Scottish Parliament, 29 September 2011

384 contributions from 78 members. The official report.

Cancer Drugs

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00956, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on cancer drugs and their availability in Scotland. I call on Murdo Fraser to move the motion and speak; he has 10 minutes.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We have all seen newspaper headlines such as “Scots ‘worst’ for cancer survival”, “Lung cancer survival among the lowest in Europe” and Scotland “has the lowest breast cancer survival rate”. The sad truth is that report after report tells us that Scotland lags behind a plethora of developed countries in survival rates for cancer. Norway, Sweden, the US, Canada and France are but a few examples of countries that boast better five-year survival rates than Scotland across a range of cancers.

I accept that, in recent years, there has been an improvement in the figures for survival rates in Scotland, but I wish to highlight that Scots also lag behind a significant proportion of Europe for access to new cancer medicines, even though successive price cuts and exchange rate movements have meant that United Kingdom prices are currently among the lowest in Europe.

It is our job as parliamentarians and as compassionate members of our society to ensure that, when a person is diagnosed with a terrible illness such as cancer, they have the best possible fighting chance of beating it, or—in the most extreme cases—of being able at least to extend for as long as possible the time that they can spend with loved ones.

Sadly, in June this year, one of my constituents, Gillian Bauld from Dunblane, died after being diagnosed with advanced metastatic breast cancer. Her husband had contacted me prior to her death to raise concerns about the difficulty his wife was having accessing lapatinib—a drug that is not approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium, but which would have presented the best way of controlling the disease’s progression after her chemotherapy came to an end.

The Baulds made two separate exceptional prescribing requests, by two different consultants, and were rejected both times. As the drug was not approved by the SMC and because the exceptional prescribing route had been closed down to them, Gillian’s consultant advised that the only option would be to pay for the treatment themselves, at a cost of £10,000 for a 12-week course. That was unaffordable for that family, as it would be for many families across Scotland. It was a crushing blow at what was already a difficult and distressing time for the family.

The really devastating fact for Gillian was that, had she been living in England, she would have met the specific criteria that are laid down for access to lapatinib through the interim cancer drugs fund. As her husband wrote in The Scotsman:

“The ICDF is intended to help people like my wife. If we lived in England, then she would fully meet the criteria for funding, whereas in Scotland she isn’t considered worthy of further help.”

There are many cases all across Scotland like my constituent Gillian Bauld and I am sure members have dealt with, or are dealing with, similar cases.

According to a report that has been published by the Rarer Cancers Foundation, there are now 23 cancer treatments that are not routinely available in Scotland but which can be funded through the interim cancer drugs fund that has been set up by the Conservative-led coalition in England. The cabinet secretary will dispute the figure of 23 cancer treatment drugs. I have read the correspondence that she sent to my colleague David McLetchie yesterday, and I have seen the vigorous rebuttal from the Rarer Cancers Foundation that was sent to the health services research unit on 8 September.

I am not here to get into a dispute about whether the figure is 23 or some lower figure. I acknowledge that the cabinet secretary believes it is not 23 and may be as low as 12. It seems that that is not really the point; even the cabinet secretary will accept that cancer medicines that are available in England are not available in Scotland. If we cannot agree on the number, the principle is established.

The interim cancer drugs fund totals £600 million over three years, which is in addition to an initial £50 million. It has helped 5,000 patients in England to access the cancer medicines that they need. Such facts convince me that the Rarer Cancers Foundation is right to argue that about 14 treatment requests per million population are being approved in Scotland, in comparison with almost 48 such requests in England. Lapatinib—the drug that my constituent required for her breast cancer—has an approval rating in England that is nine times greater than that in Scotland.

If Scotland set up its own fund and achieved the same approval rate as England has for a host of drugs, the number of cancer patients in Scotland who could gain access to life-enhancing and life-extending treatment would increase by 235 per cent. We need to remember that we are dealing with many people who are reaching the end of their lives. Often, such drugs will not save their lives, but will prolong them and give them better quality of life when they need extra help.

I acknowledge that the fund south of the border is an interim measure, as such a fund in Scotland would be. The fund in England will run until 2014, when the Department of Health intends to replace the current pharmaceutical price regulatory system with a value-based pricing system for drugs which, I hope, the cabinet secretary will support for Scotland. That change will link the price of a drug to cost-effectiveness on the basis of clinical evidence. It is hoped that the new system will lead to more innovation and investment being focused on patient needs. However, until that time, morally we cannot accept a system in which Scottish patients—simply because of where they are domiciled—are being denied access to cancer drugs that are available to other United Kingdom citizens.

When the cabinet secretary gets to her feet, I am sure that she will extol the virtues of the individual patient treatment request arrangements, which form the Scottish Government’s default position when it is challenged on the availability of cancer medicines. However, as my constituent Gillian Bauld found out, even with that system, access to cancer drugs is still being denied, while such vital drugs are available in England.

The report “Nations divided? An assessment of variations in access to cancer treatments for patients in England, Scotland and Wales”, from the Rarer Cancers Foundation, highlights the fact that patients do not access the group of medicines that the SMC has declined through the IPTR route, which is why patients in Scotland are three times less likely to gain access to a cancer drug that is not routinely available than are patients in England. One clinician told me that bevacizumab—I hope that I pronounced it correctly—is a very good example of such a medicine. The drug has no SMC approval and no successful IPTR appeals, despite being the gold standard of treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in the western world and now in England, with the introduction of the cancer drugs fund. Again, a drug is being made available to patients in England and Wales but not to patients in Scotland.

Cancer Research UK welcomed the English drugs fund and said:

“This cancer drugs fund could make a real difference for some cancer patients, allowing them to get the treatments they need.”

I know that other cancer charities take a different view, and it is clear that opinion is divided, but patients in England are undoubtedly benefiting from the fund. That is why cancer sufferers, many clinicians and many experts can see the evidence of the £600 million cancer drugs fund working for cancer patients.

The Rarer Cancers Foundation has estimated that achieving a comparable level of access in Scotland would cost the Scottish Government £5 million. That amount is insignificant in the context of the health budget. In our manifesto for the Scottish election earlier this year, we identified where that money could be found from. It would be money well spent.

I, and we, do not believe that cancer sufferers in Scotland should be treated less well than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is time for the Scottish Government to think again on the issue. I have pleasure in moving the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the findings of the Rarer Cancers Foundation (RCF) report, Nations divided? An assessment of variations in access to cancer treatments for patients in England, Scotland and Wales, which states that there are now 23 cancer medicines not routinely available in Scotland that may be available in England through the Cancer Drugs Fund; recognises that patients in Scotland are now three times less likely than patients in England to gain access to a cancer medicine that is not routinely available; further notes the comments of the RCF that the Scottish Government has displayed a concerning degree of complacency over access to cancer treatments, and calls on the Scottish Government to set up a Scottish cancer drugs fund to be reviewed once the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme expires.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I welcome the debate. As all of us in the chamber will recognise, the issues are complex, emotive, sensitive and often very challenging. Because of that, however, there is an obligation on us all to debate the issues rationally, responsibly and accurately at all times.

First of all, comparisons between Scotland and England are not always valid; indeed, they are often extremely misleading. The simple fact is that lists of medicines do not tell the whole story of improvements in cancer care. One cannot simply say that, at any one time, a single fixed list of cancer medicines is being provided in England but not in Scotland.

I have studied the Rarer Cancers Foundation report; it is helpful in many respects. Furthermore, I respect the organisation’s work. Nevertheless, the report contains errors, and some of the claims that have been made and the basis on which the conclusions have been reached are open to serious challenge. For example, some of the medicines that have been listed as being not available in Scotland are, in fact, available. There has been double counting, and some of the “not recommended” decisions were made because the pharmaceutical company in question had not made a submission to the SMC. I will discuss those issues with the Rarer Cancers Foundation in due course.

There are, and will continue to be, differences between Scotland and England. There are drugs available in Scotland that are not available in England. The position changes rapidly because of the number of new medicines that become available. We should also remember that although the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England reviews only a selection of new drugs, the Scottish Medicines Consortium quickly reviews all new drugs that get a licence.

Of course, making such comparisons suggests that there is a uniform position across England. That is not the case. From what we can see from published policies on the interim cancer drugs fund, it appears that English regions are adopting different approaches to its application.

The key point is that the Scottish Government has been anything but complacent on the issue. We have worked collaboratively to put in place continuously improving and robust arrangements for assessment and introduction of new medicines. Indeed, that was demonstrated in the substantial amount of work that was carried out with the Public Petitions Committee. It is instructive that, in closing the petition in question, the committee highlighted improvements that have been made in the national health service in Scotland.

I say again—and will continue to say—what I have said previously: I am and always will be open-minded about what more can be done and I will always consider any ways in which we can further improve access to clinically evidenced and cost-effective medicines that improve patients’ outcomes. We are keeping the existing arrangements under review and will make changes where necessary.

We are also looking to the future. The position continues to evolve with, for example, the UK Government’s plans to introduce value-based pricing. I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and we are working with the Department of Health in England to ensure that our interests are fully recognised and that we can consider the wider implications for Scotland.

Our fundamental efforts remain focused on three principles: first, our having robust and independent national and local arrangements for timely assessment of new medicines to ensure that they are clinically evidenced and cost effective; secondly, our having consistent arrangements for consideration of individual cases where a particular medicine has not been recommended by the Scottish Medicines Consortium—I note that a vast majority of individual treatment requests are granted; and thirdly, there must be a clear focus on equity.

Although I absolutely understand the prominence that is given to cancer drugs and although I can, at first glance, see the attraction of a cancer drugs fund, my concern about equity leads me to agree with Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Support and Myeloma UK. In a briefing for this debate—a briefing, I should point out, that recognises and welcomes the extent of the improvements that have been made and acknowledges the need for them to bed in—those respected cancer charities have said that, in their opinion, a cancer drugs fund is not a necessary policy for Scotland.

I have two key concerns about equity. First, I am concerned about the risk of a cancer drugs fund creating inequity between those who suffer from cancer and those who suffer from other serious conditions, such as Alzheimer’s and heart disease. We should continue to improve access to drugs; however, in my view, that should mean access to all drugs—not just to cancer drugs.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I entirely understand the cabinet secretary’s point about equity. However, at the heart of that very question is the fact that we are where we are in relation to decisions that have been made by the Department of Health in England and Wales. As a result of those decisions, patients in England and Wales are getting access to cancer drugs that are not available in Scotland. Surely in the interests of equity that question must be addressed.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have already challenged that proposition and am happy to do so in greater detail in discussion with Murdo Fraser.

The second key equity issue is the risk of inequity within cancer care. Drugs are an important weapon in the battle against cancer, but they are not the only weapon. Radiotherapy and surgery are increasingly the treatments of choice. We need to invest in them too, and we need to do more to prevent cancer in the first place.

Murdo Fraser quoted Cancer Research UK, but he did not quote its opinion that the cancer drugs fund

“has been criticised for funding non-cost-effective chemotherapy treatments, rather than other, possibly more effective, interventions such as drives for earlier diagnosis or more advanced radiotherapy.”

That is a key, fundamental point. Our broader and more comprehensive approach has involved our investing £22 million in new radiotherapy equipment. For those reasons, we are committed to improving cancer survival rates through earlier detection of cancer. Our detect cancer early plan is backed up by investment of £30 million.

In short, we are committed to, and we will continue to be committed to, tackling cancer on all fronts, and we are seeing major improvements in the quality of care and outcomes for cancer patients. We will continue to prioritise further improvements through a consistent, evidence-based approach to the introduction of new medicines, treatments and support, alongside our crucial commitment to detecting cancer early. In looking to the future we will, of course, ensure that our interests are fully represented in the development of value-based pricing arrangements.

I look forward to the debate.

I move amendment S4M-00956.2, to leave out from “notes with concern” to end and insert:

“notes the Scottish Government’s significant and proactive developments in policy for the introduction and uptake of new medicines and the positive endorsement of these by the Public Petitions Committee; agrees that Scotland has robust arrangements for the introduction of newly licensed clinically and cost effective medicines, including cancer drugs, through the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and Healthcare Improvement Scotland, which operate independently from the Scottish Government; notes that, in certain circumstances, there are opportunities for local clinically led consideration of SMC “not recommended” medicines for individual patients; notes that Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Myeloma UK and Macmillan Cancer Support do not agree that the Cancer Drugs Fund is a necessary policy measure in Scotland; notes that the Scottish Government is working with the UK Department of Health with regard to the introduction of value-based pricing, and welcomes the intention to improve cancer survival rates through the detect cancer early implementation plan, backed up by the investment of £30 million.”

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Back in 2009, in response to the Public Petitions Committee inquiry, the cabinet secretary outlined three steps that her Government would take to improve access to medicines on the NHS, and we welcomed that approach. She said at the end of that debate:

“My objective is to ensure that we have a system in place that is, from end to end, robust, fair and well understood. Such a system should ensure that, when a patient can derive demonstrable benefit from a drug, it is available on the NHS through either SMC approval or exceptional prescribing.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2009; c 16130-31.]

The situation in Scotland that Murdo Fraser has outlined is that

“patients in Scotland are now three times less likely than patients in England to gain access to a cancer medicine that is not routinely available”.

