 rym boards that Mr Johnson has made will help to encourage that process this Thursday. That ends the tropical question time. The next item of business is a debate on motion number 12381, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the legal writings, counterparts and deliveries, Scotland Bill. I point out to members that this is the first bill under our new rules, which allow i'r Cymru Llaw that has been scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee at stage 1 and 2. Rydw i'n fawr yn ddodol i'r Cymru, ond mae'n gyfnogu yn digwydd ar y cwestiynau ddodol i'r bynnag i gydag i'r cymwynguMynedd ddyaelol i'n ddigwydd. Rydw i'n gael i mwyfydd o'r defnyddio ar y ddauu i'r cyfrydd. o ddelw i'r bwysig hwnnw. Ieithiau hyn ystod i'w ddoch chi'n gofio'r modd yn ddechrau'r minister o 10 mlyneddau? Metw oedd yn sicr o ddweud o hollier yng Nghymru sydd y bill yn ymddangosol i'r eu hunain i dynnu nesaf teimlo i'r enghraifft datblygu. Daithi'n credu â'r ffistri I will be at one that I expect to appear in the minor footnotes rather than the front pages or forwards. Nonetheless, we must recognise that this is an important part, a new development of our parliamentary procedure. I am extremely grateful to the Scottish Law Commission in particular for their work in providing us with this legislation. I would also like to thank the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for its detailed consideration of and support for the legal writings, counterparts and delivery Scotland Bill and to other members of this Parliament, academics and those in the legal and business community in particular who have also expressed their support for this bill. I hope and expect that the new process, which we have seen come to its conclusion in respect of the first bill today, will go towards increasing the implementation rate of commission reports. That was a matter to which the late Donald Dure would often allude, that in Scotland we were the only country in the world to have our own legal system but to lack a legislature prior to the inception of devolution. I think that those views are widely shared across the parliamentary spectrum. In the passage of this bill we have seen the process working well and in particular impressed by the way that the committee has taken on their new role. I look forward to successive commission bills that will be considered in this way. To use a non-parliamentary expression, bring them on. I also thank the Law Commission for the sterling work that it has done in producing the report, which was met with such widespread support. That makes the task of legislators so much easier when the thoroughness and diligence of the commission results in a report that is able to command such widespread support. That support has continued throughout the bill's passage. On to the bill itself, Presiding Officer. This is a small and modest but, nonetheless, an important piece of legislation which addresses the current uncertainty as to first, whether execution and counterpart is competent under Scots law and second, whether Scots law permits legal delivery of a paper document by electronic means. The bill does two main things. First, it makes specific provision enabling documents to be executed in counterpart. This will put beyond any doubt that it is permissible in Scots law, a matter about which there is currently great uncertainty. The committee recognised that the current uncertainty as to whether execution in counterpart is competent under Scots law appears to have led to a drift away from transactions being concluded under Scots law with parties instead opting to conclude under the law of a different jurisdiction, for example English law, where execution in counterpart is recognised. Where Scots law is not used, this may often have the knock-on effect of any consequential litigation not being in Scotland. A key aim of the legislation is to address the drift. We wish to see legal work undertaken in Scotland so far as possible and we do not wish the law itself to be a reason why such litigation, why such enterprise should be conducted elsewhere. The bill will give the legal profession and the business interests that it represents the necessary confidence to use Scots law for transactions where execution of a document in counterpart is part of the process. Second, it makes provision for the facility to deliver in the legal sense traditional documents electronically. There are conflicting authorities on whether a paper document may be legally delivered by its electronic transmission to the grantee or to a third party such as a solicitor or agent for the grantee. The bill resolves this uncertainty so that any document created on paper may become legally effective by being delivered by electronic means such as email or fax. I was heartened by the unanimous support for the general principles of the bill, both from the committee and from all the members taking part in stage 1 debate on the bill. Given the permissive nature of the bill, it is not easy to quantify just how significant the benefits of it will be. However, it is clear that all participants in the process agree that it is capable of delivering benefits. Margaret Mitchell, for example, pointed to the positive impact the bill would have in Scots law, helping to ensure that individuals and businesses that seek to undertake transactions in Scotland do not experience obstacles or delay. Jenny Marra commended the provisions relating to delivery by electronic means, which she saw as increasing efficiency and flexibility. I believe that the most obvious benefit of the bill in relation to transactions where currently Scots law is the obvious choice to govern a transaction but is not used because of doubt over the legality of executing a document in counterpart. This legislation means that parties will now have the confidence to use Scots law. I believe that the bill creates a helpful framework for a variety of transactions, including transactions involving parties in remote, rural or island areas, where distance itself makes meetings more of an issue. It is a clear strength of the bill that it provides a flexible and light touch framework. Initially, I am sure that it will be used mainly by practitioners and their business clients for commercial transactions, but I share the view of one stage one witness that by enabling parties to be more comfortable with the use of Scots law there is potential for innovation to flow from that at some point in the future. I am grateful to all who gave evidence, both in writing and oral format to the committee, in that evidence suggestions were made which were worthy of our detailed consideration. We considered those thoroughly and concluded that the bill, as introduced, was fit for purpose and capable of achieving our policy aim. I take further comfort from the fact and I do not know whether this too is a new chapter in the history of our parliamentary procedure, or not, but this bill will have completed its parliamentary passage without any amendment. In summary, this is a compact but vital piece of legislation that will provide certainty in relation to execution in counterpart and electronic delivery of traditional documents in Scots law. We are confident that it will meet a clear and pressing demand from those likely to be affected by the bill and, in my view, the value in bringing clarity, flexibility and certainty to the law cannot be overstated. I hope that future Scottish Law Commission bills selected for this process are met with the same level of consensus and success. It is my duty and pleasure, Presiding Officer, to move that the Parliament agrees that the legal writings, counterparts and delivery of Scotland bill be passed. In relation to your question about whether this is the first piece of legislation that had no amendments, I confess that I do not know. I suspect not. I can think of a couple of candidates, but I will check and I will try by the end of the night to come back and answer that question. Before I move on to Lewis MacDonald, I point out to all members that, throughout this afternoon, we have some time in hand. If members wish to take interventions or, indeed, to expand the very important points that I know that they have got to make, I would be more than happy, as will the Deputy Presiding Officer, to allow them time to do so. Lewis MacDonald, have you got seven minutes? Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Indeed, it is notable that this is a new departure, whether or not it is the first bill to remain unamended. I and others will look forward with great interest to hear from you before the day is over. Of course, as has been said, this is not perhaps the stuff of legends, the legal writings, counterpart and delivery. Scotland bill may not even attract very many newspaper column inches outwith the specialised press, but as you, Presiding Officer and the Minister, have said, it is significant in its own way. The first bill to come through the new process led by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. I, too, thank the committee for its diligence in this matter. The new process, I think, reflects our shared experience as a Parliament. It is a timely innovation at the very time that the powers and responsibilities of this Parliament are set to increase substantially in the period ahead. The bill itself is also a modernising statute in that it seeks to bring the law up to date for an electronic age. The way in which individuals and companies do business is changing and will continue to change, and it is important that our legal system keeps up with that process. The case for devolution over the last 40 years has been based on many arguments, both great and small. Since 1999, this Parliament has initiated major changes in social policy, but at the same time, we have also made small but important adjustments to the statute in order to reflect changes elsewhere. Indeed, the need to adapt Scots law to reflect change in the modern world has been recognised for even longer. It is now 50 years since the Scottish Law Commission was established to keep the Scottish legal system under review. Mr Ewing referred to the late Donald Dure, and indeed for Scots lawyers like Donald Dure and John Smith, the process of continually updating Scots law was an important one, and the Scottish Law Commission was therefore seen as a very valuable institution. The United Kingdom Parliament, in its view, lacked the capacity to deliver on all the necessary Scots law reforms that would be required in a timely and efficient manner. With the best will in the world, the parliamentary time available at that Parliament was simply never going to be enough. Devolution, of course, was promoted for much wider reasons, but a devolved Scottish Parliament has had the additional benefit of offering a way round delays in enacting law reforms on which everyone was agreed. It is fair to say that this devolved Parliament has taken a little time to work out the best way to deliver that objective, but there is no need to apologise for that. That is, after all, a maturing institution. We have from the beginning passed legislation to clarify the law, for example to conform to European human rights legislation, fundamental to the constitution and the founding act of Parliament that created the Scottish Parliament. However, we are now moving on to a new phase, and I think that the committee's focus on law reform will prove useful to both the Parliament and the legal profession, while the whole Parliament remains responsible, as it is today, for the final outcome. The substance of this bill is also welcome. We live in an age of electronic communication, and also in an age of ever more rapid technological change. The Scottish Law Commission has rightly identified areas of uncertainty in the application of Scots law to contractual arrangements in this electronic age, and it has brought forward measures to resolve those. That is what this bill is all about, making clear the terms on which signatures of counterpart documents can form a single agreement and the way in which delivery by electronic means can have the same effect as delivery of a physical document. The minister has said that there has been little dissent from the terms of the bill, other than seeking increased clarity, and that consensus and its support will doubtlessly be reflected in our debate here today. However, it is important to recognise that the agreement that this bill represents is one that applies to the position, as it is at this particular point in time. It would be a mistake to assume that passing this law will be enough to address the impact of technological change on the terms of Scots law. It will do it for now, but this is certain to be an area that the committee and the Parliament will have to revisit before too long. The nature and the pace of technological change are such that we will be back here to repeat this process in order to meet the next challenge that renders the existing status of legal rules and procedures uncertain, whatever that may prove to be. Even as members of this young Parliament, we have seen quite dramatic change since the first election in 1999. Those of us who were members from the outset were rightly pleased that the Parliament was ahead of the game in enabling us to communicate by email, to respond quickly to constituents and to access information from across the Parliament and beyond. However, the scope of that to electronic networking has grown dramatically since then. While the Scottish Parliament was trailblazing in its adoption of new technology, compared with older parliamentary institutions, we have had to work hard to stay up to speed and in touch with the people that we represent. Indeed, for young people under 30, the internet is not just another tool, it is part of the definition of how we live as much as an accepted part of ordinary life as phones and planes were a generation before. If that means constant change and adaptation are required for the Parliament, then the same is true for business both here and Scotland and further afield. Marketing is increasingly online. Contracts, thanks to this legislation, will go the same way. The whole idea of how to do business will increasingly reflect that virtual environment in which we all live and work. The bill is useful not because it will bring businesses flocking to the shores, but because it will ensure that Scotland and Scots law do not get left behind. The process of law reform exemplified by today's debate does not give Scotland a novel competitive advantage, but it does ensure that we are not at a disadvantage and that our Parliament delivers on one of the purposes of devolution. The focus of Scots law must continue to be on the justice system to ensure that our courts are first and foremost about delivering justice to the people of Scotland, but this measure can help to ensure that we also have a legal system that is modern, up-to-date and fit for purpose, that our courts can settle business disputes effectively and efficiently and can therefore support Scottish business and the economy. On that basis, I am pleased to welcome this bill here today and to offer Labour support for it going forward. I thank you, Mr McDonald. I now call on Annabelle Golden. Five minutes are there abouts. I thank you, Presiding Officer. I have to say that some of the acts might regard this bill to be the equivalent of Mogadon, but to former lawyers like the minister and myself it is beyond fascination, Presiding Officer, because the substance of this bill is important. I would also like to echo the tributes that have been paid to the Scottish Law Commission and, indeed, to the Delegated Powers and Reform Committee of this Parliament. These two groups have performed important functions in getting this bill to its current legislative state. As we have heard, it seeks to improve the way that legal documents are signed and brought into legal effect under Scots law. It is true that there is currently a great deal of uncertainty amongst legal practitioners as to whether or not documents can be executed in counterpart. 18th century sources indicate that this is an acceptable practice, but that is not widely recognised within the legal profession. Signing ceremonies or, as they were known, as round robins of one document have for long been the practice for executing documents in Scotland. However, for multi-jurisdictional transactions that are in our common place in the commercial world, this can prove costly and inefficient. It is the case that parties to a contract have often opted instead to use an alternative jurisdiction, whether that is England or even New York, the legal systems of both permitting execution by counterpart. That is not a positive place for Scots law to find itself, and the desire to reform this area of contract law is understandable. While I am unconvinced that the bill before us today will give Scots law a so-called competitive advantage, as the stage 1 report highlights, it will put Scotland in a more equitable position with other jurisdictions, as Mr McDonald was also indicating. However, I wonder if I might just sound a couple of cautionary notes, Presiding Officer, as this bill concludes its passage through the Parliament this afternoon. The first is that subsection 4 provides that the single executed document may be made up of all the counterparts, or it might comprise one entire counterpart together with the pages in which the different signatures have been subscribed. That might have practical advantages, but if that document is registered in the Book of Council session, that potentially means that the remaining counterparts are lost. That practice does have implications if, at some point in the future, a solicitor wants to check the additional counterparts for inaccuracies or inconsistencies or, indeed, if it is suspected that there has been a fraud. Indeed, the policy memorandum underscores the importance and practice of preserving documents where the transaction involves loans or leases or land, but it seems to me that under the new regime the paper trail would not provide a complete picture. There was some evidence in this point to the committee from the Faculty of Advocates, which expressed concern that execution and counterpart could lead to different parties signing different versions of a document, either through error or through fraud. Robert Howie-QC explained that, if one permits execution by the exchange of the back pages of a contract, each signed by a particular party plus the front page, it is all too easy for the rogue or fraudster to amend the critical stuff in the middle of the sandwich. The faculty, I have to say, was in the minority in giving that view, and it certainly was not able to provide quantifiable evidence and support of its concerns. I imagine that, for that reason, the minister was not taken into account. I am grateful, Presiding Officer. I would presume that Ms Goldie would acknowledge that, as professionals, the public will expect of the Faculty of Advocates a very high level of attention to the need to administer these documents thoroughly to ensure the kinds of difficulties that Ms Goldie alluded to will be prevented in as many occasions as possible. I imagine that, in practice, there will probably be less advocates and more practising solicitors who will be dealing with the actual transmission of these documents and the advice to clients on executing them. However, I will come to that point in my speech and it is a point well-made. As I said, the minister was perhaps not convinced of the need to bring forward amendments to provide additional safeguards, and I have some sympathy with that view. I understand that the risk of fraud and error is not new, but even though the faculty's concerns were ultimately dismissed, it is my view that it put forward valid concerns. I understand that the obligation to register a document in the books of councillor's session is not mandatory. I think that there is an imperative on the law society coming to your point, Mr Pearson, to issue practice guidance notes to practitioners to ensure that there is retained physical evidence of what signatories believe they are putting their names to. I am also into my last minute, Mr Dawn, so I think that I will just proceed with this if you will. I can give you a bit more time, if you wish. Presiding Officer, how can I refuse? I am grateful, Presiding Officer, and I thank the member for taking the intervention. I think that, as I heard the evidence that came before the committee, there was essentially a recognition that if you did allow two different documents because that is what counterparts were, you did open up the box to them being different. You could do it no other way. Therefore, I think that the member has probably reached the right point by saying that those involved, the professionals involved, do seem to need to make sure that those two or multiple copies are available for inspection later. That is the best evidence that you have, but there is no alternative to having execution in counterpart, but to have different copies, which could be different. I think that the dilemma, Mr Dawn, is how we as a legislator resolve that balance. To be fair, there is a genuine attempt to try and do that. I have proffered my own view of what I think the professional body, which is responsible for solicitors in Scotland, might think of doing, and I think that it has a useful role to play in that respect. I would also be minded to strongly as the Parliament to commit to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of the bill once its provisions are implemented, because I think that Scotland is a small country. The legal profession is a fairly contained one. I do not think that it would be difficult to secure evidence and find out how that is all working in practice. Those were just what I described as cautionary concerns. This bill did receive cross-party support at stage 1. No amendments have been lodged at stage 2. It is broadly non-contentious and I can confirm that the legal writings bill has the support of the Scottish Conservatives today. Do we now move to a very short open debate, but I will call Stuart Stevenson, followed by Margaret McCall. Mr Stevenson, six minutes or a bit more? Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. My own experience says that this is a very real issue, and it is not a particularly new issue. On one occasion, and it was 25 years ago, I had to fly from Vienna to San Francisco. A contract could be signed. I had a very nice dinner with the director at Bank of America, who was the other party to the contract. I had a good night's sleep and then I got a taxi back to the airport and flew to Glasgow. Total time in San Francisco, 14 hours, and most of it I was sleeping. Anything that helps you to address that kind of, frankly, waste of time and money has pretty much got to be good news. Quite reasonably, Annabelle Goldie raised the issue of different versions potentially being signed in the belief that they are the same version. One of the things that I pursued during the committee stage of the bill with the faculty of advocates and with others is the issue of harnessing the power of mathematics and of electronics to inhibit that process. It is perfectly possible, with a public algorithm and a public key, to derive a hash that represents uniquely a particular document, a single dot, comma or letter changed in that document resulting in a different key. Even if there are multiple copies, it is possible to know that those multiple copies are or are not identical by the application of appropriate technology. That bill does not provide for that, but it did form part of the consideration of the bill. I do hope that, at some future date, we are able to return to that subject and enable and require that to be used. Mike Mackenzie. I seem to recollect that this is a similar mechanism that Mary Queen of School has used. Some of her letters were intercepted, which ultimately led to her demise. I wonder if you would care to comment on how effective that mechanism may be in reality. Mr Stevenson, can we kind of keep it on legal writings? I was referring, of course, to some of the stage 1 matter that happened. I will simply respond to that by saying that, of course, you have to look at the work of Calvo, who was Wellington's decrypter who broke the codes of Napoleon, and that is a much more significant thing. That is beyond the scope of the debate, and perhaps it can be fitted even in a generous six minutes. The real point that came up, and we did put to witnesses when we had them before our committee, was whether we should get to a position where we create the electronic infrastructure in Scotland so that a single copy can be held in one place and signing can be done electronically from dispersed geographic positions. There was some acceptance by witnesses that that was a good idea, but it was an idea that they would like to be the second jurisdiction to implement rather than the first. However, there comes a time when you actually have to be bold and perhaps lift that one up. Sometimes we have to take for granted, if we cannot understand, some of the mathematics that make these things possible, and in mathematics there are P problems and NP problems, and essentially NP problems are ones that can't be solved and the encryptions we use these days of that character. The Faculty of Advocates and others in the legal profession are not unreasonably intensely small-sea conserver of their approach to things. They want to move in small steps, test, confirm that they work and provide the necessary security, but the danger with the process that the law commission undertakes, a rigorous examination bringing fully developed proposals to Parliament, extremely helpful. However, the danger is that all the contentious and difficult bits have been removed from proposals and so you end up with something that is a bit of a lowest common denominator. Although that levels the playing field for Scotland enables us to stand shoulder to shoulder with jurisdictions that allow counterparty operations, it doesn't take us ahead of the pack. I think that the witnesses agreed that there was scope for returning to this sometime in the future. We've got to, of course, if we decide to hold contracts in a central database, be confident that the confidentiality of that document is protected. That raises a really difficult issue for Governments of whatever complexion and wherever they may be based, because Governments naturally have a difficulty with absolutely secure secrecy of information, of conversation, of communication, but in this case you won't get commercial adoption unless that is present. I think that we will need to return, and again the committee had this in evidence sessions, to looking at how we can provide that absolute security, but the legal framework that places such onerous responsibilities on those who use that kind of unbreakable encryption, unbreakable security to respond to legal requests for access. That's been done before. It's not particularly new, so I think that that's the subject that we need to come back to. Lawyers in the committee showed that they were willing to listen to the arguments, but that they would proceed slowly. Indeed, it was 25 years ago that I was invited by the Faculty of Advocates to go and talk to them about whether they could introduce a secure email system. They listened politely, but decided that they wouldn't do it. Lewis MacDonald talked about the generation now, people under 30 seeing the electronic. Well, it's actually 35 years since I first sent my first email. Some things have been around an awful long time, and we need to think about how rapidly things are. My grandfather was born when Abraham Lincoln was president, my father was conceived before the Wright brothers flew, and I was 11 years old when the first transatlantic telephone cable came into operation. So every life takes us forward. We maybe have to speed things up a wee bit in the legal world to make sure that we keep up with the pack, make sure that we can actually draw new business to Scotland, not simply protect the business that we have. That is an excellent piece of legislation. I'm sure that all members of the committee very much welcome the gracious comments that the Presiding Officer opened the debate with. I look forward to hearing what our convener has to say if called to speak and I see his button pressed. I'm very happy to support this particular bill and hope that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee gets many more opportunities to engage in the overwhelming excitement that is legislation in the Scottish Parliament. I now call Margaret McCulloch. Margaret McCulloch will be followed by the convener of the committee, Nigel Dodd. Before beginning, I want to reflect on when we last voted on this bill at stage 1 and also on the scrutiny of the bill that we have undertaken through the committee. As members will be aware, the subordinate legislation committee's remit was extended in 2013. As the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, we not only scrutinise the subordinate legislation and the delegation of powers, but we also now examine the Scottish Law Commission bills of the kind that we are debating today. Indeed, this is the first time that a recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission has been brought to the Parliament under the new arrangements. The Scottish Law Commission bill, which Parliament is asked to consider, is one that has already been passed and opposed and unamended at stage 1 and stage 2, as said previously. I see no reason for Parliament to reject the bill at stage 3. Not only do I believe that the general principles of the bill are sound, but, as I will explain, there is a demonstrable need to modernise our contract law in Scotland. The bill essentially proposes to clarify how a document can be executed and counterpart and it will expressly permit the delivery of paper legal documents electronically. In supporting this bill, I hope that Parliament can give clarity on key concepts in Scots law and practice, reflect changes in technology and business practice and make a wider contribution to the Scottish economy. In their work, the Scottish Law Commission has highlighted the need for this bill and demonstrated that there is support for reform across the legal, academic and business communities. It identified two problems with the commercial and contract law in Scotland, which a law commission bill could address. It highlighted the need for clarity in respect of counterparts because it is not certain that a legal document can be brought into effect if it is signed and counterpart. It also called for clarity in respect of the law on delivery because it is not clear whether a paper contract can be said to have been delivered if it is sent and received electronically. The view of the commission is that the law as it stands is not fit for purpose. The letter of our law in Scotland is out of step with contract law and neighbouring jurisdictions. It is also out of step with common legal and business practice. The committee has heard evidence that businesses in Scotland are sometimes chosen to use English law to govern agreements instead of Scots law because counterparts are permitted south of the border. This disincentive to use in Scots law, compounded by legal uncertainty over methods of delivery, could be harming our economic competitiveness. By allowing the use of counterpart signatures as an option to execute a contract and by allowing contracts to be delivered electronically, we could help businesses make savings on time, travel and accommodation. As I said at stage 1, there are only a limited number of people within a business who are authorised to sign legal documents on behalf of the company and the law currently requires more of them than their counterparts elsewhere. In conclusion, we have an opportunity to remove a disincentive to conduct in businesses in Scots law and to make it easier for parties to enter into commercial contracts and transactions. With some small but significant changes, we can bring contract law up to date and make it fit for purpose. It is for that reason that I will be supporting this bill. That is a very interesting point to have reached, partly because, of course, this is the first bill that many members have already mentioned, but partly because there is relatively little in this bill and, of course, even speaking third from the back benches, I find myself in a position where there is actually nothing very much left to say about the substance of the bill. My point of view is actually no bad thing because what I would really like to consider, Presiding Officer, is the process of getting where we are. I would like to start by thanking my colleagues for their diligence and careful consideration of the bill through the committee. There have been just one or two moments when we have wondered what we are doing next because this is not something that we have done before and how do you handle it when there are no amendments at stage two and the minister still has to turn up and we read through the section numbers. We have got that and it has been an interesting experience. As other members have commented, Parliament has never historically found enough time for the repair and maintenance, shall I say, of Scottish law. We do now have the opportunity to do so and indeed we have taken that opportunity on some occasions. Even within my time, Presiding Officer, I recall in the last session, the sexual offences bill, which came through the Justice Committee from the Scottish Law Commission, as I recall, Bill Butler brought as a member's bill, the damages bill, which the Scottish Law Commission had brought forward, and indeed the long leases bill, which we started in session three but was, I think, finished in session four, was another one that came from there. So we have managed to do some of them, but I think there has been a general recognition that it hasn't really been going fast enough and we need to find another way of operating. We also know, and I'd like to reflect this, that Justice Committees 1 and 2, which did function in the second session, I haven't found anybody who actually thought that was a good way forward and I haven't found anybody who thought we want to go back to that. But given that the legal system is firmly within the Justice Committee's remit, and we know, and I know very well because I sat on the committee all the last session, the Justice Committee has a large number of things to do. We are, I think, still as a Parliament in a position where we've got a bit of a problem in actually moving all this stuff through. The idea was considered in session three, but it really only came to a head in this session. Presiding Officer, you may recall, and I will recall, an invitation from Roderick Campbell to a meeting on the 15th of June in 2011 when the Scottish Law Commission made one of their periodic presentations to us, and this was the start of this process, Presiding Officer. Because Christine Grahame MSP, the Justice Committee convener, and Bruce Crawford, who was the Cabinet Secretary for Parliament at the time, were there, as was I, as you will realise, and we actually said at that meeting, we think that officials ought to go away and consider whether we should change standing orders. That was actually the date on which this process, which we are just completing, started. I'd also like to pay tribute, of course, to the many officials under your jurisdiction, Presiding Officer, who actually did think through how we were going to be able to do this, how we were going to change standing orders, brought forward standing orders that have become workable, and which we have used. I really am very pleased because they had to do that work and they did it again diligently and effectively. But that's where we started from. The bill that we have in front of us fits those standing order requirements that it would be a bill where there is a wide degree of consensus among keystone holders about the need for reform and the appropriate and the approach recommended, which of course has been demonstrated by the fact that there are no amendments. The Scottish Law Commission did their consultation so well that the Government found no need to consult, and when we as a committee consulted in the normal way, I would have to say that we didn't really bring up very much that hadn't been said before. Where should we be going? This is what I'd really like to address over the next couple of minutes, if I may, Presiding Officer. We know that we need to keep Scots law up to date. Associate Macdonald, amongst others, has pointed out modern practice is changing, not just in commerce, but in the way we do business. I was looking only the other day at some pension funds which I could have accessed online, set up online, paid to online, received payments from in due course online. That is where some of our quite complicated legal transactions are now being conducted and we really need to make sure we have a legal system in which the inevitable errors and faults on the way can be negotiated. Not only do we live in a time of the internet, but we also have multinational interactions as a result of that in our normal everyday lives. We also have, I would suggest, more multicultural families, more families that are actually the result of partnerships across nations because we can just now physically move around so much more. Given that that's the environment in which we are having to legislate, in which we are trying to operate and in which we need to make Scots law workable, I would suggest, Presiding Officer, that we're going to need to do more of the kind of thing that we've done. Now, we are both well aware that a small bill on succession has been proposed as the next one from my committee. I am sure that both you and the government will ensure that it fits the criteria as they currently stand, and I have no doubt that you will do that faithfully. But having read the consultation on how we might amend succession law, I do have to say, Presiding Officer, that finding things which are non-contactious is going to be rather more difficult than finding this bill. I therefore would like to suggest to you and to the Chamber this afternoon that we do probably even now need to start thinking about whether there should be a wider remit for my committee or any other. I wouldn't want to say what the process should be and actually make sure that we can look after the pair of maintenance of Scots law and in particular perhaps private law without it having to go through the Justice Committee for all the reasons that we now well understand. But I commend this bill to Parliament and I thank my colleagues for their diligence in the work that has been done. Thank you, Mr Dawn. We move to the wind-up speeches. Annabelle Goldie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that it's evident from the tenor of today's debate that this bill obviously has cross-party sport and I do restate the sport of my party for it. I think that it's clear that members' remarks this afternoon have largely focused on the advantages of the reforms contained in the bill and that's wise because there has been doubt about whether or not documents could be executed in counterpart under Scots law. This legislation does provide a welcome and perhaps overdue clarification for legal practitioners. I also acknowledge the need to adapt and change our centuries-old legal system to meet the exigencies of the modern age. I'm pleased that Scottish businesses will no longer be deterred by the impracticalities of the signing ceremony or the round-robin process that has been the hallmark of getting deeds executed to date. Many members recognise the increased speed of transactions and potential savings and travel and accommodation costs will no doubt benefit the business community and this is to be welcomed. I think that Lewis MacDonald talked about that, as did Stuart Stevenson and Margaret McCulloch. In his opening speech for the stage 1 debate last year, the minister emphasised that the approach has been to ensure that the legislation is permissive and as flexible as possible. I fully accept that that's a well-intentioned and well-intended approach but I'm just a little anxious that the new arrangements could facilitate fraud or more conceivably error. I realise that, as I said in my opening speech, there are both possibilities under existing arrangements and I do understand that execution and counterpart is an optional process but I think that most practitioners and their clients will opt to adopt what is proposed in this bill. As parliamentarians, we've got to guard against even theoretical or notional risks and although the committee and the witnesses at stage 1 were satisfied that such risks were negligible and I expect their conclusions are not totally in full agreement with that assessment. On the potential for fraud and error, Stuart Stevenson made a characteristically interesting observation about the role of mathematics and electronics and I would comment in more detail on that but I'm not sure that I understood it at all. I did understand that Mr Mike McKenzie's very colourful addendum to Mr Stevenson's contribution about the potential terminal consequences of over reliance and such techniques. However, I urge once again that the Parliament should seriously consider a post-legislative scrutiny of the bill at some appropriate point in the future to ensure that, if any loopholes have emerged, we can then deal with these. I reiterate my view that the Law Society of Scotland should issue practice guidance notes to practitioners to ensure that signatories know what they are signing and that the agreed signed version of a copy is retained in a physical form, whether that's a PDF file or paper copy. I wonder if Ms Goldie agrees with me that often contract documents consist of huge piles of documents with a cover sheet that is signed by both parties. Really, in principle, there's nothing to prevent fraudulent substitution or indeed accidental substitution of some of the meat or filling in the sandwich even under current procedures. I do accept that. I think that most practitioners and certainly most people signing contracts of that character will be absolutely clear that they want to know what the document is and what it is that they are signing. The bill makes clear a mechanism for ensuring that this can be done. The point is that if you have, in good faith, negotiated a contract of which to an agreed position where you have distilled into the final version of the contract document and you then get a signing copy of the document and a page to execute and you return the executed page, and it then turns out that through mere error this has been appended to an earlier version of the contract, then that is a mistake that can happen simply because we are departing from the situation where the signature was physically attached to the thing. I'm not disagreeing with the need to modernise procedures. I'm not disagreeing from a moment with that proposition and, as I've said, I welcome this bill, but I do point out that this is a fairly major departure from what has happened in the past and there is a potential for difficulty. I think that all I want to be sure about is that we try to minimise that and I think that the law society has a role to play in that mitigation and I think that this Parliament has a role to play as well. As someone who is not a member of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Labour in relation to this debate. I'm sure that there will be those in the public galleries and who watchers on television will be in awe of Ms Goldie's obvious excitement and gushing enthusiasm in analysing the detail of this legislation, mirrored by Mr Ewing's obvious delight in introducing the details of the legislation to the Parliament today. On my own behalf, I am wide-eyed at Nigel Don's description of our debate today, arriving at a very interesting conclusion, but in truth putting aside those observations, albeit not the most pressing of issues as far as the Scottish public is concerned, at key moments in their business life, the details of what we discuss in relation to the legislation. The legal writings, counterparts and delivery of the Scotland Bill will be of critical importance to members of the public at key times in their life. I think that the member has made the most important point, that this is all about how the legal system works. The general public actually doesn't care. They don't want to know what they want as a system that works and our job is to make sure that system is good and effective. I'm very grateful to Nigel Don for that observation and it gives me some comfort to know that I've made some point in the chamber that someone found to be relevant. In that context, I think that the point that was made earlier in relation to whether or not our modern approach to the signing of documents in an electronic phase adds complication and some difficulty in knowing how those documents have been compiled. I make the observation that, to some extent, those difficulties perhaps pertain to the generation that one belongs to and that there is no doubt that our younger generation of legal minds may well find it far easier to collect material electronically and ensure that they are gathered correctly and with accuracy than they would collating paper in the way that we do. I'm with the member on what he's saying but I wonder if he would care to note that I've certainly been party to a 3,500 page contract and therefore it is unlikely that that will be in the front of any single mind and yet it is a single signature that has to do with that. So whatever system we have, there are practical difficulties that don't get us away from the need for trust and oversight of those whom we trust. I would agree completely with the comment that was made by the member. I merely remember in a previous life where I had responsibility for creating documents that thousands of people had to relate to in terms of the way they administered their duties. When those documents were tight written documents, any amendments