Plenary, 16 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Thursday, September 16, 1999

Official Report 851KB pdf

---

Open Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Higher Education

To ask the Scottish Executive what are the details of its higher education policy. (S1O-318) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): We are committed to the highest standards in further and higher education on the principle that anyone who can benefit from it should have the opportunity to do so. As Alex Salmond will remember, if we take the comprehensive spending review period, the additional funds for higher education compared with the figure that we inherited amount to £250 million. He will have read the programme for government document, and will therefore know that that sets out our priorities on how to deliver our policies.

Both the First Minister and I benefited from student grants and no tuition fees.

Can the First Minister explain the rights of this Parliament and clear up some confusion that has crept in? After a suggestion that a vote against tuition fees would not be binding on the Parliament, an Executive spokesperson, in what was described as a carefully phrased statement, said:

"The Executive would always wish to take into account the views expressed by the Parliament".

It is reassuring to know that our views will be taken into account, but this is a Parliament, so I ask the First Minister: if this Parliament passes by resolution a motion against tuition fees, will it be binding on the Executive, yes or no?

The position is simply that this Parliament is master at the end of the day, but that not every motion that is passed by this Parliament is binding upon the Executive. If the Executive did not respond in a way that Parliament found satisfactory, a whole range of democratic options is open to Parliament. I leave to Mr Salmond the selection that he might want to make if the circumstance occurred.

We are all, if we are sensible, waiting for the response from Andrew Cubie and his colleagues with regard to tuition fees. We will all want to look at what is a complex matter, and if Mr Salmond has been following, as I have, the evidence that has been submitted by various organisations, he will see that the issue requires not a snatched or prejudiced decision, but a long, careful and proper look at the evidence. That is what the Executive, and I hope this Parliament, will do.

On the evidence that has been submitted by various organisations, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrat party and the Scottish National party have all submitted evidence against tuition fees. There has been no submission of evidence by the Labour party in Scotland. Can the First Minister remind this Parliament when the Labour party in Scotland passed a motion in favour of tuition fees for higher education?

I do not know the extent to which I can talk on party matters, as I am here to answer questions as a member of the Executive, but if I may be allowed the indulgence, the Labour party is in favour of widening access to higher education and ensuring that we sustain the improvements that we have seen in the past, but which until recently have been undermined by the lack of proper financing. The financing system that is required is the conundrum that the Cubie committee has been invited to consider. Of course, that is the problem that we in the Parliament must address—not just the Executive, but the elected body representing all parts of Scotland.

The important fact is that an elected body that is to command trust is one that will be prepared to look and listen and make a considered judgment about the advice and the evidence that come out of the Cubie inquiry.

To my knowledge, no resolution has been passed in favour of tuition fees by the Labour party in Scotland, nor did the words "tuition fees" appear in the Labour party manifesto for this year's election. Those of us who did have a manifesto commitment against tuition fees looked with some warmth at the words of Iain Smith on Monday, when he said about the Liberal Democrats:

"We will vote against tuition fees. There has never been room for compromise on that".

I welcome those words, but does the First Minister consider them compatible with his definition of collective responsibility in his Executive?

I have said this consistently, and I hope that no one will criticise me for repeating it. I believe that it is in everyone's interest to consider the evidence that is produced, to measure their approach against that evidence and to come to a conclusion that they believe is right. I have always understood that the Liberal Democrat party had a position and that it would submit evidence in support of that. When the Cubie report comes out and the evidence is there, we will see whether that ameliorates things or changes views.

If Alex Salmond is telling me that his position is that he has taken up a stance, and in the face of all the evidence—whatever it might suggest—he

will never alter that stance, he is taking an unwise position. That is a matter entirely for him. We will examine the evidence and consult our friends, and the Executive will decide on the best way forward in the interest of higher education in Scotland. If we had a constructive debate rather than scare stories, that would help the cause considerably.

---

Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive how many times the First Minister has met with the Secretary of State for Scotland since 1 July 1999 to discuss matters relating to the governance of Scotland and whether further regular meetings between them have been scheduled. (S1O-319) The First Minister (Donald Dewar): Members will not be surprised to know that I meet John Reid frequently and in a number of different capacities. We have regular meetings on the governance of Scotland, which I have every expectation will continue to mutual benefit.

Will the First Minister tell us, given that it would have to be introduced on a United Kingdom basis, whether his discussions with the secretary of state have covered the so- called graduate tax? Given the reported enthusiasm with which Mr Wallace has taken up that idea, it seems strange that he has apparently been excluded from discussions on the topic. The next time the First Minister meets the secretary of state to discuss higher education, will he bring the Deputy First Minister in from the cold?