There are geographical variations in the rate of exceptional prescribing applications as well as variations in patients’ chances of making a successful application. Those variations are not acceptable. Relying on the exceptional prescribing process can, of course, also be stressful and time consuming.

The Rarer Cancers Foundation report entitled “The Scottish Exception? An audit of the progress made in improving access to treatment for people with rarer cancers” says that an increasing number of Scots have to rely on exceptional prescribing applications, that nearly a third of NHS boards have no written policy governing exceptional prescribing applications, and that NHS boards use variable criteria to assess exceptional prescribing applications. It is therefore clear that more work is needed to ensure that a transparent system is in place that is

“from end to end, robust, fair and well understood.”

Expenditure on drugs amounts to almost 10 per cent of the NHS budget in Scotland. I understand that tough decisions will always need to be made in the area. Weighing up effectiveness against resources is an extremely difficult task, and it must be done in a rigorous and scrupulously objective way. It may well be that the criteria that are used to make those decisions need to be examined to see whether they disadvantage drugs that are designed to treat rare diseases, but the Scottish Liberal Democrats do not agree with the argument that we should bypass the Scottish Medicines Consortium for cancer drugs. That argument is intellectually unsound, unsustainable and unfair for people who suffer from other conditions. Politicians should not second guess the SMC.

Like Macmillan Cancer Support, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and Myeloma UK, we do not support the creation of a separate cancer drugs fund. The SMC’s role is to make objective decisions about individual drugs, and recent initiatives should be given a chance to demonstrate their efficacy. Cancer Research UK has admitted that the bigger prize is the achievement of a decent settlement in negotiations about value-based pricing. I urge the Scottish Government to engage with the UK Government to ensure that the new scheme meets the needs of patients in Scotland.

The evidence that we have seen is that record keeping in NHS boards is still poor. Nearly two thirds of NHS boards do not hold information about the costs associated with funding exceptional prescribing applications. I would like to see that change. In order to help to make progress, the Government must increase transparency throughout the system and should consider commissioning research into what factors contribute to situations in which drugs are seen to be safe and effective but not cost effective and clinically evidenced.

One step that the cabinet secretary outlined in 2009 was the introduction of a set of modifiers that the SMC can apply when considering new medicines. Has an assessment been made of the impact that that more flexible approach is having on access? Have, as a result of the modifiers, any drugs been approved that would not have been approved under the standard methodology?

We seek a much greater contribution from the pharmaceutical industry, which should work with the Scottish Government to encourage patient access schemes and risk-sharing approaches. In our manifesto, we focused on improving early detection rates to increase survival and we set out plans for a new target on urgent referral for cancer diagnosis: every patient should expect to see a specialist within two weeks. We must focus on increasing early detection in order to tackle the unacceptably high number of cancer cases that are detected for the first time only during emergency admission to hospital. The subject is emotive, but it benefits from the calm and impartial consideration that the SMC can bring.

I move amendment S4M-00956.1, to leave out from “through” to end and insert:

“and that patients in Scotland are now three times less likely than patients in England to gain access to a cancer medicine that is not routinely available; notes that the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy made a statement to the Parliament on 25 March 2009, outlining three steps being taken to improve access to new medicines, during which she said “All the developments that I have announced today will, individually and collectively, improve patients’ access to medicines on the NHS”; recognises that an earlier RCF report, The Scottish Exception? An audit of the progress made in improving access to treatment for people with rarer cancers, published in March 2011, found that increasing numbers of Scots are having to rely on exceptional case applications, that nearly a third of NHS boards have no written policy governing exceptional case applications in place and that NHS boards use variable criteria to assess exceptional case applications; believes that more work is needed to ensure that there is a system in place that is, from end to end, robust, fair and well understood, and calls on the Scottish Government to outline its response to the findings in the RCF reports, work with the Scottish Medicines Consortium and NHS boards to increase transparency around decision making and work constructively with the UK Government to ensure that the new value-based pricing scheme meets the needs of patients in Scotland.”

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I, too, thank the Conservatives for bringing the debate on access to cancer drugs to the chamber, because it gives us all an opportunity to consider how well or otherwise the system is working in Scotland and what changes might be necessary. However, we do not support the development of a cancer drugs fund in Scotland. We know that treatment is changing—more and more cancer patients are diagnosed early and use of surgical intervention and use of radiotherapy are increasing. The real prize will be gained by investment in early diagnosis and treatment, which we know lead to better outcomes for patients.

Our lack of support for a cancer drugs fund does not mean that we believe that the current system is functioning as well as we all wish it to. The recent changes that the Scottish Government made, following a petition to the Parliament, are welcome and have made substantial improvements to the system. A process has been introduced whereby a clinician can initiate an individual patient treatment request. Let us look at that in a little more detail.

We are all aware of the role of the Scottish Medicines Consortium in making decisions about which drugs are licensed for use, based on clinical evidence and cost effectiveness. However, we then have 14 separate area drug therapeutic committees—one for each health board. Given that the same guidance applies to all health boards, it is difficult to understand why NHS boards take such different lengths of time to decide on cancer drug use. I will illustrate that with one example. A cancer drug that the SMC deemed to be okay to use in April 2009 was agreed by two out of the 14 health boards within a month, but it took a further 16 months before the drug was agreed for use across Scotland. We still have a postcode lottery.

A second issue that I want to raise concerns the system of individual patient treatment requests. We absolutely approve of that innovation to improve our system, because it enables clinicians to make judgments in the interests of their patients and was supposed to be our equivalent to the cancer drugs fund in England. When the process works effectively, it should support clinicians to make medicines available to those who will benefit most, regardless of cost. However, there is a growing body of anecdotal evidence to the effect that the process is being undermined in several ways: by local rules that prevent initiation of individual patient treatment requests; by routine rejection of requests; by refusal even to consider requests in the first place; and by the considerable administrative burden that is placed on clinicians, which poses an added difficulty in getting into the system. Frankly, it is hard to determine whether that perception is correct, because the Scottish Government has no mechanism that I am aware of to compare the number of requests with the number of approvals.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

This is a point of information rather than a question, but Jackie Baillie will be aware—if she is not, she will be soon—that as part of the improvements that began through the Public Petitions Committee, we are gathering data on requests and approvals so that we can assess the situation across the country.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That will be helpful. I hope that we can access the information soon.

I encourage the Scottish Government to make further improvements. I pose the question whether we need 14 area drug committees. Perhaps we do, but they seem to act as a block in the system, in that they duplicate the work of the SMC and delay availability of drugs. If we are monitoring and collecting data, can we apply that to ensure that the individual patient treatment request system works effectively in every health board?

We value the work that is being done on value-based pricing of medicine, and we support any approach that leads to early detection and treatment of cancer, but we should not be proud of the fact that cancer patients in Scotland are perhaps three times less likely than cancer patients in England to have access to treatments. We need to make a difference by ensuring that our system enables access to cancer drugs.

Dennis Robertson (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire West)

The debate is an emotive one. I thank Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Support and Myeloma UK for their briefing.

Murdo Fraser used the word “morally” in the context of deciding whether we should have a cancer drugs fund in Scotland, but my challenge to him would be that I think it slightly immoral to challenge the competency of the SMC in the work that it does.

The cabinet secretary mentioned fairness and equity. If a cancer drugs fund were set up in Scotland, I believe that it would not be too long before other groups would make submissions to Parliament about the fact that they did not have a particular fund. I refer to problems such as diabetes, stroke, heart disease, asthma and chronic bronchitis.

It is worth trying to ensure early detection and prevention, and the work that the Government has done in providing £30 million for early detection and prevention is a route to ensuring that patients are given the best possible care at the best possible time. I respect the work of clinicians and their judgment, and I approve of virtually all the points that Jackie Baillie made about the work that is being done to make progress. Treatment is up to clinicians; if they feel that a patient warrants a particular drug, the mechanism exists for them to make an individual patient treatment request for that drug. I welcome the information from the cabinet secretary that such requests are being monitored and that measurement is in place, so we should get that evidence eventually.

Of the devolved countries, England is the only one that is moving forward with an interim cancer drugs fund—Wales does not seem to be moving forward with such a fund and Northern Ireland has no intention of setting one up. I believe that there is no need for one in Scotland.

The debate will probably raise many issues, but I return to equality. I believe that every person who has an illness requires the best possible treatment at any given time. To ensure that that happens, we must not set up individual funds for specific conditions.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I very much welcome the debate, which highlights dilemmas that we face now, and which will become far more acute in the near future.

On a recent visit to the labs at the Edinburgh cancer research centre, I heard David Cameron—the very highly regarded David Cameron, who is the new professor of oncology at the University of Edinburgh—describing how new cancer treatments are targeting specific subtypes of cancer, which means that the already expensive cancer drugs are likely to become far more expensive in the future because they will be used on smaller subgroups of patients rather than on everyone who has a particular type of tumour. He highlighted what difficult choices we would have to make as the drugs budget increases exponentially in the next decade.

My second general point is one that the cabinet secretary made: drugs are not the only weapon against cancer. In a recent talk, Professor Alan Rodger, who was director of the Beatson oncology centre until quite recently, gave figures on the contribution that different treatments make to curing of cancer. For surgery, the figure was 68 per cent; for radiotherapy, it was 28 per cent; and for chemotherapy, it was 4 per cent. That is not to downgrade or to devalue in any way the role of chemotherapy, but we need to see cancer treatment in that broader context.

We can justifiably be proud of the Scottish Medicines Consortium, which is the foundation of our system for cancer drugs. I remind members that the director of Cancer Research UK said at the Public Petitions Committee on 29 April 2008 that

“the SMC is the envy of clinicians who work in England”,

and that it is

“a model of good practice”.—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 29 April 2008; c 709.]

We can justifiably be proud of it—without being complacent.

Some years ago, guidance on the Scottish Medicines Consortium was issued that, I think, said that NHS boards should ensure that recommended medicines are made available to meet clinical need. I am concerned that there still seem to be issues with NHS boards’ implementation of SMC decisions. The briefings from Cancer Research UK and from Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Macmillan Cancer Support and Myeloma UK highlight the need for more transparency not only on decisions but on boards’ implementation of them. I am sure that everybody would like that to happen.

The briefing by Breakthrough and others also makes the key point that they want recent initiatives to have the chance to bed in. The cabinet secretary should be commended on the announcements that she made in 2009 on exceptional prescribing becoming more transparent. She talked about

“greater transparency in the flexibility that can be used by the SMC”

and

“a national framework for assessing ... patient access schemes”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2009; c 16129-30.]

That was all good but, in the interest of transparency, it would also be good if the developments on those policies could be explained to MSPs and the wider public—the cabinet secretary will probably not have enough time in her closing speech to address that point. For example, I am told that guidance on exceptional prescribing was issued in March 2011, but most people probably do not know the contents of that guidance or how it is operating. If there was more confidence in exceptional prescribing, there might be less demand for the drugs fund.

In many ways, I sympathise with what Murdo Fraser said and can see exactly where he is coming from. However, as Cancer Research UK reminds us, we should remember that a cancer drugs fund could exacerbate regional inequalities and may be doing that in England. Therefore, guidance on exceptional prescribing may be a more equitable way to deal with the problem.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

For a country that is reputedly obsessed with sport, Scotland’s health record is not good and we all know it. For much of the time that the Parliament has existed, its key effort has been to improve Scotland’s health. Our record on heart disease and cancer exemplifies the problems that we face. We know that our poor health has industrial causes, we have seen improvements in relation to smoking, and we are trying to work on alcohol. The good work that has been done proves that success is possible.

Our problem now is that statistics appear to indicate that patients are less likely to survive cancer in Scotland—they are less likely to have a prolonged life here than they are in much of North America or comparable countries in Europe. I will address that concern.

Nicola Sturgeon rose—

I will not take an intervention because I have only four minutes and need to get one key principle across.

Some years ago, I visited a research unit at the University of Dundee and spoke to a senior researcher, who looked into the future and suggested that he could see a time when there would be a cure for every cancer. The problem was that every cancer would have an individual cure and he could imagine the economic problems that would arise in funding such health provision.

New medicines are becoming available, and we all know of cases, such as the one that my colleague Murdo Fraser highlighted eloquently, of individuals who believe that a particular drug treatment would be effective for them but cannot have it funded through the Scottish system, although they would have it funded through the system in England.

We are dealing with a principle that must lie at the heart of our national health service: that it must provide for everyone and be seen to do so. However, an opposite argument has been put in the debate, and I will explain why it is an opposite argument.

When the minister and others, including Jackie Baillie, talk about the principle of equity and needing to ensure that resources are allocated equally across the board, they articulate a fundamental principle of collectivisation. When we hear the major organisations that have submitted briefings for today’s debate saying that there is no need for a cancer drugs fund in Scotland, I suggest that that collectivisation of opinion is not benefiting us in the argument.

The fundamental principle that lies at the heart of my political point of view is that the rights of the few must, at times, outweigh the needs of the many. The minister has made the opposite argument today, saying that resource cannot be made available in individual cases because it could so effectively be used in other areas. While there are individual cases in which people who could benefit from the treatments are not receiving them because of the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the few, our system has a fundamental weakness.

The only party in the Parliament that has proposed a means by which we can deal with that weakness in the short term is the Conservative Party, and I therefore support Murdo Fraser’s motion.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I know that my time is limited so I will try to be brief. This debate is on another emotive subject and I take on board the story of Murdo Fraser’s constituent Gillian Bauld and her family, and what they have suffered.