made to individual pages resulted in a complete reassessment of every single page thereafter to ensure their accuracy but once the electronic age came along, as was alluded to by the member himself, any changes brought to the attention of the author electronically and one can see if any amendments have been made to a document by whom, at what time and on what date. That's enormously valuable to those who might sign off on a document knowing that its authenticity can be relied on. I would comment that I am very grateful to the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for the work that they have done in this regard, a novel piece of work that shows that the system of Parliament can operate and can deliver a number of practical outcomes which the general public will overlook but no doubt will find valuable in times ahead. As someone who has had to access civil law recently, it took six months to process paperwork in a relatively innocuous set of circumstances to transact a piece of business. If that time and that frustration can be avoided by the use of electronic communication, that only speaks well for the law itself and for the way in which business can be transacted in Scotland in the 21st century. So the proposal contained within the act will make Scots law more attractive to its users. It simplifies what up till now has been a relatively complex process in terms of the handling of paper, never mind the content of the paper itself, and it introduces, one might say, an element of the 21st century into our Scots civil law process. The lessons to be learned on the criminal justice side, because a similar process pertains to the handling of warrants and the signature of warrants across the country and the time it takes to obtain those warrants, either for search, arrest or indeed in terms of the interception of communications across Scotland. I would like to think that those on the criminal side will have a look at what has happened here and see what lessons can be learned from that example. In conclusion, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee has provided a valuable service. It has modernised Scots law to some extent and makes it more relevant. The Scots law commission role should be acknowledged in bringing forward legislation, whose time had obviously come in that it has passed so easily through the Parliament with due scrutiny and examination. I think that Ms Goldie made a very important point about reviewing the operation of this new practice, particularly in relation to the threat of fraud or incompetent handling. That review will tell us whether or not the ease with which the legislation passed was effective and efficient in its outcome. One hopes that the electronic transfer of signatures will be deemed to be an opening door to Scots law becoming attractive internationally and that in due course people will wonder what all the fuss was about. I am very grateful to you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Pearson. Can I now call on the minister to wind up the debate, Mr Ewing? Thank you, Presiding Officer, and let me thank all the members who have contributed this afternoon to this debate in the final stage of the legal writings, counterparts and Delivery Scotland Bill. I wanted to address some of the points raised in the debate. First of all, it has been asked when we intend to bring the legislation into force and the answer is as soon as possible. On the assumption that the bill has passed today, we hope to commence the substantive provisions of the bill around three months from now. Mr Dawn raised the question of future bills adopting this procedure. He did inform House that it is under contemplation that the second bill under the new procedure will be the succession bill, which I understand is expected to be referred to the committee when it is introduced in June 2015. Subject to meeting the necessary criteria for referral, Mr Dawn touched on that. He also raised issues about the procedure adopted here and how it will be applied. That is not for me, Presiding Officer, so I will not go into that. However, I can say that the Scottish Government does echo the sentiment that she expressed, which I think underlay his criticism, which is that we require to have a process for repair and maintenance of Scots law. I think that that was a prudent comment and one upon which it may be sensible to ponder further. Let me turn now to some of the substantive comments that were made on the bill and which were made in the course of passage of the bill, both at stage 1 and here this afternoon. First, I think that Canabel Goldie, in an extremely useful contribution for which I am grateful, raised and postulated a number of questions, which I believe were raised, most of them were raised, perhaps not all of them actually, in the committee. Some of them were raised by the faculty of advocates witness, others by other members of the legal profession, others by John Scott, her colleague in the committee. First of all, in relation to fraud and error. Starting off with fraud, fraud is something that MSPs and parliaments cannot stamp out. Fraud occurs. It is, sadly, part of life as we know it. I suspect it always will be, no matter what law is passed. In Scotland, in my experience and my belief, is that fraud is rare and honesty is the norm. If that analysis is correct, that is something for which we should be extraordinarily grateful and something which we should cherish and foster as a society. However, we cannot rule out fraud and I do not believe that anything in this bill increases the possibility of fraud. It may be argued, in fact, that those who will have recourse to using the benefits of this bill, if one likes to put them that way, will in fact mostly be the legal profession advising businesses in the execution of what may well be highly complex documents. Mr Stevenson referred to one document in his experience having 3,000 pages. Many other contractual documents will involve tens, twenties or even more parties who have to execute it. Lawyers will tend to be involved. Therefore, it is reasonable to say without putting lawyers in a higher plane of relative honesty to the rest of the populace that one hopes. I am pleased to hear that there is general assent to that proposition about the honesty of lawyers, not something that one hears every day perhaps. Nonetheless, it seems to me to indicate that, if there is a difficulty, it will not be fraud. Any difficulties that the parties have for the contracts may well be the content of the contracts. As soon as Scots law permitted documents to be validly executed when they did not require to be executed on every page, that could be said to have increased the propensity for fraud to be effectively accomplished. I believe that it is the case, although I am certainly no expert, that some documents, including wills, required until relatively recently as the early 1970s to be signed on every page, or maybe it was even more recent than that. Of course, there is a particular reason for documents to be signed on every page, but if one takes Mr Stevenson's example of a contract with 3,000 pages or perhaps four or five pages but several annexes, are we really saying that we are going to impose on society a legal system where every such page requires to be signed plainly? That would not be a sensible way to proceed. So we have moved away from that. As soon as we move away from that, there is, I think, in theory at least, the propensity for fraud. I think that I was able to demonstrate one example of such a fraud that has taken place, and this is a matter, not a private matter, but one that has come into the public realm and has been raised with ministers, namely the case of Brebner, where a first page of a disposition was defrogin at play, was fraudulent at play. That was replaced with another, which has resulted in an enormous difficulty. Therefore, fraud does occur, and I accept that, but I believe that the circumstances in which the bill will be used will tend to minimise that. Of course, I should say that a party is not bound by a document, which they have signed as the result of a fraud, perhaps induced to sign a document, perhaps somebody elderly induced to sign a document against his or her will. If that is brought about as a result of fraud, that contract will be void. Similarly, if a signature, if my signature is defrauded by somebody else, that contract will be void. It will not be valid, so the law does, if you like, provide protections against fraud. Perhaps more likely is the case of error rather than fraud, and I think that I am correct in saying that the witness from the Faculty of Advocates said so as well. The parties simply will not have validly executed in counterpart if they inadvertently sign different versions of the document, because the bill only relates to documents that are executed in two or more duplicate interchangeable parts. If they have signed different documents, those provisions do not apply. I see that all too soon, Presiding Officer, I am running out of time. I had meant to carry on for quite some time. I had meant to comment on Mr Stevenson's remarks, where he managed to bring in references to Napoleon, Mary, Queen of Scots and the Right Brothers. How he did that, I am not quite sure. Nonetheless, his speech was of occasional tangential relevance. Ms Goldie's contribution by contrast was an example of painstaking forensic analysis of the highest quality, as we have come to expect over several years. I must bow to her superior research, because I have not looked at that 18th-century president, Presiding Officer, the shame of it. However, in conclusion and that notwithstanding, it is my pleasure to thank everybody involved in this bill who has been thanked already, but one other group who has not been mentioned at all is the officials who have provided their support to myself and who have done so in an exemplary and professional fashion. They have made sure to make a serious point that the points raised with the Faculty of Advocates were pursued. I undertook on 28 November that I would ask the Faculty of Advocates if they had anything else to say. We did not get a reply, so I think that one can infer that perhaps they were satisfied with the responses that I gave to Parliament with the benefit of advice from the Scottish Government civil service. In conclusion, a range of good points have been made. Some other ones have been made as well. I welcome the cross-party support for the bill. I think that it will make a difference. I think that it will help to save time, a great deal of time and perhaps a little bit of money, and it will make a modest but positive contribution to the legal profession and indeed perhaps to enterprise in this country of ours. I commend the bill. Many thanks. That concludes the debate on the legal writings, counterparts and delivery of Scotland Bill. It is time to move on to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 12382 in the name of Keith Brown on building Scotland's infrastructure for the future. I invite those members who would like to speak in this debate to press the request to speak buttons now, please, and once members have changed seats. I now call on Keith Brown to speak to it and move the motion, Cabinet Secretary, around 13 minutes. I welcome this opportunity to debate the role of infrastructure investment and to speak about recent activity and the prospects for the future in terms of infrastructure. Despite Westminster's real-terms cuts of around 25 per cent to Scottish capital budgets between 2010, 11 and 2015, 16, we are taking decisive action to accelerate and sustain economic recovery. As confirmed in the budget earlier this month, we will secure investment of almost £4.5 billion in 2015-16 by way of our capital budget, new borrowing powers, revenue-funded investment, regulatory asset base, rail enhancements, capital receipts and allocating some of our resource funding to capital assets. The investment will support an estimated 40,000 full-time equivalent Scottish jobs across the wider economy over the year. Our infrastructure investment plan sets out our long-term strategy for the development of public infrastructure. It sets out why we invest, how we invest and what we will invest in from now until 2030. It also provides, crucially, certainty and transparency to markets and the construction industry by outlining a clear pipeline of major infrastructure projects. Next month, the third annual progress report relating to the plan, together with updated investment pipelines, will show that significant progress has been made in delivering the plan. Today is also a good opportunity to reflect on the excellent progress made already this year on our major infrastructure priorities. First of all, the Queensferry crossing, Scotland's biggest transport infrastructure project in a generation. This project is on track to be delivered on time and within the revised lower budget range. Last month, the new bridge's three giant towers reached half their final height and 10 per cent of the total bridge deck is now in place either side of the towers. The project is providing up to 1,200 job opportunities and a large number of subcontract and supply order opportunities for Scottish companies. The new South Glasgow hospital was handed over to NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde by the contractor at the end of January. The new campus, which is one of the largest hospital complexes in Europe, has maternity, paediatric and adult hospitals all integrated onto a single site. I will do. In terms of the plan that he is going to publish, what assumptions does the Government make about the future status of NPD projects? I think that Gavin Brown will know that there is a challenge from Eurostat currently in terms of the classification of those. We remain confident that non-profit distributing models are viable and we believe that we can meet the requests of Eurostat. We are currently working on that with the ONS. It is our intention to proceed and continue with non-profit distributing models, which have been hugely successful. The delivery to go back to the Glasgow hospital was achieved ahead of schedule and within budget. The overall migration and commissioning process is expected to be complete by June 2015. At its peak, that project supported 1,500 jobs on site. Our £1.8 billion schools for the future programme, which will deliver more than 100 new or refurbished schools by 2019-20, has 18 schools that are complete and open to pupils, 16 currently in construction, and it is estimated to support an average 1,500 jobs at any one time throughout its duration. Earlier this month, I was at the track laying for the Borders railway project. As it was completed between the Borders and Edinburgh, that is the longest domestic railway to be built in the UK in more than 100 years. It has now reached a significant milestone and keeps the line on track to open for passengers in September 2015. The reopening of that line offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a major economic and social boost for the communities that the line will serve. In just a few short months from now, trains will be carrying passengers to employment, social and study opportunities, as well as bringing visitors and investors to the communities all along the route. In addition to the work being progressed on the A96 dualling in Vernest and Nearn, including the Nearn by-pass project, we are also pushing forward with preliminary engineering and strategic environmental assessment work along the whole corridor. That is the first, but not the least important step in developing a robust plan to improve connectivity between Vernest and Aberdeen. I believe that it demonstrates the Scottish Government's commitment to investing in that strategically important route. It will also mean, by the time that that is completed, that every single city in Scotland for the first time will be connected by either a dual carriageway or a motorway—something really that should have been true many years ago. I will do. David Stewart. The developments on the Aberdeen to Vernest route. Would the cabinet secretary share my view that it is also important to invest at rail at the same speed as investing in train and road in order to give passengers alternatives? It is important to ensure that we bear down on journey times right across the rail network. We have done that in many cases. If you look at, for example, the Egypt project, which my colleague Derek Mackay oversees, the result of that will be a 37-minute journey time, which is compatible and competitive in fact with car journeys. I would say that the rail infrastructure that we are dealing with is, in many cases, Victorian, and has not had the investment that it should have had over previous decades. The current transport secretary, Patrick McLaughlin, came to Scotland some time ago and said that the problem in Scotland is that the transport infrastructure has not been invested in for decades. He was right. He was also an extra transport minister back in 1989, but he was right, and we are trying to rectify that. Although I agree with the point being about trying to improve these journey times, it is not possible to do everything at once, as I am sure he has understood. Last November, as I said, one of the biggest contracts to electrify—just to go back to the very point that Dave Stewart raises—the biggest contract to electrify the main Edinburgh to Glasgow rail line was awarded. That £250 million deal, forming part of a £742 million Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, marks a significant milestone in the project, which will provide, as I have said, 20 per cent quicker journey times and 30 per cent more capacity. It will also complete an overhaul of stations in both cities, with the new look tremendous Haymarket station already completed on time and under budget, and the planned transformation of Queen Street station into a 21st century transport hub. Last October, we announced the bidders competing to win the contract to deliver the first of 12 major dualling schemes in the £3 billion A9 dualling programme. The King Craig and Dalraddy contract, worth around £50 million, is expected to be awarded this summer, with construction starting thereafter on the five-mile long stretch of the A9. The Scottish Government has made dualling of the A9 a priority, and I am proud that we were the first administration ever to do that, recognising the range of economic and other benefits that it can deliver. I would also invite the Parliament to welcome the significant progress that we are making across the length and breadth of Scotland. The £3.5 billion MPD hub investment programme is acting to deliver additionality in our programme in the face of what everybody can agree are constrained capital budgets. That programme is the central component of that approach. The £1 billion extension to the programme that we announced last year will build on the success of the programme to date. I am pleased to say that whenever there has been an opportunity to invest further in our economy, this Government has taken that opportunity. In relative terms, our MPD investment programme is currently one of the largest investment programmes of its kind in Europe, and there are projects totaling more than £1.6 billion currently in construction. Earlier this month, NHS Lothian's Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Department of Clinical Neurosciences and the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service project reached financial close. That project is the first acute hospital facility to be procured under the MPD model. Development brings paediatric care, specialist neonatal care, neurosciences and adult insurance emergency departments all together in one place, making access to services much easier for patients and health professionals alike, and that new building is anticipated to open in autumn 2017. The largest contract in the MPD programme was formally awarded in December for the Aberdeen western peripheral route Balmerie tipperty scheme. At the recent meeting in Aberdeen, with the First Minister, she announced that we had just cut the sod on that scheme to a resounding cheer from the 400 to 500 members of the public who were there. That is how long anticipated this project has been. It is the biggest civil engineering project that that area has ever seen and will bring substantial benefits. I think that we estimate around £6 billion worth of benefits over the length of the project, both to communities and businesses and individuals across the whole of the north-east of Scotland. Construction will support around 1,500 jobs in over 100 apprenticeships, graduate places and other training opportunities. That scheme is already bringing short-term economic benefits through £221 million of subcontracts, either put to the market or soon to be advertised. Longer-term benefits are estimated to bring around £6 billion of investment, around 14,000 jobs to the north-east over the next three decades. The scheme will be delivered in stages, with completion expected in winter 2017, around six months ahead of schedule. The two earlier stages are the ones where we have listened to local communities who said that they wanted to see, first of all, Balmerie Tipperty, and that area around the airport, which I am sure Dave Schuert knows very well, which is crucial to the economic activity in that area, getting to the airport and the city centre. Those two things are areas where we have listened to the local community and will advance those two stages. Other major projects within the programme currently include Inverness College and the City of Glasgow College, which, between them, are expected to provide facilities for nearly 50,000 students. Ayrshire College's Kilmarnock campus will deliver state-of-the-art learning facilities and will play a huge part in the on-going regeneration of the town. Of course, the M8, M73 and M74 motorway improvements will create hundreds of jobs and drive significant economic safety and accessibility benefits. It reminds me of the fact that many people in Scotland do not appreciate that we do not even have a full motorway between Edinburgh and Glasgow as things stand, but this project will remedy that by making sure that we have motorway all the way through, as well as the surrounding projects, such as the Wraith interchange. I will do. Willie Rennie. I'm interested in the projects. Indeed, I welcome many of the projects that he's outlined. I'm also interested in just a bit of detail on the £180 billion that the First Minister indicated would be invested in the next Parliament, as to whether he can indicate when that investment would start, what year and in cash terms what would be the breakdown for each year, how much money extra would be invested in each year. Does he have those figures? Cabinet Secretary. Indeed, I'm happy to provide them to Willie Rennie. The £180 million is obviously over the course of the next Parliament, and that's across the UK as well, so that would be the case where Scotland would get its proportionate share. It