Plenary, 19 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Thursday, January 19, 2006

Official Report 727KB pdf

---

Air Route Development Fund

Good morning. Our first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3837, in the name of Tavish Scott, on the economic benefits of the air route development fund. I invite members who wish to contribute to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Scotland's place in the world, and our attractiveness as a place to work, to live in and to visit depends on connections: surface connections by road, rail and sea; technological connections by the information superhighway; and air connections. In order to grow Scotland's sustainable economy and to be globally competitive we need fast, efficient and affordable worldwide transport connections. Scotland's transport system underpins our economy. Equally, the quality of this country's external links can aid or shackle our economic performance.

In the 10 years to 2003, before the air route development fund, Scotland suffered a fall in direct international air connections, while our main competitors moved in the opposite direction. Before 2003, many of them were connecting better, competing better and creating opportunities in the global marketplace. Between 1989 and 2003, while Scotland's European and international connections fell by 6 per cent, Denmark's rose by 10 per cent and those of the English midlands rose by 135 per cent. Business after business—whether in electronics, tourism or oil—said the same thing, which was that Scotland's future competitiveness depends on better worldwide connections. We needed to tackle the perception that although Scotland was a good location to conduct business, it lacked direct access to key European and international business centres. Scotland's tourist industry in particular needed direct access as an alternative to transfers at Heathrow, Gatwick or Amsterdam.

In launching the air route development fund, our immediate focus was to improve Scotland's connections with existing and developing markets in continental Europe. However, within 12 months of the launch of the air route development fund, two world-class carriers—Continental Airlines and Emirates Airlines—announced their intention to commence new intercontinental services from Scotland. Those services have been a phenomenal success in providing connections to established key markets and in opening up easier access to the markets of Asia and Australasia.

Before the air route development fund, Scotland had just 13 international destinations. By last summer, that had increased to 40. Some 22 year-round fund-supported routes continue to serve Scotland: there are two intercontinental destinations; 15 European destinations; five United Kingdom domestic routes; and 10 new routes are due to commence this year, including Delta Air Lines's Edinburgh service to the important United States hub airport of Atlanta.

The success of the fund is not just based on external routes. Internal links have also been developed. The Stornoway to Aberdeen route started just this month, which is meeting clear local needs in the Western Isles. The Shetland to Stansted route will start in June.

This year, 1.4 million passengers will be carried on fund-supported routes, out of some 20 million passengers who are served by all Scotland's airports in an average year. Three years ago, 291,000 passengers were carried on such routes; to achieve that massive improvement in Scotland's international connections, we have invested £2.7 million in the air route development fund. That investment will bring £87 million of economic benefit to the Scottish economy over three years, which will rise to £304 million over a 10-year period. That is the equivalent of a £15 return for every £1 of public money over those three years, and £53 for every £1 of public money over 10 years. That investment has begun to fill in the strategic connections that Scotland needs.

Our economy has benefited enormously from the fund—nowhere more so than in the tourist economy. The industry is one of Scotland's top five economic drivers. Since the tough days of 2001, which were caused by the combination of foot-and-mouth disease and 9/11, tourism has come back very strongly indeed. VisitScotland estimates that tourism generates nearly £5 billion—up from £4 billion four years ago—of gross revenues for businesses of all sizes throughout Scotland. Direct air links into Scotland are a vital element of that growth.

Is it the Executive's view that the expenditure on the air route development fund has increased the overall domestic and international aviation market in Scotland? I ask because the minister's motion suggested instead that it was primarily about reducing the need for short-haul flights to hub airports.

The overall patterns of air travel have grown mainly because of the advent of low-cost carriers in recent years. There is a strong and clear difference between the growth of low-cost carriers and the strategic links that we have sought to invest in through the air route development fund. It is important to recognise that split. I will return to the short-haul argument in a few moments. However, I observe that some of the connections from Scotland to what we used to describe as regional airports are equally important for our economy as well as for the wider UK and European economies. Those are all factors in how the aviation market has developed in recent times.

In 2004, 23 per cent more visitors came to Scotland from Europe than during the previous year. In the first nine months of 2005, visitors from Europe increased by 35 per cent compared with the same period in 2004. All the signs are that growth is continuing. We now have golfers coming here from the east coast of the USA for three to four-day golfing trips, which have been made possible by the convenience of the new direct services to Edinburgh and Glasgow from Newark airport. Large numbers of Scandinavians travel direct to Scotland to Prestwick, a journey which only a few years ago was extremely expensive and meant flying via London.

Those figures are good news not only for tourism operators, but for Scotland as a whole. The economic benefits of increased tourism revenues flow throughout the economy. More visitors mean more spending on eating and drinking, on retail and on leisure and entertainment. A significant part of that increase has been enabled by the air route development fund.

Expansion of our air routes in Europe complements this devolved Government's European strategy, and new air links enhance Scotland's close links with the new member states of the European Union. Scotland is now directly connected to more destinations in Germany and to Poland—our most important growing market in central Europe—with visitor numbers soaring by 222 per cent in the past year. Warsaw, Kraków, Gdansk, Katowice and the Czech Republic all have direct air links as a direct consequence of our intervention.

I turn to the environmental arguments that surround air travel and emissions from aircraft, which are important. We acknowledge the need rapidly to address increasing emissions from aircraft, which threaten to jeopardise global efforts to tackle climate change. Government must strike a balance between the need to protect our environment and the needs of our economy and society, but in respect of aviation, that will best be achieved at international level, which is why we support the UK Government in its efforts to have European air services included in the EU emissions trading scheme.

Although I share the minister's support for the inclusion of aviation in the emissions trading scheme, does he realise that that will result only in about a 1 per cent to 2 per cent reduction in emissions per annum, compared with a 4 per cent increase that will be caused by the increase in aviation that we will experience year on year in the decades ahead?

So, should we not try? Surely one of the lessons to learn, even for the Greens, is that international efforts will offer the best progress in this important area. It is facile to argue that we in Scotland could alone control emissions growth. I want to touch on the simplicity of our argument as, I am sure, will other members, because it is one of the strongest arguments for finding coherent, sensible and workable solutions to the issues.

The emissions trading scheme is not working.

Mr Ballard says from a sedentary position that the scheme is not working, but Mr Ruskell's question demonstrated that the EU trading emissions scheme was working because he said that it would achieve some decrease in emissions. I would have thought that some decrease is better than none at all.

Individuals will make up their own minds and will travel in any case. In the past, Scots used to travel to Manchester and other airports south of the border by road, thereby clogging up the roads and creating extra emissions. Is there a trade-off in that?

I find myself agreeing with Mr Gallie—

No!

I find myself agreeing up to a point—that point being in relation to the alternatives that people should have. I would also, however, argue with Mr Gallie, because the rail connections that we wish to achieve would be a better solution than road connections. However, I accept Mr Gallie's historical analysis, which was fair.

I cannot agree with people who would simply say no to any air travel—which already appears to be the Green position. However, to those who want to debate the issue rationally, I will offer two arguments from an environmental perspective. First, there has been an inexorable rise in the demand for air travel since its invention. The air route development fund is not responsible for that growth. It can be debated whether it has added in a small way to the number of people who travel by air by making air travel easier but—as Mr Gallie rightly suggests—the vast majority of people travelling from Scotland would have done so in any case. They would, however, have used the air routes that cause the highest carbon emissions, which are short-haul flights through hub airports.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No. I have dealt with the point.

In addition, people travelling to Scotland would still have travelled. The Greens do not accept that, but it is reality. Those people would still have travelled, but they would have used environmentally damaging short-haul routes or would have gone somewhere else—which appears to be what Mr Ballard's party advocates. The carbon emissions would have happened in any case but the economic benefits would have gone to destinations other than Scotland.

As we develop our national transport strategy, it will benefit from the stringent strategic environmental assessment regime that has been introduced by this Government. In the meantime, it is facile to suggest that the ARDF has, of itself, been an undoubted contributor to increased climate change.

The second environmental argument that I wish to offer is this: it makes sense to reduce train times between Scotland and London. At the moment, 142 flights a day fly those routes. This devolved Government could and would make rail the preferred choice for travel to London. We want to work with Westminster to achieve that goal.

This debate is not just about delivering new routes; it is about ensuring that the airport infrastructure and public transport are in place to accommodate the increased demand. Air travellers throughout Europe take for granted the availability of direct rail links from major airports to the continent's capital cities. I visited Oslo in October—its rail link to the city centre is impressive. In the UK, Edinburgh and Glasgow are the two largest airports in terms of annual passenger numbers that do not possess direct rail links to their city centres. Companies that benefit from the investments we will make in improving public transport links should contribute to the costs. BAA will benefit materially from both those rail links and discussions continue to secure a contribution.

We have done much, but there is more to do. According to the latest available figures, Scotland's financial services sector accounts for 6.3 per cent of the total Scottish economic output, and 9 per cent of all people employed in the service sector are employed in financial services. Scottish Financial Enterprise wants new air routes from Scotland to key financial locations. As we go further with implementing our strategy, SFE is seeking new routes to destinations including Zurich, Madrid, Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mumbai, to name but a few.

The air route development fund has narrowed, but not closed, the gap between Scotland and our competition. Others have not stood still. Work remains to be done to ensure that Scotland has an air routes network that meets the needs of companies, the needs of Scotland's role in the global economy, and our business aspirations.

There are cities in key markets in Europe that do not yet have year-round connections—cities in countries in western Europe such as Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, France and Austria, and cities in countries in central Europe and the Baltic states such as Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Slovakia. Further afield, Scotland has no direct year-round links with the Indian sub-continent, south-east Asia or—crucially—China. Direct flights to the far east would form a key plank of the enabling environment that this devolved Government is seeking to create for businesses that wish to work with China and the rest of Asia.

There is more to do. Scotland's competitiveness depends, in part, on how much more progress we can make. I encourage Parliament to be ambitious for Scotland and for Scotland's economy.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the success of the Air Route Development Fund (ARDF) in bringing direct Scottish air links to Europe, North America and within the UK; notes the economic advantages that have flowed to the Scottish economy and the reduced need for short-haul flights through hub airports; supports the development of a European regime that tackles the environmental impact of aviation emissions; further supports work to improve rail journey times between Scotland and London in order to reduce the reliance on domestic short-haul flights, and looks to the further use of the ARDF in developing Scotland's international connections.

I believe there will be considerable consensus in today's debate. The Scottish National Party's starting point is that Scotland is a nation and we wish our people to be able to take part in the world of nations, which means that we must be able to travel internationally. The SNP has always taken the view that—as far as is possible, practical and environmentally viable—Scotland should have direct air connections with the rest of the world.

Of course, our nearest neighbours in England—if I may mention them—are also very important to us in the SNP, as everyone knows. Many of our best candidates hail from England. Our air connections with the fine country of England are valuable, not least to people in my constituency of Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, for whom retention of the Gatwick and Heathrow air links is extremely important. However, that is a matter for another day.

The SNP also believes that aviation is a key driver towards our prime target of achieving economic growth. We believe—this ties in, I think, with the figures that the minister quoted—that the development of aviation is hugely beneficial for the economy. First, it creates a great number of jobs in each of Scotland's airports. Secondly, those jobs tend to be of high quality. Thirdly, it plays a crucial role in attracting visitors to Scotland.

Perhaps the most ingrained underlying tourism problem in many parts of Scotland outwith the major cities is that jobs have tended to be seasonal. Businesses that operate for only six to eight months of the year have to pay all their overheads from the revenue that is generated in that period. I would like Inverness, for example, to be able to attract visitors from every part of Europe, as well as from among our friends in England, so that we can transform a seasonal industry into a 12-months-a-year industry. The effect of that would be to create higher-quality jobs, security of employment, more opportunities for business, less uncertainty and more stability. Generally, it would be good news all round.

