiting time problems in our hospitals. They would refuse the extra money that we need to invest in our schools. They would also refuse the extra money that we need to maintain the record numbers of police. They would refuse the extra money that is needed for free care of the elderly and the abolition of tuition fees.

The Conservatives would do that because they want to cut taxes, not to invest in our public services. If they were investing in our public services, would they invest in our schools, our hospitals and the environment? No—they would build roads with the money. That is absolute nonsense and shows what the Conservative priorities are.

At least the Conservatives suggested some alternatives, unlike the SNP members, who are more concerned about who is here listening to the debate than about contributing something useful to it. They provided no alternative budget. The only two proposals that we heard from the SNP were to increase spending on administration in the water service—not to have efficiency savings—and to raise the pay and conditions of nurses. The SNP made those proposals without indicating how much they would cost and what we would have to cut in the rest of the budget to provide the money. That is the key issue. If the SNP members are willing to tell me how they will pay for their proposals, I am willing to listen.

We would use the £150 million that has been identified in the budget. There is plenty money to pay for our proposals. The problem is that the Liberal Democrats' priorities are all wrong.

You would use the £150 million from what? The budget is fully allocated. It must come from somewhere.

In reality, the SNP does not understand budgets. That is the problem. It understands only spending and making promises. It wants to spend for everyone and promise for everyone. It wants never to have to prioritise. It will never be in Government because it cannot tell the Scottish people what it would do if it were in Government. It can only make promises that it cannot afford.

For example, the SNP rejects the Liberal Democrat commitment to improve public health and to try to get people away from hospitals. We had questions earlier that suggested that the SNP wants people to be in hospital being treated. We want to stop people going into hospital. That is why we are doubling the amount of money for health promotion, which the SNP has rejected.

The SNP also rejects the 300 refurbished and new schools in Scotland because it has a dogma that says it does not want the investment. Mike Russell is shaking his head. He actually said that money should not be invested.

That is not true.

It is true. Mike Russell said that the PPP announcement should be stopped because he did not want the money to be invested through PPP. The money is going into investment in our schools; the SNP would stop it. Scottish people do not trust the SNP—quite rightly so—and it will never be in Government because it cannot budget.

The public expenditure package is by far the best that I have seen in the 24 years that I have represented East Lothian in this Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I gently remind Mr McLetchie that the Tory years are still remembered painfully for the severe cuts to public spending and the real damage to public services that occurred. The statement is the next phase of a new era of reinvestment in health, education, crime prevention, transport and job creation by our devolved Scottish Executive.

In East Lothian, that investment comes on top of valuable initiatives such as the dualling of the A1 and the £30 million private finance initiative to upgrade all secondary schools.

I would like to offer one word of warning to the minister and to make a specific appeal. I will start with the warning. The announcement of billions of pounds of expenditure by ministers must lead to the delivery of better services in our constituencies. We can all vote to add unimaginable millions to this or that budget, but people will not be impressed if they still have to wait for months or years for hospital treatment, or if there are still potholes in the roads. It is imperative that the cash announced today should be spent efficiently, effectively and wisely by the Executive and its agencies to improve our infrastructure and to develop our public services. I am sure that that can be done, but it is important for the Executive to see the task through.

The member talks about money being spent wisely on infrastructure. However, it does not appear that the north-east of Scotland—one of the drivers of the economy—will get what it requires. The same applies to the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway.

Mr Davidson should wait and see. The figures have been announced today, but I am sure that the Executive will put flesh on them later. There are further announcements to come.

My specific request is for urgent measures to increase the supply of affordable rented housing in areas such as East Lothian. In East Lothian, 6,000 people are stuck on the waiting list for a diminishing stock of just 9,500 council houses, with a turnover of just 400 re-lets each year. People can be forced to exist in overcrowded, insecure accommodation for 10 years or more.