seems to me eminently sensible for the First Minister to have said that, for a small reduction in the austerity measures that are being pursued by the administration, which Willie Rennie supports, we can alleviate some of the harm and also create a huge amount of benefit by using that £180 billion across the UK for employment opportunities. I would have hoped that he would have got on board with that. Of course, as he said in his amendment that he thinks that's the responsible of the SNP Government, I would only point out that the administration that he supports, the coalition, said that they would reduce the deficit by this stage, by this time, to £5 billion of a surplus. In fact, the reality is that there's a £50 billion deficit that I've already heard from Willie Rennie. That coalition promise has got about as much weight as a Liberal Democrat promise on tuition fees. It's been proven to be wrong, and I think that the approach taken by the First Minister is a much more rational one. Our NPD projects have had a good response in the market and the international investor community, and there have been strong interest. I will do, yes. Forgive me if I can take the cabinet secretary back to the point that you made about the city of Glasgow College. Will he confirm that there will be no consequence for colleges like the one in one constituency, Clyde College, in order to fund the city of Glasgow College? There will be no reduction in provision at Clyde College in order to make the finances stack up for the city of Glasgow College. No, the funding for Glasgow, the new Glasgow City College, has been allocated for quite some time, in fact, back to the time when I was a Minister for Education and back in 2010-11, so the two things are not related. As I say, we have a significant level of international investor interest funding for both the M8, M73, M74, a motorway improvements project and the AWPR. The funding has been supported by the European Investment Bank and a group of investors managed by Allianne's Global Investors, one of the world's leading integrated financial sectors and one of the leading providers. That demonstrates the confidence that there is in the marketplace in the international investor community in the NPD model and that overall Scotland's infrastructure is seen as a viable and desirable long-term investment. Parliament will be aware that infrastructure investment in its widest sense is very central to the Government's economic strategy. In the digital sector this year, we will extend access to next generation fibre broadband to 85 per cent of premises across Scotland in order to stimulate Scotland's digital economy and support businesses to take benefit from digital economy. Our approach to housing and regeneration is fundamental to the Government's overall purpose of sustainable economic growth, tackling inequality, addressing market failure and creating jobs and business opportunities. We are spending more than £1.7 billion in the housing sector to deliver our target of 30,000 affordable homes during the lifetime of this Parliament. We will continue to support large-scale regeneration projects in 2015-16 through Spruce, the £50 million Jessica loan fund and the £25 million regeneration capital grant fund. We will also continue to recognise the need for synergy between Scotland's infrastructure and the rest of the UK. This Scottish Government supports high-speed rail, but not just to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. To realise its full benefit to the UK, the network needs to be extended further and faster to reach Scotland. That will help us to rebalance the British economy and assist with ensuring future competitiveness and economic prosperity across Britain. Today I would challenge the other parties when they have the chance to speak to say quite explicitly, do they support high-speed rail coming to Scotland or do they not? It is a simple question that deserves a simple and straightforward answer. We also continue to facilitate infrastructure investment by others and are actively promoting innovative finance to lever in public and private investment. That is true of the national housing trust initiative, the tax incremental financing scheme, which of course we have the Glasgow City Council's Buchanan quarter project and Falkirk Council's Grain's Mouth project active in that area, as well as the growth accelerator model, which is extremely important. Last August, we announced that the Scottish Government will invest £0.5 billion in infrastructure in Glasgow by way of a city deal agreement between the Scottish Government, UK Government and the eight Glasgow and Clyde Valley councils. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of infrastructure investment and I have set out today some of the significant steps that we are taking to expand investment to secure economic recovery. During 2015 alone, I expect that infrastructure projects worth around £1.5 billion will complete construction and be ready for use and investment supported by this Government in schools, colleges, hospitals and transport. The steps that we are taking demonstrate not just what is being achieved but also what more could be achieved if the UK Government were willing to change its course on public spending. This Government has made that case consistently and I invite Parliament to support it today and I move the motion in my name. I welcome the debate on building Scotland's infrastructure for the future. Today's debate allows us the opportunity to recognise the key role that infrastructure plays in our communities, our towns and our cities. Across Parliament, we made us agree in the strengths and weaknesses of Scotland's infrastructure. However, we should all agree that developing a strong forward-thinking infrastructure policy is crucial to a sustainable and prosperous Scotland. The debate gives us the chance to pause and reflect on where we are with our current infrastructure investment plan and reflect on some of the successes and challenges that have been experienced. Investing in major infrastructure projects is a central element of the Scottish Government's strategy to promote economic recovery. The five largest infrastructure programmes currently under construction are key to improving Scotland's roads and rail network. The five projects will cost a combined £3.8 billion to build, the estimated combined budget commitment over 30 years, reflecting building, financing and operating costs is £7.5 billion. The Scottish Government considers the spending affordable in the long term but still needs to demonstrate the reliability of its analysis, leading to concerns over budget cuts across the portfolio impacting on possible service delivery. Key to Scotland's future infrastructure are the hugely important city deals. With an investment of £1.13 billion from Westminster, the Scottish Government and participating local authorities, the Glasgow city deal is an example of when we can come together for the greater good of Scotland. The city deal is expected to raise £2.2 billion for the local economy as well as creating tens of thousands of jobs through its construction phase and many more permanent jobs thereafter. The city deals create economic growth through infrastructure, innovation, jobs and skills and should be commended for their cross-party approach. Many of the infrastructure projects that I have detailed have an enormous benefit for our local and national economy. While looking at how to build Scotland's infrastructure for the future, it is of benefit to reflect on some of the practices that have gone before and how we can improve on those going forward. Of August last year, a third of the projects that were set out in the infrastructure investment plan have been approved under construction, while 60 per cent have not had an outline business case approved. Good quality business cases are vital for project scrutiny, decision making and transparency. However, according to Audit Scotland, the business audit Scotland for the Borders Railway and Egypt project, business cases were not complete and up to date at all sites. Consecretly, at certain decision points, it had not fully demonstrated the viability, value for money and affordability of the projects. In the same report— Stuart Stevenson? I hear, Presiding Officer, an echo of previous reluctance from the Labour Benches to support Border Rail. Is the member suggesting that the money being invested in Border Rail should have gone elsewhere? No, absolutely not. There is no reluctance on my part to support Borders Railway. I was pleased to hear the cabinet secretary mention when he was speaking about updating on projects, and I look forward to the updates that the cabinet secretary will give us. In the same report, Audit Scotland recommended that the Scottish Government needs to improve public reporting of infrastructure projects. Except for the fourth replacement crossing, Government has not informed the public or the Scottish Parliament of the combined estimated financial commitment arising from those projects. Reporting of the building cost estimates for other projects has also at times been incomplete or inconsistent. A litany of projects have been delayed, including the Aberdeen western peripheral route, Borders Railway, Egypt and the dualling of the A9. That was on top. Do you accept that when campaigners block projects through legal action, there is really not much that the Government can do about that? I am really not sure whether a response is required to that point. The cancellation of Garl, in which almost 29 million of taxpayers' money was also wasted. I will make some progress on this, and I will cover Garl again slightly later. If routine public reporting of those infrastructure projects was to be undertaken, then delays and cost increases could be better understood. One other project where openness and accountability would be appreciated is the Scottish Government's handling of Glasgow Presswick. The report by Audit Scotland shows that the Scottish Government plans to sell presswick airport back to the private sector are viable, but it could take until 2022 for the airport to become profitable. It is recommended that the Scottish Government gives a clear vision and strategy for presswick airport, which takes into account the airport's future development potential. That should include robust business and financial plans, a full evaluation of potential risk and a well-defined and regularly reviewed exit strategy, setting out the timescale for selling the airport to the private sector. There are risks to each project, however, more needs to be done to ensure that new infrastructure projects are developed in a more strategic way, including ensuring that transport links are an integral consideration in the planning process. My colleagues will discuss in greater detail Crossrail, Egypt, the city strategies and Glasgow Presswick. However, in looking forward for Scotland's infrastructure, one area where I would like to see improvement is community engagement and community buy-out. Last Monday in Glasgow's East End, I visited four community-led projects, a housing association, a community transport project, a community hub and a forthcoming music venue. Those projects are run for the community by local people, not pushed by government or council. There is a duty for all levels of government to have a role in supporting the advancement of community projects across Scotland. Between 1999 and 2007, we achieved real change in many communities across Scotland through redevelopment and regeneration of areas because it was the communities that picked up the baton and challenged and led their communities to change for the better. I want to see us support communities again to develop, encourage and embrace a community spirit that will bring long-term positive change. There is a legal requirement for developers to consult communities on applications for national and major developments. The idea for standards came from people on the front line of community engagement. More than 500 people from the statutory and voluntary sectors and the communities themselves were involved in developing and producing them. However, the national standards for community engagement has not been updated since 2005 and it is now time to take a look at how we engage with local communities when building Scotland's infrastructure. Engaging with communities and service users should be an instrumental part of any infrastructure investment plan, especially when it comes to public transport. We must make sure that local people have a say about the trains and buses in their area. We need to regulate bus services to ensure that those who rely on them can continue to use them without their route being threatened by cuts. By backing Ian Gray's bus bill, we give local councils and SPT new powers so that they have some control over routes, timetables and fares. I thank Mary Fee for taking intervention and just to ask her the question that I asked originally because I know that she is running out of time. Is it the case that, as Jim Murphy has said, he is not in favour of high-speed rail stopping in England that she supports high-speed rail coming to Scotland or not? I confirm that I support high-speed rail coming to Scotland. Scottish Labour has already announced, in line with our counterparts down south, that we will seek to bring the rail franchise to a non-profit contract. Scottish Labour is also committed to investing in Glasgow's cross rail scheme, which would potentially carry up to 4 million passengers a year. According to SPT, it could create up to 113 new jobs over 10 years, while contributing 36 million to Glasgow's economy. One final area that needs to be considered when looking at building Scotland's infrastructure is how to incorporate low-carbon infrastructure investment. As WWF points out, the decisions on infrastructure taken now will have an impact for many decades to come. Scottish Government decisions on infrastructure investment need to match the ambition of Scotland's climate change legislation. In conclusion, the Government's motion for this debate rightly recognises the importance of infrastructure investment in sustaining economic growth. We support HS2 as it would deliver high-speed rail to Scotland. However, the motion chooses to entirely blame Westminster for spending deficits, while not acknowledging their own budget responsibilities and decisions. The amendments by Gavin Brown and Willie Rennie both acknowledge the key role infrastructure plays in driving forward regeneration and acknowledges the need for openness, accountability and strategic guidance. My amendment identifies the need for a more strategic and focused approach, while recognising the pressure that we are under. I move the amendment in my name. I will start by moving the amendment in my name. I was interested to open my first email this morning. My first email was an email from the Scotsman with the news summary. The first item in there was an article about how the tough transport supremo Keith Brown was going to destroy the opposition parties in a debate today. He was using this debate as a platform to put them on the rack over high-speed 2, and that was the centrepiece of his speech and indeed the entire debate. Imagine my surprise when it only entered his speech 14.5 minutes into a 13-minute speech, where almost under his breath he whispered that he was going to be pushing HS2 in this debate and move swiftly on to talking about housing trust as quickly as he possibly could. I have to say that if that was him pushing opposition parties, Deputy Presiding Officer, I look forward to hearing him when he is consensual in deciding not to push opposition parties too hard. I am happy to give way to Mr... John Mason. I am interested that the member thinks that he should push things, because his amendment mentions no projects or anything positive whatsoever. Gavin Brown. Our amendment is very clear. It asks for the investment update plan to be published as soon as possible. I am sure that Mr Mason will realise that that investment update plan includes every project, not just some of them, every project that the Scottish Government is doing and some of them that they are probably not doing as quickly as we want. Mr Mason really ought to read amendments a little more carefully before jumping in with interventions like that. Let me pick up on one of the points, because Mr Rennie, in an intervention to the minister, asked about this magical £180 billion. The First Minister dreamt up this scenario where you could quite easily find an extra £180 billion and nobody would notice. There would be no impact at all. It has taken the best part of a week, I have to say, to get any detail from the Scottish Government about where this money is coming from and what it is actually going to do. What is interesting is this, Deputy Presiding Officer, if you follow the Scottish Government plans, it means that you would eventually eliminate the deficit in 2024. Almost two full parliaments away before you start to attack and eliminate the deficit. Deputy Presiding Officer, what then happens to public sector net debt? That barely shifts over the entire four-year projection. It starts at 81, it goes to 79 per cent of GDP. What impact would that have on the markets? What impact would it have on the cost of borrowing? How much extra would it cost Scotland and the rest of the UK in order to get this magical £180 billion? We do not know, Deputy Presiding Officer, but perhaps Mr Mackenzie will be able to shed some light on the issue. I will give way to Mr Mackenzie. Thank you for taking an intervention. I wonder what impact you feel that Mr Osborne failing to meet every single target that he has pledged himself to with regard to borrowing. What impact has that had? Perhaps we need to send a copy of the budget to Mr Mackenzie and indeed the yacht of statement. On just about every economic measure, much to his dissatisfaction, I am sure, the plan appears to be working. Higher growth than any other G7 country this year projected to be higher than every other G7 country, apart from the United States next year. We have the highest employment that we have ever had. Unemployment while too high is far lower than it was expected to be, at just over 5 per cent compared to France where it is 10 per cent or 11 per cent. As a member knows, the deficit was 10 per cent, almost 11 per cent, of GDP when the coalition took office. It is around about 5 per cent of GDP now. That is called cutting the deficit in half, Deputy Presiding Officer. As the member probably well knows too, by 2017-18, there is a projected small surplus. It has been delayed a few years than was planned, but it certainly has not delayed two full parliaments under the Sturgeonomics plan that the Scottish Government appears to have concocted. Let us deal with a couple of other issues that he came up with. He complained about how the capital budget has been cut, but it is entirely up to the Scottish Government how much money it decides from its budget to put into capital. It cannot do it the other way around, so if it was complaining about revenue, we would have to take it on the chin. However, if the Scottish Government wants to shift money from revenue into capital, it is perfectly at liberty to do so, and to no real measurable degree has it chosen to do so. He complained bitterly about the amount of money available, yet, if you look at 2011-12, there was a £30 million underspend on capital. The Government was not able to spend on capital. I accept that Keith Brown was not the infrastructure minister at the time, and perhaps on his watch it will be different. However, that year was not alone. The following year, in 2012-13, £29 million was unable to spend on capital. That is £59 million just over those two financial years. Perhaps Mr Brown will do better than that, and I certainly hope that he will. However, if he is unable to spend all of the money, it is a bit rich to complain about the level of money. I think that I only have 15 seconds left, but I should give way to him. If there is any leeway, I will certainly give way to him. I know that he is coming towards the end of his speech. Have he feels able yet to respond to the point? Does his party support high-speed rail coming to Scotland or not? I ask that again every single time that we have been asked that question. We have said yes, of course we do. We always have done, but it is interesting to note that the Scottish Government only ever wants to debate this issue in the run-up to a general election. The last time the Scottish Government wanted to debate, high-speed two was in the run-up to the last general election. We supported it then and we support it now. Yes, of course we do, but perhaps in the interim, Mr Brown might want to focus on some of the rail services for which he has direct responsibility. In closing, he might want to focus on Scotland. In a briefing from Transport Scotland, they said that Scotland's rail network north of the central belt is in dire need of investment. What promises do we hear from the Government there? They point out that, in 1895, one could get from Dundee to Edinburgh in 57 minutes, but nowadays the fastest rail trip is 64 minutes. He would do better, the Scottish Government would do better to focus on the powers that they have to get their own house in order before they start blaming everybody else and complaining about the powers that they do not have. Willie Rennie, to speak to you in move amendment 1, 2, 3, 8, 2.2, around six minutes please. I begin by moving the amendment in my name. The Government motion today asserts that £180 billion can be borrowed without adding to the national debt. When the minister was asked for some details, starting year, breakdown year by year, he said that he had the detail, then there was a lot of bluster and then there was absolutely no detail at all. In something that is central to the Government's attack on the UK Government, he has not provided any detail at all. It is not a worked out plan, it just seems to be a slogan. I am surprised that the Scottish Government thinks that it can just put forward a slogan and that it should provide some detail instead. I want to give the minister an opportunity again. Can he provide me the detail right now—I will take an intervention—if he can give me the breakdown £180 billion? When does it start and how much per year? Can he give me that kind of detail? The fascinating thing is that it has taken me to intervene on me to provide any kind of detail at all. The fact is that the minister still believes that borrowing that amount of money will reduce the national debt. It will not increase the national debt. I do not know what kind of economics he is involved in. I would like to know from the minister perhaps that he will give me another intervention. How much will the interest rate be? How much will the Government pay extra for that £180 billion? Does he have that kind of detail? Can he tell me? First of all, I do not think that anybody can anticipate what the interests will be given that the Government of the Bank of England has been talking about possibly negative interest rates. Given what he has just said, is he continuing—even given the wipe-out at which Lib Dems are about to experience the election—to continue to support austerity? Is that the only thing? Is poverty of ambition the ambition for austerity? Is that the only council that Lib Dems have? What the Liberal Democrats have been involved in is making sure that we have a stronger economy with 170,000 jobs, which I do not think that any member on the SNP benches will probably be too embarrassed to mention today. 