Although the air route development fund has in our view been a good and effective investment, it plays only a relatively small part in the overall aviation industry in Scotland. The minister quoted the figure of approximately 1.4 million passengers a year on flights for which assistance has come from the ARDF. However, he has been fair in pointing out that that figure should be set against the total figure of 20 million passengers a year. A relatively small proportion of the total benefit of aviation has stemmed from the ARDF. Nonetheless, it has made an important contribution.

Does Mr Ewing accept that before the air route development fund was introduced we had only 13 international connections, whereas we now have 40? That is the significant point in the argument.

The ARDF has certainly played a part. The growth in aviation has been inexorable, with low-cost flights arising from the early 1990s, according to figures that I have studied. Conservative members seem to be pleased with that, but the rise of low-cost flights was not down to the Conservative Government. It was companies such as Ryanair that made a huge contribution to the economy of Scotland.

Is Mr Ewing not being a bit disingenuous? Ryanair started flying from Scotland in about 1994 or 1995, with the support of the Government and with direct input from MPs from Scotland—particularly from Ayr.

I am always the first to acknowledge the robust contribution that Phil Gallie plays in every debate in which he participates, but I point out to him that if Scotland had the fair, lower corporation tax regime that Mr Mather has called for, Ryanair might still be based in Scotland as well as operating from Scotland. That is the sort of economic gain that Mr Cameron spurns but which we would like to see.

Does Fergus Ewing agree—I am sure he does—that it would be easier to welcome Ryanair back to a base in Scotland once it has done what other airlines have done, which is to recognise the official trade unions?

Mr Sheridan will be disappointed. I am not sure why he expected me to agree with him. It has not happened yet, and will not happen this morning.

Aviation is an industry, and therefore every route must operate viably and effectively, but there is a problem with costs for carriers in airports. Barbara Cassani, who was the managing director of Go, says in her book that those costs led her to choose the east midlands over Scotland. We need perspective: airports are expensive to run; they require security, fire services and a great many other facilities to protect passengers and to provide the necessary service. However, costs must remain competitive with our neighbours south of the border and with our friends in other countries in Europe.

The SNP appreciates that each airport in Scotland is different and that each has benefited to differing extents from the ARDF. Prestwick recently received a substantial benefit from the fund, whereas Glasgow did not. There was comment in the press recently on the loss of the Brussels connection from Glasgow. That was attributed, in part, to the ARDF subsidy to the connection at Prestwick. We must always bear it in mind that a subsidy to one company, albeit that it might be largely for marketing purposes, could be a competitive disadvantage to other companies.

The SNP would like a review of the operation of the ARDF; it is time for an audit of the scheme, although we do not prejudge the outcome of any review. I hope that the minister will, in concluding, agree that this is a sensible moment to announce a review. I am sure that the Local Government and Transport Committee would be happy to co-operate if the minister authorises a review. There are strong arguments for extending the ARDF to air freight to allow it to be applied more flexibly. BAA has argued that it should also be applied to less frequent and seasonal services.

The SNP would also like an end to the ludicrous private finance initiative deal that was used to build Inverness airport. It was foisted on the management there by new Labour, and it is so bad that a building that cost £6 million to build will have to be bought out for £34 million. Some idiot in the then Scottish Office based the return on the contract on the number of passengers, so the more successful the airport became, the wealthier the merchant bankers became. That is not because the contract was a PFI contract—although we criticise the PFI system for being more expensive than it need be. It was a duff contract because it was a duff deal. We wait with interest to see whether the Executive will own up and tell us which minister was responsible.

My colleague Shona Robison, who cannot be here this morning, has lobbied extremely hard for the ARDF to be provided for routes from Dundee airport. Oban airport has been extremely successfully operated by Mr Paul Keegan, and I hope that he will be able to take it further forward.

The minister touched on the environment and dealt effectively with interventions from our Green friends. I also argue, as the minister did, that for one country to act unilaterally would be absurd, self-defeating and utterly ineffective. The imposition of taxation on Scottish airports and operators would not reduce the number of flights—it would merely displace them elsewhere. Action should be taken at European level. I do not wish us to return, as the Greens apparently do, to the days when air travel was for rich people.

Is Fergus Ewing aware that 75 per cent of people who use low-cost airlines are in the top socioeconomic classes?

That is the most improbable statistic that I have heard for a long time. If the Greens were honest, they would just say that they want to tax each passenger £50 or £100 on every flight, that they want to rip up every runway in Scotland and turn it into an allotment and that they want to rip up every motorway and turn it into a cycle path. The Greens would be less hypocritical if they themselves did not use air travel, but I recall meeting their former leader at Glasgow airport one day.

In conclusion, the SNP will support the Executive's motion, and I hope that the Executive will support us. There is a common vision of the huge benefits of aviation to our country, and the SNP is not at all coy in saying so.

I move amendment S2M-3837.2, to insert at end:

"further acknowledges the importance of aviation in the prime aim of growing the Scottish economy; urges the Executive to seek to remove barriers to further success in aviation policy; calls on the Executive to audit and review the ARDF and its efficacy thus far, with a view to refining and widening its terms, and to consider, for example, its extension to air freight traffic and to less frequent and seasonal services, and urges the Executive to work with Scotland's airports and carriers to deliver a competitive economic environment, which should include the provision of appropriate and sufficient infrastructure for our airports."

I congratulate Fergus Ewing on burying, before it is even born, the new SNP-Green coalition that we have heard so much about.

The debate has been largely consensual and members will be disappointed to hear that I do not intend to break that trend; we will have to wait for Mr Ruskell's speech for that. The Conservatives generally welcome the air route development fund and the success in developing direct air routes from Scottish airports to Europe, North America and within the UK. It is a common complaint from Scottish business that Scotland lacks connectivity. It is not much use saying to a businessperson in Scotland that they can go to a meeting in Barcelona or Milan by connecting through London or Amsterdam because, in effect, they have to spend a whole day travelling in each direction. Access to those destinations through one flight of one and a half to two hours is greatly to the benefit of Scotland's business community and makes such business practicable because return trips can be made in one day or two days at the most.

New routes encourage inward investment. Not only are they good for Scottish businesspeople who go abroad, they are good for people from overseas; they are good not only for those who want to come to do business here, but for those who want to visit us. Our tourism industry has done well out of the development of many new routes. We hear plenty of anecdotal evidence about people who come to Scotland, particularly from Scandinavian countries, for shopping and entertainment because they find that the costs of our products, particularly alcohol, are highly satisfactory compared to what they pay at home. Our friends the nationalists are always parading the success of Norway and Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, but they should remember that people from those countries come to Glasgow and Prestwick and Ayr to spend their money because the cost of living here is much more satisfactory than it is where they live.

There is also an important social benefit to developing air travel at lower cost, which is that Scottish families now have greater opportunities than ever to take holidays abroad. I recently flew to Belgium to see friends for the grand price of 49p plus tax. Without the development of low-cost travel, such opportunities would simply not be available.

We in the Conservative party have no hesitation in saying that we believe that the growth of air travel has been good economically and good socially. Parliament should also recognise—our amendment makes the point—that we would not have today's growth in air travel had it not been for decisions that were taken by previous Conservative Governments. Fergus Ewing acknowledged that there had been growth in air travel since the 1990s, but he seemed to think that that was just a coincidence. In fact, it happened because of decisions by previous Conservative Governments to liberalise air travel and to privatise the British Airports Authority and British Airways. I remind Parliament that those privatisations and the other measures that Conservative Governments introduced were opposed at every turn by the other parties in the chamber. They said that Conservative measures would lead to disaster in the air industry, but—as usual—they were wrong, and have been proved wrong.

On 1 November 1987, the Labour Party's then city affairs spokesman, somebody called Tony Blair, criticised the privatisation of British Airways as being "legalised political corruption". How far we have come in 19 years. The fact is that the air sector would not be enjoying success today had Labour been in power at that time. The brave decisions of a Conservative Government led to the current unprecedented growth in the air industry. In the great scheme of things, that has been much more significant than the air route development fund.

I am perfectly happy with that, although I have some doubts about BAA's monopoly. However, I am curious to hear how Murdo Fraser explains the success of Manchester airport, which is owned by a local authority. The airports that have been successful operate in a variety of ways, but why has Manchester done spectacularly well when it has remained in council ownership?

The liberalisation of the air travel market has meant that airports have been successful regardless of who owns them. Although Edinburgh and Glasgow airports, which were privatised, have grown greatly, that does not mean that other airports have not grown; of course they have. The overall approach—the privatisation of BAA and the opening up of the markets to competition, which I dare say the SNP opposed at the time—has led to growth in air travel and has secured the success of airports such as Manchester, despite the fact that their ownership remains with a public authority.

Could Murdo Fraser explain the miraculous growth in travel with Cubana de Aviación? That airline is publicly owned but has undergone one of the largest increases in use on the planet.

I dare say that Mr Sheridan's regular trips to Cuba are increasing use of that airline. I have no expertise on Cubana Airlines, but I suspect that it is enjoying the benefits of the internationally liberalised air travel market, which did not exist previously.

Let us not be churlish: in general, we welcome the air route development fund and we acknowledge that it has been a success. However not everything in the garden is rosy. We must ensure that public money is wisely spent and that we do not distort the market and put unsubsidised services at an unfair disadvantage through the fund.

That issue came to the fore in August last year, when the Executive announced that easyJet would receive funding to upgrade a year-round service from Edinburgh to Geneva. In fact, that route was already being serviced unsubsidised by the Scotland-based company Globespan, which operated a winter-only service on the route. The Executive then said that the funding would apply only from April to December—when the Globespan service was not operating—thus bending its own rules, which said that the fund could be applied only to year-round routes, and missing the point that easyJet would not be operating the route at all were it not for subsidy from the taxpayer. It is little surprise that Globespan, a Scottish company—it is based in Edinburgh, I believe—reacted with fury.

That is a slightly simplistic take on the issue. If we are to invest the limited amounts that we do in the air route development fund, it is important that we secure year-round services. That was very definitely the criterion and we achieved it. I do not mind whether we achieve it through two airlines or one. Surely the positive aspect is that more Scottish travellers can fly that route all year round.

It is interesting that the minister is prepared to bend the rules when it suits him. We agree with the objective of growth in travel, but we need to be careful. If the ministers are to set rules for particular funds, they should adhere to them rather than bend them when it suits.

We should also ensure that the benefits of the fund are spread fairly throughout Scotland; in that respect, I agree with Fergus Ewing. The fund should be available to as many Scots travellers as possible and it should open up all of Scotland to overseas visitors. There was a report in the Evening Times last week about direct flights between Glasgow and Brussels that were operated by SN Brussels Airlines being dropped. I hope that that is an isolated occurrence. I appreciate that Glasgow airport has attracted money from the fund for its daily flight to Dubai but, over the period, it has not done particularly well in attracting cash. We must remember that Glasgow—like Prestwick—has an important role to play in Scotland's links with the wider world.

We also need to be conscious of the environmental impact of air travel. I note that the Executive mentions that in its motion and I agree that we cannot credibly tackle the problem at national level, but require international—indeed, global—co-operation to make it work. I enjoyed hearing the minister's robust defence of the Executive's approach in response to criticism from the Greens. I hope that that robust Executive stance survives future coalition talks with the Green party if such things should occur.

The Scottish Conservatives welcome the air route development fund and look forward to greater international connections direct from Scotland in years to come. However, we must all remember that the current growth in air travel has come about because we had a Conservative Government that was prepared to make brave decisions which were, at that time, opposed by other parties that are now proclaiming the success of their policies in the Parliament.