I come at the issue from a different angle. I can add to Dennis Robertson’s list of diseases: as the cabinet secretary knows, my wife Stacey Adam suffers from multiple sclerosis. Scotland has a higher number of people per head of population who suffer from that condition than anywhere else in the world. The list of people who think that they should have a certain drug could go on and on. A cancer drugs fund would divert resources from other conditions such as multiple sclerosis. We need to work with and help as many people as possible.

I am not aware of the Tory manifesto: it was not required reading in Paisley during the election. I do not therefore know where the £10 million would come from. If Mr Fraser wants to tell me, I would be happy to hear it.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the member had read our fully costed manifesto he would have seen that, among other things, we do not think that it is right to be giving free prescriptions to people such as him and me, who can well afford to pay for them. That money would be better spent on other things.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I am glad I did not read the manifesto. The people of Paisley have an entirely different idea. They do not want to have to decide to pay either for their messages or for their medication. When it comes to people who are dealing with long-term conditions, we have a completely different argument.

As the cabinet secretary rightly said, early detection is definitely the way forward. In relation to some cancers, preventative care can help. We should not kid ourselves: we are talking about lifestyle changes. As Alex Johnstone said, we have to deal with alcohol and smoking at an early stage so that we can help people.

We have to look at Scotland as a whole and at the vast number of people who suffer from long-term conditions. The Scottish Government and the cabinet secretary have considered the issues within the limitations of the resources that they have.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Everyone has said that the debate is very emotive, and it is. There is probably no one in the chamber or watching the debate who has not been touched by cancer in some way, whether directly or through family or friends. I am in the chamber today having been selected for the Aberdeen Central seat at the last minute because the lady who was originally selected was diagnosed with cancer. Everyone has been touched by the disease.

However, the solution is not a separate drugs fund. Colleagues have touched on the issue already but the argument is worth repeating. If we created a separate drugs fund for cancer, what other drugs funds would we have to create? That is the key question for me in this debate. There are huge numbers of other diseases, some of which are terminal, for which it could be argued that patients would benefit from a separate drugs fund. Where would it end?

Alison McInnes summed up the issue in her speech. She quoted her colleague Ross Finnie, who criticised the Tory plans for a cancer drugs fund, saying:

“The Conservative plan for a Cancer Drug Fund is unfair. The Scottish Medicines Consortium is the independent body designed to recommend the cost effectiveness of drugs. Politicians shouldn’t be second guessing the SMC.”

I agree with those comments. I think that members from all sides of the chamber, apart from the Tory side, would agree with them, and we should take cognisance of that.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Would the member concede that, although it is not the job of politicians to decide what drugs should be available, it is certainly the job of politicians to ensure that the rights of individuals are protected in relation to a policy that may take resource away from them to benefit other activities?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I listened to yesterday’s debate on mental health in which there seemed to be agreement that it was up to clinicians to decide what to prescribe. For the situation that we are debating, physicians can submit individual patient requests. That is the way to do it. I do not see a problem with that at all. As politicians, we should not second-guess those who are experts in their field.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I have given way once and I have only four minutes.

I wish the debate was more about prevention than about setting up a separate drugs fund. We have heard about the early detection fund, and I certainly welcome the moneys that have been put into that, as I am sure members across the chamber do. However, sometimes we do not deal with prevention very well. MSPs often have the opportunity to meet folk in the Parliament who are involved in various health organisations, such as Melanoma Action & Support Scotland, whose representatives Ken Macintosh invited to the Parliament the other week. Mary Fee attended that event as well. We could have simple solutions to deal with some problems. Melanoma is on the increase, but we charge VAT on sunblock and sunscreen. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

We should think about prevention rather than necessarily having to deal with cures all the time.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to speak in such a sensitive but crucial debate. The Scottish Conservatives are right to bring the issue to the chamber today.

I support any initiative to improve the treatment of cancer patients, but I do not believe that a cancer drugs fund is the answer. A drugs fund would not solve the problem of the drug approval system but would simply bypass it. The Conservatives’ proposals do not address the root causes of why patients might be denied access to some treatments—a view shared by Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Myeloma UK and Macmillan Cancer Support.

Murdo Fraser’s motion is right to point out the findings of the Rarer Cancers Foundation, but it does not address why there are treatments in England that are not given north of the border. The drug approval systems in both countries are very complex, and we must improve transparency around the Scottish Medicines Consortium, its decisions and their implementation. I back calls by Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Myeloma UK and Macmillan Cancer Support for an investigation into the factors that contribute to the SMC rejecting drugs on the basis of cost and clinical effectiveness, and how we can address such situations.

I find it worrying that the Conservatives would pay for a cancer drugs fund by bringing back prescription fees. To me, that is a tax on certain illnesses to pay for others. The money that would be used in a drugs fund should instead be used to improve the early detection of cancers and reduce the waiting times that patients experience, as the Labour manifesto pledged to do.

It is wrong that someone with suspected cancer should wait four weeks to see a specialist. As much as we need to improve and extend the life of a cancer patient, a drugs fund does not go far enough. More early detection and prevention of cancers are needed.

Even the Society and College of Radiographers has criticised the cancer drugs fund in England—the system that the Scottish Conservatives have based their plans on. Audrey Paterson, director of professional policy at the Society and College of Radiographers, said:

“it would only take a fraction of the £200 million budget to deliver cutting edge radiotherapy services across the country and the impact would be immense.”

That is an example of how the professionals feel about the fund in England. Miss Paterson is correct to say that more money should be invested in more effective treatment services.

I understand that some patients might be beyond the stage at which radiotherapy would help with their cancer, and that is where I feel that the heart of this debate must lead. Should we be providing drugs that improve the life chances of the cancer sufferer or drugs that simply extend their life? I would hope that any drug approved by the NHS, the SMC or any Government would do both.

As I said, this is a very sensitive debate, and party politics should play no part in it. We need more investment in early diagnosis and successful treatment and we need to rid each health board of the postcode lottery.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Like many in the chamber and in wider society, I have experience of losing a family member to cancer. It is worth noting that none of us in the chamber is immune to the situations that people across Scotland face in that regard. That said, we must always try to avoid becoming too emotional during debates on this issue; we must be rational as well as emotional when we discuss cancer and, in particular, cancer treatment.

It is fair to say that the cancer drugs fund has not met with the universal acclaim that one might have assumed it received if one had listened to the speeches from Conservative members. Indeed, a recent article in the oncology commission journal of The Lancet stated of the fund:

“because these decisions are regional, it reintroduces the postcode lottery”—

thereby leading to disparities in England, as the cabinet secretary outlined.

Mary Fee referred to an article in The Daily Telegraph, which pointed out that the Society and College of Radiographers had stated clearly that the fund was diverting money away from treatment and areas such as radiotherapy services. There is clear evidence that the cancer drugs fund is not all that it is cracked up to be, so we should exercise a degree of caution about it.

It is entirely appropriate that we focus our efforts on prevention and preventative spending, which the Government is seeking to drive forward. The Government is extremely keen on early detection, which is an approach that I support because the earlier a cancer is detected, the greater the patient’s chances of survival. We should focus our efforts on early detection, rather than diverting money towards end-of-life treatments for cancer patients. I fully accept that this is an emotive issue, but we must always take into account the fact that in many cases prolonging life does not increase quality of life. The key consideration for any health professional looking at life-prolonging treatments, must be the quality of life for the individual, not necessarily longevity.

In that regard, we must ensure that there is expenditure on end-of-life and palliative care. I am concerned that if we were to focus our efforts simply on directing money towards the treatment of cancer, as well as neglecting early detection we could neglect appropriate end-of-life care for individuals who no longer respond to treatment or who require simply to be made comfortable towards the end of their life.

The oncology commission journal of The Lancet states:

“Today, early detection and cancer-specific treatment advances have resulted in increased cancer survival”

rates. I support the Government’s focus on early detection, because it increases cancer survival rates—it is where we should be targeting our efforts.

This is a worthwhile debate, but the establishment of a cancer drugs fund would be a distraction. Other organisations that deal with terminal conditions would ask us, “If cancer drugs are a priority, why not drugs for heart disease or Alzheimer’s?” We must ensure that, at all times, the health of the nation in general is the priority for this Parliament. Yes, there will undoubtedly be individual cases that need to be dealt with—there always are—but the appropriate way to deal with them is as individual cases, as the cabinet secretary said.

Where there are local difficulties, it is entirely appropriate that they are highlighted to Government so that it can see whether it can make changes to the mindset at a local level, but dealing with local difficulties on a national basis is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Mr McDonald, will you conclude?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I will conclude with one final quotation from the oncology commission journal of The Lancet:

“prevention is also essential and this too demands political will, ample funding, and a substantial change in mindset”.

This Government has demonstrated the political will, provided the funding and made the change in mindset required to ensure that prevention is at the heart of what we do.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I listened carefully to the cabinet secretary’s speech this morning and found it illuminating. The situation is not as clear-cut as the Conservatives have suggested, and her point that comparisons are not always valid was telling.

Most of us have acknowledged that a great deal of work has been done here in Scotland since the Public Petitions Committee inquiry. We know that the SMC is actually quite responsive. The cabinet secretary reminded us that the SMC reviews all new drugs, while NICE reviews only a selection. It is easier for the system to be more responsive in such a small country, but Jackie Baillie rightly questioned the geographical variations in the approach of area drug and therapeutics committees and whether they are putting a brake on the system. I support her request for a review of that, which seems a sensible suggestion.

I re-emphasise the need to invest in early detection. Alex Johnstone referred the fact that our outcomes are poorer when compared with those in the rest of Europe, but I agree with the comments of most other members on the need to focus on early detection. That is the way to drive down that problem. At the moment, too many cancers are detected only during unplanned admissions.

The truth is that at the heart of the debate is a question of fairness. I do not mean to sound harsh—I understand the suffering caused by these dreadful illnesses—but I really do not understand why medicines for one particular set of illnesses should be exempted from the process of balancing clinical effectiveness with health economics. Dennis Robertson among many others echoed that point, drawing attention to the needs of stroke patients, heart patients and those with MS.

Pharmaceutical companies could do much more to bring drugs into the mainstream more quickly, and the value-based pricing approach that is being developed in Westminster should open up access to more drugs more quickly by factoring in more considerations. There are questions about how the new scheme would interact with the existing arrangements and with the work of the SMC, so again I urge the Scottish Government to work with its colleagues in Westminster to ensure that the new proposals serve the needs of Scotland.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the fact that the Conservative Party has raised what is an important issue. Although it could have been an emotive debate, it has been conducted in a sober manner. That is only as it should be.

As the cabinet secretary, Jackie Baillie, Mary Fee and Mark McDonald have all said, and as others have alluded to, early diagnosis and treatment must be our priority. We have agreed that, and the funding has been put in place. We may slightly disagree on how that funding is being applied, but nevertheless that is the priority, which is very important.

As with everything, we must start with the needs of the patient. New medicines for cancer are in the pipeline—possibly eight more this year, and many more to come—but new medicines for other conditions will also be in the pipeline.

The Scottish Medicines Consortium has served us extremely well. As Alison McInnes and Malcolm Chisholm indicated, it has been highly praised and internationally accepted for its speedy work. The industry has also been happy with the SMC and the interactive approach that it has adopted, apart from some problems around orphan and ultra-orphan drugs.

We cannot ignore the fact that, unlike the equivalent situation in England, SMC approval does not mean automatic availability. In Scotland, we have the additional hurdle of 14 area drug and therapeutics committees, which can make different decisions on licensed and approved drugs. As my colleague Jackie Baillie said, it can take between one and—in at least one instance—16 months to introduce an approved drug. That variation is unacceptable, and it is questionable as to whether the system is fit for purpose.

Why is that relevant? If not approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium, a medicine enters what was known as the exceptional needs system. If the area drug and therapeutics committee does not approve a medicine that is licensed and approved by the SMC, it also enters that system.

The approach in England of a transitional fund followed by value-based pricing is wrong. The fund will almost certainly be inadequate. The number of drugs in the pipeline will outstrip demand and England will be faced yet again with the same problems that we face.

A further reason why the fund is inadequate is that, as many members have said, it discriminates between cancer and other conditions. New drugs will be developed for many non-cancer conditions. Will they, too, be given specific funds? Discrimination, as opposed to some form of clinical rationing, will not be tolerated for long. As George Adam and Kevin Stewart indicated, discrimination could be a major problem.

England has not eliminated the regional variation. The equity to which Alex Johnstone referred is not occurring in the cancer drugs fund in England. We need to look at that.

Is there a problem? Yes—there is a problem, if Scots are obtaining substantially fewer cancer drugs than people elsewhere. A petition led to chief executive letter 17 in 2010. The new system of individual patient treatment requests, or IPTR, came into effect only in April. I have a number of questions for the Government about the IPTR system. Is it in place across all 14 health boards? Is the whole process, and not just rejection and acceptance, transparent to the public and individuals? Is it fair to the individual patient, their family and their clinician? Is it uniform and consistent both within individual boards and across Scotland, or is it yet another postcode lottery? To whom is the system accountable in the community? Is it accountable to Parliament? Do the 14 health boards have the capacity to consider the complex issues involved? Is the membership of the panels broadly similar? Is the community represented? Is the cost-sharing mechanism adequate?