170,000 extra jobs in Scotland is the result of our economic plan, a plan that they said would not be effective. The reality is that the minister does not want to tell us how much extra the cost would be of borrowing that amount of money. That would have a direct impact on schools, hospitals, road projects and rail projects right across Scotland. That is not free money. The reality is that it would cost us, and it would cost us dear. The irony is that the SNP proposes to use the UK growth—the growth that I have just talked about—that Gavin Brown has just talked about to fund that extra borrowing. That is the price, that is the irony of what the minister has outlined today. The UK Government has taken a responsible approach to balance the long-term costs of borrowing it against the entirely natural desire of ministers like Keith Brown to spend as much as possible, but that is the balance that the SNP is going to break. If they could tell us any detail about the future, how much that will cost, I would have greater confidence in the minister to handle those matters, but the balanced approach of the UK Government is about to be undermined if the SNP were to get its own way. We know that it is a bad idea, because of those members, and I am sure that every member on the SNP's back benches will have read the Fiscal Commission, which recommended that the Scottish Government should follow the UK downward trajectory on dealing with the deficit. That is about to be ignored today. Consigned to the dustbin, that is the impact. All of that is just simply for a slogan. I also want to add to the points that Gavin Brown has made today about the Scottish Futures Trust. My party has been concerned about the way the Scottish Government and the Scottish Futures Trust has handled capital spending. Remember that the trust could not get 80 per cent of its capital out of the door in the first year. Now we find, from a written answer—not from an oral statement in the chamber, but from a written answer from John Swinney—the eight hub projects that were due for financial closure are being delayed. Can the minister say whether those projects will include projects such as Newerhouse Centre in Edinburgh, which is part of the Lothian health bundle, Kelso High School, Anderson High School in Lerwick, New Battle High School, Baldragon Academy in Dundee? Many other projects, right across Scotland, will be potentially directly impacted by the Government's mishandling of the project. On high-speed rail, my party has been committed to high-speed rail and bringing it to Scotland. We do not need a motion to tell us to do that today. Gavin Brown is right about that. I am interested, however, in what has happened to the Scottish Government's plan for a high-speed rail route between Edinburgh and Glasgow. That was announced back in 2012. An SNP pressurly said at the time, and I quote, The SNP has refused to wait for Westminster to put Scotland in the fast lane, has committed to high-speed rail between Glasgow and Edinburgh. The pressurly's went on to say, this announcement from the SNP Government means we will have high-speed rail even before the completion of the London to Birmingham HS2 line. However, according to reports from the newspapers, the high-speed rail line needs to be brought to Scotland before anything happens here. It gets worse. An official from the Scottish Government said that nobody has announced high-speed rail. We need some clarity from the minister. What has happened to the promise that this would get in Scotland before it even got to Birmingham? Where are the details? Where is the plan? Where is the route? We need to know that kind of detail or is it just another one of the Government's promises that comes to nothing? I will turn to the open debate. I would be grateful if members who wish to speak in this debate could ensure that the request to speak buttons are pressed. At speeches of six minutes, I call Mike McKenzie to be followed by Johann Lamont. One of the defining features of this Government's budgets over recent years has been the transfer of budget from resource to capital in an effort to at least partially offset the damaging cuts from Westminster, which have disproportionately targeted capital spending. It is difficult to fall on the logic of the London Government in cutting the Scottish Government's capital budget by a full 26 per cent because it is the exact opposite of economic wisdom on recession economics. The logic of capital investments in infrastructure is not just about the economic multipliers that accompany such investment. It is not just about the increased number of jobs that this supports and creates. It is also about our long-term competitiveness because capital investment is not just an investment in the present. It is also an investment in our future. Without this investment, our competitiveness declines. Without this investment, our productivity declines. Without this investment, our national wealth and wellbeing decreases. All of our problems and challenges increase. However, this policy is not just about throwing money at public projects, as Labour did, or throwing money at the private sector through PFI contracts, as both Labour and Tories would like us to continue doing. It is about steering a prudent middle course, and it is about seeking genuine value from the public investment. It is about ensuring added value from public investment, showing that there is a virtuous course to be steered between public inefficiency that we used to hear about on the one hand and private sector greed on the other. Perhaps no project exemplifies those virtues better than the Queensferry crossing. I would have settled for on-time and on-budget for the Queensferry crossing, but at this stage in construction to be on course for on-time and below-budget is a remarkable achievement. We should rightly celebrate an achievement that we should learn from, a standard that we should set for all public contracts. When we set those high standards for public sector project delivery, we can also set a sustainable model for comprehensive and continual capital infrastructure investment and improvement. Then we can also bring into being the long-term certainty that is provided by the infrastructure investment plan. It is a great pity that the Labour Party has forgotten the lessons that we learned from Keynes following the last great recession. It is a great pity that they are unable to learn the enlightened view of debt that he demonstrated in negotiating the war debt over a suitably long period. It is a great pity that they have forgotten the lessons from their political forefathers who built their way out of the looming post-war recession, for they understood that you cannot cut your way out of recession. Not if your goal is long-term competitiveness, not if your goal is long-term increases in productivity, not if your goal is long-term prosperity, but you can build your way to prosperity by investing in infrastructure, by investing in jobs, high-quality jobs, certainly. The £180 billion that he talks about, would his preference be to use taxation to collect that £180 billion or to borrow the £180 billion or a mixture of the two? That is an interesting intervention, because Gavin Brown knows full well that it is a more complex scenario than that. Gavin Brown knows that by stimulating growth, taxation will increase and that it is not a matter of higher punitive tax rates, it is a matter of stimulating the economy and thereby increasing taxation. I am pretty sure that Gavin Brown also knows that, had Mr Osborne followed that kind of wisdom, we would be in a far better place than we are now, because as Gordon Brown said, unlike what Gordon Brown said, nobody can stop the boom and swamp cycle, and it just so happens that we are approaching the boom phase of that cycle now. As I was saying, you can build your way towards prosperity by investing in infrastructure, by investing in high-quality jobs and by investing in our future. That is why the SNP Government is calling on the Chancellor to use his budget to scrap the austerity project to bring forward a half-a-percent year-on-year increase to budgets. That is only a half-a-percent, because this argument is not about cutting the debt, it is about how we cut it, it is about the speed of debt reduction and it can be done in a way, if we keep on Mr Osborne's course, in a way that leaves a harmful legacy, or it can be done the Scottish Government's preferred way, where we continue to invest more in infrastructure. Building our competitiveness, building our productivity and building a better future for everyone in Scotland. Thank you, and I call Johann Lamont to be followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is, of course, an important debate and I am happy to contribute to it. Those of us who have been here since 1999—actually, I think that I am the first person in this debate who has been here as long as that, and I do not look at it—will know that the whole debate around infrastructure projects has not necessarily always been a happy one, whether it has been this building itself, whether it has been the trams or indeed whether it has been Garrel. I think that there have, over the time, whether it is the western peripheral route and the Hudigan roundabout of which I knew probably far more than was healthy for me when I was leader. It feels I have been talking about these things since Muthusla was a boy, but we know that the reason they have been contentious is because we precisely understand why infrastructure and investment in construction is so important. I welcome the fact that, for example, it is an inquiry into the trams, but I do regret still the decision to sell off the land around the Garrel project when still the idea of Garrel remains alive, because it makes it more difficult to resuscitate that project at a later stage. We know that the importance of infrastructure projects is particularly important in tough times. I know in my constituency that the construction of the M77 was not just about increasing transport measures, but it opened up economic opportunity to parts of my constituency that would not have been there, otherwise the truth is also the case in the M74. We also know that, in order to benefit from infrastructure projects, things do not happen by accident. I would be interested in the view of the cabinet secretary who precisely takes the lead among the Government's agency in linking the creation of economic opportunity, ensuring that a community and local regeneration level is delivered. I would also make the observation that, in tough times, I think that we have to apply a different set of rules to infrastructure plans than when resources are perhaps easier. In my view, there is a huge opportunity through infrastructure to create jobs, to support local businesses, to sustain communities, but that is not inevitable. In fact, I have been on record in regretting the way in which the Queensferry project meant that there were less opportunities to create economic opportunities for local businesses. Contracts are different at different times. Simply saving on a budget is not necessarily, in reality, a saving when you are denying yourself the opportunity to create these economic opportunities at a later stage. I do believe that it is essential that there is a rigorous reporting on analysis of the economic, social and environmental impact of particular infrastructure projects that have already happened in order to inform us about how they should be taken forward in the future. He will know as well as I do the importance of particular infrastructure in creating and directing the role of our cities. We have heard a lot about city deals and so on, but we also know that the ability of cities to generate economic opportunities at that level can be supported by decisions made at a Scottish level. I would simply reflect the importance of Crossrail at this time. I know that others will be talking about it in particular in regard to the west of Scotland and Glasgow in particular. I hope that the cabinet secretary will forgive me if I concentrate on one particular infrastructure project. That is the new South Glasgow hospital, which is referred to in the motion. We know that important development is exciting and massive. We commend all those who have brought it to this stage so successfully in the amount of work that it has created and the opportunities that it creates in the future. We recognise that it is a Glasgow facility, a Scottish facility and a centre of excellence beyond Scotland. It is not just a health project but a significant opportunity economically, both at the construction stage and at this later stage. We know that that project was delivered through cross-party support. I certainly welcome the improved health outcomes that may come from that development and the opportunity for local jobs and local economic regeneration as a consequence of so many people being in the locality. However, I cannot overstate the degree of unease, if not anger, locally about the impact of the project on those communities. On a cross-party basis, I believe that we have a responsibility to respond to and respect that concern. The impact of a significantly higher workforce, the number of patients that we are coming in, the way in which it is drawing businesses related to medicine, the way in which academic university research work is being drawn to that area. There is a huge impact on the workforce of simply accessing their work as a consequence of the project. However, it is a massive impact on the local community, particularly in relation to parking and transport. Inevitably, measures will need to be put in place to protect local streets. There will need to be parking measures, but local people present in the strongest terms the need for them to have to pay for that as a consequence of decisions that were outwith their control. It is essential to understand and take responsibility and seek to mitigate the impact of such an infrastructure project on local people who say, yes, we have a Scottish-wide facilities, we did not ask for it but we are going to have to pay for the consequence of that. I think that we need to look collectively at looking at the transport support that is there. What resources could be provided to ease the impact on local people? A project worth £800 million, I believe, would take a tiny proportion of that to ensure that the hospital is a good neighbour to local communities rather than a concern for them. It is a national project. In this motion it is argued as if not boasted of as a national project, so I believe that it should be seen as necessary to address the consequences of that national project. I believe that the Scottish Government is part of the solution. I have already spoken to the health secretary about this. I do not believe that it is a matter for the health budget but I do think that it is a matter for the infrastructure budget. I urge the cabinet secretary to meet me and, if possible, with constituents and groups to respond to their concerns, to understand the significant impact that it is having on them and to identify with all those who want to celebrate the great project solutions that will address their concerns. I repeat that I welcome the hospital. I celebrate the difference that it could make to people's lives but, in conclusion, I hope that it is summing up the cabinet secretary or, indeed, the transport minister will confirm his willingness to meet me and others to identify the resources that are a logical conclusion of the already put-in investment of £800 million that will address that very strong sense of injustice at a local level that they are having consequences of something that we all want to celebrate. If we want to see that hospital open in the best of circumstances, I think that it is now incumbent on all of us to find a way of responding to that, not by taking out of the health budget or the council budget but directly out of the very budget that we have celebrated as creating jobs and opportunities both at a local and a Scottish level. I now call Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Nigel Dawn. While I speak in this debate in the personal capacity, I draw members' attention to my honorary vice-presidency of rail future UK and to my being the honorary president-elect of the Scottish Association for Public Transport. By the way, in the current climate, I say that I receive no pay whatsoever for either of those appointments. Perhaps I should also say that I am a regular user of the One Scotland card, which gives me access to schedule bus services throughout Scotland at no cost to myself. It is a timely debate in my case to celebrate what has been achieved in public transport and to highlight some of the remaining challenges and interesting contributions so far. I take it, given the remarks of Gavin Brown, that he is responsible for the fact that today flying from central London to central Paris is slower than it was in 1931. When the Imperial Airways service, which operated from Croydon to Lutwcay, costs four guineys a lot cheaper than today, although, of course, the value of money is different. I take it that Willie Rennie, in criticising proposals to spend more on capital expenditure and improve the economy, reductio out-of-surbant would abolish the entire capital programme because that would be of enormous benefit to the economy. However, I carry it a little further than perhaps he would seriously take it. On our railways, we have a network in Scotland that makes a great deal more sense than many geographically. Less than 10 per cent of rail journeys starting in Scotland end out with our country. That is a smaller proportion than is the case for any other area of the Great Britain rail network. That is trying to play two very important things about cross-border rail. First of all, only 10 per cent or so of public transport journeys from Scotland to London are by rail. Most are by air. That is a ferocious and unnecessary burden on our environment. Currently, times favour air, travel times are slightly better by air, perhaps by around an hour. However, the reliability of rail travel is substantially greater, and the nature of rail travel from city centre to city centre without mode changing and transport that gives you access to wi-fi, hot and cold running drinks and relaxation means more relaxed, more ready for work passengers at journeys end. If we look at what is actually happening on climate, we are having the worst of all winters on the east coast of the United States, telling them the effect of climate change. On the east coast, we are seeing significant problems in getting access to water, which is now extending into the Midwest in the summer, showing that if you over exploit the environment, the environment will bite back. The issue of high-speed rail is both economic but also climate. We have to get out of the air and onto rails. In the shorter term, if we can speed up the journey, that will be helpful, and it has to happen soon. It will take some time to get HS2 into place, but there are huge economic benefits as well as huge benefits to the climate. It is one of the most important projects for everyone who lives in this island and people who live around the world that we address that issue. I want to say a few targeted remarks, chosen more or less at random from some of the things that we might be thinking about doing that we have not heard from. First, perhaps we need to look at the rail infrastructure to better support freight. We have seen huge success up to Inverness, with Tesco putting its dry goods on to the railway network, and that has had a huge number. If it is very brief, please. The member gave way, and I think that it was in the member's remit when he did a lot for freight facilities grant. I strongly support freight facilities grant, but would you share my view that it is crucially important, particularly for north lines, that we have a more dualling of track? A basic problem that we have is lack of constraint or lack of capacity in these lines? Where freight is concerned, it is actually a slightly different problem, I may suggest. I do not underplay the value of dualling, but not for freight. For freight, if we were to get the fresh goods on to the rail network, the important thing is that we have a resilient network with alternate routing, so that the delivery of fresh goods is not compromised by technical problems that will occur in the best managed of networks. I think that that is where we need to freight enable more of the network, the alternate route, round by Aberdeen. We have done quite a lot under the previous Government and under this Government, and to that extent I hope that we will see signalling between Aberdeen and Inverness become a priority. It is quaint and fascinating to see the token working between Elgin and Forrest, but a 160-year-old system might be capable of being updated. The same token north of Inverness is perhaps time that we saw a little bit about the plans to replace the obsolete, no longer just obsolescent, obsolete radio token system. Looking to roads, the success of the average speed cameras in the A9, saving lives, reducing accidents and improving journey times overall for the mix of traffic that we have, I think indicates that we should have more of that on our road-neck workers. I hope that Willie Rennie will speak to his colleague Danny Alexander, who should be prepared to change his mind as others have done on other subjects. I travelled on the Stirling-Allowick in Cardinaline on the day it opened, travelling on the footplate of the Great Marquis, a steam train. I have diverted to travel on the first day of the Borders rail. I travelled across the fourth road bridge in 1964 on the day it opened. My great-uncle was chair of the campaign committee in the 1930s for that, and I very much look forward to crossing at the earliest possible opportunity on the new road bridge across the fourth. We are making huge progress. There will never be a day when we don't have more things each and every one of us want to do. We have to prioritise. Broadly, we are making good choices. I look forward to much more being spent on rail, perhaps, than has been in the future as a share of the budget, but good progress and congratulations to the Government. I now call Nigel Dawn to be followed by Paul Martin. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I have to say that this is one debate that I could look forward to as an opportunity to talk for half an hour about capital investment and infrastructure in my constituency. It would require no notes, whatever. However, I haven't got that long, which is why I do need some notes in order to make sure that I stick somewhere near a script. I would like to start by addressing the issue that has been raised by Gavin Brown and Willie Rennie, because I think we need to just bear in mind that capital goods—and these gentlemen know this—capital goods are not just money spent. You actually get quite a lot of things for capital expenditure. You get the capital goods themselves, which may have enormous value for a very long period of time if they are properly constructed. We live across the daily bridges that were constructed. You get the benefit of the capital in the short term, because it was a project that had some justification. There was some benefit to be derived on an annual basis for that capital expenditure, otherwise it would never have been chosen. You also get the opportunity, and Stuart Stevenson pointed out one of those, just improving the railway network gives you an alternative way of getting there. It's the kind of redundancy that you need in any system. That's why electricity systems have multiple loops in them, in such a way that if something breaks down, actually the sky doesn't fall in. That's the kind of benefit you get from just improving infrastructure systems anyway. You also get work, jobs, productive jobs, skilled jobs, opportunities for apprenticeships and training, which means that you're able to develop the skills of those who are coming along. You're also retaining the skills of those who are actually working on the job. If anybody was to talk to the construction industry at the moment, they would recognise that one of the real problems that the construction industry has is that the downtown has actually sent skilled people away and they're struggling to get them back, because they've gone to do something else, and to some extent they've lost those skills. Those are some of the benefits, and I would just gently point out that the economic multiplier is greater than one. Actually, capital expenditure is the thing to do. Yes, you do have to find a way of paying for it in the short term, but it is well known that you get that money back in time. So Mike McKenzie was absolutely wrong whether this is absolutely right. The discussion about whether you're going to pay for it by borrowing or tax actually does become run under the well and half of the moment because in time the tax will replace the borrowings. Why did the Scottish Government only switch a tiny fraction of funding from revenue to capital? I'm not going to answer for every pound or penny or even a million, but let's be clear that that's always a choice, because you have other things to do with that revenue, particularly when that revenue is dropping. So it is always choices, and we know that, and we know it is always choices, and no-one's ever denied that. Now, Presiding Officer, I wouldn't get through this afternoon without mentioning some of the issues in my constituency, because probably my constituents wouldn't let me. But I'm going to pick up on just one thought from what Johann Lamont said, if I may. First of all, can I say, I do have to agree with that. I think we should have an assessment of projects. I don't know quite how long it takes to get there, but I really do think, and I suspect the Scottish Government does this, a serious look at the numbers and the benefits, because unless we learn from things that were done past, it doesn't matter whether we did them or you did them before you did them, unless we actually learn the benefits and try and get to the economics of that, we're not going to learn the lessons. And we really should be doing so. Can we also actually sympathise with the problem about parking around a hospital? I was elected as the councillor for the Nine Wells Ward in Dundee about three weeks, I think, before they brought in the parking scheme to accommodate the fact that car parks had then been privatised. Can I sympathise at a personal level with the problem of actually having to deal with that? However, it is not insoluble. The issue is to make sure that it's seen to be handled sensibly and sensitively to everybody involved. But I do understand there's a problem there. Right, Presiding Officer, I have two minutes to consider the issues. My constituents would be extremely upset if I didn't start with roads. Can I say that there is absolutely no need to talk about the Lawrence Coat Junction to the Cabinet Secretary, and therefore I am not going to. But it is at least mentioned. Trains, I think this is actually one of the important issues about which we could wax eloquent for quite some time. We do need, I think, to do what we can to improve the network. Our great-grandchildren are going to wonder why we've spent so much money on roads. There's an answer. We know the answer. It's the current way of doing things. But we also know and they will recognise that actually the better way to move a tough around is on railways, and it's a great pretty that Dr Beeching got his axe out when he did because we're living with the consequences of that. I merely mentioned that actually the best way I would suggest in terms of routing to improve the position from the central belt to Aberdeen is actually to come up from Dundee via essentially the route of the A90, which would put railways back into forfer and breakin and allow them to Lawrence Coat, but it actually eliminates the problems around Montrose and I'm sure the minister will either be aware of that or reflect on them in due course. I'd also like to reflect, Presiding Officer, that the Government has spent quite a lot of money on flood protection, significant money visibly being spent in breakin at the moment and another scheme to come in Stonehaven in due course. These things are important, perhaps they get forgotten about rather a lot. We've also got three new secondary schools being built or finished in the case of Mern's Academy and I'm grateful for those as of course on my constituents. But I'd like to finish by looking at the position on broadband because it's entirely clear to me that we are moving to a situation where government resources need to be focused on broadband. The government knows this, I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know, but our ability to deliver on the NHS in remote areas of which I have many is only going to be done if we have the ability to Skype or the equivalent. You need broadband up the glens if those folk are not to be seriously disenfranchised. That's plainly where BT is not going to go, I have talked to them about it. The cabinet secretary mentioned 85 per cent coverage, the trouble is that I and he have got some of the other 15 per cent. Those 15 per cent are going to be seriously disenfranchised. If we don't grasp that this will somehow or other please we need to find a way of addressing that, though I recognise that it should be UK money, but that's for another day. I call Paul Martin to be followed by Jim Eadie. I say like others and I think for every speaker so far we've all repeated the point of the importance of investing in Scotland's future infrastructure. We're all at one in that and I think there are several strands to this debate which I think we can take place and that's some of the local interests that we have and at the same time the national interests that we have at the same time. I would like to first of all start with a local interest regarding the Royston area in my constituency and the minister is aware of the background concerning Royston factor since its conceptions came forward from Glasgow City Council's local plan. It's always been intended that railway station would be developed in Royston since the development of Royston which has seen over 2000 houses being built since the 1990s and there continues to be development in the Royston area. I have welcomed the interaction with the minister on the subject along with other elected representatives and I think it's welcomed that we've moved forward. The minister is aware that we are at the stage of taking forward the appraisal of the Royston railway station and we're at that crucial stage where our application has to be submitted for final approval from the station fund. I would welcome clarity from the minister on his concluding remarks in respect of the stage that the station fund is at in terms of the expenditure that's available to the station fund and indeed if the fund is still accepting applications as we speak. I think the minister has and all of us recognise the importance of a Royston railway station in the future of not just a Royston area but the railway network at the same time. I think that we also recognise on a national level in respect of the future of Glasgow. It does depend on the necessary funds that have been put in place to develop a transport infrastructure that deals with many of the challenges that Glasgow faces. If we look at the population of Glasgow over 600,000 people, it's not just that population that we have to support in Glasgow but it's also those who depend on Glasgow's infrastructure to travel to and from work as part of their everyday working lives. I've got to say in a less positive note, Presiding Officer, the concerns that have been raised by a number of Glasgow residents in respect of the cancelling of the Garrel project. I think that we need to recognise that when it was revealed in October 2013, nearly £30 million of public money was spent on the butchered Glasgow airport link proposal. It was interesting to note that, from spokesperson and not from the Government directly, their quote says that £176 million of capital investment had been saved as a result of cancelling that project. I think that the minister does have to answer for the fact that this was a project that was agreed in this Parliament by the vast majority of those who are represented here today. Government ministers represented here today supported the Garrel proposal. I think that this would be more than happy if John Mason wants to apologise to the Glaswegians for the cancelling of the Garrel project and be more than happy to give way to John Mason. I wonder if he would accept that the difficult argument for Garrel is because the airport is so close to the city centre, the bus link is so good that the rail does not really give a lot of addition. I challenge John Mason to meet those who commute to and from Glasgow airport and tell them that they have a good bus link in place. I have never, in any of the feedback that I have either heard from the constituents or indeed the business community who supported this proposal, ever heard the comment, yes, we are very happy with the airport link. If we look at some of the challenges that we face in Glasgow in particular in any motorway, it will continue to be a challenge in respect of the build-up of traffic that takes place to and from that very link. For John Mason to be an apologist for the SNP and to apologise in such a form to say that yes, you have a perfectly substantial bus link in place is absolutely wrong and shows how off-touch that John Mason and the SNP are in this issue. I am also looking at the benefit to the economy of this investment in the Glasgow airport link. For every £1.20 spent on this, we would have benefited £1.25 to the Scottish economy. The actual benefit to the Scottish economy alone would have been substantial benefit in that respect. Can I just conclude on one other project? I am more positive, not on one that I would like to take forward with the Scottish Government. In doing so, I pay tribute to the campaigning skills of Ken Sullivan, who has taken forward the argument for Glasgow's crossrail project. Some very powerful arguments have been made by the campaigners in favour of the Glasgow's crossrail project. I would ask the Government to take on board and take into consideration the additional borrowing powers that will be available to them to take forward this project. I would ask the Minister and his concluding remarks to comment specifically on the Glasgow crossrail project and how, indeed, we could work together on what would be a very important project for Glasgow and, perhaps in some way, redeem ourselves in respect of the counselling of the Garl project. Can I just say in conclusion once again that we will welcome this debate? I think that there are some very positive aspects of the Government's proposals that have been brought forward today, and we welcome them. However, there are some other elements of this, which I hope we can work together with the Government in taking forward, but of course we have to expose some of those cancelled projects that have been unacceptable in the history of this Government. The Scottish Government, as we have heard this afternoon, has maintained investment in infrastructure in key areas such as transport, health, schools and housing. It has done so against the backdrop of austerity and a cut to its capital budget of one quarter imposed by Westminster. However, unpalatable that fact may be to members and the Liberal Democrat and Conservative. The Infrastructure Investment Plan, published in 2011, sets out the ambition to invest billions of pounds in more than 80 major capital projects between now and 2030. Considering that the Scottish Government's economic strategy aims to grow our economy, it is vital that we plan for the future. My constituency of Edinburgh, Sutherland, is seeing excellent development in its schools and hospitals. In the £1.25 billion Scotland's schools, the Scottish Government plans to invest billions of pounds in more than 80 major capital projects between now and 2030. The Scottish Government plans to invest billions of pounds in its schools and hospitals. In the £1.25 billion Scotland's schools for the future programme is delivering for our communities. Both Burymure High School and James Gillespie High School cater to the young people of my constituency and both schools are finally seeing much-needed new facilities being built. Work began last year on a new Burymure high school building in Fountainbridge on a brownfield site at the former Fountain Brewery, with an estimated cost of between £20 million to £30 million. It will see around 1,165 pupils benefiting from fantastic new facilities, which will provide an impressive learning environment. James Gillespie High School is also seeing investment. I was delighted to attend the ceremony to mark the construction progress of the rebuild project in May of last year, alongside the headmaster, Donald J. MacDonald and pupils from the school. The £34 million project will see brand new facilities being built, which will cater for 1,150 pupils. The Scottish Government has pledged to support more than £20 million of the cost of the project. Both of those projects are expected to be completed by the summer of 2016. However, those school developments are not just about planning for the future. They contribute to Scotland's economy now, and this is a key part of the Government's infrastructure investment plan. Increased spending and infrastructure programmes such as those not only equips our young people with a first-class education in new modern facilities, it also has a direct impact on Scotland's economy, supporting jobs and apprenticeships locally. The Scottish Government is not just investing in new schools. Following the tragic death of Keen Wallace Bennett at Liberty High School last year, the existing gym hall has now been demolished and work is under way to replace it with new facilities. The City of Edinburgh Council estimates the cost at up to £2.5 billion, and the Scottish Government's offer to contribute two thirds of this expenditure is to be welcomed. Edinburgh has also seen much-needed investment in its hospitals, including the Royal Edinburgh Hospital and the Royal Hospital for Sick Children. The new Royal Hospital for Sick Children will be located at the site of the existing Edinburgh Royal Infirmary in Little France, and the Department of Clinical Neurosciences will also be based there. That will create a world-class centre of excellence on a single site, and work is due to start in summer 2017 to deliver this £227 million investment. We are also due to see the redevelopment of the Royal Edinburgh campus at Morningside in four phases over the next 10 years. Many local people were disappointed that the Tipperland bowling club could not be accommodated within the new plans, despite having been part of the initial agreement document and the revised proposals. A serious question remains over whether the health board has followed through on the historic commitments that it made in 1978 to provide equivalent facilities if the site was ever required for future building, but that is not a matter for today. The £48 million phase 1 development started in January 2015 and is expected to be completed by autumn 2016. That includes new accommodation for an adult mental inpatient service, older people's mental health assessment, an intensive psychiatric care service and the new Robert Ferguson national brain injury unit. In November 2015, the Scottish Government committed a further £120 million for future phases of campus redevelopment. That investment will allow the Royal Edinburgh hospital to become the premier mental health facility in Scotland, with better public access through the site, including paths and cycleways. That final point allows me to return to a favourite subject of mine, which is, of course, investment in cycling infrastructure. I was delighted that the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney, heeded my call and provided some £3.9 million of the money coming to Scotland through the Barnett formula for investment in cycling. This year, the largest ever Scottish Government investment, almost £40 million, is going into cycling and walking. It is now encouraging to see the difference that this investment is making, whether it be the £750,000 to plug the gap in the national cycle network at Strathire to King's House in partnership with Loch Lomond and Trossach's National Park, or closer to home in Edinburgh, where additional funding of up to £3.6 million has been earmarked for leaf walk for the creation of an exemplar urban corridor to prioritise walking and cycling. Much of the investment is matched by partners, for example, through the community links programme of £19 million, such strands generated some further £25 million in match funding in 2014-15. I want to end with a reference to skills. In order to successfully build and maintain future first rate infrastructure such as our schools and hospitals, we must ensure that the workforce in the construction and engineering sectors are fully equipped with the relevant skills in training. We need to ensure that colleges across Scotland do not discontinue important courses linked to our construction and engineering industries. The continuation of the national certificate and higher national certificate building services engineering courses, which are currently under threat at Edinburgh College, are designed to directly prepare young people to work in the engineering and construction industry. Those qualifications offer a clear and proven vocational path to many exciting job opportunities, jobs that are significant in maintaining and developing Scotland's infrastructure. In conclusion, despite the budgetary constraints within which it is compelled to operate, the Scottish Government remains determined to deliver vital infrastructure projects, jobs and economic growth for the future benefit of the people of Scotland. Many thanks. I now call Linda Fabiani to be followed by Margaret McDougall. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am tempted to say that I agree with Jim Eadie and sit down because I thought he spoke. Thank you very much, Gavin Brown. It was really interesting reading the Scottish Government's motion because in itself it is almost like a piece of literature, but that is testament to the amount of work that has been done here and the amount of things that have to be said. I am also refreshing my own memory about the infrastructure investment plan, the update in 2013. A lot of things in here are on-going since the time that the first infrastructure investment plan was published and even the update. I would like to say right at start that I was very pleased to hear Mary Fee saying that the very much support Scotland being included in NHS 2 and I hope that the other parties too will be able to confirm that support in their closing speeches so that we have the strength of this Parliament behind the Government when they make the case, as far as I am concerned, a case that has to be made for bringing high-speed rail to Scotland. Then looking at the amendments that have been put in concerning things in there, I noted that Paul Martin said that generally there is an agreement that would go forward in the infrastructure here with some justifiable concerns about different things. One thing that struck me looking at crossrail in the Labour motion was that we have not heard a lot of the unionist parties talking about the London Crossrail project and the fact that Scotland has been contributing to that. To then think what indeed Scotland could do with fiscal autonomy with that £400 million share, but there you go. Also looking at the Liberal motion, which is expressing concern about the SNP's fiscal plans about increasing debt and diverting money from infrastructure to debt interests for a generation. I absolutely believe that we have made the case and shown the case that you can manage a deficit down without actually attacking the social fabric of society, which is what the coalition Government and Westminster is quite clearly doing in my opinion. I was interested that Willie Rennie was talking about the price of borrowing the price of price. That is an argument against any borrowing whatsoever if you start going down that route. I will tell you what I think is more important. It is the price of austerity. I asked people out there about price, asked them about the price of austerity measures that are wrecking the fabric of our society and making things really difficult for single people, families and working people across our country. That is a true price that is not worth paying for anything, as far as I am concerned. I also noticed concern about the Scottish Futures Trust being mentioned as well. I am more concerned about the on-going price cost of the private finance initiative, which was entered into with great gusto by the Labour-Liberal coalition in this Parliament over the first eight years of it. Not just for the capital cost but for the on-going management. We suffer still from that in Lanarkshire health board paying the price of PFI in terms of ancillary services on going. It is in fact the Scottish Futures Trust that is now looking into the possibility of trying to bring some of that back into the public sector, which I think is an admirable thing to be doing. If we are talking about the private finance initiative and the Scottish Futures Trust with a non-profit distribution method of financing public projects, I know what I would pick every single time. I think, too, that this Government is to be commended for the husbandry of resources in terms of infrastructure and the way that projects have been managed. I am too often with big public sector projects and mega projects. I am absolutely convinced that over the years—and not just in this country but in many countries—there is almost a deliberate underestimation of the cost because everybody knows that once something gets far enough down the road, it has to be completed. One thing about this Government is that it has been very honest up front and transparent about the cost of things and how they are being monitored and managed. That is showing in some of the results that we are getting in my constituency. I am really pleased that there has been quite a bit of investment going on. The M74 motorway is going to be a great improvement. The link around the Wraith interchange is going to be a great improvement for East Kilbride expressway and allowing better access to the rest of Lanarkshire and to our cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Just yesterday, I was looking at the Hunter health centre, and there was 20 million investment by the Government. It is not just straight from Government through the Scottish Futures Trust that you often see that Government investment infrastructure. Doll and Aqua Centre in East Kilbride is an example of funding from Sport Scotland. You get a lot of different ways that Government actually invests in our infrastructure. One of the most important things that I think is very unique in the UK at the moment is this Government in Scotland's approach to infrastructure and investment. It is not just about big projects, small projects, medium projects. Investment in people should always count when you are doing those things. SNP policies such as free childcare, free tuition fees and free prescriptions absolutely highlight our commitment to improving the lives of people and increasing opportunity. Nicola Sturgeon, First Minister, has made that very clear in a lot of the talks that she has done lately and in a lot of the presentations that she has made. One of the biggest infrastructure projects that we should all be thinking about in this Parliament and for the next Parliament is investment in the infrastructure of our people, because that is how we will really be successful. I welcome this opportunity to speak in building Scotland's infrastructure for the future debate. I am going to focus on Prestwick Airport because it is an important link not just to the rest of the UK but to Europe and beyond. As such, it is vitally important to the economy of Ayrshire and it provides thousands of jobs. By way of background, Prestwick Airport is of great strategic importance as it adds around £47.6 million to the Ayrshire economy, while in a wider Scottish context this figure is £61.6 million. The airport directly supports 300 jobs and around 1,350 jobs indirectly, while the wider aerospace industry around Prestwick is estimated to support around 3,200 jobs. Despite around £10 million in investment from the Scottish Government, the airport still looks very tired and still needs further support to see it through this very difficult period before it can start to make profits so that it can pay back the Government loans and be sold on. Indeed, the recent Audit Scotland report estimates that total funding needed before a return to profitability in 2021-22 would be around £40 million. Unfortunately, the cabinet secretary has left the chamber, but does the cabinet secretary think that this is a reasonable estimate and when can we expect a business plan so that everyone is kept informed of progress? In the last year, there has been a drop in passenger numbers of around 15 per cent, mainly due to Ryanair, the only airline operating from Prestwick at the moment, transferring flights to Glasgow City Airport. There has been an increase in the freight business over the past year and an encouraging increase in the amount of military usage due to the length and density of composition of the runway. While the second runway acts as one of the two principle UK-designated hijacked sites, the airport also offers other benefits to the aviation industry in Scotland. For example, it is used for flight diversions in bad weather and during aircraft emergencies and in air-to-sea rescues. The availability of land, services and skills means that it offers the best potential in Scotland for aircraft conversion, dismantling and recycling operations. It is also the only airport in Scotland with a direct rail connection on its doorstep, and if the Glasgow Crossrail was developed, the airport would be connected by rail to the rest of Scotland, which none of the other Scottish airports have. What can be done to get Prestwick Airport back on track? First, through the Smith commission, Scotland will have control of air passenger duty rates, and it will be possible to reduce or remove this duty. Like all Scottish airports, that is anticipated to hugely increase passenger numbers to Scotland. Perhaps the cabinet secretary, when he returns, can give some indication of what he plans to do with APD when he gains that power. Secondly, we should be looking to develop growth through new routes and carriers, because, as I mentioned earlier, currently Ryanair is the only passenger airline operating from the airport. I wonder again if the cabinet secretary or perhaps Derek Mackay can update Parliament today whether there has been any progress in securing additional routes or carriers. It is the case that the team Scotland approach will encourage new routes from any of Scotland's airports, and of course Prestwick would be part of that, bearing in mind the commercial sensitivities that exist as well. Our position on APD is also clear. Can I ask what the Labour Party's position is on APD, because it would appear that the Westminster election will come before the transfer of powers to this Parliament? I thank the minister for that intervention, and the Labour Party supports ADP coming to Scotland. It is in the Smith commission. The biggest game changer for Prestwick would be if it was accepted on 26 February, which is Friday, as one of the preferred bidders for the UK spaceport. It was then successful in that bid as the only spaceport in the UK. To be clear, that would not mean space tourism for the super rich. It would allow Ayrshire to capitalise and play a key role in satellite launching and manufacturing in the space science sector, which is currently earning £11.3 billion in revenues, a figure that grew by 7.2 per cent between 2011 and 2013, despite the recession. Currently, the UK has no satellite launch facilities of its own, so that would be the first of its kind and would open up Prestwick to an untapped wealth of future potential, ideal for taking Scotland's infrastructure to a new dimension. It would have a huge impact on the Scottish economy through promotion of skilled jobs, training facilities, opportunities for high-tech supplies, services and the boost for tourism. To conclude, I hope that I have highlighted today why reinvigorating Prestwick airport is not only key to the Ayrshire economy but the Scottish economy. It has so much future potential to be an integral part of the infrastructure of Scotland by road, rail, sea and airspace. The reality is that if we properly support Prestwick, it can take Scotland to the moon. John Mason, I am sorry about the order. I do not say that with any great satisfaction, but I think that we need to know that either one of the ministers has been missing during the debate. In summing up, I do not know how the ministers can be expected to sum up if both of them have not been here for the debate during the debate. I have been out for the last contribution only to go to the toilet. I think that that is acceptable. It is one person's contribution that I have missed. I have been here for the entire debate otherwise. John Mason, you have made your position clear in six minutes. If there is one thing that we should never lose sight of, it is the importance of investing for the future. Of course there is a need for day-to-day expenditure like doctors, teachers and medicines right now, but we also owe it to our children and future generations to invest in infrastructure. It is no harm to look back at some of the things that have been achieved. For example, local projects that have benefitted my constituency in the east end of Glasgow, the M74 completion, the Airdrie Bathgate rail link, which gives us a direct link to Edinburgh, the Commonwealth Games infrastructure, including the sports facilities, the Dominic station, but especially remembering the village, which is now seeing residents moving in. A very locally, Garahill primary school, which has just come into operation. Right now we see more projects happening in my area, including the M83, M74 improvements, which are mentioned in the motion, and the electrification of the whifflet rail line. That is not to mention yet a Clyde Gateway urban regeneration company, which has achieved some major improvements in Dominic in Glasgow and across in Rutherglen in South Lanarkshire. Some of those improvements are easy to see, like the new police building, while others are less visible but equally important, such as restoring contaminated land. That can cost millions of pounds yet opens the doors to future development. We all probably have lists of projects that we would like to see happening, and I think that we have heard some of those already today, but I would like to concentrate on two areas. First is housing, and I think that there has been a surprising lack of mention of housing thus far in the debate, but I remain convinced that this is one of the best areas of investment. Clearly that will help people at the bottom end of the scale who are currently in old difficulty houses, where they potentially face overcrowding, that has a knock-on effect on the kids' education, not to mention other folk who are stuck upstairs and are close when they can no longer manage the stairs. Investment in housing is huge benefits in reducing energy costs, ensuring families have enough space, improving mental health and many other things. The second area, not surprisingly, I would like to mention is rail, not least because I am co-convener of the cross-party group on rail, and I am glad to see that it has a serious mention today. Of course, when you come to the cross-party group, as I hope the new minister transports will, it does not take long to hear and see the wide range of projects that folk would like to see. As already mentioned, we have seen the Airdrie Bathgate line opened very successfully, and it should be able to handle many extra passengers when Queen Street station high level in the tunnel are closed for refurbishment and for the Egypt improvements. On Egypt, I am delighted that it is now going forward below the original budget. The idea of longer trains between Glasgow and Edinburgh was a real breakthrough and saved so much having to be spent on signalling in order to increase the frequency, as was the original plan. Electrification around Glasgow has been moving steadily forward after many years of little action, most recently, as I said, the whifflet line, which runs through Camile, Mount Vernon and Ballaston in my constituency, has meant trains able to use their guile line and many more destinations for passengers on that route. Clearly, the border line is shaping up well, and I very much look forward to trying it out in the autumn, albeit it may be not on the first day. Looking forward, the challenge is choosing which projects should be priority. Glasgow airport has been mentioned and often is mentioned as needing a rail or a tram link, and in an ideal world I would welcome that. I guess I am somewhat torn as to how high a priority that would be. In February recess, I flew from Edinburgh to Berlin and then from Berlin back to Glasgow, so I used three airports and two of those had a rail or a tram link, which were absolutely fine. The easiest and quickest trip for me of all three airports was the Glasgow one. The bus into the city centre is absolutely great, although I expect there are problems in the rush hour, but I doubt the train could compete on time with the bus. It is a tricky decision whether this should be a priority, especially when there are many other transport and non-transport priorities asking for money. Another major rail project that has been mentioned is Crossrail, which ideally I would love to see. It would link Ayrshire and Renfrewshire to the rail network north and east of Glasgow. Just as the Helensborough line takes passengers into and out of Glasgow, as well as through the city, so Crossrail could take passengers from Kilmarnock, Ayr and Paisley to Edinburgh, as well as passengers coming into Glasgow. Clearly Crossrail only works if there is a station at Glasgow Cross, which links with the Argyll line underneath with connections to Motherwell Hamilton and elsewhere. That will not come cheap. It would greatly improve the transport connections, would boost a struggling area, but it is a serious expense. Against those Glasgow-focused projects, albeit benefiting much of the rest of Scotland, I think that there is a need for other issues around the country, double-tracking the line to Aberdeen from the south at the present bottleneck of Montrose. Of course I am a Glasgow MSP, but we all have to think nationally. Aberdeen, in the north-east, surely deserves proper rail line all the way. From that perspective, the Perth Inverness line also seriously needs to be drilled. As I said, I was recently in Berlin investing in a superb city centre station, as well as in the new U-Bahn line. I think that today we are all saying that building at Scotland's infrastructure is important is a good thing. However, the question is whether we are willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Are we willing to sacrifice current day-to-day revenue expenditure in order to invest more for the future? I would suggest that the Opposition parties would have more credibility if they would suggest areas that need to be cut back in order that we can invest more. Thank you. We now move to the wind-up speeches. Will there be any six minutes, please? It would be remiss of me to not begin my summing up without mentioning my sister, who is a nurse at the southern general in Glasgow. Joanne Lamont says about the hospital and the issues around creating the new facility, which she recognises is a great facility, are quite substantial. The impacts on the local community, as my sister has observed, are quite substantial. I think that an awful lot more work will be required to make sure that transition is managed smoothly. I am now off the hook with my sister. Jim Eadie spoke with great pride about the projects in his constituency. I was pleased that he mentioned cycle routes, something that I am particularly keen on advancing. John Mason, quite rightly, picked us all up on not mentioning housing infrastructure. I was delighted that he mentioned the dualling of the line to Aberdeen. I think that the fact that Europe's oil capital is not having a dualled railway line is something to our shame and something needs to be put right pretty promptly. I know that there may be some technical difficulties with doing so, but it should be a top priority. Nigel Don talking about broadband was absolutely right to advance much more significantly. The UK Government and the Scottish Government are working in partnership to advance that, but I think that it needs to have a far greater focus than it currently does just now. Is the member aware that the Federal Communications Commission in the United States is changing the definition of broadband so that nothing under 20 megabits qualifies? Does he think that it is time for ambition in the UK to be raised? I must admit that I am not a student of the Federal Commission in the United States, but it is something that I would encourage us to always be aspirational to meet Stevenson's aspirations as well. That is a valid interpretation of his intervention. However, listening to quite a lot of SNP members, particularly the minister, you would think that all the investment in those worthy projects, good projects, are a result of the Scottish Government and all the things that we are unable to do is at the fault of the UK Government. The reality is that, because we have the stability and the security of a strong UK economy, we can afford all those projects. In fact, we have been able to increase expenditure on capital since 2010 quite significantly. I know that it is not as much as some members would like, but we have been able to, through that solid management of the economy that has created 170,000 jobs, GDP is up. In fact, of the G8, we are performing incredibly well. Our bond yields as a result are relatively low. That allows us to borrow even more. It is worth reflecting when the members talk about, with great pride, all those projects that we are conducting and investing in in Scotland. That is possible because of the UK economic strength that we have invested in over the past few years. That is something that we should not forget. I was disappointed with Linda Fabiani when she said that she was not interested in questions about the Scottish futures trust. She would rather look back to her previous Government and its failings, rather than question her own Government. That is all too often a trademark of the SNP backbenchers and is unwilling to question their ministers about significant issues. For instance, I would still like to know, from the minister, whether he is going to include that in his summing up. Are they absolutely committed to building the Edinburgh Glasgow high-speed rail link before the UK Government gets it to Birmingham? Is that the case? Is that still the commitment? Or has that changed? I would like to know that today. Perhaps Linda Fabiani could have asked that question as well. Under the Scottish futures trust, I would like to know all those projects from the eight hubs. How are they going to be impacted by the potential reclassification of the NDP programme? How are they going to be impacted? I would like to know what those are, because we just got a cursory dismissal that it was all going to be fine. We have known from this Government before that it often is not all going to be fine. Sometimes there are difficulties. Also, with its £180 billion commitment to additional spend across the United Kingdom on capital spend, what does that mean for the Scottish Government's fiscal commission? In order to meet the aims on the oil fund, it should meet the downward trajectory on deficit reduction, matching that of the United Kingdom. What does that mean for that grand, bold commitment that was made in the past? Three big questions that I would have hoped Linda Fabiani would have asked, but unfortunately she did not. Perhaps she will, in a future debate, ask those very questions, because we need scrutiny not just from the opposition benches but from the SNP benches as well. We had a little bit of an interchange between Stuart Stevenson, Nigel Don, Mike MacKenzie and John Mason about the value of capital investment. Of course, we recognise the value of capital investment. This is all about a balance about what many have finally admitted, about what we can afford so that we can have the confidence of the international markets who lend us the money to keep the bond yields down in order to make sure that we can continue to invest. You need to bring your marks of cause investment. That is, of course, something that we recognise, but it is something that the SNP member should recognise also that it has a price, and that price has to be paid for. We have a very interesting debate today. Some highlights include Mike MacKenzie celebrating the Queensfrey crossing being built on time, a year or two before it is actually complete. We have Mr Stevenson in responding to the train times being slower century later, suggesting that we really shouldn't worry about it because of London to Paris. Air travel used to be faster, apparently. In 1931 it is today, so I am sure that he says that to his constituents when they ask for the train times to be sped up slightly. We had Mr Don for three minutes telling us how important capital spending was, but when he was asked why none of it was switched or very little of it was switched from revenue, he seemed to suggest that things were a bit more complicated than that. My favourite line of the debate—I was not disappointed with Linda Fabiani, I have to say, unlike Willie Rennie. My favourite line of the debate was Linda Fabiani describing Keith Brown's motion as a piece of literature, which will be hard to beat. She certainly preferred that to the amendments from any of the parties. The Scottish Government has done some good work in relation to infrastructure, transport and housing in other parts, and it would be churlish to try and suggest entirely otherwise, but it is the job of opposition to put forward the key questions where things are not going well and where things are clearly going wrong. One of the questions that I put to the Minister for Infrastructure earlier on in the debate was in relation to NPT, and given the questions that have been asked and given the investigation that is going on, my question was quite simply, when the infrastructure investment plan is published, what assumptions will be made about it? The answer was that the assumption was that basically everything will be fine, we do not need to worry about it. He can correct me or he can speak to the same. I am happy to give way to him. I thank Gavin Brown for taking the intervention. I think that I said that our assumption is that this is a viable method of recurrence and we intend to continue with that, but obviously we have to meet the challenges that have been set out by Eurostat and what we throw an ace on that, but our assumption is that this is a viable process and we intend to continue with it. I suppose that my point is that if the ruling goes the way that you do not want it to go, or the way that none of us want it to go, I have to say, then there will have to be some form of contingency surely and there will have to be some form of plan B. If the infrastructure investment plan rests entirely on the assumption that everything will be fine, then I think that we will all be disappointed and there are bound to be some impacts on projects. That was a reason for putting up that question. Rail has, of course, featured heavily, as it should, and I did not rewrite and transform Scotland's quote just to embarrass the Government, but I think that it is important that a respected organisation who makes a lot of really good points says as bluntly as this that it is in dire need of investment, that I do think that it is incumbent of all of us to take note of that and to look carefully at the suggestions that they make and how we might move things forward. Again, they give a direct quote from the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, who