Stow College
The Scottish Government believes that, like any other sector, the college sector needs to be led and governed by people of the highest quality and standards. Chief among their attributes must always be mutual trust and respect. The Scottish Government expects all those who lead and govern our colleges to conduct themselves consistently with that approach.
Leaving aside the recording of meetings for accuracy or, indeed, whether it is in the public interest to publicise what the cabinet secretary says or how he behaves at meetings, I think that the issue is his reaction to the event. I have been contacted by further education staff who believe that the cabinet secretary is behaving inappropriately and that he is attempting to bully and intimidate. On reflection, does he not agree that he could have handled the situation better?
The issue is that, in a meeting of chairs and principals, a recording was made with a surreptitious device. Alas, nobody was told that the meeting was being recorded and no permission was sought from anybody who was present. That has led to a breakdown in the relationship that should exist between the individual concerned and not just me but many of his colleagues.
I think that Mr Ramsay might dispute that the recording was “surreptitious”. Many education staff are contacting me to say that they are frightened to speak out about how the cabinet secretary is treating them. Surely how he has behaved towards Mr Ramsay reinforces their fears. Is it not time for the cabinet secretary to reflect and to rebuild relationships and to start that process by apologising to Mr Ramsay?
I am glad to say that the meeting in question was very positive, as are most of my meetings with the college sector. We are engaged in a process of radical reform in which it is important that all parts of the sector debate and discuss what should take place. Anything that diminishes those debates, such as surreptitious and secret recording, is to be regretted.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm that there is no dispute between the Scottish Government and Stow College?
There is no dispute between the cabinet secretary, the Government or anybody else and Stow College or its staff, students or board. The matter relates to the conduct of one individual—that is where the dispute occurred.
Did the cabinet secretary have any discussion with Stow College’s management board before demanding the resignation of its chair? Furthermore, have there been other similar instances in which he has called for the resignation of the chairs or principals of individual colleges or for the resignation of leading figures in Skills Development Scotland or, indeed, any other organisation?
I have no dispute with any college or board. As I have indicated, my dispute is with an individual. It would therefore have been inappropriate for me to meet the board to discuss the issue. I met the chair. I also point out that I have no power to demand any individuals’ resignation. I pointed out to the individual concerned that the relationship of trust between us had broken down, and I asked him to reflect on that. I have no power to remove anybody from any position in the college sector. Indeed, all power of direction to the college sector was removed by a Labour minister some years ago.
High-speed Rail Link (Edinburgh to Glasgow)
I call Keith Brown.
Not very high speed today, minister. [Laughter.]
You deserved that, minister.
It is vital to link the key economic centres in Scotland, as it is across the United Kingdom. We have carried out a high-level assessment, which demonstrates that a new high-speed line with journey times of less than 30 minutes could be built by 2024. The Scottish Government will enter talks with our partners in both cities and the rail industry to see how we can work together to realise the vision of an Edinburgh to Glasgow high-speed line that connects to England’s network.
Will the minister outline the benefits for Scotland’s two major cities of almost halving the journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh?
There will be substantial benefits. We are told that there is a substantial economic benefit every time that there is a reduction of even a minute in journey time between Glasgow and Edinburgh. There will be benefits in terms of accessibility and there will be social and environmental benefits from upgrading the link—and of course that will make a fifth option available.
Will the new high-speed line be linked to the cross-border service to London? Does the minister plan to meet the UK transport minister to discuss the UK plans for high-speed rail?
I hope to meet the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, in the next week. Of course, the intention is to have a high-speed link all the way from London to Scotland. Indeed, if that does not happen, capacity constraints on the west coast main line, which will reach a critical stage by 2024-25, will be such that billions of pounds will again have to be spent on the line in advance of further high-speed rail connections. We will have a conversation about that with the UK Government.
Will the minister tell the Parliament about the proposed technology and route? Does he envisage conventional rail or maglev technology, as we proposed in the 2007 elections, being used? When will he publish details of his proposals? Does he not get it that cuts to the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme mean that commuters in the central belt are missing out on reduced journey times and that 2024 is a very long way off?
The member does not take account of the fact that we are announcing an initiative that will halve the journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Given the timescale and indeterminate budget for the proposal, would it not have been better to invest a little resource in improving the existing service and cutting journey times? Is the proposal simply an excuse for not investing in the Edinburgh to Glasgow route between now and 2024?
Given that we recently announced a £650 million package of investment in that very line, the question points to the absurdity of the Conservative position. The Conservative Secretary of State for Transport recently announced an aim to have a three-hour journey time between London and Edinburgh but gave no detail on the study and its costs or the possible costs of new construction. I did not criticise him for that and I note that neither did Alex Johnstone, although he criticises the Scottish Government for its intention to improve the link between Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Yesterday, the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities was quoted as saying, “We now know” that building a high-speed link within 12 years that cuts journey times to 30 minutes is possible. Can the minister point to a single piece of documented evidence that backs up that claim?
If Willie Rennie looks at “Fast Track Scotland: Making the Case for High Speed Rail Connections with Scotland”, which we published some time ago, and at the work that has subsequently been done by the Scottish partnership group for high-speed rail, he will see the rationale that has been put together.
In an article in The Herald on 5 July the minister is quoted as saying that one of the reasons for revising EGIP was the need to tie it in with a future high-speed rail network in Scotland. How will this new announcement impact on EGIP and is the minister still committed to seeing the future phases of EGIP implemented as previously stated?
I give Mark Griffin my assurance that we intend to see EGIP through. As I said at the time, I reckon that we can achieve around 80 per cent of the benefits that the original £1 billion scheme had proposed. There is every possibility that we can increase that percentage—perhaps not to 100 per cent, but getting towards 100 per cent of the benefits of the previous scheme. We remain absolutely committed to the EGIP works taking place.
Given the desperate situation following the Hall’s closure, will the minister look again at EGIP and the cuts to it and reflect on the advantages that we would get from a new station at Winchburgh?
I think that that is a bit wide of the original question.
Previous
Time for ReflectionNext
Universal Benefits