Plenary, 22 Jan 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, January 22, 2004

Official Report 737KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

---

Prime Minister (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-544)

I have no formal meetings planned with the Prime Minister for this month.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. On Tuesday evening, Sam Galbraith said that the so-called abolition of tuition fees had been a con. He said:

"In Scotland we have already accepted fees … it is just a question of our universities being allowed to top them up."

He also said:

"The role for me now is to be able to say the things that others would like to say but are not able to do so".

Is Mr Galbraith speaking for the First Minister?

No, he certainly is not.

I am glad that the First Minister has cleared up that particular point.

What intrigues many of us is where the First Minister stands on the key issues that affect the people of Scotland. This week, senior figures in his own party have launched a concerted campaign to apply top-up fees here in Scotland. The former Scottish Office minister with responsibility for education, Brian Wilson, says that top-up fees in Scotland are "inevitable". The former First Minister, Henry McLeish, says:

"I don't think we can avoid universities charging higher fees."

Sam Galbraith said:

"Top-up fees in Scotland are not only inevitable, they are actually good in principle."

The Prime Minister himself said that the principle of top-up fees is

"essential to our success as a Labour government true to Labour values."

To avoid any uncertainty about the First Minister's position, will he make it absolutely clear whether he considers top-up fees to be good in principle? Or does he agree with me that they are bad in principle?

I want to be clear. First, as I think I have said in the chamber previously, I am proud that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in the Scottish Parliament abolished tuition fees in Scotland and that Scottish students do not pay up front for their higher education.

Secondly, I am also proud of the fact that we reintroduced student grants ahead of the game in the rest of the United Kingdom. We will build on that, too.

Thirdly, I am proud of the fact that for every year of this devolved Government we have increased spending on higher education in Scotland in real terms; we will continue to do so.

Fourthly—and most important—I am absolutely convinced that we are right to ask Scottish students, when they have finished their degrees, to contribute to the welfare of their peers in years to come through the graduate endowment or any other contribution. That is an important principle, which is, I think, widely accepted by both students and taxpayers across Scotland.

So, yes, I am proud that we have abolished tuition fees in Scotland; yes, I am proud that we have reintroduced student grants; yes, I am proud that we have increased and will continue to increase higher education spending in real terms in Scotland. However, I also believe that students contributing once they have graduated is an important part of the overall mix of spending on higher education.

That took a hang of a long time, but there was no answer to the question in any of the First Minister's statements. So, to go back to the original question: does the First Minister believe that top-up fees are a good measure in principle or a bad measure in principle? Are top-up fees good or are they bad? The answer that we want is an answer to that question.

Mr Swinney has been asking that question for 48 hours—although it sometimes seems like 48 days. As a reasonable shadow First Minister, as he likes to call himself, I think that Mr Swinney will accept—I hope that he will accept—that it is impossible for me to predict what decisions might be made in the Scottish Parliament about top-up tuition fees, or any other matter, in years to come. However, I want to make one thing perfectly clear: there will be no top-up tuition fees for Scottish higher education students as long as I am First Minister, elected by this chamber to represent this country—Mr Swinney should be in no doubt about that. We will ensure that our universities are world class and that they are well financed, but we will do so using the principles that we established four years ago and that this Government retains.

---

Cabinet (Meetings)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-549)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

I am sure that the Cabinet members will discuss that with the same frankness and honesty that we saw this week from their former colleague Mr Galbraith. It is amazing how the truth comes out when Labour ministers no longer have to tell porkies on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Mr Swinney is rightly concerned about future burdens that our students might face, but I am much more concerned about the very real burden that our students will definitely face from next year. Will the First Minister confirm that, as of April next year, our graduates will be sent a bill for £2,000 that they will have to start paying off when their earnings reach the paltry level of £10,000?

I would have thought that the answer was fairly obvious, given that the Parliament passed the legislation that created the graduate endowment. As I said, in addition to the important principles of free access for Scottish students to higher education, expanding the quality of, access to and expenditure on higher education in Scotland, and the reintroduction of student grants, it is vital that students in Scotland return a contribution to the pot after they have graduated. I believe that students see that as reasonable and that Scottish taxpayers see that as reasonable too.