I hope that those questions will be answered openly and transparently.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Like others, I think that this has been a good debate. It has been a calm, rational and high-quality debate. Kevin Stewart helpfully reminded us—if we needed reminding—that this is not an abstract debate. All of us, at some point in our lives, will be touched by cancer. It is important to keep that in mind.

Although I do not agree with the motion, I thought that Murdo Fraser and Alex Johnstone made good points. Our cancer survival rates are not as good as they should be and not as good as I would want them to be. I think Parliament recognises that. However, I challenge the proposition that that is entirely down to access to drugs. In my view, it is largely down to co-morbidities and late diagnosis. Those are what we need to tackle effectively if we are to make significant improvements to cancer survival rates. That is what this Government has committed to, backed by resources.

Alison McInnes, in a good speech, reflected on the improvements that have been made, and the need to monitor them and ensure that they have the desired effect. She specifically asked whether any drugs had been approved as a result of the new SMC modifiers. The quick answer to her question is that, so far during 2011, the SMC has approved three cancer medicines in relation to which modifiers could be applied.

Jackie Baillie rightly said, as did others, that we should always look critically at how the system is operating, not just in principle but in practice. I am happy to give further consideration to the points about area drug and therapeutic committees. Points were made by Jackie Baillie, Richard Simpson and others about individual patient treatment requests. As I said to Jackie Baillie in an intervention, we have asked all health boards to provide us with information on the number of requests, the number of approvals, the number of appeals, and the drugs and the indications concerned. That will be important information to inform our judgment as to how the system is operating.

Members will be interested to know that information made available in January this year as a result of freedom of information requests showed that over the past three years, 92 per cent of such individual patient requests had been approved by boards.

Malcolm Chisholm and others rightly pointed out—and I echo and endorse this point—that the Scottish Medicines Consortium is respected not only in Scotland but throughout the UK and the world. That does not mean that its decisions should be set in stone and that it should never look to improve how it does its work, but it is a respected organisation that applies respected methodology.

Malcolm Chisholm used the key word in the debate: transparency. Transparency is crucial in determining how fairly and flexibly the system is working. I could not agree with his point more strongly. We have been seeking transparency and will continue to seek to bring it to the whole process. I say in response to Malcolm Chisholm that I am happy to issue the guidance and other information to MSPs—or at least to those who are interested in receiving it.

Although a number of considered speeches have been made, I cannot respond to all the points that were raised by Mark McDonald, Mary Fee—who made a particularly considered speech—and other members.

I will make two key points. I hope that the first is a point of agreement rather than a point of contention: we should be working continuously to improve access to drugs. For me, that part of the debate is not in contention. I believe that we should be working to improve access to all drugs, not just some drugs, in a way that is fair and consistent. George Adam very powerfully summed up the importance of that.

I get letters from cancer patients who passionately believe that a particular drug can benefit them. Such situations are heartbreaking, but I get similar letters from patients with Alzheimer’s, MS or heart disease, who also believe that a particular drug could have benefits. I therefore believe that fairness, consistency and equity are very important in this debate.

The second key point is that we must tackle cancer in every way that is at our disposal. A couple of weeks ago I visited the Western general cancer centre to see new state-of-the-art radiotherapy equipment. The Western general is one of only a handful of cancer sites in the whole of Europe that has such equipment, which will transform how radiotherapy and surgical procedures are delivered.

Members also highlighted the need for earlier detection. As I said, our relatively poorer cancer survival rates are down to the fact that, for a variety of reasons, we present later with symptoms and we are diagnosed later. Therefore, no matter how short our waiting times are, and often no matter how good our drugs or other treatments are, the chances of survival are reduced because the disease has progressed too far.

There are big challenges. I do not underestimate them and I am committed to doing everything that we need to do, but let us do it comprehensively, fairly and consistently.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I welcome the debate and also the tone of all members’ speeches. We note the cabinet secretary’s commitment to look further into many of the issues that have been raised in the debate. We might disagree on many things, but many members raised concerns about transparency and so on.

There is no doubt that huge progress has been made in cancer treatments and recovery rates. Discussions around cancer are now generally about treatment, hair falling out, Maggie’s Centre and getting back to work. No longer do we say, “How long has he got?”

Although I acknowledge the progress that has been made on so many of the common cancers, there is undoubtedly still much more to be done on cancers such as pancreatic cancer, melanoma—which Kevin Stewart raised; I was also at the dinner that he mentioned—and cancer of the oesophagus, to name but three.

As Murdo Fraser said, 14 treatment requests per million population in Scotland are approved under the individual patient treatment scheme. In comparison, 48 per million population are approved in England under the current system.

I commend the work done by the Rarer Cancers Foundation to highlight the needs of people with more exceptional cancers. It was always going to be the case that drugs for the treatment of such cancers would be more expensive, given the lack of economies of scale in production and the smaller patient group for purchasing. The foundation said in its briefing for the debate that it has been contacted by patients in Scotland who have been unable to access treatments that their clinicians wanted to prescribe, which are available through the cancer drugs fund to patients who live in England. Therefore, it is right and proper that we have this debate to flesh out the differences between the two jurisdictions and ensure that patients in Scotland are treated equally and fairly.

As the cabinet secretary said, the UK falls behind most European countries on the number of cancer drugs that are prescribed and on the amount of money that is spent on the drugs, according to a report from Cancer Research UK today. We should not just compare ourselves with England.

As members said, even if a drug is approved by the Scottish Medicines Consortium, it might not be routinely available in NHS Scotland. As Richard Simpson said, the opinions of local drug and therapeutic committees can vary between the 14 health boards. The Liberal Democrat motion, in Alison McInnes’s name, makes a good point in saying:

“nearly a third of NHS boards have no written policy governing exceptional case applications in place and ... NHS boards use variable criteria to assess exceptional case applications”.

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary will look further into the matter. The Rarer Cancers Foundation’s reports, “The Scottish Exception? An audit of the progress made in improving access to treatment for people with rarer cancers” and “Exceptional Scotland? An audit of the policies and processes used by NHS boards to determine exceptional prescribing requests for cancer treatment”, showed that a number of treatments that had been applied for via exceptional case requests in Scotland were SMC approved.

One or two members said that the individual patient treatment requests system is subject to serious and considerable delay. That is time that cancer patients often do not have.

Malcolm Chisholm, Richard Simpson and Mary Fee talked about the need for greater transparency and clearer communication on the rationale for SMC decisions so that patients and clinicians fully understand why certain drugs are not approved for use by the NHS in Scotland. We have a nation of patients who are much better informed, through online information, and who clearly understand why drugs that are recommended in one country are not recommended in another. However, when a drug that the SMC has approved is refused by the local health board drug and therapeutic committee, it is natural that the patient feels that they have been denied something. It is also obvious that these difficult financial times could lead to postcode prescribing in Scotland.

For all those reasons, the Conservatives support a £10 million national cancer drugs fund for Scotland. I understand that the cancer drugs fund in England has helped more than 5,000 patients. Mark McDonald made a good point about patients’ quality of life, which is precisely what cancer drugs bring. I remind members that Mike Gray, from Buckie, who lodged a petition on cetuximab, worked until three weeks before his death.

On value-based pricing, I note that the Scottish Government is working with the UK Government to ensure that the scheme that is due to be implemented in 2014 will meet the needs of patients in Scotland.

I thank all members who spoke in the debate. It is right that we highlight the progress that has been made, but much more can be done and is being done to diagnose and treat cancer. It is right that we continue to examine how we can improve treatment for all people with cancer in Scotland. I support the motion in Murdo Fraser’s name.

Scotland’s Colleges

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-00955, in the name of Liz Smith, on Scotland’s colleges.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If there is a sector in Scottish education that has made the most substantial progress in recent years, it is the college sector. Its institutions have delivered excellence in many aspects, have transformed the quality of college courses and have widened access to many students, of all ages, who in previous times would not have been able to take advantage of further education.

Since colleges were granted their independence by the Conservative Government in 1992, they have enjoyed much greater autonomy and much greater flexibility, which has allowed them to adapt to the demands of their local regions, to build much better links with other educational institutions and to develop courses around the different needs of individual students. The Parliament pays tribute to that work and to the enthusiastic manner in which colleges have set about dealing with the current challenges that face them. In the vast majority of cases, they have an outstanding record. That is why they are, quite rightly, puzzled and upset that, despite those achievements, they are being asked to accept the brunt of the education spending cuts in this year's spending review—cuts that come hard and fast on the back of an average 10 per cent reduction in budgets last year.

Last week, John Spencer, the convener of Scotland’s Colleges, said that it was inconceivable that colleges would be able to absorb more cuts without harm being done to student places, to staffing or to the quality of courses. Over the period 2011 to 2015, those cuts could amount to more than 20 per cent in real terms, assuming that student support is maintained at a flat cash level. That view is echoed by Mike Dibsall, the principal of Telford College, who has said:

“To think that the sector could operate or indeed maintain provision after having our budgets slashed by 10 per cent last year was challenging, but to have them reduced again by 14.3 per cent spread over the next three years is just baffling. This is an incredibly difficult feat and I dread to think of what the sector will look like in a few years time when these new cuts are felt.”

He is referring to the fact that the further education sector is likely to be asked to cope with having its funding cut in real terms from £544 million to £435 million in 2011-15 while it watches the higher education sector get an increase from £926 million to £982 million.

Why has the Scottish Government chosen to punish the colleges so hard, particularly when they will be integral to the new Scottish Government flagship policy of offering opportunities to all 16 to 19-year-olds, when unemployment among young people is high and when businesses across Scotland have heaped praise on the college sector for its ability to train more students and apprentices in the new skills required for today's fast-changing world? Surely, there is not much logic to the Government’s position.

I can suggest one reason why the Scottish Government has taken this action. It is because of its persistent refusal to bring in additional sources of private income to higher education, thereby putting additional strain on the whole education budget.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I assume that the member’s inference is that her colleagues down south have levered in private finance to further education and have not, therefore, passed on a cut to the further education sector. Why is it, then, that cuts to further education budgets south of the border are twice as much as they are in Scotland?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

For the simple reason that the Scottish National Party Government will not accept the fact that it cannot just say that it does not approve of the principle of asking anyone to pay to learn. It cannot say that to students from the rest of the United Kingdom, who face the exact same problem because they are being asked to pay in Scotland. That does not affect the argument that the member has just raised.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does the member want further education students to pay in Scotland?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There are many FE students who might have higher education places in colleges and, if they come from the rest of the UK, they will surely be paying.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Along with many in the university sector and many public figures such as Lord Sutherland and Sir Andrew Cubie, the Scottish Conservatives have persistently argued that free higher education is unsustainable. We maintain that position, notwithstanding the claims from the Scottish Government that it will plug the funding gap for the next three years. At what price to our colleges? The Scottish Government cannot get away from the fact that 1,000 staff have been shed in the FE sector so far this year, the school college partnership work has been significantly reduced and, despite claims to the contrary, the number of learners has decreased.

The Scottish Government can no longer claim that there cannot be greater flexibility in its budget decisions about HE and FE. Until budget year 2010-11, the Scottish Government had separate budget lines for capital expenditure for the two sectors but for budget years beyond that the Scottish funding council has one pot for both sectors, so the Scottish Government can no longer claim that its hands are so tied. There is new scope for flexibility and therefore there should be much greater scope for a more equitable share between the two sectors.

I do not for a minute take issue with the desire of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to examine whether HE and FE are delivering best value for money. I do not doubt for a minute that some rationalisation is necessary—even some mergers in the future—but let us hope that the handling of that is not condensed into a six-week period like it was in the disgraceful situation at Abertay and Dundee, tellingly described by Lord Sutherland at the Education and Culture Committee on Tuesday as a “merger by fax”. Reform is essential, but so is the continuing autonomy of the sector and so is colleges’ desire to play an equal part in any tripartite discussions that must take place between the Scottish Government, the Scottish funding council and the colleges themselves. Discussions about the future structure of our colleges and universities will be extremely important and they must include the fullest possible consultation with all parties.

I will now concentrate on the priorities of the Scottish Government. It has made it very plain that there is to be a much greater focus on the provision of opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds and especially those in the 16 to 19 age group. It is a laudable ambition; but why then cut colleges’ resources? By definition, they will be expected to play a key role in this initiative, which will make additional demands on the college sector. As I understand the Scottish Government’s proposals, regionalisation is at the heart of the post-16 programme and it is predicted that there will be some savings as a result. However, I cannot see how any of those savings can possibly occur in a sufficiently short timescale to avoid serious pressures on colleges as they try to develop post-16 arrangements. Indeed, if possible mergers were to be part of restructuring, it is possible that costs could increase rather than decrease in the short term. The Scottish Government should be aware that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that significant savings can be made in the short term.

Let us not forget that there are many other student groups at college: part-time students, mature students and a minority of apprentices, who are all an essential part of the work of colleges and essential to ensuring that we have a mobile and flexible workforce across the economy. How will they fare if more demands to help with prioritising the 16 to 19 reform are laid on colleges at the same time as crippling budget cuts? What will happen to the provision of HE places—28 per cent of the total HE provision—especially for students from disadvantaged areas? Does that really sit well with the principles that underpin this Government’s priorities? I do not think so.