At the present rate of repayments, East Lothian Council will completely clear its housing capital debt in just four years, so it should not be too difficult to work up a solution that enables the council and local housing associations to invest to meet the desperate need for affordable rented housing in my constituency. I urge ministers to help us to achieve a solution to this serious crisis in the context of the expenditure programme.

I acknowledge that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, and my colleagues and I on the Holyrood progress group, are taking a significant amount of cash out of the Scottish block before it even reaches the Executive. We are investing that money in Scotland's new Parliament building at Holyrood, which I am confident will be as valuable to Scotland as the palace of Westminster is to the UK and as the Sydney opera house is to New South Wales.

Our Minister for Finance and Public Services has achieved this magnificent programme with an increase of £4 billion in expenditure on services for the people of Scotland over the next three years despite the one-off costs of the Holyrood building. When it is finished, the Labour-led Executive will put the building's share of the budget into public services in subsequent years.

The point that I am trying to make—which SNP members may not have grasped—is that Scotland does not need an embassy-building programme for the future. We need more investment in schools, hospitals and public services. The partnership Executive is determined to deliver that. Let us be thankful that Scotland will never suffer the crippling permanent costs that would flow from a fundamentalist nationalist agenda of fiscal irresponsibility.

It is fascinating that we hear contradictory messages from Labour members and from Iain Smith. Even though they claim that the SNP will never be in power, they spend all their time worrying about that prospect. They have talked about it all afternoon.

Let me remind John Home Robertson and Iain Smith of a basic fact of life. They are not spending Labour's or the Liberals' money on schools—they are spending Scotland's money. We will match that expenditure penny for penny, pound for pound, and brick for brick. In fact, we will do more with the money, because will spend it through trusts and public investment, instead of stuffing the pockets of the friends of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Let me address the extraordinary document that is before us.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Perhaps inadvertently, the member seemed to imply that some form of corruption is involved in the public-private partnership projects. I hope that he will withdraw that unfortunate suggestion.

Oh dear.

I want to address three issues that are discussed in the spending plans. The first is education. No one could object to the broad terms of the objectives that are set for education. The trouble is that there is no word about how they should be achieved. I am sorry to agree with Mr Davidson, but he is absolutely right about that. The reality is that many teachers will worry about the terms of the spending proposals. Targets 8 and 9 on page 23 are specific, but they have no resources linked to them so that they can be achieved. I suspect that what will happen—this is what always happens—is that the pressure will be on the poor classroom teacher to achieve the targets without any resources. That is very worrying.

Nobody could object—I see that John Farquhar Munro is in the chamber—to the broad thrust of Gaelic policy in the spending proposals. I pay tribute to Mike Watson, who has taken the issue more seriously than others have, but there is nothing specific that tells us how much the new Bòrd na Gàidhlig will cost, for example. That is a major weakness.

The largest weakness is in the area of heritage and culture. The Scottish Arts Council has recently made appointments that bring it foolishly close to the Labour Executive, but today it will be bitterly disappointed because the spending proposals contain nothing for the future of Scottish culture. The small increase that is set out is tied to terms and conditions that do nothing to make culture more accessible to all.

In the crucial area of heritage, the document is extremely defective. The reality is that the little increases in that area will go into the maw of Historic Scotland, a body about which more and more people worry. I am glad to hear that John Home Robertson agrees—I must be right. The reality is that Historic Scotland will get more and more money and others will get nothing, even though they are making the difference.

I noticed that Mr Stone was behaving like a performing seal this morning when he applauded the minister—the missing minister who is addressing the nation on television from this building just now, rather than in the chamber. But that minister said nothing about museums. Mr Stone knows Tain and Tain museum well. A letter that I have from the curator of the Tain and District Museum Trust says:

"Unless a system for applying museum policy and funding can be established nationally, small independent museums, which care for a wealth of national treasures and irreplaceable local knowledge, will continue to face an uncertain, and in some cases, non-existent, future."

