Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S3F-284)
Later today I will have meetings to take forward the Government's programme for Scotland, and tonight I will be speaking to representatives of the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen.
Two weeks ago, the First Minister told the chamber that his Government would
As Wendy Alexander well knows, despite the extremely tight budget settlement imposed by her colleagues at Westminster, the Scottish National Party Government has still managed to restore the principle of free education in Scotland, which will contribute enormously to reducing the burden of student debt imposed by the Labour Government at Westminster and by the previous Executive. I call that keeping SNP promises.
The SNP has let down the 350,000 people who still have student loans. They trusted his word, but the Government has broken its promise to dump student debt and is not doing it. We all know—we have just seen an example of it—that, when he is in a tight corner, the First Minister attacks rather than answering. He also sometimes resorts to selective third-party quotes.
Question.
Order.
On higher education, however, the First Minister's Government is on its own. The Government is on one side, and the university principals, the students and the independent experts are on the other. Five of the world's top 200 universities are here in Scotland. The SNP Government is now at serious risk of compromising their competitiveness, not only with the rest of the United Kingdom but with the rest of the world. Will the First Minister agree both to revisit next year's settlement and to have an urgent review of the sector's future?
As Wendy Alexander should know, university and higher education funding is increasing in real terms throughout the spending review announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth. It is increasing not just in real terms but as a share of public spending in Scotland—that is, it will be higher than it was under the Labour-Liberal Executive.
I suspect that, as is all too common, we will discover in the press briefing afterwards whether that is a review of the settlement or not.
I point out to Wendy Alexander that the figure for modern apprenticeships and places on training schemes in Scotland will move over the next three years towards 50,000. I call that keeping our promises. On where Scotland's students have been left in relation to debt, let us recall and reflect on where that debt came from—[Interruption.]
Order.
I have a copy of the decision in 2004 in the Westminster Parliament on top-up fees. There was a Labour majority of five, bolstered by the Scottish Labour contingent, which included Lord George Foulkes. Of course, a week before that decision, the Scottish Parliament was offered the opportunity to ask the Westminster Parliament not to take the cap off top-up fees, but the motion was voted down by the Labour-Liberal Executive—and the first name in the vote was Wendy Alexander.
As I said, that was an attack, not an answer.
Order.
Let me end on a serious matter. In a week in which Scotland's chief medical officer called for more help for the nation's most vulnerable and youngest children, we discovered that the Scottish National Party will shelve Labour's plans to provide a nursery place for Scotland's 10,000 most vulnerable two-year-olds. Scotland's youngest and most vulnerable children deserve better. Will the First Minister listen to the chief medical officer and do the right thing by Scotland's most vulnerable two-year-olds?
Let us start with a point on which we agree. Poverty and child poverty in Scotland are a serious problem. If I were Wendy Alexander, after 10 years of Labour Government, I would be hanging my head in shame.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-285)
I am in correspondence with the secretary of state and I hope to take forward a meeting at which we will discuss and, I hope, come to an agreement on, subject to the views of the Parliament, the implementation of all the recommendations of the Gould report.
In today's Scotsman and on the BBC, Dr Andrew Cubie has called for a root-and-branch review of our universities. He said that there should be
I repeat to Annabel Goldie the point that I made to Wendy Alexander. Fiona Hyslop had a constructive meeting today with Universities Scotland on the budget settlement for universities and higher education, and on how the Government and the sector can work together for the future of the sector as we move into the next decade and beyond. That discussion took place between the university principals and the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Such meaningful and constructive dialogue seems a lot better than kicking the issue into the long grass, which seems to be what the Scottish Conservatives want to do.
I am accustomed to broadsides from the First Minister, but that was a pretty dismissive description of Dr Andrew Cubie's proposal.
I remind Annabel Goldie that it was the 2007 election that we won—we did not win the 2003 election. Incidentally, the Scottish Conservatives lost both comprehensively.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S3F-286)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Now that ministers have made their choices about their spending priorities, will the First Minister allow the Council of Economic Advisers to tell the Parliament whether they are the right choices to grow the Scottish economy?
As Sir George Mathewson has indicated, the job of the Council of Economic Advisers is to advise. It is the job of the Parliament to scrutinise the budget process and I hope that that is what it will do.