The Scottish Government’s economic strategy commits to maintaining bursary support to help young people to remain engaged in college and training. It is right to ask the Government whether it can confirm that student support in colleges will be maintained in real terms over the course of the spending review period. Bursary support is crucial to many students who would not otherwise be able to access further or higher education and it is also crucial to maintain a diverse student intake. We need a cast-iron assurance that bursary support will be maintained and that there will be no prospect of increasing inequality between the level of support for FE and for HE students.

I return to where I began by praising the outstanding work that has been undertaken by the college sector over recent years. Colleges have coped admirably with the challenges put upon them and they are undoubtedly a hugely important part of the improvements in post-school education. They should be congratulated rather than punished by the Government, which has muddled its priorities and ended up with a total lack of coherence in FE and HE policy.

It is incumbent on us all to heed the warnings in formal communications from Scotland’s Colleges about what could happen as a result of the spending review. The organisation fears further cuts. In the worst case that some predict, which is a cut by a fifth in the total for colleges, colleges fear cuts in student places or—if places can be maintained—cuts in teaching time. The colleges are also fearful about whether they will be able to maintain the college estate.

As I said, the college sector has made outstanding progress in recent years, but there is considerable doubt about whether it will emerge as anything other than weaker. That would be hugely detrimental to Scotland and to our economic potential.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the profound concern expressed by Scotland’s Colleges that last week’s Spending Review has severely damaged the ability of colleges to maintain student places and staffing levels, and their ability to deliver quality education across all areas of the further education sector; notes that the core funding cuts to colleges of 13.5% could result in a real-terms cut of over 20% if student support is maintained at a flat-cash level; believes that this is a direct consequence of the Scottish Government’s refusal to allow additional private sources of finance in the higher education sector thereby putting additional financial strain on every other area of education spending, and calls on the Scottish Government to explain why, in light of the findings of the post-16 review, it has severely cut back on the highly successful school/college partnerships that provide enhanced vocational opportunities for young people.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In my statement to the chamber two weeks ago, I made clear the breadth and depth of Scotland’s post-16 education system. I also made clear the value that the Government places on the various parts of that system, in which we as a Scottish people make an enormous investment of about £2 billion a year—£50 million every week. Many hundreds of thousands of people the length and breadth of Scotland have benefited from that system and they will continue to do so.

Two weeks ago, I made clear the considerable contribution that colleges—overwhelmingly our most significant providers of vocational education—make to the Government’s overall purpose. I am happy to reflect that again and to pay tribute to their work.

I will name one example from many. Since the onset of the recession, our colleges have provided a valuable buffer from unemployment for tens of thousands of our young people. Let no one doubt the support that we have provided to allow them to do so. In the past three years, we have provided funding of £60 million on top of the £2.6 billion core investment in the college sector during the Government’s first term.

Here is a fact that needs to be borne in mind throughout the debate: the investment that we have made in the sector represents a higher proportion of the Scottish departmental expenditure limit than any Government has invested since devolution. That is a measure of our support for the college sector.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No—I will make progress.

The college sector’s structure has lain largely untouched for many years. Now we have an opportunity and a pressing need for positive reform. The opportunity is to ensure that the sector delivers to every learner in Scotland; the pressing need is financial.

I do not comment on the irony of the Tories lecturing the Scottish Government on cuts, given what they are doing to the Scottish budget. However, they should reflect on the following phrases in a letter to me today from Paul Little, who is the City of Glasgow College’s principal and chief executive officer, because they give the complete lie to the claim about a lack of evidence for finding savings. He reports on the first year of his merger and refers to

“remarkable progress ... a new fit for purpose management structure, harmonised lecturers salaries ... promoting a clear learning and teaching strategy”

and

“realising over £4 million a year of financial efficiencies”.

Efficiencies of £4 million a year are being made, but it is alleged that no evidence exists.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary’s comment about cuts, why does the college sector—relative to the higher education sector—have to bear the brunt of cuts?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is because we are focused on positive reform that builds on the fundamental changes to school education that are under way through curriculum for excellence. That positive reform takes account of our success in developing a sustainable solution for higher education and takes place against a backdrop of continued investment of more than £2 billion between now and 2014. We have made that investment available despite the cut of £3.3 billion in Scotland’s block grant and the decision south of the border to increase tuition fees dramatically.

I do not duck the fact that the unprecedented pressures that we face have meant a tough settlement, particularly for colleges. However, the convener of Scotland’s Colleges, John Spencer, told me on Tuesday that Scotland’s Colleges

“is fully committed to working constructively with the Scottish Government on its reform agenda.”

I congratulate colleges in Scotland on that positive step forward. They have £2 billion of investment to work with, and much can be done.

My priority is to give learners, especially our young learners on whom Scotland’s future depends, a better deal. That is why we will ensure that every 16 to 19-year-old has a place in learning. No Government has made such a commitment before in Scotland. We will also prioritise college places for 20 to 24-year-olds. In addition, we will tackle inefficiencies in the sector, including excessive drop-out rates, and we simply cannot ignore the fact that the number of young people in the core cohort of college learners—the 16 to 24-year-olds—is going to fall over the period of our reforms.

Here, though, is something that we will not do—we will not charge young people for their education. We do not want that and the election showed that Scotland does not want it either. I find it deeply ironic that someone who proposes to abolish the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party and establish a new party would want to take their failed electoral baggage with them. The reality is that we will not charge students. Indeed, we will certainly not do what the Tories intend and move that approach into the college sector.

Let me give members a fact: many others in Europe do not want to do so either. Finland, Sweden and Denmark refuse to charge fees and in the past few weeks Hamburg has chosen to abolish fees, which means that only two of Germany’s 16 federal states now charge students. The Scottish Tories are not swimming against the tide of history—they are drowning in it.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the cabinet secretary clarify his remark that students will not have to pay fees? Does he not actually mean Scottish students? After all, he has introduced in Scotland the most expensive fees in the whole of the UK.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I have frequently said that I wish that that had not been the case. I wish that the Labour Party had not so enthusiastically backed student fees south of the border and had not voted for them. Now it is proposing to raise fees for Scottish students—even in Scotland, it looks like—to £6,000 a year. I will take no lessons from Labour on fees.

In the time left, I will tell the chamber what we are going to do. To realise our ambitions, we cannot avoid taking a hard look at delivery structures, which must work for learners and employers and must be sustainable. I want regional groupings, greater collaboration and mergers where such a move makes educational and financial sense. In case anyone might be tempted to misinterpret that last point, I will make my position clearer still. I have talked about mergers. We are not and never will be in the business of closures. We have terrific examples of the benefits of college mergers—indeed, I have already mentioned Glasgow—and various rural colleges are getting together. In Edinburgh, Brian Lister, the principal of Stevenson College, has told me how they are positively working with Jewel & Esk College on a merger.

Of course, this is not just happening in Scotland. Members should stop being so isolationist and look around at what is happening. In Northern Ireland, 16 colleges have been reduced to six; in Wales, there are plans to move from 25 to 15; and in England, from 1993 to 2008, there has been a reduction of 72 colleges. Collaborations between colleges and universities are taking place in Scotland, including, for example, between Aberdeen College and Robert Gordon University. The message is clear: mergers of and collaborations between post-16 institutions are far from uncommon and where they benefit learners they should take place by negotiation.

In the past week, I have been contacted by many principals. They told me four things, the first of which is that, unfortunately, they did not approve Scotland’s Colleges first letter. Let that pass. They made three other interesting points. First, they believe that the Government is focusing on the right things: the needs of learners, of employers and of the wider economy. Secondly, notwithstanding the challenges, there is genuine appetite for reform. Thirdly, ambition and leadership are absolutely crucial, as is deeper collaboration between Government and the college sector.

I will let Sue Pinder, principal of James Watt College, speak for them all. She wrote to me, saying:

“I believe that such fundamental and far-reaching change can only successfully come about by joint working between the leaders of the service, the Government and the funding council.”

I agree entirely. I want to help the sector adapt to that change and get it off to a flying start. Why do I want that? I want it for the benefit of Scotland’s learners and Scotland’s economy, which seem to have been forgotten by the Opposition parties.

I move amendment S4M-00955.2, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“commends the valuable work of the nation’s colleges; welcomes the commitment from Scotland’s Colleges to work constructively with the Scottish Government to deliver learner-centred reform of post-16 education; supports the Opportunities for All programme that will provide a suitable place in learning or training for all 16 to 19-year-olds not already in work or education; notes the value to the people of Scotland of maintaining free access to higher education, and completely rejects the introduction of tuition fees for Scotland-domiciled students.”

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Last week, The Herald contained a disturbing headline, indicating that 1,000 further education jobs have been lost in a year. Although that does not tell the whole story of what is happening in Scotland’s colleges, it gives a little glimpse into what happens when the Scottish National Party cuts 10 per cent from their budget. One thousand jobs have been lost at a time when the country is struggling to get out of recession and when unemployment is at unacceptably high levels; when this Government is supposedly implementing a no compulsory redundancy policy; and in the very area that has most to offer in making our young people more employable. The Scottish Government greeted the news with a decision to cut a further 20 per cent from the colleges’ budget over the next three years.

The impact of last year’s cuts—let alone this year’s cuts—has been felt across the sector by students as well as by those who teach them. Colleges are funded to deliver 21 hours of classroom time per student each week, but the only way in which colleges have been able to keep within their budgets and still keep up their numbers has been by cutting the hours on offer to each student from 21 to 16. Is the cabinet secretary aware that colleges are offering their students less classroom time? If he is, did he approve that decision? If he is not aware of it, what does he intend to do about it? Perhaps he thinks that such a cut will have no effect on the quality of teaching and learning.

The college closure—I am sorry; the college merger—agenda may look good to the SNP on paper, but I am not convinced that it has thought it through. We are not against mergers where they are necessary, but one of the main reasons why colleges offer similar courses in various parts of the country is that the locality matters to many students. It is all very well telling South Lanarkshire College to close its course offering—Margaret McCulloch spoke about that in the chamber last week—and telling students to go to Glasgow instead, but most students cannot afford that round trip and for some that will mean the difference between staying the distance and dropping out before they receive their qualification.

It is not just the students and the communities that they live in that will lose out. The worry is that the vast new impersonal regional groupings could also lose the ability to respond to the local needs and demands of businesses and employers. They could lose the very flexibility that the Scottish Government praised just last year.

There is support for public sector reform—colleges themselves have long embraced reform and the Labour Party has championed and supported reform in and out of office—but the SNP is deliberately confusing and conflating reform with cuts. The new term “positive reform” that Mike Russell has coined appears to be another term for huge cuts.

It is even more worrying that the cabinet secretary appears to be taking a pretty elitist approach to further and higher education. The ancients—the old, established universities—are protected as much as possible and the newer, more accessible red-brick institutions are given thinly veiled threats to merge or else. Liz Smith referred to Lord Sutherland’s reference to “merger by fax” earlier this week. The poor colleges are treated like below-stairs staff. Mr Russell appears to be auditioning for “Downton Abbey”.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am confused. Mr Macintosh mentioned the “merger by fax” comment, but I understand that, last week, he asked the cabinet secretary to tell us which universities and colleges face merging. If the cabinet secretary did that, he would negate his own consultation process, which does not end until 23 December. What is it to be? Does Mr Macintosh want merger by fax or to buy into the positive consultation that is taking place?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

That is a pretty convoluted point, but I think that Mr Doris has just admitted that the University of Abertay Dundee will be closed. I think that that was what he was trying to say. Unfortunately, the First Minister certainly would not own up to that.

For the past decade, the Labour Party has been committed not just to expanding, but to improving access to further and higher education. We have worked hard to break down the false divide between academic and vocational options and to build real equity into the Scottish tertiary education system. We have pushed apprenticeships and promoted the skills agenda as being equally worthy of public support as are degrees. I thought that the SNP supported us on that journey, but the decisions and policy announcements that have been made by the Administration over the past few months have rather given the game away. Research funding and a new market in fees for rest of UK students will entrench the position of the older universities while the institutions that are most accessible to their communities will lose another fifth of their funding.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am very interested that Ken Macintosh wants to see more vocational education. I presume that he therefore endorses a point of view that was put forward last week. There was an article on the BBC website entitled “Labour conference: Call to axe half of universities” that said:

“Closing half of Britain’s universities is among the radical ideas being considered by Labour leader Ed Miliband, his policy adviser says.”

It is clear that somebody who wishes to be the leader of Labour in Scotland will endorse that, as Ken Macintosh is clearly doing.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am delighted that Mike Russell pays such close attention to Labour Party policy and its conference. The SNP has already adopted the sensible Labour Party policy of guaranteeing a place for 16 to 19-year-olds. However, when the SNP adopts our policy, it does not put in place any funding, so all that happens is that older learners are displaced by new ones. What happened to lifelong learning, Mr Russell?

I will end with a quote from a lecturer who is a constituent of my esteemed colleague Johann Lamont MSP. They stated:

“The proposed cuts will ... significantly affect the education and training opportunities in my community where such provision is crucial in these times of economic hardship.

Nicola Sturgeon had the nerve to turn up at Cardonald College on Wednesday morning to open our healthcare training facility and claim positive media coverage from others’ efforts ... in the full knowledge that later that day she would be party to sticking the financial knife into those who were there.”

I ask the SNP Government to think again about its cuts to colleges before they damage the life chances of a whole new generation of Scots.