The spending proposals document is deeply defective, but it is most defective of all in that respect and it will damage Scotland.

We always know that Mr Russell is struggling when he tells us that we have not spent enough on culture and that we have spent all our money on education, roads and health. He is running out of arguments.

The First Minister recently made a well-received speech to the Institute of Directors in which he highlighted among other things the tendency of some sections to talk Scotland down. I commend it to the SNP spokespeople. Even if they do not endorse it publicly—it would be optimistic of me to expect that—they should give it serious thought privately. I have to say, after hearing Mr McLetchie's carping contribution, that he would do well to cast his eye over it too.

The great opportunity with which the Parliament presented us was the opportunity to focus more directly on people's priorities. As £4.1 billion is directed to priority areas, which will improve dramatically the quality of life and opportunities, the SNP can focus only on the abstract delusion of constitutional change.

Throughout Scotland there is a real concern about the condition of our physical infrastructure, but there is no acknowledgement from the SNP of the fact that the M74 will be extended, that the A8 and M8 will be improved or that there will be rail links to our two major airports.

We are among the most unhealthy nations in the developed world, but when our Executive aims to reduce the number of cases of cancer by 20 per cent and the number of cases of stroke and heart disease by 50 per cent over the next eight years, the SNP can discuss only surgery to our constitution.

Will the member give way?

No thanks.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not, thanks.

Every MSP in the chamber is aware of how much genuine concern there is in our communities about antisocial behaviour. Every MSP knows the concerns about the insidious effects that drugs have on far too many people's lives. But when a significant announcement is made about both those critical areas, not one mention is made of them in the SNP's response.

I mentioned the First Minister's recent speech, in which he spoke about creating ambition, innovation and opportunity. Today, he backed up those words with significant resources: 150 academic and industry joint ventures, more than 25,000 young people experiencing modern apprenticeships and more than 500,000 Scots in further education. That is a forward looking Scotland, not an inward looking, cowering Scotland. It is a Scotland that embraces the world and the opportunities it provides and that rejects separatism and isolation by embracing a global approach. We are taking that approach because we believe that Scotland can be good enough to stand comparison with the best in the world.

That is all evidence that the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition is working. We ended up with only four or five nationalists in the chamber for the minister's statement because they have absolutely no contribution to make to discussions about important issues. As a result of today's announcement, Scotland is a better place where opportunities have increased. That is what the nationalists cannot thraw.

What surprises me about the attitude of those who sit on the Executive benches is that, in their statements, they accept that this is not an ordinary debate. This is not one of the meaningless debates that are sometimes highlighted as having no consequence and that occasionally bring the Parliament into disrepute. The debate is about the spun spending of our people's money over the next five years.

This is a fundamental debate, yet not only is the Minister for Finance and Public Services absent from the chamber, the ministers who are responsible for the key areas that will be included in the manifestos and about which commitments and pledges have been made—although not elaborated on in the minister's statement this morning—are not here either. The ministers who are responsible for education, justice, health, transport and enterprise and lifelong learning—all areas in which ministers have made commitments and forward projections—are absent. They are treating this debate with unacceptable contempt, given the importance that they claim it has.

Will Kenny MacAskill give way?

No, not at the moment.

Over recent weeks, we have heard weasel words. Last week, we heard from the performance audit group about winter snows—pure whitewash. This week, we have "Building a Better Scotland", which is the spending review document—pure hogwash. As the French say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Great pledges, wonderful commitments, tremendous initiatives—but we have seen and heard it all before.

In September 2002, the minister said:

"An effective transport system is central to a thriving economy".

In "Travel Choices for Scotland", which was published in 1988, the late Donald Dewar said:

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

Four years and more later, the minister's statement is a declaration of failure. Due to political and public pressure, the Executive is required to address the importance of transport and to raise it up the political agenda. The Executive repeats itself, but it does not do what it said it would do four years or more ago.