I move amendment S2M-3837.1, to insert at end:

"notes, however, that the ARDF represents a comparatively modest contribution to the massive expansion of air services over recent decades, which is chiefly due to the substantial deregulation of the industry achieved by the liberalising policies of the last Conservative administration, such as the privatisation of the British Airports Authority (BAA), the privatisation of British Airways (BA), the Airports Act 1986, the Civil Aviation Act 1980 and the pursuit of a European single market in aviation."

My word, the debate has been consensual so far. We also had a consensual debate last week, when we debated the importance of Scotland becoming the best small country in the world, with the economic, social and environmental legs of sustainable development supporting real progress. A slightly different set of members spoke in that debate but, a week later, we are hobbling back on to the economic leg, ignoring the impact on the environment and the social devastation that climate change will cause around the globe. That economic leg is looking a little shaky, because we have still to see a detailed report on the economic benefits of the air route development fund three years on from its launch. However, we know that although 1.5 million incoming visitors used Scottish airports in 2004 and brought £866 million into the Scottish economy, nearly 4 million trips were made by Scots travelling out of the country and spending more than £2.1 billion overseas. To put it another way, for every £1 that visitors spent in Scotland, nearly £2.50 was spent overseas. That is hardly good for the Scottish economy.

Does Mark Ruskell think that if no airlines flew out of Scotland, Scots would all stay at home and not go to Blackpool, for example, for their holidays? He is not making a good argument.

At a seminar that we both attended last year, Maureen Macmillan heard Jim Hunter comment to a group of MSPs that the best thing for Highland tourism would be for the price of air travel to double because people would spend their holidays closer to home.

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

No, I need to make a little bit of progress.

Nine out of 10 visitors to Scotland come from within the United Kingdom. Those visitors even spend slightly more than overseas visitors, but a vast section of that huge market still leaves the UK in a mass exodus because of cheap air travel.

What travel links should we invest money in to get the best economic return? As the minister knows, in the first two years of its operation, the Rosyth ferry generated about £150 million for the Scottish economy for only £1 million of Government investment. The air route development fund is predicted to generate less than £50 million for every £1 million that we put into it. Surely the time is right to put Rosyth at the heart of Scotland's international transport links and focus the money on opening up new routes, including routes to Norway.

Will the Greens be candid? It seems to me that they are saying that air travel is bad. Do they think that it should be banned, restricted or taxed and how would they tax it? Will they come clean or have they been Blairised?

I am not saying that air travel is a bad thing—of course it is not—but we must realise that it has an environmental impact. Let us take lifeline rural air flights as an example. Even if we have to make a 60 per cent reduction in our CO2 emissions over all sectors of the Scottish economy, we will still have room to allow lifeline rural air flights, which perhaps satisfy the sustainability, social and economic tests. We can make allowances for such air travel, but we cannot keep throwing money away by developing routes that serve only to enable tourism—particularly short weekend breaks—out of Scotland, which takes the economic benefits elsewhere.

Will Mark Ruskell give way?

I need to make some progress; I am running out of time.

There is also Eurostar. The chief executive of Eurostar stated last year that cheap flights had ruined the economic case for Eurostar to run services to Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. It is depressing to see Scotland's Eurostar rolling stock sitting in King's Cross station in London, badged up in GNER livery and running express routes from London to Yorkshire. The only Eurostar train that people can pick up in Scotland is made by Hornby.

Will Mark Ruskell give way on that point?

I need to make some progress.

Let us not forget about the environment in the debate. On climate change, we have no option other than to hit the target of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. I would point out to Fergus Ewing that the Tyndall centre reported last year that if aviation grows at the predicted rate, emissions from all other sectors will have to be cut to zero to meet that target. Which industries would Fergus Ewing shut down in his constituency to allow for further expansion in Scottish flights? Perhaps the public sector should take the hit. Perhaps he thinks that we should just stop being silly and give up on climate change targets altogether.

According to the Executive, the solution is the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. That is welcome, but the ETS will deliver emissions reductions of at best 2 per cent per annum, which must be set against the predicted growth of 4 per cent in air travel and emissions every single year. That would be one step forward, two steps back. I appreciate what the minister has been saying about the policy intention of the Executive to work internationally to reduce the impact of air travel, but that does not join up with the domestic policy on the air route development fund.

The Executive has argued that the air route development fund is helping to rationalise flights by reducing the number of short-haul hops to hubs such as London to join longer-haul flights. The purpose of the fund is not to undermine existing flights and I doubt that any of the new direct routes have led to the closure of short-haul flights. Rather, they have increased capacity and fuelled the growth in demand. If the Executive is so sure that there has been some miraculous environmental benefit from opening up more air routes and undermining rail travel, let us have a proper environmental assessment alongside the missing economic one.

I wish that aviation were not such an aggressive contributor to climate change, because flying is often a beautiful experience. However, we cannot keep trying to bash a square peg into a round hole. Fuelling the rise in air travel means that everything else has to go back to zero.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry—I am just closing.

Scotland will not be able to compete in a world where, this century, low-carbon economies will be smarter and more successful. It is time that we got competitive and became part of the solution, rather than part of the problem.

I move amendment S2M-3837.3, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"questions the success of the Air Route Development Fund (ARDF) in bringing sustainable development benefits to Scotland; further questions whether economic advantages have flowed to the Scottish economy from the ARDF; supports the development of an international regime that reduces overall aviation emissions; notes that promoting expansion of aviation undermines existing emissions targets and that projected growth in aviation would necessitate cessation of economic activity in other sectors in order to achieve targets; notes that the net cost of aviation to the Scottish economy was £1.4 billion in 2004 and that the United Kingdom accounts for 87% of tourist visits to Scotland; supports work to improve rail journey times between Scotland and London in order to reduce the reliance on domestic short-haul flights but notes the lack of progress in this respect, and condemns the further use of public funds for the ARDF."

We move now to open debate. I apologise—Alasdair Morrison is to speak before that, substituting for Bristow Muldoon.

I was just going to explain, Presiding Officer. I am sure that you have already established that neither Bristow Muldoon nor Marilyn Livingstone is with us at the moment. They are as yet absent for transport-related reasons, which they might very well wish to take up with the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications. I am sure that, with your permission, my two colleagues will take part in the debate once they arrive.

Air travel is a feature of the life and work of many public servants in the Western Isles. As many members know, there are three airports in the islands: on Barra, in the south; on Benbecula, in the middle of the archipelago; and on Lewis, in the north.

Concurring with much of what other members have said, I think that this has been a positive debate. Many members have outlined the positive impact of the air route development fund. One unintended consequence is that Fergus Ewing got up this morning, came to this place and made a speech nine tenths of which was positive. Unfortunately, following the so-called high-level talks between the nationalists and the Greens, it seems that what was a blossoming relationship has just foundered on the air route development fund and everything associated with air travel.

We all know that good air links and the air route development fund have been good for business and industry. There were only 13 international destinations some years ago, but that figure has now increased to 40. That is certainly a welcome development. BAA has presided over the development of more than 100 new air services to more than 50 destinations. The Executive's air route development fund has been an exceptionally valuable addition to Scotland's attractiveness in winning new airline services and in enhancing the viability of a great number of other industries.

Successful routes such as those to New York and Dubai have been cited. They have proved critical to encouraging inbound and outbound tourism, which is contrary to the points that have been made by the Scottish Green Party.

The member mentioned the air link from Glasgow international to Dubai. Does he think that that will lead to more Glaswegians going to Dubai or to more folk from the United Arab Emirates coming to Scotland? This is about direct flights. Yes, I take—

Quickly.

I take the minister's point about short-haul flights, but surely more people will go from Scotland to spend their money elsewhere than will come to Scotland to spend their money here.

I apologise to the member if I did not make myself clear. There has been a great increase in both outbound and inbound tourism. That is a reality, but it is something that the Greens fail to recognise. The statistics speak for themselves.

Had Bristow Muldoon been speaking now, he would of course have shared his experience as convener of the Local Government and Transport Committee. I am unfortunately not able to cite any examples of what Mr Muldoon would have said but, for obvious and understandable reasons, I wish to focus on the needs of my constituency.

In his tour de force, the minister rightly trumpeted the success of the air route development fund in increasing international travel. The city and airport of Aberdeen offer an outstanding example, as there have been 17 new services there in as many months. Of course, I would claim that the jewel in the crown of the air route development fund has been the advent of the Stornoway to Aberdeen route. It is the first time that the fund has been used for an intra-Scotland route, which started last Monday. As its name suggests, Eastern Airways had not previously been seen on the west coast, but it is now operating between east and west.

As the minister knows, 450 men from the Western Isles work on the North sea. Previously, their fathers and grandfathers would have been engaged in gainful employment on Clydeside. The advent of the new route allows a greater number of workers to live on the islands and it will also allow some of those who have settled on the east coast to consider relocating to the islands. This year, for the first time in 30 years, there has been an increase in the islands' population. Having good air links is obviously making a contribution towards that.

On the impact on the environment, the Greens fail to recognise the benefits of having direct routes and a greater number of flights. Let us take the average oil worker travelling to the North sea. If he had been travelling two weeks ago, he would have flown from Stornoway to Inverness, taken a taxi to Inverness railway station, taken a train down to Aberdeen and then taken another taxi to Aberdeen airport to connect with his helicopter en route to the oil platform. That is obviously an expensive way to do business. The new route is cost effective and it is obviously a gain for the environment. Good, affordable air links are hugely important for good social and economic reasons and for the well-being of all of Scotland. The Scottish islands are no different.

The minister knows that public service obligations have their place. They are being well used on Barra, Tiree and Campbeltown. The Scottish Executive's intervention has been positive in relation to those three airports, with a 30 per cent reduction in the cost of travelling between them and the city of Glasgow. We should now consider other imaginative and flexible ways of gaining exactly the same benefits for routes to other airports, including the other two airports in the Western Isles, Benbecula and Stornoway.

As a Shetlander, the minister is all too aware of the discriminatory nature of some of the existing pricing regimes. I urge him to complement the success of the air route development fund by examining imaginative ways of reducing the costs of flying to the islands. PSOs should be used wisely; we certainly do not want to stifle competition. There are currently four flights a day between Stornoway and Glasgow, three a day between Stornoway and Edinburgh and two a day between Glasgow and Benbecula. I hope that the Scottish Executive will soon be in a position to intervene in relation to flights between the mainland of Scotland and the Scottish islands to allow a greater number of people to use our airports. That is good for the viability of our communities and it is certainly good for the cohesion of the Scottish islands.

We now come to the open debate.

Credit must go where credit is due. Although the Scottish National Party championed a route development fund, it has clearly been the Executive that has implemented it. I do not mean to disparage the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications, but it is perhaps unfortunate that Lewis Macdonald is not here to take the plaudits. After all, he was the minister who initiated the fund and we fully support what it has achieved.

Some matters require to be fine tuned and we must take further steps, but we welcome the fund. There is a consensus among members—apart from the Greens—for the fund.

It is important to give credit where credit is due. It was not simply politicians who suggested or implemented the fund; civil servants put it in place. Scottish Enterprise is much maligned—I and other SNP members, as well as other members, have routinely given it a kicking, sometimes with justification. However, Mary McLaughlin and Scottish Enterprise's transport department have done a fantastic job of implementing the air route development fund. We should put on record what that organisation has done. It was also involved in the Rosyth ferry. Ms McLaughlin and her team deserve to be recognised for what they have done.

Links are vital. The minister and others described the frankly shameful situation when Scotland had only 13 international routes but Ireland had numerous routes that connected the Irish economy, never mind Irish tourism, with the world. Many years ago, we had the ignominy that delegations from Scotland that were going to tartan day events required to hub through Amsterdam or Dublin. That was ridiculous and I am thankful that that no longer happens. The only problem that we now face is that unless people book early, they will not obtain a ticket for a flight from Glasgow or Edinburgh to New York, because the routes are so popular. However, I am thankful that we no longer require to go elsewhere.