The First Minister and the Scottish Executive have been playing with words on the subject for the past three years. At the end of the day, whether the charge is called a fee, an endowment or a tax, it is a liability; it is compulsory and it must be paid. The truth is that more people believe in the Loch Ness monster than believe that tuition fees have properly been abolished in Scotland. Scottish students know that that is a lie, Sam Galbraith knows that that is a lie and, I believe, deep down the First Minister knows that that is a lie.

The only people who are in denial about the issue are the Liberal Democrats. However, last week, their United Kingdom leader, Charles Kennedy, pointed out that, under the Prime Minister's proposals for England, a graduate student who earns £15,000 a year will pay a marginal tax rate of 42 per cent, which is more than a millionaire pays. Mr Kennedy is right, but he has obviously forgotten what his Liberal colleagues in the Scottish Executive have done. Apart from the fact that students in Scotland will start paying when their income is £10,000 and not £15,000, does the First Minister agree that exactly the same tax rate will apply to our students from next year?

Mr McLetchie is wrong. Scottish students will in fact be liable for payments at exactly the same rate and in exactly the same way each year as will be the case for their colleagues south of the border: the margin at which the payments start will be £15,000. The payments will be tailored in exactly the same percentages in terms of income for students in Scotland and England. We will clarify our plans for that in the coming weeks, as we have said that we intend to do.

We will ensure not only that Scottish students in our higher education institutions do not have to pay top-up tuition fees or tuition fees up front; not only that we have the student grants and bursaries that we reintroduced ahead of the game in the rest of the United Kingdom; not only that we have real-terms increases in higher education funding; but that we also have that additional contribution. As the commitment of Mr McLetchie's Conservative party and Mr Swinney's nationalist party is to cut that money out of the higher education budget, they must say where those cuts would hit, how many students would lose out, how many university courses would close, how many departments would be affected and how many research laboratories would not have the equipment that they need. The real debate on the issue is whether we should have investment or cuts and that is where the answers will have to come.

The First Minister prides himself on being a mathematician, so I will ask him to do some simple arithmetic. Will he confirm that, under his proposals, when a graduate earns more than £10,000 a year, as well as paying 22 per cent in basic rate tax and 11 per cent in national insurance, 9 per cent of their income will be used in repaying the so-called graduate endowment? Do not those figures add up to a marginal tax rate of 42 per cent? Is not that a higher rate than a millionaire pays in Scotland on his investment income?

As I said earlier, it is entirely appropriate that students who benefit from the income that comes from having a university degree make an additional contribution to the system. That is already accepted in the system of student loans. The additional payments that students will make in Scotland—or anywhere else in the UK—will be exactly the same as they would have been under the student loans system. We will ensure that, in Scotland, those students who earn not £10,000 but £15,000 will pay the same rates as their colleagues south of the border. However, we will also ensure that Scottish universities stay ahead of the game in the UK and elsewhere.

Is the First Minister aware of press reports today concerning the joint schools campus in Dalkeith? Does the First Minister agree that parents, pupils and staff in Dalkeith have worked hard to make the shared campus project a success and that a handful of isolated incidents should not be used as an excuse to introduce segregated playgrounds or be allowed to overshadow the benefits of this state-of-the-art development? Does he further agree that Cumbernauld-based Donald Gorrie's ill-informed attack on the project and Midlothian Council in today's Daily Record serves only to demonstrate his complete ignorance of the project and of the local issues involved?

I do not want to get involved in comments on individual statements that have been made on this matter, but I will say that, on the radio this morning—we should not believe everything that we hear on "Good Morning Scotland", but as it came from the horse's mouth I will accept it—I heard the local schools representative say that he believed that some of the children involved in the incidents were not pupils at the school. If I urge any perspective on members in relation to this matter it is that, when we view developments in schools, we should examine the facts first. We support the head teachers, parents and others who want to ensure that the school with which they are involved—whether it is a shared campus, is near another school or has a history of tension or violence—is a decent place in which to learn.

The facilities in Dalkeith are first class and have the potential to ensure great educational opportunities for the children involved. I will be proud to open that campus in February. However, I want to ensure that we back the head teacher and the parents in ensuring that behaviour on the site is as good as it possibly can be.