If Alex Salmond is so confident of his case, why does he not get his economic advisers more involved? Perhaps the answer is that he is already choosing to ignore what they say. After all, the advisers wanted investment in high-level skills to go up, but ministers are taking funding down. The economic strategy called universities our "world-class assets", but Alex Salmond's budget is cutting their funding next year. The advisers said that all spending should address the pursuit of faster economic growth, but now the First Minister could not care less about that. The real-terms cuts in university funding next year are bad for students, bad for universities and bad for the long-term future of Scotland's economy. University principals are telling him that today and his economic advisers would tell him exactly the same thing. Why is he choosing not to listen? By short-changing Scotland's universities, the First Minister has opened Pandora's box and has put the issue of top-up fees back on his table.
We have ruled out not only top-up fees but the back-end fees that were introduced by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party.
Order.
That is not so much water as hot air.
I confirm to members that I will take points of order at the end of First Minister's question time—my intention is to get in as many back benchers as possible.
This Sunday, 25 November, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board will implement a new policy of parking charges at Stobhill hospital. That is despite the fact that the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee has asked the board to delay the decision until the committee completes its consideration of two public petitions. Will the First Minister write to the health board to ask it to delay its plans until the committee has completed its deliberations?
I will examine that issue, and I will write to Paul Martin when I can weigh up the response of the health board to the important and constructive point that he has made.
I am sure that the First Minister would like to congratulate Strathclyde Police and the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency on the drugs bust that took place in Greenock last weekend, which removed £500,000-worth of cocaine from our streets. Will he ensure that the Scottish police service and the SCDEA receive every support and the necessary resources in the fight against the scourge of drugs that blights Scotland?
As I am sure all members want to do, I congratulate Strathclyde Police on that significant success. [Applause.] I am sure that all members will also want to congratulate the Crown Office, the officials and the police, who are acting so well on the proceeds of crime, to ensure that criminals and drug barons pay the price not just in terms of criminal penalties but in recompense to society.
The First Minister will have no doubt read the report that was issued this week by the chief medical officer, which highlights the profound challenge of health inequalities. I am sure that he will have paid particular attention to the credit that is given to the previous Executive on the progress made on child poverty.
That is part of the local government settlement, which I think it is widely acknowledged has increased substantially. As for the first part of the member's question, the precise formulation of revisions and funding is still being considered, but all members will agree with her points about tackling poverty, deprivation and crime levels in our areas that have the worst blights of poverty and deprivation. I undertake to write to her to encapsulate the range of measures that the Government is taking to deal with exactly those problems. I would never say that they are totally a legacy of 10 years of Labour Government, but I hope that when the Scottish National Party has been in government for 10 years—I confidently expect us to have that as a minimum target—we will have made more substantial progress than has been made over the past 10 years.
Local Income Tax
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government's timetable is for implementing the replacement of council tax by a local income tax. (S3F-290) [Interruption.] If Labour members listen, they will learn.
We will issue a consultation paper on our proposals before Christmas. I hope that members in all parts of the chamber will respond to the paper and I look forward to a full and vigorous debate.
I ask the First Minister whether the proposed local income tax will give Scotland the lowest effective rate of tax in the United Kingdom and what impact that will have on retaining in and attracting to Scotland new talent and new business.
The point that Alex Neil makes is an important one, but I am sure that he will be the first to acknowledge that we are not just waiting for the introduction of the local income tax. The measures that have been put in place with the historic concordat with local government, providing the funds for a council tax freeze in Scotland over the next three years, will be widely welcomed not just by those who suffer from the onerous burden of that unfair tax but throughout Scottish society. I do not think that that wide welcome includes the Labour Party, which, if I understand it correctly, wants to put the council tax back up again.
The consultation on legislation to replace the discredited and unfair council tax is to be welcomed. However, does the First Minister agree that an income tax that is set centrally by him is simply not a local income tax? Will he commit today to consider introducing a real local income tax that gives democratically elected councils control over the money that they raise, rather than a centrally imposed tax that would undermine local accountability?
I look forward to the debate and the submissions, and those issues will certainly be raised in the consultation document. However, if the member's argument is that we must ensure local accountability, surely his party should welcome the historic freedoms in the historic concordat between local and central Government, which do exactly that.
The First Minister's economic strategy states that the Government will pursue
I think that abolishing the council tax would certainly create those conditions.
Universities (Research and Development)
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will encourage research and development in universities. (S3F-298)
We are encouraging university research by delivering record levels of investment in higher education over the spending review period. We are working closely with the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the enterprise networks and our universities to capitalise on our excellent research and make the best use of that investment.
How can it be consistent with the economic strategy's aim of greater knowledge transfer between academic research and industry that there will be—as the First Minister must know—a real-terms cut in funding for universities next year? That cut was confirmed by Universities Scotland, and the Parliament should be clear about it even if the First Minister is not being so. With a view to the forthcoming research assessment exercise, what were the principals offered at today's meeting if they have been offered neither a review of funding nor a better funding settlement in the current spending review?