I fundamentally disagree with the Greens' position; I will deal later with their comments about the environment. The growth in route development is important for the economy and for tourism. It is no accident that the Royal Bank of Scotland is now located at Gogarburn. That is not simply because of its historical base in Scotland or the availability in Edinburgh of skilled staff in financial matters, but because of the closeness to the airport and connectivity.

Mr Ballard goes on about Dubai. He may think that the importance of the flight from Glasgow to Dubai is about outbound tourism and allowing Scots to benefit from the sun in Dubai, but the benefit of the Dubai route is that it links Scotland with south-east Asia, the Indian sub-continent and Australasia. That is fundamental to our major business. The Royal Bank of Scotland is the biggest business in Scottish history. If we undermine it, we undermine Scotland's economy, so we require to support it.

The situation is the same in tourism, which we must address. I heard Mr Ruskell and the gentleman from Friends of the Earth earlier today say that more went out than came in, which is patently absurd. If we did not have the air route development fund, the A1 would be clogged with people from the east coast of Scotland going to Newcastle airport and the M74 would be clogged with people going to Manchester airport. Not only would those airports rather than our airports benefit, but road traffic would increase to access flights. People would not choose to spend a fortnight going down the Clyde.

We must address how we attract people here. To the Scottish tourism sector's credit, it recognises that it must change its product. Unless a niche market is involved, the days when people spent two weeks here are gone. The sector is developing shorter-stay breaks, which is why Mr Ewing's point is important. We need to be not just a seven-day-a-week destination but a 12-month-a-year destination, which is why we must go further.

We have not done enough for Inverness, to which airlines want to fly—Ryanair has put on record its desire to fly there. If we look at the Ryanair website, we see the tragedy that a place such as Killarney, which is not noted for its major international air links, has Ryanair flights not only to London Stansted but to Frankfurt, whereas Inverness does not. If an airline can fly such routes into Killarney, it is equally capable of flying them into Inverness. We need to access that. Ryanair says that it sees a greater market in Inverness than in Killarney, because of Killarney's proximity to Dublin and other areas. There are other routes for our economy in addition to the Spanish tourism routes that we have—I have some sympathy with Mr Ruskell's points about that. We need to have flights to Madrid and Barcelona so that Scotland can access South America and elsewhere.

Flying has environmental consequences and nobody suggests that it is cost free. However, we must recognise the benefits to our economy and the nature of our geography. Flying directly from Scotland is better because it means not two flights but one, which reduces environmental damage. One of the most significant forms of environmental damage arises from the planes that circle round and round Heathrow airport because they cannot land. They burn up fuel and damage the environment. If travellers can take off from a Scottish airport and land directly at their destination airport, they save an additional flight and circling round greater London.

We must improve the rail network. It has been shown on the continent that if good rail routes are created, there is no need to fly between, for example, Brussels and Paris—very few people do that. Flying from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Manchester should not be required. We must address that by improving internal links to negate the need to fly internally. However, external flights will always be required in an island nation such as Scotland.

Not long ago, a taunt to mock someone was that they would rush outside to wave to passing aircraft. Perhaps the Greens want us to return to that position.

The explosion in air transport was a main feature of the second half of the 20th century and it was essential to Scotland's economy that Scotland was part of that revolution. Less than a generation ago, more than half the country's population had never set foot in an aircraft. However, Scotland's isolation has now largely disappeared, which is essential to a small country that is at the north-western corner of Europe.

In the financial year ended March 2005, there were direct flights from Scottish airports to 105 foreign airports. That was a doubling over the previous 12 months and a fourfold increase on less than a decade ago. In air transport terms, we have moved away from total dependency on the hub-and-spoke system to accessing many countries directly. As Murdo Fraser said, if a trip can be made directly in an hour or two, why should businessmen spend a day or so on it?

The success story is partly due to the air route development fund. Some 22 routes, of which only three are internal UK flights, operate with support from the fund. We have heard at first hand that internal flights can bring economic benefit to remote and rural areas such as those in the Highlands and Islands. As the minister said, more new routes are coming, so we are moving forward. Scottish Enterprise has estimated that the air route development fund will benefit Scotland by about £300 million and an additional 700 jobs in the all-important tourism sector. All that comes from a fund of £14.5 million spent over three years. That is a good investment and, because the scheme is based on support for routes, it is free from any accusation of a misuse of public cash.

The Green Opposition criticises the motion because flying is a less environmentally friendly method of transport. I know that several environmental groups have questioned the economic benefits and worried about environmental costs that arise from the expansion in air transport. I am aware of the Friends of the Earth report to which the Greens referred, which suggests that air travel resulted in a major net loss of £1.4 billion last year to the Scottish economy because of the number of people who took money out of the country. However, the answer is not the Greens' suggestion of putting up barriers to prevent Scots from travelling abroad; the answer is surely to encourage more people into the country and to help them to spend their cash in Scotland. The minister provided evidence of the increase in tourism last year and spoke of the target to increase the tourism industry by 50 per cent in the next decade.

Does Andrew Arbuckle recognise that flying is the most polluting form of travel? Does he recognise that flying in the UK is subsidised to the tune of about £6 billion a year as it is the only form of travel that incurs no tax on its fuel? Given that, does he agree that it would be better to retain people in Scotland by ensuring that people who fly pay the full cost of their journey and are not subsidised to get out of Scotland?

That was a bit lengthy.

I thank Mr Ballard for his long intervention. I know that he is against air travel and we will take that as his simplistic position. Despite challenges from Mr Ewing, Mr Ballard has offered nothing on what he would put in place to support the Scottish economy.

It is right to say that the Greens will not say what they would do. However, given Ming Campbell's promise that there should be more environmental taxes, will Mr Arbuckle say whether aviation tax should be one of those?

Anybody who takes a unilateral position on any tax is wrong. There would be an argument in favour of having an aviation tax if all the countries in the world decided that there should be one, but we should not have such a tax on our own.

By concentrating too much on environmental and economic matters in the debate, there is a danger that we will miss the cultural advantages that result from more people travelling and seeing other people's cultures and ways of life. Too many of our prejudices are born of ignorance. As Francis Bacon said, travel broadens the mind.

The minister highlighted the new direct links with eastern Europe. I must declare an interest in that regard, as I have taken advantage of one such link. As a result, I have more knowledge of Poland's heritage, culture and people. I cannot say whether Murdo Fraser has benefited culturally from his 49p trip, but we must remember that his investment was small.

I was pleased that the minister finished his speech by pointing out that although much has been achieved, there is much more to do. Scottish people have been inveterate and regular travellers throughout history. The problem is that, in previous times, such travel often benefited other countries rather than Scotland. The better, quicker and more efficient means of travel that are now available should mean that there will be more benefits to Scotland from the travel of those who venture abroad.

I support the motion.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate on the air route development fund.

We all know that the minister is a modest man, and with this scheme he has much to be modest about. It is understandable that he should want to trumpet the Scottish Executive's initiatives in the area, but I insist that credit should be given where it is due. The tremendous expansion in airline services from Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the past 25 years, the arrival of low-cost carriers and the accessibility of air travel to the ordinary man and woman in the street owe far more to the previous Conservative Government's record in liberalising and opening up the market than to a relatively puny route development fund. Our political opponents may be loth to acknowledge that—doing so might stick in their craw.

My colleague Mr Fraser referred to the privatisation of British Airways and BAA.

Is it not the case that so many people were unemployed during the wonderful days that the member mentions that they could not afford to use such routes?

That is not borne out by the growth in the market for air travel, which has been consistently strong over the period.

I should also refer to the competitive measures that our Government has taken and the policies that it has—to its credit—developed in partnership with our fellow member states in the European Union to develop a single market in aviation, to open up routes and landing slots and to remove the distortions that have arisen from granting state aid to national airlines. Such fundamental changes in the marketplace have made the entirely welcome differences that we can see.

Having given due credit where it is due, I want to examine the operation of the air route development fund. The fund is shrouded in a degree of financial mystery. It was announced in November 2002 with an allocation of £6.8 million, but less than £1.5 million was spent over the next two financial years. Notwithstanding that, the Scottish Executive then announced that funding was to be increased to £12.4 million. The figure has apparently risen again to £14.4 million, with £4.8 million being allocated over this financial year and the next two financial years. However, outcome again seems to be lagging behind expectation, with the Scottish Executive's figures indicating an estimated expenditure of only £10.5 million over that period rather than the full budgetary allocation.

I am intrigued that David McLetchie is vigorously pursuing the Executive on the issue of finances. As I said in my speech, a growth in international destinations from 13 to 40 has been achieved. Surely spending less money to achieve more is an admirable way of pursuing public policy.

Spending less to achieve more is indeed an admirable pursuit. It is a pity that the Executive is not doing so in other areas of its budget. I was simply pointing out that the Executive cannot constantly puff up what it is spending and not deliver. If it would like to revise its budgetary figures, I will look forward to seeing those figures in our debate on the budget next week.

If the global figures are confusing and contradictory even in the Scottish Executive's own releases, at least some of the figures are published. By contrast, the subsidies that are paid on particular routes that are approved by the fund remain a closely guarded secret on the ground of commercial confidentiality. The minister might like to explain to members why that should be the case. I would have thought that the public subsidy that is paid per route, per flight and per passenger is a matter of legitimate public interest and that knowing it—as opposed to negotiating deals behind closed doors—would promote competition among operators. The provision of such information to the Parliament is important. We welcome the concept of a route development fund, but we must take care that it does not turn into a route dependency fund and a permanent drain on the public purse.

We must also be mindful that routes that are financed through the fund do not put unsubsidised services at an unfair disadvantage. Czech Airlines, for example, was ARDF-financed in October 2004 to run a service from Glasgow to Prague, which it did on a twice-daily basis until the service ceased to exist in August last year. Part of the reason for the failure of the service was that it was competing with an established Glasgow to Prague service that was being run by Globespan which, shortly before the announcement of the award to Czech Airlines, had agreed to expand its Glasgow operation so that there were flights daily rather than twice a week. The Czech Airlines service subsidy failed to achieve the desired result and the loss can be quantified. However, one might reasonably ask the minister whether there has been any assessment of the damage that has been done to an established business by the introduction of a state-subsidised competitor.

As Murdo Fraser said, the minister will be aware of the objections that Globespan has raised to the award of route development funding to easyJet to run an Edinburgh to Geneva service all year round when Globespan was already doing so from December to April on an unsubsidised basis. Does the minister think that that is fair competition? Does he or Scottish Enterprise have any proposals to level the playing field?

Finally, in response to questions that were asked by his Liberal Democrat colleague Mike Pringle following the collapse of Duo Airways, the former Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, gave an assurance that stringent evaluation processes had to be gone through before any awards were made from the air route development fund. Since the collapse of Duo Airways, there have been at least two other failures. Will the minister tell us whether the evaluation process is more or less stringent now than it was then?

I support Murdo Fraser's amendment.

Twelve years ago, a Canadian entrepreneur who owned Prestwick airport said to me that Scotland is as strong a brand as Coca-Cola, but it does not have the same distribution network. How true.

For years, Scots have agonised over how—and indeed whether—to exploit foreigners' awareness of Scotland. The problem has been geographical as well as historical. Scotland is on Europe's periphery. For so-called post-industrial cities such as Glasgow, which decided more than 20 years ago to develop a major new tourism industry from scratch, that peripherality has been exacerbated by a perceived lack of visitor attractions and a negative image. Glasgow therefore devised its own brand, a series of major events to give visitors a reason to visit in the first place and its own marketing bureau. Nowadays, more people work in Glasgow's tourism industry than worked in the Clyde shipyards in their heyday. However, the microeconomic outcome is the same as that from manufactured exports. Hard currency is brought in. There is, therefore, evidence that branding, marketing and events can help to deliver regeneration.