Does the First Minister acknowledge that he might be part of the problem as he has raised the expectations of the public and pupils by connecting the tackling of sectarianism with the use of joint campuses? Does he recognise that campuses that are the size of the one in Dalkeith will always have problems with pupils? Does he agree with Rhona Brankin and me that support should be given to the teachers and pupils in that school, who are adopting a commonsense approach to the issue?

I think that I just said that I would urge us all to support the head teacher and the parents in that regard. Frankly, we have all known for some time that the SNP was opposed to the school building programme, but I am amazed to hear that Fiona Hyslop is opposed to a first-class educational facility in Dalkeith that will be enjoyed by pupils in that area for thousands of years to come. I will be proud to open that facility in February and I hope that the pupils who will benefit from it will remember what Fiona Hyslop just said.

---

Cabinet (Priorities)

To ask the First Minister what issues the Scottish Executive's Cabinet will prioritise for discussion and action over the next month. (S2F-558)

As ever, our cabinet will prioritise those issues that will assist us in ensuring higher growth in the Scottish economy, better public services and safer communities throughout Scotland.

The unfair Tory council tax has financially hammered pensioners and low-paid workers for the past 10 years. Today, a major study has revealed that poverty is the main cause of premature death among Scotland's pensioners, who are hammered by council tax bills and are hardly able to heat their homes properly. The council tax has been labelled a "pensioner tax". Does the First Minister agree that the council tax is unfair? Does he accept that the need to tackle the problem is urgent? When will the first meeting of the independent local government review body take place and who will represent Scotland's pensioners on that body?

The remit, timetable and membership of any independent review will be announced when it is agreed, and we will ensure that Parliament is the first to know about that.

However, I want to remind Tommy Sheridan of the view that he expressed in the chamber in November that the central heating programme that was announced, implemented and executed by the devolved Government here in Scotland is one of the best Government initiatives that he has ever seen. That programme and the many other measures that we have supported, both at Westminster through winter fuel grants for pensioners and here in Scotland through central heating and insulation through the warm deal, have enabled us to cut fuel poverty in Scotland by 50 per cent between 1997 and 2003. That is a stride, but only a stride, in the right direction. We have more to do and we will set about doing it.

I say to the First Minister that central heating is no use if people cannot afford to use it. What a shameful neglect of Scotland's poorest citizens: four years and seven months into his Government, he has not even arranged a review of the council tax, let alone its burial. When will he start to stand up for Scotland's pensioners and low-paid workers instead of continuing to pamper and protect the richest and wealthiest members of society? Will the First Minister instruct his finance minister to apologise for deliberately deceiving and misleading the chamber over alternatives to the council tax, or does the First Minister accept, given the practice of his leader, that lying to the public is acceptable and that Mr Kerr can therefore get away with telling lies on the issue?

Order. I think that you should use the word "lies" very cautiously, Mr Sheridan.

I did. I used it very cautiously.

Mr Sheridan is well aware that he has received a written apology from Mr Kerr, who acted entirely honourably by quickly correcting the slip of the tongue that he was engaged in not long ago. Mr Sheridan should accept the apology with the grace with which it was offered. He should also accept that by investing money in Scotland in pensioners' central heating, concessionary travel for pensioners and the warm deal to insulate pensioners' homes, and in supporting the United Kingdom Government to invest money in winter fuel payments and other measures, we are doing precisely what he suggests that we should do. We are redirecting resources from those who can afford to pay for them to those who cannot. I am proud to be part of a Government that is doing that. Instead of criticising us and demanding the meeting of committees, Mr Sheridan should back us in supporting Scotland's pensioners.

---

Scottish Visas

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with the Home Secretary regarding the possibility of a Scottish visa to encourage overseas students to stay in Scotland after graduation. (S2F-555)

First, I would like to make it clear that there will be no Scottish visa. However, Scotland's population is falling and we need to attract new people and to nurture and retain our home-grown talent. We are working with the Home Office to encourage people, including overseas students, to settle in Scotland and I hope to make an announcement on that soon.