said in 2008, that railways must at least compete with roads. If the train time between Edinburgh and Perth is slower now than it was in 1895, if the train time between Dundee and Edinburgh is slower now than it was in 1895 as well, that compares miserably to road time. Therefore, it is not even anywhere near competing with road if those times are compared poorly to how they did well over 100 years ago. There is, I think, incumbent on the Government to do something about it to suggest how they are going to make sure that when we had this debate in five years time or 10 years time, actually the position is somewhat different. I do want to question the minister given that he is here also with the transport minister. In the spring budget revision, which was published just last week at page 65, there does appear to be in the spring budget revision £74 million coming out of rail for the financial year 2014-15. I can obviously lodge a written question to ask why that is the case, but if they have an answer here today, it would be interesting to know why £74 million is coming out of the real budget this year via the spring revision. With that same thought in mind, also in the spring budget revision, under the heading motorways and trunk roads, there appears to be a change of £201.8 million, and that is a sizable sum. It is described as a technical budget adjustment in respect of transport revenue financed infrastructure projects. There may well be a good explanation for that, so I put the same question to the Scottish Government. Why is that case? What is this £201 million actually represent? I think that it is quite important that the Parliament knows what the situation is. If we turn back to rail, of course, it was not just perth to Edinburgh or Edinburgh to Dundee, but we have had some criticisms. The Edinburgh to Glasgow link, of course, was scaled back in some parts. Some of it was cost savings, I accept that entirely, but some of it was not. Some of it was a genuine scaling back of the project. Some of it was reducing the journey time by six to eight minutes instead of the 13 minutes as was promised. The Government, of course, just described us at the time as being reprofiling, where, of course, it was considerably more than that. It rightly received lots of criticism at the time. Having to close in that case, let's hear the answers from the Government. Yes, there are areas where I think they have done well, but there are areas where there is legitimate criticism, but instead of hiding from that criticism, let's hear the Government answer, explain and then tell us what they are going to do about that criticism. Thank you, Mr Brown. I now call David Stewart. Mr Stewart, seven minutes. Thank you, Presiding Officer. This has been an excellent debate, I think, with strong, passionate speeches from across the political divide. Of course, there has not been complete consensus. My sense of the debate is that there is a strong theme this afternoon that infrastructure investment has an essential role in delivering sustainable economic growth. Of course, Presiding Officer, the key questions are which projects, where in Scotland, that can deliver the biggest bang for the buck? John Maynard Keynes, who I have heard from once already today, is a renowned economist who played a key role with beverage in designing the post-war welfare state, once argued that during a recession it was worth paying workers to dig holes in the ground and then fill them in again as this stimulated the economy through the multiplier effect. Of course, that is not feasible today, but the principle behind it remains. How do we identify projects? How do we appraise them? How do we finance and control them at once approved? The Queensbury crossing, for example, which was obviously mentioned by the cabinet secretary, Mary Fee and other speakers, is, of course, the largest public sector contract since devolution. Presiding Officer, I should perhaps declare an interest as a formal member of the bill committee. I spent, which seemed months and months of my life in the last session, taking evidence from grandees such as Stuart Stevenson, the former transport minister, about the real micro-detail of how this would operate in practice. It's funny that it's almost full circle, because I've now joined the ICI committee, which took evidence from the project director last week. It's interesting to note that, within the project's financial plan, it's an item for optimism bias, which is the psychological trend towards assuming everything will be all right on the night in terms of cost. Just one second. I'm getting the project done on time. I'm happy to allow the intervention, Mr Stevenson. I wonder if the member is aware that, when officials first came to me when I was transport minister, the putative budget for a project not fully developed was £3.4 billion to £4.3 billion. Will he join me in congratulating all the engineers and officials, and indeed the Government, who have got it down to a price, approximately one third of the top value that it was originally thought it might cost? I'm sure that members across the putative divide want good value for money. The point that I was going to make is that optimism bias is a part of that original contract. It's quite an interesting concept, but the other opposite spin-off, which I'm sure all members will agree from public procurement, is good employment practice. Last week, we had an assurance at the committee from the fourth crossing director that there was now no blacklisting operated by contractors, which I'm sure all members will appreciate. There were more than 100 apprenticeships and trainees employed in the project, so that's a good positive spin-off. Can I share in Nigel Don's plea that we do not see infrastructure solely through the prism of large-scale capital funding projects alone? Digital infrastructure, as well as communications infrastructure such as mobile, broadband and wifi connectivity, are vital pieces to the jigsaw. Let me give you an example. If you were opening a new hotel in the Western Isles and you want to do online booking, it would of course affect your business if you had non-existent broadband. I got some figures just this morning, which showed that in the breakdown of broadband speeds for every Westminster constituency in the UK, surprise, surprise, Western Isles had the worst rate of speed or the lowest speed. I'm notwithstanding that, Presiding Officer. I, of course, welcome the BDUK funding, which is enabling broadband roll-out throughout the Highlands and Highlands. The point that I was going to make is that the Scottish Government is currently spending £127 million. It's been talked up by my £19 million from BT to roll out this fibre optic broadband backbone, and that hopefully will see the situation that you're describing improve very significantly. I'm sure that you would agree with me that the Scottish Government deserves at least some credit for that. I would give all credit when credit's due, and I think that there's been a good positive union dividend, of course, with BDUK, because, of course, this was UK funding. I think that Gavin Brown rightly mentioned Transformed Scotland in the brief today, making the reasonable point that rail must compete with roads, which echoed, I believe, Alex Ammons' quote as First Minister in 2008. Of course, the third national planning framework in 2014 had an aspiration to complete electrification of rail between all our cities. Perhaps the cabinet secretary or the minister in the wind-up could provide an update of where we are in this issue. When will Glasgow Edinburgh to Inverness be electrified north of Perth? Perhaps in the remaining minutes I can mention just a couple of contributions, Presiding Officer. I think that Mary Fee made some excellent points about community engagement and low-carbon infrastructure. I enjoyed Gavin Brown's amusing and insightful analysis. He's always very professional and well-informed, particularly in financial issues, and I share his issue about high-speed rail. I agreed with Willie Rennie's points about the breakdown of the budget. Mike McKenzie, although he stole my line about Keynes, I'll forgive him and say that it's a broad church, Mr McKenzie. John Lamont also made some excellent points about the very positive nature of the South Glasgow hospital. We all have to recognise the impact that it has had on local communities, particularly around parking and transport. I'm sure that the cabinet secretary will pick that up. Stuart Stevenson is always interesting and amusing. I'm not quite sure whether he's the father of the house yet, but he's certainly his comments. I wasn't sure whether he had invented penicillin and rail in his comments, but perhaps I misunderstood his comments, particularly his point about drivers passing over tokens in some of our rail journeys north of here. I agreed very much with Nigel Don's comments, particularly on broadband. I think that Paul Martin made some excellent points about Garl. Margaret Madougall made an excellent point about Pressedwick. Her line about Scotland could have a route to the moon in terms of the application of the spaceport is one that I will remember for the future. In conclusion, I'm just out of time. We argue that we believe that we should have a delivery of a strategic investment infrastructure that is essential to achieving sustainable economic growth. I believe that members across the chamber can support our amendment, which calls for new projects to be developed in a more strategic way. For example, speeding up rail electrification, development of crossrail, and finally, a future commitment to a not-for-profit rail operator so that customers get to the profit, not groups of shareholders or foreign governments. As Dave Stewart said, it's generally been quite a good debate. Unsurprisingly, I suppose, individual members have been wanting to highlight issues and projects that are particularly important to them, and that's natural enough. Different parties also have different priorities, although I can't really recall off the top of my head of any proposal coming from any other party that's changed a budget in terms of an infrastructure project. The only thing that I can actually be back in 2007, when the other parties all voted for the trams project against the Scottish Government, and aside from that, I think that we must, by implication, share many of the same priorities in terms of the infrastructure projects that we've actually persisted with. To pick up the two points just laterally made there by Dave Stewart, if I could. First of all, both Nigel Don and Stuart Stevenson made a plea for more rail expenditure vis-à-vis road expenditure. It may surprise them to know that, for different periods over the last few years, rail expenditure has exceeded the expenditure that we've made on roads. It's worth bearing that in mind. A £5 billion programme over the control period is a huge amount of money, even though I think I would recognise that, given the nature of the rail network throughout Scotland, the lack of investment right through the time of British Rail when they had to have the 8 per cent rate of return has meant that that's a very big project to undertake. I think that we've made substantial progress with Airdrie to Bathgate, Stirling, Alawak and Cardin, Borders Rail and many other projects, but I do, of course, accept the point that there's more that we'd like to do in that, but we have to be guided by resources. Jan Lamont made the points. First of all, I was grateful that she mentioned the M74, which I don't think I had mentioned, and I think that she's right to say that's produced tremendous benefits in the west of Scotland in terms of freeing up congestion in particular, but also for ease of access, not least in the Glasgow airport, which many people have said to me has been transformed by the completion of that road. She also made a number of points about the new hospital. In fact, when I went for this reprehensible comfort break, this is one of the things that I ended up talking about with Jan Lamont at some length, and she makes a fair point, and she has raised it already with the Cabinet Secretary for Health. I did commit to speaking with her subsequently to raise it again with the Cabinet Secretary for Health. I don't know whether Jan Lamont's aware she might be that there's a meeting taking place on 2 March, which will, I think, if she was suggesting, include the Scottish Government health and transport elements of the Scottish Government, NHS Greater Glasgow City Council and SPT will all be involved at that meeting. I think that that's the kind of corporate joint approach that she was asking for, and I undertake to make sure that she's kept up the date about the outcome from that meeting. Jim Eadie, I think, was the only person that I recalled mentioning at length cycling and walking quite rightly the record expenditure that is being put into that, and he mentioned two particular projects, one the £3.6 million exemplar project on Leith Walk and also the one at Strathire, which helps to complete that part of the national cycle network. Those are very important, not just for cycling, crucially, but also for walking as well, which is very important and can be as beneficial, if not more beneficial, certainly in terms of health than even cycling. So we are delighted to have put that kind of money in this year, and it builds on previous efforts in previous years. I said it was the second point that Dave Stewart made, and I think that this is an important point, because I think that there is genuinely some confusion on the Labour benches in relation to this. The current legislation that we have allows us to have a not-for-profit bid for the railways. It always has done. That's not changing with Smith, as has been suggested in some press releases. What is changing with Smith, because we made the representation to that effect, is that it will now be, if this goes through, and when it goes through, able to make a public sector bid. In fact, you can go beyond that, and you can ask whether you can make a direct award, something that's not currently made provision for within the Smith recommendations. So we are the ones that propose that. We'd like to have seen a not-for-profit bid coming forward. To be honest, the idea, as has been mentioned by some other Labour members, that this equates to the re-nationalisation of the railways, cannot happen if you are committed to franchising. You cannot have the two things. You cannot have franchising and nationalisation. You certainly can't guarantee it. I think that there is some confusion about that, and it's as well that we try to clarify that at this stage. In relation to Paul Martin's point about Rob Royston, he and I have discussed this in the past. I've tried to encourage him and others to come forward with a proposal for that. I should say that none of the moneys within the station investment fund, which equates to £30 million, has yet been dispersed. There are a very large number of projects that have come forward, at least two of which I would say would be further advanced than Rob Royston. In fact, there's not many that have come that far advanced because of what he mentioned in terms of trying to work up a case. So if sooner that can be done, I've said already that there's obviously a very good case to be made, but the case has to be brought forward to the station's investment fund, and it will be for Derek Mackay to look at that when that comes forward. We can't do anything until we get that application in. Mention was made of high-speed rail. Gavin Brown spoke in lured terms about what I was going to do to the Opposition parties reading from the Scotsman. Well, I did check the statement that I had put out and it said that I would challenge the other parties. Well, that's what it says. I did challenge the parties and I have to say that PA are running with the story now that I've been successful in getting a commitment from each of the three parties for being in high-speed rail to Scotland. Gavin Brown and Willie Rennie said that this should be no surprise to anybody. I can tell you it is. If, like me, you've talked to UK ministers and even opposition spokespeople and tried to get a commitment to bring high-speed rail to Scotland, there's never been that commitment. If you're saying there is, we have to move on to the next stage. I'm delighted that each of the Opposition parties have said now that they're committed to high-speed rail. The point is that you've got to convince those that are taking their decisions then in Westminster that they should be bringing high-speed rail. There is no proposal from the Liberal Democrats, from the Conservatives, to bring high-speed rail to Scotland. Just to get an idea of the significance of it, we are talking about a massive benefit, not just to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. It's not a one-way thing. Obviously, there's massive benefits if you join the second most economically active part of the UK, the central wealth of Scotland, with England. You get massive benefits both ways and you get benefits further north as well from that improved connection. But there is no proposal from the UK Government despite being prompted endless times for them to bring high-speed rail to Scotland. If Willie Rennie is going to tell us that he's now going to ask for the first time Susan Cramer and others to support high-speed rail coming to Scotland, then I'd be delighted to let him intervene. The minister seems to be pleading with other members rather than taking an intervention from myself. Can he answer the question that I posed earlier on that he's failed to answer so far? His Government said that they would build the Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed rail link before the UK Government invested in the line to Birmingham. Is that still the case? Is that still the committee? I made very clear in the past that we've undertaken the study on that. If he thinks that it makes sense to have a high-speed rail link between Edinburgh and Glasgow without knowing whether to have a high-speed rail link bring up from the south, he basically does not understand transport projects. Just think about it for a short time. Can I come back to Willie Rennie on two points that he made? The first one I think was utterly disingenuous when he said that it applied that classification or reclassification of NDP projects was a problem or a failure in the part of the Scottish Government. He has what he's nodding now. Surely he must know the discussions that the Cabinet Secretary has had with his counterparts in Westminster who have the same challenge in terms of classification and work very closely to make sure that we have budget cover for the projects that we intend to take forward. He knows that and, despite that, tries to portray that as a problem or a failure in part of the Scottish Government and that's disingenuous. On his other point about the First Minister's statement in terms of £180 billion of borrowing, he challenged me to provide the figures, I gave him the figures, and he still complained. The vital point is—I think that Linda Fabiani made the point—that there is an ideological difference. We are committed to an alternative to austerity. You are committed to austerity. That's what you've done for the last five years. You failed to get the budget deficit down, as you said you would do, instead of a £5 billion surplus, you've got a £50 billion deficit. Even according to the things that you've said, you failed to do. The difference is that it's not like FDR with a new deal, with a coalition that you get a bung deal. You've had nothing of them but austerity, and we propose a different course of action. That concludes the debate on bonus Scotland's infrastructure for the future. The next item of business is consideration of motion number 12384, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the Small Business Enterprise and Employment Bill UK legislation, and I call on Fergus Ewing to move the motion. Formally moved. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. Before we move to decision time, I undertook to come back to the chamber on an issue raised by the minister, Fergus Ewing, during the stage 3 debate on the legal writing bills. The minister queried whether this was the first bill to have completed its passage through the Parliament unamended. I thought not, but I did promise to come back, and we have checked this afternoon, and as I suspected, there are a number of examples, an early one being the census amendment Scotland bill in March 2000. There are at least 10 such similar bills, which completed their passage unamended. I have in my hand a little list. I could read it to you, but I think that members would probably prefer that I give it to the minister at the end of business. I think that he would enjoy that. There are six questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at motion number 12381, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on the legal writing's counterparts and delivery Scotland bill, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to, and the legal writing's counterparts and delivery Scotland bill, the Parliament's first law commission bill, is passed. Can we move on to the next question? Can I remind members that, in relation to the debate on building Scotland's infrastructure for the future, if the amendment in the name of Mary Fee is agreed, the amendments in the name of Gavin Brown and Willie Rennie fall? The question is at amendment number 12382.3, in the name of Mary Fee, which seeks to amend motion number 12382, in the name of Keith Brown on Scotland's infrastructure, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12382.3, in the name of Mary Fee, is as follows. Yes, 34. No, 76. There were four abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. Can I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Gavin Brown is agreed, the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie fall? The question is at amendment number 12382.1, in the name of Gavin Brown, which seeks to amend motion number 12382, in the name of Keith Brown on Scotland's infrastructure, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12382.1, in the name of Gavin Brown, is as follows. Yes, 43. No, 67. There were four abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at amendment number 12382.2, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend motion number 12382, in the name of Keith Brown on Scotland's infrastructure, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 12382.2, in the name of Willie Rennie, is as follows. Yes, 13. No, 100. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12382, in the name of Keith Brown on Scotland's infrastructure, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 12382, in the name of Keith Brown, is as follows. Yes, 62. No, 17. There were 34 abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 12384, in the name of Fergus Ewing, on small business enterprise employment bill UK legislation, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.