I move amendment S4M-00955.3, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“is concerned that these cuts are being implemented at a time when Scotland is once more experiencing unacceptable levels of unemployment, with youth unemployment in particular having risen by 89% over the last four years, and calls on the Scottish Government to explain how cuts to colleges will improve the life chances for this and succeeding generations.”

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I welcome the debate, but I am astounded by the claim from the Conservatives and Liz Smith that, in the one week since the spending review announcement, they have discerned that the colleges have already been severely damaged and will have difficulty maintaining student places and staff levels. They cannot be serious. As PJ O’Rourke said, that kind of seriousness is stupidity gone to college.

In the past two months, I have met the principals of colleges in Ayr, Dumfries, Glasgow, East Lothian, West Lothian and Edinburgh. In our discussions, they were clear that the operation, offerings and administration of colleges would have to continue to change. The professionals recognise the current economic situation and realise that, in a progressive country, change is inevitable.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No. I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

The professionals also recognise that, in a progressive country, change is a constant. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, other principals, such as those at Stevenson College Edinburgh and Jewel & Esk College, recognise that in a progressive country where existing individual colleges provide strong and superb educational training opportunities, they will be even stronger and better by collaborating.

The motion contains echoes from the London Tory Government—their London Tory Government—with the resonance of the policy of tuition fees to secure what in their minds would be better higher education. However, as was pointed out in an intervention, the motion makes no mention of the Tory cuts from London of 25 per cent and the severe damage from that.

Where is the hard evidence that there has been a severe cut in successful partnerships, as the Conservative motion claims? Certainly, our economic performance is better than that down south. The Conservatives always consider revenues—that is always their shibboleth—rather than costs, change and efficiency. The principals are willing to embrace efficiencies and partnerships. They are being consulted on post-16 reforms, not dragged into mergers.

Did the Conservatives sleepwalk through the legislative programme statement last month, in which we reiterated our commitment to young people? Did they read and understand the paper “Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”, which confirmed our program for 16 to 19-year-olds? That underpins the policy that every 16 to 19-year-old will be guaranteed a learning and training opportunity, which is a top priority for our colleges.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No, sorry.

Will the Conservatives accept that the reforms will result in even greater consultation and collaboration to produce greater partnerships that will create better operational structures and a collective of college campuses that will drive Scotland forward? I believe that the colleges will continue to be positive in the consultation and will demonstrate aspiration, ambition and innovation. They will not languish in a pool of negativity. The motion should be reflected on the Tories’ college report card, which should simply read, “Can do better.”

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

When the cabinet secretary reported to us what the principals had been saying, he failed to report what they are saying about the cuts. The truth is that the principals will not have enough money to deliver on the SNP’s manifesto promises. Earlier this year, the SNP promised that there would be no compulsory redundancies in further education. As the cabinet secretary knows, I have raised the issue with him many times, but I would like him to tell us today how he plans to keep that manifesto promise, given the stringent cuts that have been imposed on the colleges in the budget this year and, indeed, last year.

There is another of the SNP Government’s commitments that I would like to know whether the colleges will be able to deliver under the settlement—the commitment to guarantee the number of student places. Perhaps the minister will be able to tell us what the principals are saying about that when he sums up.

Our colleges were expecting a flat-rate settlement. They did not have high expectations, because last year they soaked up a 10.4 per cent cut in their budget, which squeezed staff and courses. They did not have high hopes, but they could not see how they could continue to operate with further cuts to their budget.

This Government has made its choices, but let us not pretend that they were all prescribed by Westminster. Yes, Westminster sent up a reduced budget, but it did not send up a list of choices.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

The SNP has made its choices in line with its own priorities. Those choices will curtail the choices of many other people; often, they will curtail those of the most vulnerable. The cabinet secretary may laugh, but the issue is about more than the 13 per cent budget cut that many colleges have calculated to mean a 25 per cent real-terms reduction over four years, and which the Educational Institute of Scotland has calculated will amount to a 29 per cent real-terms reduction over four years; it is also about the choices about where the cuts will fall.

The cabinet secretary was kind enough to send the colleges some guidance on the budget cut in an accompanying letter to the college principals. He told them to concentrate on the economically active and on the courses that lead to national qualifications, and to try to maintain other courses. “Try”—that is fine, but in the face of a 25 per cent cut, is it realistic or workable?

What are the courses that do not lead to national qualifications that are likely to go? They are special programmes for young people with particular needs and learning difficulties, who do not have many options at all. The colleges provide a fantastic route for skill development. They give training in life skills, independent living, communications and much else. Some of those students progress to find work; some of them do not. The benefits are innumerable—I know because I met some such students at Dundee College last week—but they are not always quantifiable.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

Is it fair to cut provision for those students because we cannot quantify the benefits?

What else do the colleges do that does not lead to the national qualifications that the cabinet secretary wants to protect? Colleges provide great education for students who have struggled with the school system. I am talking about hard-to-reach kids and those who have a poor attendance record at school. Many such students progress into qualifications. The colleges set up those courses to respond to local need. They offer the second chance that so many of us need at different points in life, but which children from deprived backgrounds need much more.

The colleges have strong articulation agreements with local universities.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I would be grateful if you would close now.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Those agreements are often with the post-92 universities. When students are not readily accepted on to courses, the college will back them up and give them the voice and determination that they need to get there.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I will just finish.

Yes, cabinet secretary, we must focus resources to get people into work, and the settlement is tough, but the Government has made choices, and these people do not have as many choices—

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I should declare an interest as someone who was a lecturer in economics at the University of Abertay Dundee and Inverness College UHI before I entered the Parliament. I refer to my declaration of interests.

I find it difficult to think of schools, colleges and universities as separate entities. I use the example of Inverness College, where I lectured at higher national certificate, higher national diploma and degree level before coming to the Parliament. It has more than 400 people taking highers, 250 of whom are full time and more than 150 of whom are part time. Many highers that are needed for entrance to university are not available in schools but can be done online with a monthly get-together at Inverness College. Pupils from 19 schools from all over the Highlands do highers in that way, so cuts to FE also affect school education.

The vocational pathways and skills for work programmes have been up and running at Inverness College for many years. Hundreds of school pupils attend the college for a day every week to try out and receive skills and training in hairdressing, beauty therapy and a range of construction and information technology skills. That, too, is a highly successful partnership with schools to the advantage of pupils.

Inverness College teaches many courses to degree level and has PhD research students in many academic spheres, such as rural, marine and environmental studies and tidal energy. It is one of 13 colleges that is not only an FE college but part of the University of the Highlands and Islands, so when we talk about cuts—or, I should say, positive reforms—to further education in Scotland, we are talking about cuts to school education and university education such as masters degrees and doctorates.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would be interested in the evidence that Mary Scanlon has for cuts to masters degrees and doctorates. I am unaware of any such evidence, but if she has it and brings it to me I will be interested to see it.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The evidence is that the cabinet secretary’s positive reforms—also known as cuts—to colleges such as Inverness College and the other 12 colleges in the University of the Highlands and Islands mean cuts to colleges that offer doctorates. If the money is cut there—

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

One intervention is enough. The point is that the Government’s funding plans affect schools, universities, our skills base and our ability to help people to get back to work.

Jenny Marra mentioned unmeasurable benefits. I found that mature students often came to Inverness College with no confidence and no hope of a career but left with something unmeasurable: a touch of confidence and wellbeing. Colleges provide an opportunity for many individuals to empower themselves, gain skills and get themselves back to work. Their biggest success is often the mature students, who missed out at school and find that college brings out their talents and gives them the opportunities that they did not have.

According to a briefing from Scotland’s Colleges, last year colleges turned away 35,000 potential part-time and full-time students because courses were full. That surely highlights the need for more funding and more opportunities. We welcome the Government’s commitment to giving all young people a training or education place but, having turned away 35,000 people last year, how can colleges provide those places with no additional funding—only a significant cut? I ask the cabinet secretary to review that cut. Our colleges will rise to every challenge that the Government sets and are ready to embrace the reform agenda, but they cannot work miracles on a reducing budget.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The last major reform of further education was undertaken by the previous UK Tory Government in 1992-93. Our Tory friends in Scotland would like us to forget that era, but the iron lady and her successor have left rusty stains on Scotland’s soul that will not be forgotten until we remove their various legacies. Our Tory friends in Scotland will never be able to rebrand themselves successfully until we remove those legacies, so they should support, and thank us for, the further education reforms.

Mary Scanlon rose—

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No, I have only four minutes.

The Tories turned our colleges into businesses competing with each other to replicate courses not in any genuine market, but in one in which the competition was and is for public subsidy. That is not business and it is certainly not the free market that our Tory friends profess to worship.

Education is not and should not be about business. It is one of our higher callings: to discover and nurture the talents of our younger generation. The aims of education are incompatible with the business-centred approach.

Scotland is now under the hammer of another couple of young Tory Turks, overdosing on testosterone and imposing cuts that are too fast and too deep and that run the risk of tipping us back into recession. Under those circumstances, we are forced to seek better value in education as in other areas. With careful pruning, the tree can become stronger. In order to safeguard the precious asset of our young people’s education, we must eliminate replication and competition where it is destructive and replace it with co-operation and collaboration, which is constructive.

I trained a number of apprentices over the years and experienced at first hand the destructive effects of competition in further education when some of our colleges did well and others did not. Our apprentices went to a college in the central belt that did not do well under that system. I remember first-year joinery apprentices occasionally teaching lecturers how to do things. I remember being pressurised by the college to sign off apprentices as competent at tasks when they had not yet achieved competence. I remember the college explaining that if I did not do so, it would not receive its funding. Its concern was about money and not much about education and training.

I therefore welcome the cabinet secretary’s proposals. They are long overdue. I welcome his firm commitment that not one college will close and his commitment to flexibility, so that colleges will be free to collaborate in ways that minimise difficulty. I especially welcome the cabinet secretary’s and First Minister’s commitment that higher education will remain free in Scotland until

“the rocks melt wi’ the sun”.

I have an affectionate message for Liz Smith. I will support that commitment, as will my colleagues on the SNP back benches, to free higher education in Scotland,

“Till a’ the seas gang dry, my Dear.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the debate and congratulate Liz Smith on her motion even if I do not support it.

The debate is timely as, facing the prospect of swingeing budget cuts and the imposition of wholesale mergers, our colleges feel as if they are under siege. In the current political climate, when many organisations find it difficult, if not impossible, to voice publicly their concerns about what this majority Government is doing, it is striking that Scottish college leaders have felt moved to be so outspoken. In their open letter to the education secretary, John Spencer and Graham Johnstone pulled no punches at all. They talked of a “bleak” future for Scotland’s college sector, adding:

“The impact on the quality of provision, the availability of student support services, and the loss to expertise, capacity and morale present in the sector through losing staff cannot be overstated.”

On the process of top-down merger, as the cabinet secretary said, Mr Spencer is on record as saying

“we will embrace reform that can benefit learners”,

but he goes on to say:

“reform should not come at the expense of the quality or breadth of provision for college students.”

That is a strong, unambiguous message and we should all heed it, but we would do well to detect any level of concern from reading the Government’s amendment this morning. So although I support many of the sentiments in Mr Russell’s text, it would be wholly inappropriate for the Parliament to do anything other than acknowledge the deep disquiet in Scotland’s college sector. That is why, in the absence of my own amendment, I urge members to support the amendment in the name of Ken Macintosh.

As all have recognised in the debate, our colleges make an invaluable contribution, not least in delivering opportunities for genuine lifelong learning, yet there has been a smash-and-grab raid on their budget. The 20 per cent positive reforms that are to take place over the next three years follow the 10 per cent positive reforms of last year.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No. I have only four minutes.

College leaders have confirmed that the SNP’s pledge to retain student numbers at colleges over the lifetime of this Parliament cannot be delivered. Delivery of Mr Russell’s commitment on 16 to 19-year-olds will be “seriously compromised” and compulsory redundancies, as Jenny Marra pointed out, cannot be ruled out.

Add to that a merger process about which witnesses to the Education and Culture Committee earlier this week expressed grave concerns and we have a potentially toxic medicine. Mark Batho conceded that the cost of mergers could be significant in the initial years, when budgets are tightest. Indeed, other witnesses testified that no allowance had been made for those costs in HE, far less FE, allocations.

Meanwhile, Lord Sutherland was outspoken in his criticism, not of mergers per se—

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Sit down. The member took no interventions.

Lord Sutherland rightly said that mergers can deliver considerable benefits, but was critical of the way in which ministers are going about it. The process is not being institution-led or academically driven and Lord Sutherland was in no doubt that what the University of Abertay Dundee and the University of Dundee were being put through would send a chill down the spines of universities and colleges across Scotland that are fearful for their futures.

Ministers will seek to blame everyone else for this state of affairs. The truth, though, is that it is the result of political choices that the Government has made. Alternative options were and are still available. I do not support Liz Smith’s proposition but, by clinging doggedly to some of their costly promises while ruling out even looking at other possible savings, ministers have made the bed in which colleges are being forced to lie.

Let me cite one example. Ministers have set their face against any consideration of ways in which significant savings could be made through moving Scottish Water to a public trust. Such a move could release savings to the Scottish budget of around £1.5 billion, money that would make a real difference to our colleges as well as enabling a concerted effort to be made on early years and a range of other worthwhile initiatives.