Page 8 of "Travel Choices for Scotland"—not page 8 of the statement that the minister gave today—refers to

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

We are no further forward.

When Ms Boyack was Minister for Transport and the Environment, she published "Travel Choices for Scotland: Strategic Roads Review" in November 1999. That document said that

"the road network will continue to provide the core of our transport system."

It continued:

"Investment in new road capacity can support the economy by reducing journey times and improving reliability".

The same warm words, support and inspiration for the economy that we hear today. We have moved on nigh on three years but there has been no progress.

Will Kenny MacAskill give way?

No—I am into my last minute.

The 20 items that the strategic roads review document referred to included the A8000, but the buck for that road has been passed to the Forth bridge authority. Three years on, we have not managed to complete, or even start, one of the projects that was mentioned during Ms Boyack's term of office.

All we hear today is that the Executive will begin preparations on the A8 and A80 motorway upgrades. As I have said before, it is 40 years since the motorway from London to Birmingham was completed. After 40 years, after nearly two generations of unionist control from Tory and Labour Administrations, we still lack a motorway that connects our major city, Glasgow, to our capital city, Edinburgh—never mind a motorway that connects the central belt population with our rural hinterland in the Highlands.

Forty years on, the Government has failed. All we have heard today is a declaration of failure, a regurgitation of past promises and no sign that any initiatives or construction will commence forthwith.

Back in February, the First Minister promised us a sustainability audit of all Government departments. That would have provided the baseline for the spending proposals. We have not had that sustainability audit and therefore there is no baseline for "Building a Better Scotland". I expected a document that would contain, on every page, a reference to the Government's sustainability audit and how the departments measured up in their spending review and spending plans. That is not in the document. Instead, we have a cobbled together set of bullet points on page 11. I shall be referring to pages 11, 31, 51 and 58, with perhaps a passing reference to page 35.

On page 11 there are 10 hastily cobbled together bullet points that try to give the impression that there is something sustainable about the Government's spending plans. One bullet point reads:

"building sustainable development into the major school building and refurbishment programme".

What exactly does that mean? It probably means a new planning advice note for the building of schools, which will have absolutely no effect for two reasons. First, sustainable development is not built into legislation, so councils do not have to have regard to it and, secondly, if councils go through the public-private partnership and private finance initiative routes, they will—as they always do—drive standards down to the cheapest level. I can give members examples of that in relation to public building, but I am sure that they know them already.

The fifth bullet point reads:

"building sustainable development into the Glasgow Stock Transfer and other transfers to ensure that our investment produces homes that are warm, dry, energy efficient, safe and secure".

What about the standards that will be incorporated in those homes? I have plenty of evidence that the standards of insulation produce warm, dry, safe and secure homes, but the energy efficiency is not at a level to produce carbon dioxide savings and we will have to revisit all those improvements in the next 10 years in order to upgrade them.

Page 31 deals with spending on health. Why is mental health always number 4, 5 or 10 on any list of health priorities? There it is at the bottom of the list:

"improving mental well-being across Scotland and action to reduce the rate of suicide."

Today I had a meeting with a representative from Facilitate Scotland which, last year—its first year of operation—helped 5,000 desperate people. Facilitate Scotland has run out of money and the Executive is doing absolutely nothing to help. That is next year's spending plan for mental health.

I will wrap up by saying that if members turn to the very last page of the spending proposals they will see that the Executive intends to implement environmental management schemes in public buildings

"to monitor and ultimately reduce our environmental impact."

In other words, the Executive will get round to it eventually. At the moment, it is content just to monitor things.

This has been a good debate in the sense that there has been a commendable amount of honesty among my colleagues in the Conservative party and the SNP.

The Conservatives have stated their position clearly: they are about lowering taxes. That is an old Conservative policy and it is good that it is out in the open again. In fairness to the Conservatives, that gives the Scottish people the chance to weigh up Conservative policies against those of the Liberal Democrats. I would counterattack with the usual Liberal Democrat question about which services the Conservatives would wish to cut. AS an election is not far away, it is only right and proper that that information is out in the open.