What applies to Glasgow also applies to Scotland, but what about the peripherality that I mentioned? The M74, which is our main road link to England and Europe, has still not been completed and our main rail link to England and Europe for passengers and freight—the west coast main line—has not yet been upgraded north of the border to a high-speed link. The UK Government cheated us out of scheduled European train services that we were promised in return for paying our share of the channel tunnel. Sadly, the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry service recently suffered a major setback, and it seems that ferry links between Argyll and Northern Ireland may not reopen.

Therefore, it is critical that today's debate is focused on recent real improvements in our air links and how we can do more. I only wish that we were not so dependent on an industry that is not directly accountable to the Parliament. It helps that we control some of our airports, although not the three largest. In 1973, the former Glasgow Corporation, daunted by the capital investment challenge, sold Glasgow airport for £1 million to the then publicly owned British Airports Authority, which the Tories later privatised. Not long ago, when I asked BAA what its price would be to sell the airport back to the city, it said between £0.5 billion and £1 billion. That was too rich for my blood and thus died my dream of rivalling municipally owned Manchester airport.

Since 2003 Glasgow's marketing bureau has subsidised 13 new air routes by marketing in the cities of origin. Eight of the 13 routes were helped by VisitScotland, and 11 obtained route development funding. Over three years, those 13 new routes have generated an extra 400,000 overnight stays in Glasgow and brought in £64.8 million. Glasgow's balance sheet on route development is positive, considering that two airports serve the city.

However, I must add several notes to the accounts, as it were. Glasgow international airport is about to lose its direct link to Brussels; what a pity that that was not given route development funding. Having read the Official Report, I still do not understand why the Edinburgh to Newark, New Jersey route was subsidised when the same route has been long established at Glasgow. I share BAA Scotland's view that the five-days-a-week criterion is too rigid, although we have heard that it can be flexible. For example, the US Airways Glasgow to Philadelphia service operates for only six months of the year, so it does not qualify for route development funding. However, that route has generated 67,000 overnight stays and £6.6 million per year. Could route development funding not help to build a year-round service between Glasgow and Philadelphia?

Route development funding is here to stay, and we must refine it and build on its success. Nicol Stephen said in 2003 that we should use the fund to support, not distort, the market. We must bear that in mind as we continue to develop airport policies. In 2004, the UK white paper on transport development controversially predicted that Glasgow international airport's passenger traffic would rise from its current level of 7.9 million per year to 15 million in 30 years' time. The traffic in Edinburgh airport would rise from 7.1 million to 20 million. Those figures were reached only by ignoring the Department of Trade and Industry's standard methodology, by comparing Edinburgh's high-range figure with Glasgow's medium-range figure and by ignoring the Fraser of Allander institute's prospectus for the Glasgow economy, which gainsaid the white paper's pessimistic view.

This policy area, although it is not in the main devolved, is vital to Glasgow and Scotland. As we move forward, not just in debating what is going on in aviation but in developing and refining policies such as route development, I will continue to be on the alert for a level playing field. The lack of transparency that is perhaps justified by commercial confidentiality makes that task difficult.

I welcome much of what Charlie Gordon said, notwithstanding his comments about the M74, on which we have a long-standing disagreement. I hope that in the future the chamber will have another strong advocate for Glasgow, not just in this debate but in many others. We could certainly do with that.

Charlie Gordon mentioned branding Scotland, and it is correct that we discuss Scotland the nation. We should discuss the fact that, as a small nation that aspires to fight above its weight in the world, we must develop first-class transport links to and from our country. Undoubtedly, part of that package has to be first-class air links. However, it is unforgivable for us as politicians, who seek to develop Scotland the nation, to forget that transport links not just to and from our country, but within our country, matter. For too long, international visitors have arrived at Glasgow and Edinburgh airports to realise sadly that, unlike the other European nations that they have visited, there are no rail links to our city centres. Those airport rail links are now in planning, which is long overdue. However, in and of themselves, the links will be successful only if, after reaching the city centres, people can get high-speed, reliable and reasonably priced rail links to the other parts of Scotland that they want to visit, from our beautiful north and south to throughout the central belt.

I turn to transport links to and from our country. Not enough has been said about the development of high-speed rail links from Scotland to England and not enough pressure has been exerted in that regard. Not enough has been invested and not enough political pressure has been brought to bear in relation to the superferry travel links, which have been mooted but unfortunately keep seeming to fail.

We must develop the idea that short-haul flights from Scotland to England should be not applauded, but seen as a signal of our failure in Scotland to develop suitable alternative—and more environmentally friendly—forms of transport. However, I will not knock the idea of developing more direct air links from Scotland to other parts of the world. It is already the case that too few working-class families can afford an overseas holiday and the benefits of the sunshine in Greece, Spain or Cuba. I wish that more working-class families could afford flights to those countries. As overpaid politicians, we should not support the pricing of air travel further beyond the reach of working-class communities.

We should be absolutely clear that to pursue an environmental strategy for transport, we must have a more serious input into rail travel within and without our country. In five years to a decade, if we had sufficient political will, we could utilise the Eurotunnel's full potential to make air travel from Scotland to Europe not just environmentally costly but more economically costly for the individual, to the extent that rail travel would become the preferred option.

Before I take the intervention, I will say that—

One minute.

I apologise to Jamie Stone.

Fergus Ewing and Alasdair Morrison from the Highlands and Islands have contributed to the debate. However, it is unfortunate that neither of them mentioned the road equivalent tariff. That would be more effective than the air route development fund in opening up the economies of the Highlands and Islands and regenerating communities there. It is a pity that the Parliament has not been as proactive and as prepared to dig into its pocket to provide road equivalent tariff ferry fares as it has been to provide for an air route development fund.

We require some honesty and balance in the debate about the route development fund. The economic benefits that arise from the fund are questionable to say the least, given that it has probably generated a greater outflow than inflow of individuals and money. In and of itself, such an outcome is not to be rued. Economic growth and expenditure should be about not just economics but the ability of families and ordinary people to travel to parts of the world that were hitherto inaccessible to them. From that point of view, I argue that a little more balance is required in the Executive's promotion of the success of the air route development fund.

Although I can sympathise with the Greens' contention that, in the UK or European context, unrestricted expansion of commercial aviation involves significant environmental costs, I cannot agree with their opposition to further development of direct air routes from Scotland to the rest of the world. Given Scotland's geographical location on Europe's periphery, it is absolutely necessary that we have first-class two-way transport and communication links overseas if we are to survive and prosper in an increasingly globalised world economy. For far too long, our businesspeople, tourism industry and travellers have been handicapped by the all-flights-lead-to-London syndrome. Stopping the growth of direct air routes from Scotland would have the effect of increasing flights to the London hub. Given the economic and environmental impacts of doing so, that would be akin to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

That said, the Executive is in danger of exaggerating the benefits of the air route development fund, given the lack of evidence, for example, of the fund's additionality. Should we perhaps praise rather the airlines and airport companies that have invested in direct routes from Scotland for taking the risk and making their venture successful? I would like to know just how critical the ARDF subsidy was for each of those decisions and the extent to which taxpayers are receiving value for money. The SNP supports the broad thrust of the policy, but we suggest that the fund could be more effective with better targeting.

To consider how the fund might be developed, let us take as an example Prestwick airport, which has been the major success story in Scottish aviation over the past five to 10 years. Last week, Prestwick airport announced that yet another low-cost airline carrier—Wizz Air, which is based in Budapest—would launch its first ever Scottish routes to Warsaw and Gdansk. Those routes will be in addition to eight other routes that Ryanair operates between Prestwick and locations across western Europe, from Stockholm to Rome. All those routes are supported by the ARDF and all are successful, whereas the success rate for all other ARDF-supported routes from other Scottish airports is, by contrast, apparently only 50 per cent.

What attracted Ryanair to Prestwick and what sets Prestwick apart from other airports? The answer is surely that Prestwick offers a combination of tight, efficient management, low landing charges and high-quality airport infrastructure. It is notable that Prestwick is Scotland's only rail-connected airport, with some 30 per cent of passengers arriving at the airport by air train. Passengers who travel on the new Wizz Air routes in the first six months of their operation will be entitled to free rail travel to and from anywhere in Scotland; thereafter, they will be entitled to half-price rail travel. Surely the message for the Executive is that, if we want to underpin future growth, we need significant investment in rail links to our airports.

Although the airport's management might not thank me for saying so, Prestwick could probably attract airlines and open new routes successfully regardless of any subsidy, but the same could not be said for its air freight business. That is despite the fact that Prestwick carries more freight than all the other Scottish airports put together. That part of the business has grown by 400 per cent over the past 10 years but, as the minister will know, growth has slowed in the past couple of years due to the downturn in electronics.

An enormous amount of freight that could be flown direct from Scotland is instead trucked down south to fly out from London and the east midlands. We could and should provide more help for Scottish exporters by extending the ARDF to freight. That would help airlines to offset risk and high start-up costs. Tipping the balance in favour of Scottish routes must surely be a strategic objective. For example, Scotland currently has no dedicated air freight routes to the middle east and China. That is a big gap that must be addressed.

The SNP amendment addresses those issues, so I hope that it will attract support from members in all sections of the chamber.

I had intended to start by congratulating Murdo Fraser on his well-balanced and fair assessment of both the current air route development fund and what happened previously. However, having listened to the speeches that have been made—I do not exclude the minister's speech, but I refer in particular to the speeches of Kenny MacAskill, Adam Ingram, from whom we have just heard, and some others—I must say that I have heard many well-made points in the debate so far.

Our amendment acknowledges that the Executive's introduction of the air route development fund has brought great benefits, but the amendment also reminds us, as Murdo Fraser did earlier, that previous Conservative Government policies such as privatisation have had a large input. At the time, the privatisation process was criticised by all the other parties in the chamber and by the current Prime Minister. As a shadow energy minister, Tony Blair suggested that the privatisation of the electricity companies would result in blackouts as the lights went out across the country because no new power stations had been built. How wrong he was. It is good to see that Tony Blair and other such individuals have not only converted to many previous Conservative policies, but have gone beyond them. Talking about Prestwick makes one think of air traffic control, but the Labour Government has actually privatised that. How far some of those individuals have come since the days prior to 1997.

Going back a bit further, I want to mention my experiences concerning Prestwick at the time of the 1992 election, when I was a candidate for Ayr. Happily, I was successfully elected despite the fact that the major issue for Prestwick airport was thought to be the open skies policy that was then advocated by the Government. The policy seemed to be opposed by everyone, irrespective of the party to which they belonged—even some Conservative supporters were against it—but the Government pressed ahead with what was right. To my mind, Prestwick has benefited immensely from that. Prior to open skies, the best passenger throughput that Prestwick had ever achieved was about 750,000 people in a year. Today, Prestwick's annual throughput has gone well beyond the 2 million mark, which is a real success. I recognise that the perception of air travel has also changed, but that change basically arose from the policies of the then Conservative Government.

For Glasgow Prestwick's success—I was pleased that Charlie Gordon referred to the two Glasgow airports—I give credit to a number of people. Those include George Younger, Matthew Hudson—to whom Charlie Gordon also referred—and Bill Barr. Credit should also go to British Aerospace and to the then provost of Kyle and Carrick District Council, Gibson Macdonald, who is now happily leader of South Ayrshire Council. In order not to be unfair, I also give credit to the then leader of the Labour group, Ian Welsh, who for a short time was a member of the Parliament. All of them worked towards the private takeover of Glasgow Prestwick airport and its development. I say to Tommy Sheridan that they recognised at the time that it was all important that there should be a rail link to Glasgow Prestwick airport. They provided that link on a commercial basis, paid for it with little help from Government sources, and it has been a success, as Adam Ingram mentioned. All the decisions about the rail station at Prestwick were made on a commercial basis, and the services operate on such a basis.