I am grateful to the First Minister for his answer and, in particular, for his comments on the need to nurture home-grown talent. Will he join me in welcoming some of that talent, the pupils from Carleton Primary School in my constituency, who are in the gallery?—[Applause.]

Scotland has a declining population and there are skills shortages in certain technical and professional disciplines. For example, a firm in Glenrothes in my constituency might have to go abroad to recruit advanced software engineers. Will the First Minister assure the chamber that he will raise the matter when he next meets the Home Secretary and when he next discusses the fresh talent programme?

As I told the chamber two weeks ago, I have had a series of meetings on the situation that we face in Scotland with the Home Secretary, who is extremely supportive. We have a population that, on current projections, will drop below 5 million by 2010, a working-age population that will drop below 3 million by 2027, and a ratio of those who are not in work to those who are in work and paying taxes that will deteriorate between now and 2027 unless we take action to tackle the issue.

I am absolutely determined that we do all that we can not only to retain Scottish talent and Scottish people in Scotland and to encourage Scots to return home, but to encourage people from elsewhere in the United Kingdom to choose a better quality of life and to come and work in Scotland. I am also determined that we ensure that those such as overseas students, thousands of whom graduate from Scottish universities every year and who would like to stay, even for a short time, get a better chance to do so. I hope to make announcements on that to the Parliament soon.

I welcome the proposal to give foreign students extended visas as at least a partial solution to a declining population, but is the First Minister aware that many asylum seekers who live in Scotland also have skills of which we are desperately short and that they would grab with both hands the opportunity to work rather than be dependent on state support? Will the First Minister enter into discussions with the Home Secretary with a view to giving asylum seekers the right to apply for permission to work, as they could do even only a few years ago, so that they can start to make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live?

As Ms Sturgeon knows, the Home Secretary has a difficult job to do in managing the process of asylum and immigration into the United Kingdom as a whole. I resist commenting on his policies, but I am keen to ensure that the UK Government's asylum and immigration system is designed to benefit Scotland and its economy. That is why we are involved in discussions about some realistic and practical measures that can help us to turn round our population decline. We will continue to concentrate on those measures, but, in the meantime, once asylum seekers have been granted asylum, we will do what we have done successfully in the past three or four years: we will do all that we can to integrate them into Scottish society, including into work and productive activity.

I commend the First Minister for the stance that he has taken on the issue by trying to attract foreign workers and for facing down criticisms of that policy from those whose motives are, I suspect, little short of racist. However, does the First Minister accept that it is really economic opportunity that attracts immigrants and that, unless his Executive takes steps to improve Scotland's economic performance, all other measures are simply window dressing?

Economic opportunities are important and, at the risk of threatening what I hope is an emerging all-party consensus on the importance of the issue, I hope that Mr Fraser might acknowledge that they are better today than they were a few years ago. However, economic opportunities are only part of the picture and many people choose to come and live in Scotland because of the quality of life—the quality of our schools, public services, environment and people. When we sell Scotland abroad and in the United Kingdom as a place in which to live and work, we sell it on economic opportunity and on the quality of life that people can enjoy when they get here. I hope that the package that we are putting together will sell both of those messages with equal success.

I welcome the First Minister's approach, but when he uses the word "skills", will he be mindful of the shortage that we face in Scotland of dentists, doctors and other branches of the medical profession? Will he ensure that those specialties and skills are on the agenda when he next meets the Home Secretary?

Yes, I will. The matter was first raised with me by the business community more than a year ago in relation to some of the more traditional trades and the sort of skills that Christine May mentioned. However, I am conscious that we have other professional skills shortages in Scotland, particularly in dentistry, which is a topical issue this week. There might be issues on regulation and the qualifications that are required to practise in Scotland, and we will consider those.

Only this week, I was approached by a consul general from one of the central European countries, who told me of a dentist from that country's capital city who was on a walking holiday in Scotland last year, felt that Scotland was probably the best place in the world in which to live and who, when he read on the internet this week about our problem with dentists, offered to come and live and join the profession here. If we can get that kind of response from the odd press release by Mike Rumbles, we will be doing very well.