This morning, and again this afternoon, SNP members mentioned the "i" word. That too is commendable, as ultimately it is what the Scottish National Party is about. It is right and proper that, next April and May, the Scottish people should debate in their own minds and collectively the merits or non-merits of independence. I am glad that the SNP is open and honest about independence.

The SNP rather gave the game away today. When Andy Kerr was making his announcement, despite forced smiles on the SNP front bench, the rather glummer faces on the remaining SNP benches told the real story. We even saw spurious points of order coming from Mike Russell—I am sorry that he is not here, as I would like to refer to him directly. Mike Russell is a double individual: he is Mr Affable, Mr Suave and Mr Urbane when you meet him in the bar of Deacon Brodie's Tavern and Mr Cross-man in the chamber. When he is Mr Cross-man, he is usually rattled. Mr Russell is rattled: the SNP is faced with a falling membership—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Surely the debate is about the spending review and not about the drinking habits of affable fellow members?

That is a very good point—and it is one that should perhaps be addressed to Margo's colleagues on the SNP benches, as they hardly addressed the subject of money. It was all whinging. But facts are chiels that winna ding and £1.5 million has been announced today. No matter how it is spun and how much it is rubbished, we should accept that that is good news.

I return to the suave, urbane Mr Michael Russell. When he is angry, he gets rattled. He compared me today—

Do try to keep to the subject, Mr Stone.

It is relevant. Mr Russell stooped to attacking a museum in my home town, but—dear oh dear—I have already mentioned the wretched museum to the minister. I get on with things behind the scenes. I do not make a song and dance about them. I say to SNP members that what Mr Russell said about me earlier shows that Mr Russell is somewhat desperate.

The investment in health is very welcome. I will repeat the point that I made this morning, which is that joined-up delivery will be hugely important. The money is welcome and ministers are to be commended for putting it in. If the health authorities, local authorities and social work and education departments do not co-ordinate or work together, despite all the best intentions, the money may not hit the targets at which we are aiming, which are improved health and so reduced costs in the years to come. The spending review is about our children and a better life for them.

All the objectives in the announcement are costed—they are there to be seen. When people talk about flim-flam or lack of detail, their attacks are spurious. I advise ministers to ensure that those objectives are attained. To that end, I recommend that ministers in the Scottish Executive, if they have not already done so, install some form of on-going audit of the results that they intend to achieve. Only by getting that information can ministers judge how accurately the money is being directed and whether some fine-tuning or redirection is required.

Today is a good day for Scotland. If I have been called a performing seal, then I am one. I support the minister and I make no apology for doing so. I am proud to be part of an Executive that is delivering in a real way for the people of Scotland. I commend the motion.

I did not expect Andy Kerr to be in the chamber during this debate. After all, Santa comes only on Christmas morning before he disappears for ever—well, until next Christmas. As all the parents in the chamber know, just like Christmas, the packaging is a lot more interesting than the contents. That is the case with today's announcements—a lot of glitter and fancy bows, but no substance. Rather than have Santa speak to the motion, Santa's little helpers are sent out to explain what is effectively guff.

I give the Executive credit for turning guff into such an art form that nothing can be put forward as a concrete statement. This morning, we had a lot of hurrahs about rail links to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, but I should tell Mr Harper that, on page 45 of the document, we find that we will not have rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Rather, the Executive will

"invest to develop rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh Airports".

What on earth does that mean?

Elsewhere in the spending plans, the Executive gives a clear commitment that every child in Scotland will get to play a game of golf by the age of nine. Why can it not give a clear commitment that the infrastructure projects will go ahead?