The member mentioned the fact that Matthew Hudson built a railway station at Prestwick airport. He did, but he received grants from Strathclyde Regional Council and the local district council to do so. Phil Gallie said that he used private means.

I referred to the Government of the time. I accept that the local authorities provided support for the rail link. I mentioned the input of Gibson Macdonald and Ian Welsh. The airport has changed hands since then. It is now fully privatised and is making its own way. The air route development fund makes a major contribution to that.

I want to respond to Adam Ingram's point about the airlines. The airlines do not benefit directly from financial assistance under the air route development fund. The airports get that benefit, which is a major reason why Ryanair has been able to expand, mainly at Prestwick. Let us not forget that, before the air route development fund was introduced, Ryanair was offering flights to Charleroi, Paris Beauvais and Cologne. It had already established the feasibility of those flights, without the air route development fund. Its approach was based on the fact that Prestwick airport recognised the importance of being an economic venue.

Finally, it would be unfair for me not to mention environmental issues.

Mr Gallie, you are way over time. You must stop now. You cannot start speaking about an entirely new topic after your time is up.

I am sad about that.

I apologise to the opening speakers and to you, Presiding Officer, for not being here for the opening speeches.

I am astounded that, given the phenomenal success that Mr Gallie believes the Conservative Government's transport policies and his contribution as the member for Ayr were, the people rewarded them with such ingratitude as to vote them out of office in 1997. Obviously, they did not understand Phil Gallie properly. Mr Gallie's case—that the growth of aviation in Scotland is down to the privatisation of BAA—might be more credible if it were not for the fact that Manchester airport continues to be a thriving success as a municipally owned airport.

Air transport is vital to Scotland, for the reasons that a number of members have mentioned. Scotland's geographical peripherality, in both the UK and the European Union, makes transport more important to the Scottish economy than it is to probably any other economy in the European Union. Of course we should have a range of transport links between Scotland and other parts of the world. Rail, road traffic and ferries are important, but air travel is an essential component of a modern developed economy. If Scotland is to continue to grow its economy in the years ahead, as most of the parties that are represented in the Parliament aspire to do, air transport has a vital role to play. It contributes to making Scotland a more attractive destination for tourists. There is much more that we can do to promote Scotland internationally as a tourist destination. As many members have recognised, air travel also gives Scots opportunities to travel. We Scots have a high propensity to travel, not just because of our peripherality, but because throughout our history we have been an outgoing nation. Air transport enables Scottish businesses to grow, to sell their products internationally and to promote themselves. I suggest that it also encourages other businesses to choose to locate in Scotland, which they would not do if we did not have direct links.

Undoubtedly, much of the growth that has taken place has been the result of the process of globalisation and the way in which the market has driven the aviation industry. However, the air route development fund has made available some routes that might otherwise have been on the margins of profitability and has provided the air companies with an opportunity to test them out. We can see the benefit of that in many areas, through the links that have been developed from Glasgow to places such as Dubai, Prague and Barcelona; from Prestwick to Gerona and Bergamo; from Edinburgh to Newark and Cologne; and from Aberdeen to Copenhagen. Some of the internal links that have been developed, such as the route from Inverness to Birmingham, are also important. If we continue to support the policy, aviation will continue to grow in Scotland and there will continue to be growth in the Scottish economy on the back of that growth.

I move to the position of the Greens and many environmental groups. As I mentioned earlier, it is of course the case that we support the development of other services, such as ferry links to Europe. We want rail travel internally in the UK and, where appropriate, between the UK and other parts of Europe to grow. However, the Green position is about Scotland turning its back on the world and turning away from the international community. It demonstrates the incongruity of the Greens' support for nationalism.

I am sorry that the member was not here at the beginning of the debate, because he would have heard me speaking positively about links such as ferries and Eurostar. Does he believe that we should prioritise investment in ferry and train services over air travel?

I apologise that I was not in the chamber to hear the member's opening speech. I have no doubt that he advocates growth in ferry and rail travel. I, too, wish to see growth in those areas. However, we must have a range of transport links between Scotland and other destinations. We must also be realistic that many people and businesses will not choose to locate themselves in Scotland if the only opportunity to travel between Scotland and mainland Europe is by ferry or rail, which takes considerably longer than air travel. We must have a range of travel opportunities, a vital component of which is air travel.

I return to my point about the incongruity of the Greens' support for nationalism. The Greens make the point that aviation is not taxed to the same extent as other modes of transport. However, international co-operation is the only way in which there will be any equalisation of taxation between aviation and other modes of transport. As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland will have a far bigger role in driving forward that environmental agenda than it would have on its own. The link that the Greens make between nationalism and environmentalism completely undermines their case. The position of the SNP is completely different from that of the Greens, which demonstrates that the cuddling up between Mr Salmond and the Greens prior to Christmas is a dangerous liaison that is bound to end in tears. I suspect that the Greens will be the crushed party in that liaison.

Aviation is vital to Scottish economic development. The growth in links that we have seen in recent years has been good in providing travel opportunities for Scots and in developing business links. The air route development fund is a component of that growth. Much of it is driven by the market, but the fund makes an important contribution towards ensuring that Scotland improves its connectivity with the world.

I echo what Andrew Arbuckle and Bristow Muldoon have said. Tommy Sheridan hinted at the same point: namely, that travel per se is a good thing. It is right and proper that people should be able to afford to travel to other lands, because in that way they will get to know those lands and their peoples. That will kill xenophobia, so ultimately travel has a peace-making role to play in the world. Let us not forget that when we talk about travel.

It will come as no surprise to the minister that I would like to take the opportunity to draw the chamber's attention to the situation that prevails at Wick airport—the only airport in my constituency—about which I gave notice in a speech that I made last week.

I will speak briefly about the timetabling of flights into and out of Wick airport. It is possible to fly from Edinburgh at 10 o'clock and to arrive in Wick at 11.10. To return the same day, one has to take off from Wick at 10 minutes past 2. Those times are quite hopeless for, say, a Government minister who wants to attend an engagement in Caithness or parts of Sutherland, because no sooner will they have arrived than they will have to turn round and get back on the return flight. Indeed, that is why in all my time as an MSP I have made only one return trip by plane to Wick. I almost always travel by road and—very seldom, it must be said—by rail. I realise that that is not best for the environment.

If a tourist in Edinburgh wishes to travel north to Wick and Caithness tomorrow, they will have to pay an eye-watering £309.70 for a plane ticket. If they decide to book ahead a little and fly to Wick on 24 January, they will pay £285.70. If they decide to book well ahead and to fly up on, for instance, 2 October, their ticket will still cost £265.70.

Those figures, for which I am obliged to the Scottish Parliament information centre, sit very unhappily with the cost of other return flights into and out of Edinburgh. A return flight from Edinburgh to Nice with Lufthansa costs £189; a return flight from Edinburgh to Milan with BMI costs £176; a KLM return flight from Edinburgh to Milan in March costs £164; and a return flight from Edinburgh to Málaga with Globespan costs £134. Most astonishing, a return flight from Edinburgh to Prague in March will cost £101.

People in my constituency can ill afford the costs of flying. In addition, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the chamber to find that there are no return flights whatsoever from Wick to Edinburgh on a Saturday or Sunday. The very best that I can say to the minister is that we in the far north fear that we are being ripped off. I believe that flight times and, more important, the costs of flying run counter to our efforts to promote tourism and to build on the great potential for Dounreay to become a centre of excellence after it is decommissioned.

I do not want to take away from the fact that the Executive has been delivering on its commitments; indeed, I applaud what the minister has said this morning. In particular, I am grateful that Wick airport's main runway has been resurfaced. However, I urge him to examine the problem.

As Alasdair Morrison pointed out, Barra airport enjoys a PSO with Glasgow airport. What is the difference between the very far north of Scotland and an island? Okay—an island is surrounded by sea. However, Caithness has only one rail link and one road link—the A9. Because both can get blocked in bad weather and during the winter, the area can effectively become an island for certain periods.

Does Jamie Stone agree that the solution to the problem has nothing to do with the air route development fund and everything to do with the Executive's commitment to working on and implementing the Highlands and Islands transport partnership's proposal, which aims to reduce flights in the Highlands by 30 per cent? Does he feel ashamed to be part of an Executive that has so manifestly failed to deliver on its pledge to his constituents?

I am sure that it is easy to be tempted by Mr Ewing's charms, but I must inform him that I do not feel ashamed. The reality of politics is that we have to work with ministers in the Executive. We have to make a persuasive case; find support; and work with ministers to secure our aims. Indeed, as in the case of the Caithness maternity service, the way forward is to put up a united front and work constructively with ministers. I have every expectation that my good friend Tavish Scott will hear my concerns and instruct his officials to find out how the matter can be addressed. I have no idea how Mr Menzies Campbell and others view the problem, but Mr Ewing can rest assured that during the hustings for my party's leadership contest I will ask that very question—if the candidates know where Wick is.

Notwithstanding Mr Ewing's late intervention, I can still offer Mr Mather five minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I speak in support of Fergus Ewing's amendment. I should first make it clear that I am pleased that this good idea has been adopted, as it will have a positive impact. Indeed, like Mr Ewing, I am happy that the Executive is implementing our proposals. However, if it had adopted more SNP policy, fewer routes would have needed development finance and less money would have been required as a result of higher growth. That said, we are where we are, and we advocate that more should be done to generate even higher local and national growth.

I will build on points made by my colleagues Kenny MacAskill and Adam Ingram by focusing on two airports that make it clear that something more must be done. Between 1999 and 2005, Prestwick airport experienced a 207 per cent growth in passenger numbers, while passenger numbers at Inverness airport grew by 62 per cent. We acknowledge factors such as the public-private partnership inhibitor at Inverness airport and the greater impact of lower-cost carriers at Prestwick. However, it is incumbent on us to find out what else can be done to address the situation. After all, an extra 501,000 passengers would have passed through Inverness airport if growth there had matched growth at Prestwick. Surely Inverness and the Highlands have the pulling power to justify such an aspiration. As a result, we should not only examine national transport policy but drill down into the regions, particularly those where growth can be readily achieved.

Moreover, we should consider maximising the potential of certain aspects of transport policy. I acknowledge that the air route development fund is already helping the Highlands and Islands, especially as a result of the good sense and generosity demonstrated by Prestwick in pumping out people to travel elsewhere in Scotland. However, that airport's pulling power of low-cost travel, Burns and golf can be easily matched by what can be offered in the majestic Highlands and Islands.

Given that the minister is committed to national and regional growth in Scotland, I wonder whether he shares my opinion that, according to any objective assessment, PSOs allow schedules, frequencies and fares to be specified, which offers smaller airports and communities more than the aid of a social nature that they could receive if the granting of a PSO was not justified. I apply the same caveat to charges. Historically, reductions in airport charges have not reduced fares but have merely changed the timing of service commencement.

I am not alone in believing that. I note with great interest Jamie Stone's support for the notion that PSOs have reduced fares, have increased traffic and have thereby improved local economies. Moreover, Alasdair Morrison said that we need to examine and implement new approaches in imaginative ways that do not stifle competition. We would all sign up to that sentiment.

A new coalition might be developing.

I think that I am protected by the chamber in making these comments, but does the member agree that British Airways might well be making a hefty profit from the flights from Edinburgh to Wick that use Inverness airport and that the company should be shamed into offering cheaper fares?

We have a free market and I suggest that we should simply let it run. However, in BA's hands, the market risks freezing out regional hubs by centralising services. I know that, for example, the new service, BA Connect, has frozen out Belfast. If that can happen to Belfast, it can happen elsewhere. As a result, we should give special consideration to the HITRANS proposition and question whether the likes of aid of a social nature will be enough to do the job.