Other examples exist, but that will do to illustrate the dire situation facing our colleges and, by extension, learners, staff and, indeed, the local communities in which the institutions are based, which is the result of political choices made by the majority SNP Government.

I welcome the debate, but question whether the subject might not have presented a more appropriate use of the Parliament’s debating time this afternoon, rather than being shoe-horned into an Opposition slot. Ministers may wish to reflect on the message that that sends to a vital sector that is desperately looking for signs from the SNP Government that it is valued and not simply the politically expendable part of the learner journey.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on what opportunities or avenues are open to members to correct a member’s misrepresentation of evidence to a parliamentary committee. It is quite clear that Liam McArthur’s statement is not an accurate representation of the evidence that was supplied to the Education and Culture Committee on Tuesday morning.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I share the sentiments that Liz Smith expressed and I concur with her view that Scotland’s colleges have an outstanding record. It is, therefore, not to put too fine a point on it, a disaster that they are being asked to bear the brunt of spending cuts. I regret that she allowed the focus of the debate to shift away from Scotland’s colleges and on to issues that can be addressed at other times. The debate should focus on the contribution that Scotland’s colleges can make to education in Scotland.

Their contribution is more flexible and more effective in many regards than that of any other institutions in this country. In my area in Renfrewshire, I see Reid Kerr College’s contribution to communities such as Barrhead, Neilston, Johnstone and Linwood and to many young people who would otherwise be alienated and disengaged from the education process. The colleges are a lifeline for such young people and they provide imagination and innovation.

I accept what Mike Russell said about college principals being up for reform; nevertheless it was incumbent upon him to articulate the concerns that Liam McArthur and others indicated that the colleges have. As Jenny Marra said, colleges committed last year to avoid compulsory redundancies and maintain the same level of activity. However, they are clearly saying that that cannot be repeated this year if they must absorb further cuts to their core funding.

We know the social improvements that good colleges can make. It is not just about education. For example, in the east end of Glasgow we have seen an 84 per cent reduction in criminality and youth disorder over the past three years, which is a result of joint efforts by the local authority, the police and colleges, such as John Wheatley College, which manage to give many young people a positive aspect to their life.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

No, thank you.

Are we prepared to pay for the other costs that will come when young people are denied opportunities at colleges?

Liam McArthur is right to say that it is a shame that this subject has been shoe-horned into a short Opposition debate, because there are issues that are worthy of further exploration. I agree with some of what the cabinet secretary said about having to think outside the box.

We must ask ourselves why it is that in places such as Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and, I think, Aberdeen, we probably have more universities than colleges. Why do we not start to look at a model that goes back to the old polytechnics? In Glasgow, Forth Valley, Dundee, Fife and Aberdeen, such polytechnics could build on the good work that the colleges are doing in relation to HNCs and HNDs and provide a more effective, efficient and cost-effective way of delivering degrees. Why is it that some of the elitist institutions that Ken Macintosh mentioned are refusing to accept the HNDs and HNCs as progression towards degrees? I say to the cabinet secretary that he should use his influence to challenge that elitism and that attitude, which is fundamentally wasting money in this country.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Finally, we should challenge whether we need four-year degrees. We should look at the contribution that sandwich courses make. Above all, we should not underestimate the contribution that Scotland’s colleges can make to the wellbeing of this country.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

We have now heard it said twice that the ancient institutions—the ancient universities—in this country are elitist organisations. As an alumnus of the University of Glasgow, I have to say that this is the first time that I have ever been accused of being part of any elite, so I thank the Labour Party for that news.

I welcome the debate. I thank the Conservatives for their choice of subject matter, but I disagree with the terms of their motion for two reasons. First, it totally and utterly fails to acknowledge the budgetary circumstances of the time. It is quite clear that the Scottish Government has been passed a very challenging budget settlement from Westminster and it is trying to do the best that it can with it. I heard the groans from the Tory members when the cabinet secretary made that point, but their groans cannot mask the fact that the cuts that the Scottish Government is facing are a consequence of decisions being taken by their party at Westminster. It was interesting to hear Mary Scanlon say that colleges cannot work miracles with cuts; I wonder whether she will follow that statement through to its logical conclusion.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree that it is up to the Scottish Government to decide the spending levels in HE and FE?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I was just about to come to that point—I hear the Labour Party members applauding. Others have said that this is a matter of choice. Of course there is still choice to be exercised by the Scottish Government—I absolutely accept that. However, what we have not heard in any of the debates about public spending by the Scottish Government is the choice that other parties would exercise. What areas of the budget would they seek to cut? From which other areas of the budget would they lever funds to give to areas such as further education?

The second reason why I disagree with the Tory motion is that it raises once more the spectre of tuition fees. The motion refers to a

“consequence of the Scottish Government’s refusal to allow additional private sources of finance in the higher education sector”.

That is quite clearly a reference to tuition fees, so we know that the Conservatives still want to see the imposition of tuition fees here in Scotland. It is not just me who believes that; the National Union of Students said:

“We fully reject the Scottish Conservatives’ motion which once again calls for, in effect, tuition fees”.

I would like the Scottish Conservatives to let go of the idea that we need tuition fees in higher education. It is clear that members on these benches—and I hope others, although we have heard in recent days that the Labour Party seems to support tuition fees of £6,000 in England—believe that education should be based on the ability to succeed and learn and not on the ability to pay.

We are seeing that commitment in further education as well as in higher education. The education maintenance allowance has been protected, despite the attacks on it south of the border. That clearly benefits further education students because a significant proportion of those who are in receipt of the EMA are further education students. Again, we have seen the NUS welcome that decision.

I had hoped to go more into the background of the sector and the debate more generally, but I must close by referring to Cumbernauld College, which is the only tertiary education institution in my constituency. I thank the Minister for Learning and Skills for visiting the college with me on Tuesday, and I am sure that he agrees that, although it is one of the smaller colleges, it is an excellent institution with good reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education. The college told us that there are challenges ahead for tertiary education and the further education sector, but they are challenges that the colleges are embracing. The colleges want to ensure that the sector moves forward strongly in the future.

I close with one last reference. I know that there are plans to regionalise the structure of colleges, and I imagine that there is a temptation to use local authority boundaries as the logical way to do that. I hope that that can be revisited. The constituency of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth does not sit easily or readily in the North Lanarkshire area for a number of reasons—historical, cultural and linked to public transport. I hope that that will be considered, and I will take it up in future with the cabinet secretary.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the Conservatives for using their parliamentary time to debate the issue of colleges. The Government’s debate on Scottish studies this afternoon is certainly valuable, but it is unfortunate that this morning’s debate has to be so brief, because it is clear that college cuts are of key concern to many members and their local colleges.

In last week’s debate on the spending review, I gave my initial reaction to the cuts. As Jenny Marra outlined, a flat-cash deal was the best that colleges could hope for from this year’s budget, and they were prepared to absorb the inflation increases. However, the 13.5 per cent cut in cash terms—at least 20 per cent in real terms—over the spending review period has left the sector alarmed and very concerned. It is not uncommon to hear language such as “shell shocked” from principals. Indeed, Scotland’s Colleges said that the spending review presented a “bleak future” for the college sector.

We all know the challenges that the Government faced in the spending review. Whoever was in government was going to face tough decisions. As Liam McArthur said, however, it is a choice of the Government to make such a deep cut. It is difficult to accept such a cut to a sector that plays such a critical role in growing our economy and tackling unemployment.

We are facing a crisis of youth unemployment. I acknowledge the Government’s commitment to 16 to 19-year-olds—indeed, it was Labour policy—but there is a concern that, although the Government may deliver on that pledge, the positive reform that it is undertaking means the closing of opportunities for many people outwith that group. As Jenny Marra described, there is a danger of some important non-accredited courses being hit as well as the quality of teaching being threatened.

In difficult economic times, colleges have been quick to react. They have worked hard to turn no one away, and they have moved to provide options for those facing redundancy as well as school leavers. They are making it clear that that level of activity will be impossible to maintain with the planned cuts.

As well as delivering high-quality skills and excellence, colleges play a vital role in extending opportunity to communities that can be difficult to reach. We know that more than 30 per cent of college students come from the most deprived areas of Scotland and Hugh Henry spoke about the vital social value of colleges in our communities. Slashing budgets by more than 20 per cent over the three-year period will jeopardise colleges’ ability to deliver for their communities.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, thank you. I have only four minutes.

To make matters worse, half of the funding cuts will fall in the first year, compounding the problems created for the sector by last year’s 10 per cent cut.

Last year’s cut was a difficult one to absorb. Mary Scanlon raised concerns about the future of school partnerships, and the cut also resulted in a reduction in courses, student-teacher contact time, and student guidance and counselling services—the very services that many of our more vulnerable students need.

We know that redundancies in the sector have been significant. More than 1,000 jobs have been cut in the past year—a 7 per cent decline in the sector, which is more than any other area of the public sector. Colleges have questioned their ability to avoid compulsory redundancies with the new settlement.

Last year, though, colleges accepted the 10 per cent cut, while promising to maintain places and, in many cases, increase places in response to the local unemployment challenges. However, they made it clear that that kind of cut was unsustainable in the long term. They have made it clear that their ability to meet the Government’s places pledge is seriously compromised by the budget proposals. The big money-saving idea is mergers, but it is clear that, in the short term, mergers will not deliver the level of efficiencies needed to meet the funding gap that the cuts create.

Last week’s open letter from Scotland’s Colleges was pretty direct in its concerns and its criticism of the spending review. Although its statement this week states that it will work on a reform agenda, that does not negate the financial alarm bells that it rang last week. Colleges have always been a reforming sector, open to change in the best interests of their learners, so I do not doubt that they will work constructively with the Government on reform. However, to drive through this level of reform while drastically reducing budgets gives rise to a serious danger of compromising colleges’ ability to deliver for Scotland’s communities.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I start with something that the whole chamber agrees on, which is rather hard to find these days, although I always try to be positive. We all agree that a high-performing education and skills system is vital to creating the type of Scotland that we want. It is vital to building our workforce, improving individual life chances and maintaining our competitiveness at home and abroad. Those are the very reasons why reform is more important than ever and they are a test against which the success of a reform programme has to be judged. Not only is that the right thing to do; this is the right time to be doing it. That is not just my belief—interestingly, it is the belief of many in the college sector, who agree that it is time to make those changes and acknowledge that, although the financial difficulties are severe, they can be coped with.

I quote another letter I have had this week, from Russel Griggs, the chair of the board of management at Dumfries and Galloway College:

“there is an understandable concern that the scale of funding cuts ... coupled with the potential timetable for change ... could ... impact on learners and communities unless this is achieved through effective joint working between the sector, the government and the Scottish Funding Council.”

That is precisely what I am committed to, and it is being done jointly and with substantial resource.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No. I want to make some progress. I have a word or two for Mr Henry in just a moment.

I made the point in my opening speech that we have spent £2.6 billion in our first term in government. In the next three years, we will invest £2 billion. There is substantial resource to take this forward. A substantial investment is important in a sector that is good but can be better. No Opposition member has even tried to refute the fact that the savings in the City of Glasgow College in the first year of the merger have been £4 million. That shows that it can be done. According to the college’s principal, the service is better than ever.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No. I want to sum up and I have only a few minutes.

The problem with the debate is that it has been characterised by assertion, assumption and error from the Opposition, with a liberal dose of scaremongering. Mary Scanlon asserted that there was damage to masters degrees and doctorates. There is no evidence of that. She said that the colleges had turned away a certain number of potential students, but she did not say that those figures include multiple applications, so the figure is totally erroneous.

Jenny Marra talked about protecting access courses. Those courses are specifically protected under the instructions that I have given to the funding council.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No. I am sorry—I am going to finish my point. There has been far too much misleading information. In addition to that, colleges are not the only provider for deprived young people. For example, the Skills Development Scotland get ready for work programme, the activity agreement roll-out, the community learning and development fund and the Inspiring Scotland 14:19 fund all exist and are all making a difference.

Ken Macintosh called on me to direct colleges to do certain things but did not tell Parliament that the power of direction for the minister was removed by one Allan Wilson when he was Labour minister for colleges. Ken Macintosh was asking me to do something that he should have known was impossible.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Bring him back!

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

David McLetchie suggests that we bring back Allan Wilson. It is possible, given the Labour leadership contest. Of course, Mr Macintosh has had a difficult day because, when Ed Miliband was asked to name the potential leaders of Scottish Labour this morning, he got Harris and Lamont but forgot Mr Macintosh. It has been a hard day for him. To add to that disappointment, there was a fatal flaw in the argument from the member sitting behind him. Despite Mr Henry’s penchant for hyperbole in describing the disasters that he talked about, there was just a hint that, as a former education minister, he realised that progress needs to be made on this agenda—that there needs to be rationalisation and an agenda that delivers better.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I am not going to give way, as I have much ground to cover.

Liz Smith keeps arguing for fees. In June 2007, Professor Tim O’Shea, the acting convener of Universities Scotland, said:

“can I reaffirm Universities Scotland’s entire acceptance that in the post-election environment any further discussion of graduate contribution options is irrelevant.”

I am afraid that that defines Liz Smith’s position: she is making an irrelevant point and proposing an irrelevant policy that has damaged her own party and will damage whatever new party is brought into existence. Two Conservative parties, both with disastrous policies—surely they have learned something.

