Charlie Gordon: I thought that the minister was emollient in his opening speech. If he does not mind, I prefer my source to be the House of Commons library, not Peter Mandelson.
The minister spoke about fuel duty derogation for rural areas, which Alasdair Allan mentioned in his speech. The Government motion notes

“the UK Government’s proposal to introduce a 5p-per-litre fuel discount scheme for island communities”.

I am open to correction on what I said—I will have to check the Official Report—but I think that it was that there are no proposals in the Government motion. I stick to that. The motion simply notes the Tory Government proposal. The more that we have heard from the Tories tonight, the more it sounds as though the proposal is unlikely to see the light of day. Surely the SNP wants its own policy on fuel duty derogation for rural areas.

I asked Jackson Carlaw to say exactly how the Tory Government fuel duty stabiliser will work. He referred me to the budget of 23 March. I predict that we will not see the finished article that day.

Alison McInnes had a right go at Labour. To illustrate her point, she mentioned nurses who are dependent on their cars. I accept that for many people in rural areas the car will always be the primary means of transport. She mentioned that nurses had to use cars because bus services finished early. What a pity that she did not support my bus bill proposal, which might have helped in those situations.

I want to make a point to Kenny Gibson as the member who represents the Isle of Arran. He is perfectly entitled to give high priority to the fuel duty issue, but I found it strange that he did not press his own Government to include the Isle of Arran in something that is within its gift—the road equivalent tariff pilot. I look forward to the day, in the not-too-distant future, when it is included.

Cathy Gibson made a couple of arresting points that were perhaps not mentioned by any of the rest of us—

Members: Cathy Gibson?

Charlie Gordon: Sorry, Cathy Peattie. As Stewart Stevenson pointed out, I am not getting any younger—but I am younger than he is. [Laughter.]

Cathy Peattie made a couple of extremely important points about the effect of high fuel prices on people on fixed incomes, which includes people in urban constituencies such as my own. She made an important climate change point, too, about the opportunity to remind people about eco-driving, which not only is part of our response to high fuel prices, but helps us with our national climate change objectives.
It was good to debate with Stewart Stevenson again. I congratulate him on his 400th speech, presumably not counting interventions. Once again, I found him to be a conscientious adversary.
Jim Hume told us that Danny Alexander, no less, is exploring derogation. Unfortunately, Scottish history shows that a lot of explorers get lost and are never seen again.

Dave Stewart made a number of important and in some respects novel and practical suggestions about other things that we can do in a devolved setting about mitigating the effects of high fuel prices in rural areas.

Gavin Brown told us that this could all get worse. On the stabiliser, he said, “Well, we’re consulting, but there’s a problem about the pace of change” and, “This is all very complex.” At least he was clear when he said that he thought that the rise in fuel duty scheduled for April should be scrubbed, but when it came to rural derogation and the proposed rural fuel pilot—

Gavin Brown: Will the member give way?

Charlie Gordon: Yes.

Gavin Brown: The member talked about things that we can do here in this Parliament. If Labour’s amendment is defeated this evening, will the Labour Party allow this Parliament to speak with one voice and support the main motion?

Charlie Gordon: The member will find out shortly. Given that the people who are hurting out there are watching us, the other MSPs in this Parliament must have regard to the fact that we are the only party that is proposing a 3 per cent cut in fuel duty and we have explained precisely how that can be funded. No one else has addressed that.

Keith Brown: Will the member give way?

Charlie Gordon: Perhaps the minister will do that now.

Keith Brown: Achieving the cut through the reversal of the VAT increase does not address the points made by Labour members. It does not address instability, which was raised, or the business issue, as most businesses can reclaim the money. Surely we can do more than the one measure that Labour has identified in its amendment.

Charlie Gordon: According to Dave Thompson, the SNP’s proposed regulator would be set in a short-term way, so it does not sound like a long-term solution to me. What we know is that people are hurting to an exceptional degree, and we must move quickly with practical responses.

Liam McArthur said that Labour is sounding a discordant note tonight. I do not think that a practical, costed proposal to reduce fuel duty by 3p a litre can fairly be called discordant.

Labour will continue its fight not only to cancel the fuel duty rise scheduled for April, but to use the bankers tax—the £800 million windfall that the Tory Government has received—to cut fuel duty by 3p a litre.

That is worthy of the support of the rest of the Parliament.

Jim Hume: Will the member take an intervention?

Charlie Gordon: I have finished.