The Executive's guff was, however, topped by Mr Iain Smith and his Liberal Democrat colleagues, who do not believe that the tax burden on Scotland is high enough. Apparently there is not enough money in the spending review to do all the additional things that Mr Smith wants to do, such as put no extra police on the beat. Instead, he wants to raise income tax in Scotland in next year's budget. As David McLetchie pointed out, he and his colleagues—including Jamie Stone and whatever he is on—quite clearly believe that money grows on trees. If Mr Stone spoke to some ordinary people in Deacon Brodie's rather than the convivial Mike Russell, he would find that they are more highly taxed than they have ever been and are receiving fewer and fewer good public services.

I think Mr Mundell will agree that people are very pleased by the fact that they are having central heating installed and, indeed, by what has been announced today.

I think that one has to be a pensioner to qualify for the central heating scheme.

A number of good projects have been introduced all over Scotland, but that does not alter the fact that the quality of service does not match the volume of money that is being invested. It is interesting to note that not one speaker for the Executive has told us how quality of service will be improved to ensure that, when the money is spent, it makes a difference.

It is in the document.

If we went through every page of the document, we would find that that point is most certainly not mentioned.

If I had more time, Presiding Officer—

But you do not.

Well, if I had, I would be a lot less kind to Ms Boyack than David McLetchie was. The reality is that after five and a half years of Labour in charge in Scotland, the transport situation is worse. For example, public transport is worse. The needless postponements of important infrastructure works are holding back Scotland's economy.

I see that Mr McCabe has left the chamber. I do not know whether he was at the Institute of Directors lunch or dinner—I am sure that he is the director of something. In any case, he certainly gauged the reaction wrongly. Business is unhappy about the Executive's policies. Now that he has arrived, Mr Kerr should stand up and announce that he will reintroduce the uniform business rate, which is the one thing that business in Scotland wants him to do.

I share other members' disappointment that the Minister for Finance and Public Services was not present for the entire debate. However, I was reassured by the presence of his very capable deputy minister, who even now is showing Mr Kerr a printout of one of the pages on my website. I await with interest to hear what I said by mistake some years ago. I should add that Mr Peacock has many years' experience in his job. In fact, he has been in the job so long that he is about to be made an honorary Liberal Democrat.

David McLetchie and Mike Russell made an important point about the announcement that we are not talking about the minister's money or the SNP's money. It is the people of Scotland's money. We should remember, when ministers come here appearing so generous and bearing such largesse—which happens fairly frequently—that they are simply giving us our money back.

They are not, of course, giving us back all our own money. If we consider the changes in next year's budget that relate to Scotland, we find that Scotland will be paying £405 million through the 10 per cent tax on oil revenues. National insurance will take another £700 million out of the Scottish economy, which makes a total of about £1,100 million. In exchange, we will get budget consequentials of £225 million and extra expenditure from the spending review of £100 million, leaving £325 million. So we are £775 million down on the budget alone. We do not even come with all our own money.

David Davidson talked about the need for Scottish business to be competitive. He echoed what Andrew Wilson said so ably this morning. In doing so, he revealed unintentionally one of the weaknesses of the unionist case. The purpose of cutting business taxation is to help business grow, to increase the gross domestic product of the country and to enable the Government to provide better services on the existing tax base because GDP has grown.

The only weapon available to a devolved Scottish Administration to stimulate business is to change the uniform business rate. The effect on the Executive's budget is a reduction in income, but it gets none of the consequential benefits from increased economic activity because that goes straight to the chancellor in London. Accidentally, Mr Davidson revealed the need for full fiscal freedom for Scotland—indeed for independence.

I did not want to embarrass the Executive by reiterating its attempt to fiddle the figures this morning or at the weekend, but Des McNulty brought it up yet again in his bizarre gallop: I do not know whether he was trying for a prize for how many words he could say in four minutes. Our criticism was not of the total sums involved, but of the assertion that we are talking about new money. We all know that the money has already been announced once, and, in some cases, several times. That is a serious point because it means that no announcement by this Government can be treated seriously or taken at face value. One has to refer to the original documentation and beyond to find out whether the figure has accumulated once, twice or three times.