---

Rail Industry

To ask the First Minister what impact Her Majesty's Government's proposed changes to the regulation of the rail industry will have on rail services in Scotland. (S2F-546)

As we all know, Her Majesty's Government has set up a review; however, it has not yet proposed specific changes. We will participate in the review and any discussions about the decisions that follow it. Our priority will be to improve performance for passengers here in Scotland.

The First Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for Transport said in his statement that he was considering how he could devolve more decisions on public transport to the Scottish Executive. What decisions will the First Minister seek to have devolved? What confidence can we have that the Scottish Executive will take those decisions, when it has clearly failed to give a quantifiable commitment to the Borders railway and has deferred important railway projects such as the upgrading of Waverley station, which all opinion agrees is essential for increasing capacity on Scotland's railways?

We take the view—quite rightly—that the upgrading of Waverley station is a project of UK importance. The hub of Edinburgh and the surrounding train network are of particular importance to the whole United Kingdom, rather than just to the immediate local area of Edinburgh and the Lothians. That is why we continue to discuss the UK contribution that will be made to that project. I remain committed to those discussions.

Our participation in the review should be focused on the output and outcome that we want. We want more and better rail services in Scotland. We want more track and lines, but we also want services to be reliable and safe. Whatever management arrangements are put in place, and whatever matters are devolved or reserved, should be focused on that outcome. We should not opt for a fully devolved rail service on a point of ideological principle if that would not work in practice. However, we should not retain the current system of a mixture of reserved and devolved functions if that is not working in practice. Our objective should be to secure better railways. We will approach this matter not from an ideological perspective, but from the perspective of rail passengers and transport users in Scotland.

This week, John Armitt of Network Rail advised the Parliament's Local Government and Transport Committee that, each year, Network Rail is investing about £360 million in Scotland's railways, compared with an income of about £220 million. Is the First Minister aware that that level of investment in renewals represents an approximately fourfold increase on the all-time low that was delivered by the Tories? Does he agree that that means that both the Executive and the UK Government need not take any advice from the Tories on how to run a railway?

I agree that there is an increasing amount of investment in the railways in Scotland, both in track and in services. New trains, stations and lines are not just planned but are starting to be put in place. That is very good news. It gives us a chance to recover from the disastrous early years after privatisation. I thought that under their previous leader, Mr Duncan Smith, the Conservatives had finally rejected privatisation, but I see that under their new leader, Mr Howard, it is back in favour. Peter Duncan, unfortunately for him, said:

"Privatisation of the rail service under the Tories was a necessary and successful step."

I have a sneaking suspicion that that will not be in his election manifesto in Galloway in 2005.

I welcome the First Minister's support for the upgrade of Waverley railway station as a UK priority. When does he think we will reach the next stage of that proposal?

As soon as discussions on the potential UK contribution are complete.

---

Organ Donation

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive will support a system of organ donation that requires individuals to opt out. (S2F-561)

Scottish ministers support the current voluntary system of organ donation because it saves lives. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of donors for transplantation. I urge everyone, inside and outside the chamber, who can register as a donor to do so.

The First Minister's commitment on this issue is very welcome. Will he consider in further detail the opportunities that we would have to save more lives if we followed the example of countries such as Belgium and Spain, where opt-out systems have helped to bridge the gap between organ availability and patient need? Does he recognise that doctors and the British Medical Association favour that measure and that it could make a real difference to more than 450 people who are currently awaiting transplants in Scotland?

I am conscious of the importance of the issue and also of the cross-party support that exists for the position that John Farquhar has outlined again today. We are not yet convinced that an opt-out system is the right way forward, but we will look at John Farquhar Munro's proposed member's bill and consider it in due course.

Again, I urge everyone who cares about those who suffer and those who need organ transplants to register. Registration is very easy—it takes about five minutes on the worldwide web. People need only go to the right website and fill in the details and that is them registered and on the national list. Just under 100 people in Scotland every year have their life saved by organ transplant and more than 100 people have their quality of life dramatically improved. As John Farquhar Munro says, about 400 people are awaiting transplants and need those organs. I hope that everybody who is in the Parliament today and those who are watching on television will sign up and register to be an organ transplant donor.

Meeting suspended until 14:30.

On resuming—