We welcome the prospect of markedly lower fares for residents, travellers who are under 25 and over 60, families travelling with minors, disabled people and invalids. However, that might not be enough. Indeed, I do not think that it is enough to attract the visitors, business travellers and economic investment that we need. The route development fund can be—and is being—used effectively, but we need to go further and consider other steps, including the use of PSOs. In a growing, ambitious Scotland, companies will bid for those routes. That, in turn, will lead in the long term to growth that will allow us to ratchet back on the cost of development fund payments. Perhaps in such a climate aeroplanes will bring not just travellers but influences that will take us to another place.

During last week's debate on sustainable development, I criticised the title of this debate on the economic benefits of the route development fund. Although we have not yet convinced others of the fund's environmental disbenefits, our amendment certainly makes it impossible for the chamber to ignore them.

In his opening speech, Mark Ruskell said that we must consider the economic, social and environmental impacts of development if it is to be sustainable. What is a sustainable future for the aviation industry? Even Tony Blair says that we need to make a 60 per cent reduction in the 1990 levels of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. In fairness, that would mean that the aviation industry would have to make a 60 per cent reduction in the 1990 levels of its carbon dioxide emissions. Why should we help the aviation industry above other industries in Scotland or internationally? If the aviation industry continues to grow at the current predicted rate, by 2050 it will be the single most important emissions sector. That is not sustainable; more than that, it is not fair.

This morning I cited one example of the development of a direct route between the east and west of Scotland—between Stornoway and Aberdeen. Would the member concede that one plane journey is infinitely better than a plane journey, a train journey and two taxi journeys?

I do not know whether Alasdair Morrison has the figures for the carbon dioxide that is emitted by a single plane journey versus that which is emitted by a plane journey and a train journey, but I think that it would be about the same.

As was said during last week's debate on sustainable development, we need to make tough choices on environmental issues. We need international action. I welcome the fact that Andrew Arbuckle, among others, called for international action, but his position seems to be, "God, give us aviation taxes—just not yet." The truth is that those aviation taxes are coming. We need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to sustainable levels, but at the moment we are investing in the wrong direction and the wrong things. We are supporting an industry that needs dramatically to reduce its emissions.

At what level would the Greens levy those taxes?

The first thing that the Greens want is the removal of the £6 billion air travel subsidy that comes from the taxpayer. Given that there is no tax on aviation fuel at the moment, the most polluting form of travel is subsidised.

We need action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. Part of that will mean increased prices; part of it might mean a reduction in route availability, although that is impossible to judge. However, it is right to say that we need international action and that we need to play our part in that.

We must therefore acknowledge that we are making the wrong investment. Charlie Gordon was right about the need to invest in ferries from Ballycastle to Argyll. Mark Ruskell highlighted the way in which the Rosyth to Zeebrugge ferry has been far more effective in generating economic benefits than the route development fund. Tommy Sheridan was right to say that there is a need for road equivalent tariffs in the Highlands. If we are investing in tourism and route development, we must invest in those routes.

The Friends of the Earth report lays out the costs of aviation to the Scottish economy. For example, 1.5 million people come into the country and spend £866 million, but 4 million people leave the country and spend more than £2 billion. We should consider that when we think about how we can benefit the economy and about the economic benefits of aviation.

I challenged Alasdair Morrison on his point about Dubai. Anyone would admit that more Scots would go from Scotland to spend money in Dubai than would come from Abu Dhabi and Dubai to spend money in Scotland.

Kenny MacAskill's defence was that flying directly from Edinburgh to Dubai would somehow avoid the necessity of short-haul flights. As he went on to say, the truth is that a businessman will normally go on to make a short-haul flight from Dubai to somewhere in south-east Asia. There is no gain to be had by taking a short-haul flight to a London hub and then another to a final destination over taking a flight from Edinburgh or Glasgow to Dubai and then a short-haul flight on to a final destination.

We have to be clear that we are making the wrong investment in a polluting form of transport that is still used overwhelmingly by the rich. It is a form of transport that means that it is cheaper for me to go for a weekend break to Belgium for 49p, as Murdo Fraser did, than to go to Pitlochry or Aberfeldy in his constituency. That is money lost to Scotland.

As members have said, the future is in investing in rail and the public transport solution. Tommy Sheridan and Tavish Scott were right that, in future, rail must be the preferred, cheapest and most sensible choice for people going down to London. That means investing in rail and the Eurostar and not making this mistaken investment in the air route development fund. That is the future; we should be investing in it now and not waiting for international action. That is why I urge all members to support Mark Ruskell's amendment for an economically and environmentally sustainable future for travel in this country.

I remember very well the day that the route development fund was announced because I had to go on to the Lesley Riddoch show and talk about it.

The late Lesley Riddoch show.

Not the late Lesley Riddoch but Lesley Riddoch's late show.

What I remember most about the show was that another item on the programme was about bats in the attic. I say to Mark Ballard that I am very tempted to make the connection between bats in the attic and some of the things that we have heard today from certain members in the chamber.

Mark Ballard knows that I have sympathy with him when he says that air transport is the most polluting form of transport, but we cannot ban it.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Either Mark Ballard is against air transport or he is for it; he cannot pick and choose.

I am interested in the member's position. Given the fact that Tony Blair says that we need to make a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, what percentage reduction in emissions should come from the aviation industry, and what impact would that have on flights?

We cannot pluck a figure out of the air. We have to take action internationally by negotiating first with our partners in Europe and then, I hope, over time, with other countries around the world. We cannot say unilaterally that we are going to stop using aircraft.

I am not saying that.

Basically, the member is indeed saying that. He talks about the road equivalent tariff but that would mean that people would have to go by ferry. If an oil rig worker wants to get from Stornoway to Aberdeen to catch a helicopter, he will not go to Aberdeen by ferry.

He could go by canoe.

Or rubber-band aeroplane.

Yes—by canoe or whatever.

I agree about the balance between, say, a flight from Edinburgh or Glasgow to London and the train. The journey time is about the same and it is more convenient to go from city centre to city centre rather than go to the airport, hang about waiting for a flight, be processed at both ends and then have to get to the centre of London. However, the fares are disproportionately out of kilter. I agree with Tommy Sheridan and with the minister, who said that we have to see whether internal rail services can compete better with internal flights—particularly cheap internal flights. However, such an exercise would not work in relation to Inverness, for example, because the distances are just too great and rail could never compete with aircraft on time or price.

The other thing that I remember about that Lesley Riddoch show was that it took place around the time that Kenny MacAskill was vociferously trying to get Ryanair accepted at Inverness airport. Ryanair actually bullied Highlands and Islands Airport Ltd something rotten and tried to get prices that undercut any other airline that was flying out of Inverness at the time, including easyJet. I am really interested to see that the SNP and Phil Gallie are punting Ryanair again.

I am glad that Maureen Macmillan mentioned Ryanair. Does she agree that it is a pity that the SNP has trumpeted Ryanair so much without mentioning the fact that it refuses to recognise official trade unions such as the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Transport and General Workers Union ?

Yes, I agree with Tommy Sheridan. Perhaps I should also point out Ryanair's policy of flying old-age pensioners to Hamburg and leaving them there.

So that is what happened to Winnie Ewing.

Do not be cheeky.

Budget airlines come with a health warning, but they have a strong part to play in our business sector and tourism industry.

I want to concentrate on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd because it has achieved considerable success in route development in recent years through new routes in the Highlands and Islands and the new, cross-border UK services to London, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester. HIAL also provides seasonal services to Scandinavia from the Highland region. The Executive's air route development fund has played an important part in delivering many of those routes, but not all of them. However, the ARDF gave a kick-start to the process and other developments followed on.

We have our priorities in the Highlands and Islands about what we want to see next. We want air networks serving the Highlands and Islands that provide good business connections. Jamie Stone and others have mentioned that. We need to support in-bound tourism and promote social inclusion. We want direct air links between Inverness and Europe, more direct links with the UK regions from Inverness and enhanced frequency and capacity of existing intra-regional and intra-Scotland services. HITRANS is working with the Executive on a hub scheme for the Highlands and Islands that will deliver air services from Inverness—Inverness will be the hub for the Highlands, and all the smaller airports will be the spokes.

It is worth noting that the UK and European aviation markets are very competitive, with airports competing for airline business. The primary concern for airlines is where they can achieve the highest passenger volumes and yield, and therefore profit. HIAL is working hard with its partners in the region on business cases, which I hope will be successful, and I hope that the Executive will support them.

This has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. As expected, we heard the minister extol the virtues and benefits of the air route development fund. Perhaps surprisingly, the Conservatives largely agree with him. Of course, as Murdo Fraser and Fergus Ewing said, the fund must not be used improperly to undermine existing flights and routes or distort the air fares market. Murdo Fraser and David McLetchie pointed out that much of the current growth in air travel is the result of the deregulation of the air travel market in the 1980s and 1990s. However, as Phil Gallie noted, that is only part of the story.

Tavish Scott and Alasdair Morrison drew attention to the really significant point, which is that air traffic is growing worldwide. European low-cost airlines in particular, as Kenny MacAskill said, have identified an opportunity and have grown point-to-point air passenger travel enormously in Europe in the past five to 10 years, cutting out the need, in an environmentally helpful way, to use the London and European hubs. EasyJet and Ryanair have led the way in low-cost routes and their share prices demonstrate that that model is here to stay. Indeed, talk of an impending bid for easyJet by the FL Group emphasises the point that the conventional carriers are trying hard to get into the low-cost market.

One must view the route development fund in the context of the market capitalisations, annual turnover and profits of companies such as British Airways, Ryanair and easyJet. Of course, £14.4 million from the route development fund over the next three years is important, but it is only an incentive for carriers perhaps to try out a new route. New routes, in turn, help to encourage overseas travel, which helps our businesses and businessmen and our tourism industry. That is particularly the case at Glasgow Prestwick airport in my constituency, to which Charlie Gordon referred when he spoke affectionately of Matthew Hudson, who developed the airport in the 1990s. Indeed, the ARDF has helped to establish eight of the Ryanair routes that operate from Prestwick. Another carrier, Wizz Air, announced this week that it, too, will operate from Prestwick, flying to three destinations in Poland.

The ARDF supports such routes, but the major beneficiary is perhaps our tourism industry. Prestwick is Scotland's fastest growing airport, with almost 2.4 million passengers a year passing through its doors. That passenger traffic gives tourism in Ayrshire and south-west Scotland a huge opportunity. The Ayrshire economy alone benefits by between £13 million and £18 million annually from that tourism trade. Scottish Enterprise has calculated that 700 jobs will be created Scotland-wide because of the ARDF and that the ARDF will generate £300 million of inward investment over 10 years. Despite Mark Ruskell's comments, those two statistics suggest to me that the modest £14.4 million investment is worth while. Kenny MacAskill passionately noted that point, too.

An area in which route development funding has yet to be introduced is air freight, as Adam Ingram mentioned. I believe that that is an important area to be looked at. Indeed, I inform the minister that I put that suggestion to the First Minister nearly two years ago and I had hoped that funding for air freight might have been introduced by now. I understand that the Local Government and Transport Committee is carrying out a freight transport inquiry and I very much hope that it will examine the potential for increasing air freight using air route development funding. I state unashamedly that a fog-free Prestwick, with its 3,000m runway and high-speed rail link, is the best-placed Scottish airport for the air freight market. I seriously hope that that possibility will be considered in the committee's inquiry. The fly in the ointment is, of course, the environmental costs, as Mark Ruskell pointed out, but the way to deal with that is through an international approach to carbon emissions.