That is a very amusing contribution to the debate. I would like to think that it was meant to be amusing, otherwise Mr McLetchie is being remarkably naive. I read the front page of The Scotsman frequently, often with interest and sometimes with curiosity.

We have not advocated a graduate tax. I know of no work that is going on in relation to a graduate tax. Therefore, I know of no substance for the suggestions that Mr McLetchie is putting to me. The findings of the Cubie report and the discussions that follow will be of interest to my colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom, as they will be of interest to Scotland.

I am sure that they will. It is interesting that there are no discussions on the graduate tax. Perhaps the First Minister should have told Mr Wallace before he went enthusiastically to the newspapers indicating that it was an interesting idea, which was worth considering.

Instead of this kite-flying, is not the simplest solution for the Scottish Executive to accept the settled will of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland to abolish tuition fees immediately after 6 May? The Executive should not start tinkering around with graduate taxes, which owes more to desperation to keep the coalition together and enthusiasm for imposing new taxes on people in Scotland, than to dealing with higher education funding.

As an example of a constructive contribution, that ranks low. Having just been told that the graduate tax was not a subject that we were raising, Mr McLetchie asks his supplementary on the basis that it is a matter that we are raising. If he will not listen to a word that I say, I will have to stop speaking to him. I am prepared to make him an offer, which is meant to be helpful. He has an idea that this is a simple matter with simple solutions. I am prepared to arrange a meeting for him with a representative group of people in higher education. I will even buy him a poke of chips—a small and simple meal. He can sit down and discuss the future of higher education funding. He might not change his mind, but at least he will not come here and tell us that the matter is simple of solution and does not require anxious consideration and debate.

If the Scottish Parliament votes to abolish tuition fees or to introduce another form of funding part or all of the costs of higher education, will the First Minister commit the Executive to introducing a bill to translate that decision into reality?

We will have to wait and see what emerges from the Cubie committee report. As I said to Alex Salmond, we are spending considerably more than was planned by the previous Government—£250 million over the three years on higher education, and another £214 million over the same period, against the same comparative base, on further education. Clearly, we are putting our money where our principles are.

We are interested in getting the right system for the future. There has been an absolute explosion in the number of people in higher education.

Thanks to us.

All that the Conservative Government failed to put in place was the funding base to maintain it. Mr McLetchie could perhaps turn his mind to that.

We are now interested in getting the system right. We will consult, examine the evidence and come up with solutions. I hope that the member supports us when the time comes.

---

Objective 2 Funding

To ask the Scottish Executive what input it has had in the redrawing of the objective 2 status map for

Scotland. (S1O-328)

The Scottish Executive is the implementing authority for structural funds in Scotland. We are closely involved in the preparation of the UK proposals to the Commission for objective 2 coverage, as we want to ensure that the coverage is targeted on areas of real need. The Executive has now made detailed recommendations for coverage in Scotland to the UK Government and we will continue to work with UK ministers to achieve the best deal for communities across Scotland.

I welcome the minister's response. Will he strongly consider the case that has been submitted by West Lothian, which recognises the overall strength of the local economy while arguing for targeting within local government areas of objective 2 status at areas demonstrating disadvantage in terms of unemployment, skills, educational attainment and other indicators?

There are communities in West Lothian, as in other parts of Scotland, that would benefit from European funding and are in need of Government and European support. It would be wrong at this stage to speculate on which communities might be on the final map. It is important that we get right the final proposals that we put to the European Commission. We are working closely with UK ministers to ensure that that happens. When we submit the proposals, I am sure that we will have achieved a good deal for Scotland.

In view of the very high unemployment in Clackmannanshire and the representations that were made in last week's debate—which, unfortunately, I was unable to attend because I was in hospital—will the minister press for Clackmannanshire to be included in the redrawing of the objective 2 status map, so that it becomes eligible for those European funds?

I can confirm that we are pressing for the most needy communities across Scotland, which would benefit most from European structural funds, to be included on the map. People can make their own assumptions about which communities that might include.

At the risk of getting the same answer, may I point out to the minister that statistics published earlier this week show that Dumfries and Galloway has by far the highest percentage of low-paid workers of any local authority area in Great Britain? Does he agree, therefore, that it is essential that Dumfries and Galloway qualifies for objective 2 funding?

I am happy to give the same answer. It is important that we do not compromise the negotiations with the European Commission that will have to take place, or expose our hand in detail. On Alasdair Morgan's specific point, I was fortunate enough to be able to announce yesterday more than £1 million in structural fund grants for the Dumfries and Galloway area. That will lead to a significant improvement in the local economy and local communities through improved transport links and transport information.

That concludes question time. I want to make an obvious point that might not have occurred to members—it is not compulsory to ask a supplementary question.