When statements are made about the Executive's plans to spend an extra £170 million on this or that, we do not know whether that is the same amount three years running, counted twice from the second year or three times in the third year because the Executive has discredited its own figures.

I find it unhelpful that the new document talks about total managed expenditure whereas all the other documents we are likely to compare it against deal with departmental expenditure limits and annual managed expenditure. Perhaps the intention is to make it a bit more difficult for us to find out what precisely is going on. It is not helpful and it is not in the spirit of the Parliament.

Many announcements have been made already, but they are imprecise. Mike Russell's contribution, which was excellent, made a strong criticism of the lack of clarity in the education section. I suspect that all the other sections will unravel as we consider them, particularly transport, to which Kenny MacAskill, David Mundell and Brian Adam referred.

Vague promises were made—sometimes as long as four years ago—and they are simply being recycled.

David Mundell mentioned investments to develop rail links to Glasgow. When summing up, will the minister tell me when the first train will run to Glasgow airport? The year will do; we do not need it any more precisely than that.

I will come to a climax by mentioning Mr McCabe's speech and the criticism of those who talk Scotland down—a criticism made by Jack McConnell at the Institute of Directors earlier this week. Labour is so sensitive that it will have to learn to distinguish between criticism of Labour, its record and our economic performance on the one hand, and criticism that identifies problems and suggests how to deal with them on the other.

The problem is not that we are talking Scotland down: the problem is that this Government and this constitution are dragging Scotland down.

I am sure that members will join me in welcoming Andy Kerr back to the chamber, as so many comments have been made about him. I am also sure that members will welcome the fact that he has come back with even more good news because of his endeavours this afternoon. Andy Kerr was not in the chamber for this debate—he has a very able deputy. As Alasdair Morgan, I hope, acknowledged, Andy Kerr was meeting the business community of Scotland—the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum for Private Business, the Automobile Association and Scottish Financial Enterprise, among others. The good news is that all those organisations have warmly welcomed the budget settlement that Andy Kerr spoke about this morning. I am sure that that will come as bad news to the SNP, as such things usually do.

From our side of the chamber, many good points have been made during this debate. Des McNulty, the convener of the Finance Committee, properly pointed out the real growth and the real increases in resources that are available to us over the coming years. He also mentioned the unprecedented increases in resources, which will allow unprecedented improvements in public services. Duncan McNeil spoke eloquently about the need to improve policing in his constituency to drive down crime. Tom McCabe also referred to the vital health improvement agenda, which is trying to bear down on cancer, strokes, heart disease and all the difficulties that attend them, particularly in constituencies such as the one that Duncan McNeil represents. Tom McCabe also drew attention to the extra money for further education, skills development, modern apprenticeships and educational maintenance allowances.

Tom McCabe, John Home Robertson and Jamie Stone talked about ensuring that we deliver on the agenda that we have now set in place. There are new measures in today's document that reveal how we will do that. It lists some of the targets that we have set out, some of the written agreements that we have with individual ministers and the improvement function that we are bringing into play.

Will the minister be a bit more precise on the question of targets and the delivery of service with particular regard to sport? My heart lifted this morning when I heard the Minister for Finance and Public Services—I was there to hear him—saying that the Executive would double spending on sport. I also read that there are to be more resources in the active primary schools programme, but unless the Executive has a much better target than 60 trained PE teachers coming out of Scotland's one professional institution each year, it will not achieve those benchmarks.

I am grateful to Margo MacDonald for drawing attention to that issue, as it is part of the effort that we are making to improve Scotland's health. There is a strong recognition in the settlement that we need to do more to get young people active and involved in sport in the way that she helped young people to be earlier in her career. We must ensure that young people develop good habits in relation to their own physical fitness. Mike Watson will make much more detail available when he announces the detail of his spending settlement in due course.