I am sure that Richard Baker will want to acknowledge not just that investment goes up in real terms over the spending review period but that it also goes up as a share of public spending—that means that it will be higher than it was under the previous Administration. Members and other people involved in this debate should at some point remember the additional £100 million that has been provided this year to refurbish the college and university sector across Scotland. Strangely, I did not hear a welcome from Richard Baker for that crucial announcement last month.
I am sure that the First Minister did not mean to lie to the chamber in an earlier answer. However, he stated—and I quote—that funding for universities was increasing in real terms in each year of the spending review period. What is—
Mr Purvis, I am sorry to interrupt, but you have accused the First Minister of lying. I think that you might want to reflect on that.
I said that I was certain that the First Minister did not intend to lie to the chamber.
I still find that unacceptable terminology. I ask you to rephrase.
I therefore ask, Presiding Officer, for clarification on what the First Minister has stated, so that it is clear that he did not—
Order. Mr Purvis, you are entitled to ask the First Minister for clarification—that would be in order.
I ask the First Minister for clarification: for next year, what is the real-terms funding for universities? Universities Scotland has said that there is a £1.9 million cut in real terms. What is the figure for next year?
I point out to the member that I said that real-terms funding was increasing over the spending review period—as indeed it is. Not only is funding increasing over the spending review period, but it is increasing as a share of public spending in Scotland. That, to me, means giving higher education colleges and universities a substantial measure of priority. The member should learn the elementary courtesies of parliamentary debate.
Perhaps I could give the First Minister some friendly advice. Does he accept that he would have more credibility on the issue if he was big enough to stand up and admit to the Parliament that universities are facing a real-terms cut in funding in the coming financial year?
The spending review goes over three years, not one year, and there is a substantial real-terms increase. If the member wants to gain the respect of the Parliament, he should say where he would find the additional resources that he says he wants to put into universities and higher education institutions in addition to the £100 million of extra investment this year and the increasing share of public spending in Scotland. That is what should be welcomed across the chamber.
National Health Service (Physiotherapists)
To ask the First Minister how many additional physiotherapists will be employed in the national health service. (S3F-295)
NHS board workforce plans indicate a continuing demand for physiotherapists. Over the next three years, it is projected that demand by NHS Scotland will increase by almost 7 per cent, from 2,138 to 2,286, an increase of 148 on a full-time basis.
With 70 per cent of this year's physiotherapy graduates still unemployed five months after graduation, and one third of 2006 graduates still unemployed, what does the Scottish National Party's manifesto commitment to
I have indicated to Mary Scanlon the expected increase in physiotherapy uptake across Scotland over the next three years.
Ah!
I point out to Labour members that we inherited the situation that Mary Scanlon describes from the Labour and Liberal parties. I would have thought that Mary Scanlon would welcome the projected increase of 148 on a full-time basis, as well as the fact that a planning group in the health service is examining exactly those problems to bring about even better solutions.
The First Minister will be aware of the recent questionable motivation of Peter Hain, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in his drive to reduce the number of Scots on incapacity benefit. Does the First Minister agree that that will put additional strain on our allied health professionals, such as physiotherapists, and that, should the proposal proceed, Westminster should return to Scotland any share of benefit savings that flow as a consequence—which the Liberal and Labour parties singularly failed to do when we introduced free personal care, and Scotland lost £40 million?
Christine Grahame raises a substantial point, which we should bring to the attention of Peter Hain. The Labour members should consider the implications for Scotland and the Scottish people of the actions of their Westminster colleagues.
We have had a number of interruptions, so I will allow Malcolm Chisholm to ask a final supplementary.
How can NHS boards throughout Scotland employ more physiotherapists or more of any other staff group next year when the real-terms increase to NHS boards is 0.5 per cent—the lowest increase that I, or I suspect the First Minister, can remember? Notwithstanding the excellent progress that NHS boards have made over the past few years in slashing waiting times and reducing the number of deaths from the great killer diseases, how does the First Minister expect boards to address the challenges of an increasing elderly population and new drug developments when the increase that is available to them is less than health service inflation, which runs at least 1 per cent ahead of general inflation?
I point out to Malcolm Chisholm that individual board allocations have not been set yet, but there are real-terms increases in the health budget. I point out gently that he resigned from a Government that was going to put, as it put it, all the consequential increases into one sector—education—which means that there would have been no increases whatever in real terms for the health budget.
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
On resuming—
Previous
Question TimeNext
Question Time