I return to the use of the ARDF in developing Scotland's international connections through tourism—particularly golf tourism, which is potentially one of our biggest earners. That market is expanding hugely in Ayrshire because of inbound traffic from Scandinavia, particularly from Gothenburg, to which the minister alluded. Swedish golfers can leave home early, have a round of golf on one of our famous links courses on Scotland's riviera, have lunch, have another round of golf and return home the same evening. That market is burgeoning. Five years ago, no one would have considered that likely at all, but it has happened, due in part to the seed-corn funding of the ARDF. That golf market is just one example of a measurable, positive benefit from the ARDF—there are many more across Scotland. That is why we support the Executive's motion and ask the Parliament to support our reasonable amendment to it.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. The Executive's motion refers to the air route development fund and Scotland's connectivity and almost in passing mentions rail. That was referred to in the debate. The Greens have proposed an amendment that focuses, not unexpectedly, on environmental issues. We have heard the Greens' views on the global strategy for the reduction of CO2 and so on, but they have failed to explain in the debate how that would affect us at a local level. We should, by all means, consider strategic issues. The Executive's motion, which is fully supported by the SNP and all the other parties, as far as I can see, is happy to recognise that there are environmental impacts and that we wish to act internationally to address them.

The Greens have failed to tell us in the debate how their proposals would impact locally and what the cost impact would be on individuals who wish to travel abroad. The Greens have not told us whether the many Scots who enjoy the opportunity to travel by air for business or pleasure would be affected by their proposals. The Greens are not being open with and fair to the public about proposals that could result, for example, in increases in air fares of £10, £50, £100 or whatever. When a party advocates additional taxes, it has a duty to explain that precisely to the public.

The point is that we need to reduce CO2 emissions from flying by 60 per cent globally. How we do that is, as Brian Adam said, an international question. However, Brian Adam is making a mistake in deluding people in Scotland that they can continue to fly in the same numbers, because they will not be able to do that and reduce CO2 emissions by 60 per cent.

Yet again, the member failed to explain how his global strategy would affect us locally—I gave him one more chance, but he fluffed it.

I move on to the more positive aspects of the debate. The SNP amendment accepts that the ARDF is one main driver of growth in the Scottish economy. While the fund may not be the sole contributor to that growth, it is certainly a significant one. I accept the figures that the minister gave earlier that revealed a considerable increase in international connectivity as a consequence of the fund. I hope that he will be gracious enough to accept that the policy was advocated by my colleague Mr MacAskill long before the Executive adopted it. However, the authorship of the idea is not terribly important; the important point is that it works for Scotland.

The SNP amendment asks the Executive to stand back and view how the fund has worked and how we might improve it. The positive point that some Conservative members made about ensuring that the fund is open and does not lead to distortions in the market should also be addressed. One or two questions have been raised about the fund in that regard; the issue requires review.

Our amendment also mentions that we should

"seek to remove barriers to further success in aviation".

How might that happen? One possibility, which was proposed by my colleague Adam Ingram and reinforced by John Scott, is the extension of the fund to cover air freight.

The route development fund is a short-term measure. We will sometimes support a new route that does not work, but, so far, the great majority of new routes that have received support from the fund have worked. There is a risk that we will not succeed, but unless we take risks we will not achieve the expansion in the economy that we desperately need.

The disastrous PFI/PPP arrangements have been a barrier to growth in services, particularly at Inverness. We must ensure that history is not repeated and that we address all the barriers.

The introduction of 24-hour opening at Aberdeen airport, in my constituency, has removed a significant barrier and made a significant contribution to the great growth there. As other members have praised the role of individuals in relation to airports in their constituencies, I point out that, since Andy Flower took over as the manager of BAA Aberdeen, we have seen real growth. I encourage the Executive, in considering the barriers that exist, not only to talk to BAA and the other airport operators, but to engage actively with all the airlines.

The response to a parliamentary question that I lodged shows that we have not gathered data on the final destination of passengers who arrive at Scottish airports, although we may be on the point of beginning to gather it, which would be invaluable for the development of new routes. We could use the information to encourage airlines from all over the world to provide services to Scotland. I encourage the minister to consider that.

I have mentioned only some of the barriers that could be removed and some of the changes that could be made. Not all those changes would require public expenditure. We should engage with all the players to make changes happen. We must also address any infrastructure issues. For example, if Aberdeen airport's runway was extended by a short distance, more types of aircraft could land, and the ones that already land could do so with improved loading capacities. That move would encourage more efficient use of the runway and air space and might even be more environmentally friendly.

We are more than happy to endorse the Executive motion. I commend the SNP amendment, which would add positively to the motion, and I encourage members to support it.

Members from across the parties have made good speeches in this positive and thoroughly enjoyable debate. A debate in which Fergus Ewing and Phil Gallie agree on so much is rare. I enjoyed several speeches, particularly Kenny MacAskill's withering demolition of the Greens, which was something to savour. As Alasdair Morrison, Murdo Fraser and other colleagues mentioned, we have today arguably observed the death of the Green-SNP coalition. However, on the whole, the debate has been positive.

I apologise to Bristow Muldoon if he was late today as a result of the transport system—we will do our best to address that. It was good to see David McLetchie back to full fighting political fitness. In a consensual debate, he still got a rather un-Cameron-like sense of irony into his remarks. It was brave of him—far braver than I would be—to contribute to a debate on different modes of transport.

We could all do without yet another lecture from the Greens about the fact that they are the only ones who care about the environment. All members have views about the environment, which we express differently. As the Arbuthnott commission report on voting systems has been published today, perhaps we can recommission Professor Arbuthnott to examine the single transferable speech that we get from Mr Ballard on these occasions.

Fergus Ewing made several serious points. Brian Adam talked about who should receive the credit for the measures that we are discussing. I in no way claim the credit, but one member made the fair point that it was Lewis Macdonald, the then deputy minister with responsibility for transport, who introduced the policy formally. I pay tribute to the members from different parties who pursued the construction of a generic scheme, as the fund provides considerable benefits to the wider Scottish economy. Ultimately, it is the Opposition's job to push the Government and the Government's job to take action, which is what we have done and will do again.

Significant economic points have been raised in relation to the jobs that go with aviation. The issue is not just people who work for airlines; a strong argument was made about maintenance facilities at several airports, particularly Prestwick. I understand that more such jobs could be created. The crucial point is that if we invest heavily in our education system and high-scale economy, we will create more of the well-paid specialist aviation engineering jobs that we have at Prestwick and, to a lesser extent, in other parts of Scotland. We should advocate Scotland as a centre of aviation excellence and work hard across portfolios and the parties to achieve that.

I accept Brian Adam's point that we need to meet the airport operators to discuss the challenges. I have already met all the airport operators in Scotland, including BAA, HIAL and the managing director of Prestwick airport, to discuss the issues. I also meet the airlines regularly, although I see Loganair rather more regularly—some members will know why.

Fergus Ewing's amendment is a little unnecessary. One of its substantive points is a request for a review of the fund. However, our national transport strategy consultation, which will start in short order, will provide an opportunity in Parliament, the Local Government and Transport Committee and further afield to deal with many of the arguments and to consider the issues that have been raised today and the wider connectivity arguments that have been raised in the past. After the consultation, the Parliament will consider, by the end of the summer, a formal national transport strategy for Scotland that will deal strongly with aviation. Murdo Fraser and others mentioned the need for a specific assessment of the routes that have received support. We will do that during 2006, although I cannot ignore issues of commercial confidentiality.

Another substantive point in the SNP amendment concerns freight. Fergus Ewing and other SNP members made a fair point on that, as did members of other parties, for example John Scott. The freight strategy consultation is under way, and we aim to have a freight strategy that deals with air freight as part of the national transport strategy that will be in place by the summer. I welcome the consideration by the Local Government and Transport Committee—convened by Bristow Muldoon—of those issues; we will take on board its recommendations. Adam Ingram made a fair point about middle eastern connections and freight routes. I am sure that we all want to consider those issues.

Murdo Fraser made a spirited contribution on the benefits of liberalisation and privatisation. As he was extolling the virtues of those processes, I reflected on Lord King's role, and on where his peerage came from. Far be it from me to make any further observations, but I remember the strong arguments from other airlines about access to Heathrow during the 1980s, when all the privatisations were going on. It was difficult for those of us who argued the case at the time to get any airline other than British Airways into Heathrow. That issue remains with me to this day. We had liberalisation, but not when it came to access to Heathrow.

Will the minister give way?

I am going to move on.

I wish to deal with some of the more questionable environmental points that were raised by various members. It is ridiculous to argue that more money might be spent by Scots abroad than is brought into Scotland by visitors and business travellers. First, that fails to take into account the fact that some places are more popular destinations than others. It is somewhat pointless to blame the Scottish Executive, or indeed any political party, for our comparative lack of sunshine or our distance from the main economic, religious or cultural centres of the world. Secondly, there is an environmental argument regarding transport subsidies. However, as many members have rightly pointed out, it is disingenuous to suggest that those matters can be solved just in Scotland. On the one hand, such matters are reserved, and on the other hand they are truly solvable only at an international level. That is important in the context of Mr MacAskill's observations about what happens when planes circle over Heathrow—a significant point, which the Greens ignore at their peril.

My response to Mark Ruskell's comments on sea services is yes, but his figures on the contribution of the public sector were wide of the mark. To suggest that only £1 million has gone into Superfast Ferries ignores investments such as the freight facilities grant. If the Greens are going to make an argument, for goodness' sake can they get the facts right? Mr Ruskell was wrong about Eurostar. The company said just last week that it now has a 71 per cent market share of air and rail routes between London and Paris and that it experienced a 14 per cent rise in sales of business-class tickets in the past year alone. That rather gives the lie to the suggestion that rail is not working as an alternative to air.

Another important aspect of the environmental argument is the Scottish tourism industry and its commitment to sustainable development. On our ambition to make Scotland one of the world's leading sustainable tourism destinations, responsibletravel.com has ranked Scotland as the best eco-destination in Europe and the ninth best in the world. My colleague Patricia Ferguson is working on the green tourism business scheme, which is already Europe's largest green tourism accreditation scheme. Transport is very much part of that approach, which is widely welcomed throughout the industry. In addition, the airlines are considering introducing environmental labelling and using the quietest and most fuel-efficient aircraft. Flybe, for example, is replacing its existing fleet with Q400 aircraft, which provide a 30 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency. The market is driving change from an environmental perspective.

Charlie Gordon made a serious and thoughtful speech, although I point out that, in the context of Glasgow, Emirates has been the largest single investment of the route development fund so far. That should be borne in mind by a number of members. However, I share Charlie Gordon's disappointment with regard to the Brussels link, and I will be happy to consider what can be done. Alasdair Morrison made the right arguments about our internal routes. It is disappointing for me—and I suspect for Alasdair—that the Greens dismiss so easily the improvements to island life and the challenges that so many of us face.

Will the minister take an intervention?

He must wind up.

The Greens do not care about the fact that, compared with having to use two taxis, a train and a plane, a direct route with an hour's flight is an improvement for local people. Some of us care about rural transport issues, but clearly the Greens could not care less. To pick up Jamie Stone's point about PSOs, we will use that mechanism wherever we possibly can. In the context of Jim Mather's remarks, we will find the best mechanism to achieve the objective of reducing air costs.

The fund has succeeded in its initial objectives. It shows the value of limited public sector investment. It is not by any means a permanent initiative; rather, it is intended to develop an air network that meets, as far as possible, the needs of Scottish business, including our tourism industry. The fund has shifted the perception of Scotland as a market in its own right. The fund is leading to significant economic benefits—low levels of investment by the Executive are forecast to lead to high levels of benefit. Airlines and airports have embraced the concept of the fund as a true example of partnership and risk sharing. On that basis, I encourage Parliament to endorse the motion.