Tom McCabe was right to draw attention to the health improvement agenda and to the improvement that will flow from the settlement in schools, hospitals, roads and ferries. We heard Mike Russell make the astounding claim that today's settlement was positively damaging for Scotland. That just shows the level at which the SNP operates. We have seen yet again the grudging, nit-picking, tawdry approach that we have come to expect from the SNP. It is another classic display of the disingenuous SNP at work, designed to distract from the excellent news that today's announcement brings to all Scotland. It is an attempt to put up a smokescreen, to obfuscate the issues and to try to confuse the Scottish public. SNP members make obscure technical points and announce again and again the same tired old smears that they announced the last time that we announced good news for Scotland. As Duncan McNeil said, good news for Scotland is bad news for the SNP. That is why so many SNP members had glum faces earlier. To pretend that there are no new resources beggars belief. SNP members know full well that there is £1.5 billion extra next year, £2.6 billion the following year and £4.1 billion the year after that. That money will bring real progress to Scotland.

We see again the shallowness of the SNP. On a day when we ought to be debating future spending, we find a press statement on Alasdair Morgan's own website saying:

"Make Scottish postage stamps more widely available, says Galloway & Upper Nithsdale MSP".

That is the degree of priority that he gives to the real issues.

Where is the alternative budget from the SNP today—the comprehensive budget that it can put to the Scottish public? SNP members nit-pick and girn. They imply that there would be more spending and that they would do more, yet nothing is seen on paper.

rose—

I see Kenny MacAskill rising to his feet, but I shall not give way to him. He spoke for the best part of four minutes criticising the settlement, but gave not one constructive idea of what he would do. Shona Robison, to her credit, made one commitment. Bruce Crawford implied that he would do more for the environment, but nowhere did SNP members say what they would spend less on if they were to spend more on the environment, on the NHS, on education, on the police and on transport. The art of government is about a balanced budget for the future.

rose—

I will not give way to Mike Russell, whose earlier contributions were pretty outrageous.

What would SNP members spend less on? If there is nothing that they would spend less on, the only thing that would follow from their claims would be more taxation or crippling borrowing to finance the deficit at the heart of their plans. Over the weekend, they accused the Government of Enron-style accounting. The real Enron accounting scandal in Scotland is the SNP's concealment of the fiscal deficit at the heart of their projects. [Interruption.]

Order. There is too much noise in the chamber.

The differences in approach to Scotland's finances in the Parliament could not be clearer. The Executive is committed to progress, to planning and to providing for the long term. It is committed to the stable UK environment that delivers for Scotland, to investment and to growth—growth in our economy and growth in the public services that we need for our children, young people, families and older people. The Tories are politically becalmed and slowly sinking beneath the surface of Scottish politics, weighed down by the baggage of the Thatcherite legacy and committed to the old agenda—as David McLetchie confirmed today—of making massive cuts in the public services that we are building from today's statement and the other work that we have done.

Will the minister take an intervention?

I will not take an intervention.

The SNP is riddled with divisions, having relegated some of its best people down the list for the forthcoming election. It is inexperienced in the world of government and is making reckless promises. As Andy Kerr said, reckless promises are being made every day of every week. The SNP is the party that is prepared to risk all the progress that we are making on the basis of its economic arguments and its quest for economic independence, whatever that is. It is a game of chance that the SNP is asking the Scottish people to play—a scratch card approach to the Scottish economy. The SNP is prepared to sacrifice the stability that we have established, the ability to plan for the long term that we have described today in clear detail, and the investment in our future. That is what the SNP is prepared to put at risk.

The differences could not be clearer. The Tories are sinking and have nothing to offer. The SNP offers only risk, uncertainty and inexperience. However, the Executive has strong leadership and is committed to stability that gives us investment, growth, progress and new opportunities for all our people. Through the spending review, we are delivering on the people's priorities. The people trust us with their future and they are right to do so. I commend the statement to Parliament.