The lesson of today’s debate is even more interesting. We have seen the reality of modern Scotland. The SNP has been arguing for positive, constructive reform, but what we have heard from the Tories, Labour and the Liberals is an opposition to reform. That is the true definition of conservatism, so they are all conservatives now—all unionists are conservatives. The Tories scoff at the very idea of reform and Labour laughs with them, while the Tory and Liberal parties slash the funding for Scotland. Mr McArthur asked for an idea for change. I will give him an idea—independence, when Scotland’s resources can be applied to the issues that concern Scotland.

The lesson today is this: let us be straightforward and look at the evidence. Let us consider the example of what took place in Glasgow. Let us consider the needs of learners and how we can take Scottish education forward for learners. Then we will embrace with enthusiasm a reform agenda that the Conservatives and the unionists still reject.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Aneurin Bevan said that

“The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism”,

but the choice of priorities is a feature of any political ideology or party of government because, as we all know, resources are not infinite and choices must be made. One of the tasks of Opposition parties is to make explicit the priorities that have been adopted by the governing party and the consequences of the decisions that it has made. I agree with Jamie Hepburn that some Opposition parties, while keen to criticise the Government, are far from enthusiastic about making their own priorities and choices clear, but that is not a charge that can be laid at the door of the Scottish Conservatives, with our fully costed programme. Nonetheless, it is the Government’s programme, which is in the course of implementation, that we must address first and foremost.

It is interesting to reflect on the changing SNP priorities in education. Some of us still remember—even if most SNP members would love to forget—that the educational priority back in 2007 was the reduction of class sizes to a maximum of 18 in primary 1 to 3. Michael Russell, the architect of that policy, confidently proclaimed that it could be achieved within five years. Like many of Mr Russell’s extravagant assertions, that was manifest nonsense. However, it fell not to him but to the hapless Fiona Hyslop to try to implement the policy. Not surprisingly, she failed to do so and, in an ironic and cruel twist of fate, the beneficiary of her dismissal was the same Michael Russell who dreamed up the daft idea in the first place.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As ever, I thank the member for his kindness towards me. Mr McLetchie and I are old friends. I remind him that his own record of prediction and assertion is not unblemished. In 1999, when he was Conservative leader, he stated:

“we’re determined to abolish tuition fees for Scots students going on to university.”

Ha, ha—“we’re determined”.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

We were absolutely determined to do that, at that particular time and in the circumstances before the financial disaster and crisis that was visited upon this country by a Labour Government—a financial disaster and crisis of which the SNP Government failed to take proper cognisance.

We all know that the class size policy has been indecently interred and abandoned. Instead, the overriding policy and priority is to maintain free higher education in Scotland for Scots, and for the French, the Germans, the Poles, the Swedes, the Lithuanians, the Italians, the Spaniards, and the Portuguese—not to mention the Greeks, the poor souls—at any cost, which of course is why some university principals went into raptures last week when the budget was announced.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

No, thank you.

What is the cost of allocating the education budget in such a manner, as a deliberate act of SNP policy and priority? As Jenny Marra and Liam McArthur rightly reminded us, the choice is the SNP’s and the SNP’s alone, because it knew perfectly well before the recent Scottish Parliament election and the budget announcement exactly how much money it would have at its disposal over the spending review period.

Scotland’s colleges are the SNP’s whipping boys for Scotland’s universities. Last year, the colleges budget was cut by more than 10 per cent, which resulted in a reduction in staff of 1,000—how much harder evidence than that does Mr Brodie need? It also resulted in a reduction in the number of learners and a cut in school-college partnership programmes. As we heard, during the three-year spending review period, the sector will experience cuts of a further 13 per cent, totalling some £74 million, with the bulk of the reduction coming next year.

Often overlooked in the debate about higher education is the fact that colleges delivered 20 per cent of higher education provision in Scotland last year. The upshot of the SNP’s approach is that we have financial protection for the providers of 80 per cent of our higher education, that is, universities, but budgets are slashed for the providers of the rest of our higher education programme, that is, the colleges.

In politics, we are all used to people crying wolf. It happens every time a grant is reduced. All manner of dire consequences are claimed as inevitable. However, the letter to Mr Russell from Scotland’s Colleges made clear that the Government is not only cutting budgets substantially in absolute and real terms but, at the same time, demanding that colleges do more to help with training opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds and demanding improvements in retention, support services and course content. It is breathtaking that a sector that had to reduce staff numbers by 1,000 to cope with the previous round of cuts is piously demanded by the bold Mr Russell to avoid compulsory redundancies. That is yet another superficial SNP policy that makes for a good soundbite and a good headline but does not make good sense when employers’ budgets are being slashed—some people would say that that is the height of hypocrisy.

Something has to give, and the casualties will be the prospective students who fail to gain college places and the staff who used to teach the courses that are no longer offered. In the letter of 22 September from Scotland’s Colleges to Mr Russell, which was written by Mr John Spencer, whom Mr Russell was keen to quote when it suited his purposes, the position was made clear. Mr Spencer wrote:

“The SNP’s manifesto commitment to retain student numbers at colleges over the lifetime of this Parliament ... cannot be delivered in this proposed Budget.”

The rocks will be melting in the sun on that one.

The debate is not just about core funding levels and priorities. It is about accountability, the structure of the sector, the forced merger process that is being decreed by Mr Russell from the centre and Mr Russell’s dictatorial approach to the governance of Scotland’s colleges—a sector that has flourished since the Conservatives cut it loose from the dead hand of council control and gave it a mandate, in partnership with schools and businesses, to meet local training and education needs. It is ironic that the party that likes to talk about independence is less keen on the concept when it means independence from interference by an SNP Government.

Scotland’s colleges are accountable to the funding council and to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but most of all they are accountable to their students for the quality of education and training that they deliver. They have been passing that test of accountability with flying colours ever since 1993.

Different parties have different perspectives on the debate, as is clear from the motion and amendments. No doubt the Government will prevail at decision time. However, the fact is that the SNP Government is short-changing Scotland’s colleges and generating a host of problems for itself over the next five years. Back-bench SNP members throughout the country will come to rue the day when their Government’s lop-sided priorities were determined.

NHS Lothian (Meetings)

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met NHS Lothian to discuss the new Royal hospital for sick children incorporating the department for clinical neurosciences in Edinburgh. (S4O-00204)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

NHS Lothian officials attended the Scottish Government’s infrastructure investment board meeting on 26 September to update members on the current status of the project.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her response and for the other responses that she has made to parliamentary questions on the matter.

Concerns have been raised with me, through the press and directly, about the potential for a talent drain from Edinburgh to Glasgow as a result of the new Glasgow children’s hospital, which will open in 2015, before the Edinburgh sick kids hospital opens. Can the cabinet secretary provide assurances that earlier completion of the new hospital in Glasgow will not affect specialist skills and children’s services in Edinburgh and that Edinburgh’s sick kids hospital will be a world-class facility in its own right, rather than a satellite service for Glasgow? What will the cabinet secretary do to ensure that there is no talent drain from Edinburgh’s sick kids hospital?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Sarah Boyack for her interest. I want to respond constructively; I have said before in the chamber and I say again that the Scottish Government is absolutely committed to delivery of the new sick kids hospital in Edinburgh. My job, which I will seek to do, is to ensure that that commitment, which is shared by NHS Lothian, is translated into practice.

Sarah Boyack will know from the detailed answers that have been given to parliamentary questions that the target date—which continues to be scrutinised—for the new sick kids hospital to become operational in Edinburgh is 2016. I appreciate and agree that it is absolutely vital, for the sake of providing young patients with the best possible care, that we have state-of-the-art sick kids hospitals in Glasgow and in Edinburgh. The Government is committed to that, and I am happy to continue to update members as appropriate.

Jim Eadie (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Southern)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that there are many benefits for patients in having neo-natal, paediatric and adult care all in one campus which will, by maintaining strong links with the University of Edinburgh, combine pioneering research with care by the bedside? What assurances can the cabinet secretary give that the Scottish Government will work with the Scottish Futures Trust and NHS Lothian to ensure that the project is delivered as quickly as possible, so that the people of Edinburgh can rightly benefit from world-class facilities and treatment?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I also thank Jim Eadie for his close interest in the matter and would repeat the assurances that I have just given to Sarah Boyack.

I agree very much with the premise of his question, which concerns the benefits to patients of having neo-natal, paediatric and adult care on one campus—the so-called gold standard. That is the model that is being pursued in the new south Glasgow hospital, and those benefits are equally applicable in Edinburgh.

I assure Jim Eadie, as I assured Sarah Boyack, that I will continue to ensure that I am closely apprised of developments in the project and I will continue to update MSPs as appropriate.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 2 has not been lodged by Colin Keir.

Advertising Budget (Allocation)

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive how it determines the allocation of its advertising budget. (S4O-00206)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

The Government’s purpose to create sustainable economic growth, and the five strategic objectives that set out ministerial priorities, are the determining factors for allocating the advertising budget.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

I know that Scottish Government ministers are generally supportive of community radio stations, such as Celtic Music Radio. Can the minister tell me why such stations receive no advertising from the Scottish Government? Will he consider placing advertisements with Celtic Music Radio and other community radio stations? Will he agree to meet me and representatives of Celtic Music Radio to discuss the matter?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

I appreciate and understand the way in which Hugh Henry has put that question and we will consider anything in that regard. In general, public information and social advertising campaigns are only used where there is strong evidence of an imperative to drive up services to meet the Government’s statutory or legislative responsibilities, or to support preventative spend on pressures on front-line services such as for flu, organ donation registration or drink-driving. I might as well let the Parliament know that from 2010-11 to 2011-12, the Government has reduced by 57 per cent, against the capped levels that were inherited by this Administration, what is spent on advertising campaigns. I am happy to meet Mr Henry to discuss the issue and to take it forward constructively.

Modern Apprenticeships

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how many of the modern apprenticeships delivered in 2010-11 went to existing employees. (S4O-00208)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

All apprentices in Scotland must be employed prior to commencing their apprenticeship. The modern apprenticeship programme gives us the opportunity to support young people and others into work in order to support workforce development.

Information provided by Skills Development Scotland shows that in 2010-11 there was a total of 21,561 modern apprenticeship starts. Of these, 12,827 were 16 to 19-year-olds making the transition into the labour market. The remaining places were focused on upskilling individuals across a range of important economic sectors.

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

A local business owner informed me that he was offered a number of modern apprenticeship places last year. He immediately agreed to take on those places and informed the agency that it would take a number of months to advertise, interview and recruit. He was told that there was no time for that and that if he simply gave the names of existing employees, he would receive funding. Colleagues have told me that that scenario has been repeated across the country. In the current climate of pressure on public spending and a fast-increasing youth unemployment rate—

Mark Griffin (Labour, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that that was a shocking misuse of public funds, in an area that is desperately needing attention, in order just to hit Government targets? Will the minister commit to investigating in order to ensure that it is not repeated in the next round of modern apprenticeship awards?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I cannot comment on a case I am not familiar with, but I am happy to speak to the member about it. When the Government sets ambitious targets for the number of modern apprenticeships, we are also clear about the quality of apprenticeships. For that reason, I am looking at a range of things, including technical and graduate apprenticeships, to ensure we maintain the gold standard of apprenticeships.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Will the minister provide details of where modern apprenticeships have been created in each of the past two financial years?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I cannot provide the numbers for each local authority off the top of my head, but we have committed to major targets, which we are meeting. In the most recent financial year, we have more than met our targets. Across local authority areas, an increasing number of apprentices have achieved their apprenticeships—the figure has now risen to 71 per cent. I am happy to write to the member on both counts and to provide figures on a local authority basis.

Community Councils

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what support it provides to community councils. (S4O-00209)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

At national level, since 2007 the Scottish Government has worked constructively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Scottish Community Councils to raise the profile and capacity of community councils. At local level, local authorities are responsible for supporting community councils practically and financially and for determining how best to do so.

The ASCC has recently announced its intention to cease its work and, while we are disappointed by its decision, we respect it. The Scottish Government continues to engage with the ASCC, while recognising the importance of providing future support to community councils. I am talking directly to community councils and others involved in supporting the sector about how best to do that.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sure the minister understands that the reason why the ASCC has decided to cease to operate is the failure of the Government to provide adequate funding for it to carry out its role of increasing the profile and capacity of Scotland’s community councils. Will she reconsider her decision or, alternatively, meet me and the ASCC to discuss the Government’s alternative proposals to allow the job of raising the profile and capacity of community councils to be taken forward?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I appreciate Lewis Macdonald’s interest in community councils. I met the Association of Scottish Community Councils a couple of weeks ago, when I made it clear that although I respect its decision to cease its work, we will continue to work constructively on how to develop community councils.

I am willing to meet Lewis Macdonald to give him the opportunity to highlight any constituency interest that he has. The association was offered funding that was comparable to that in previous years, but it demanded an increase of more than 100 per cent on its past funding. We have provided funding and have supported the association to develop community councils. I will continue to engage regularly with community councils and other stakeholders.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I declare an interest, in that my wife is a member of Dyce and Stoneywood community council in Aberdeen. Does the minister feel that more could be done to ensure that community councils are more representative of the wider community, particularly by involving more young people, who often do not see community councils as being relevant to them?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

I absolutely share the concern that Mark McDonald raises, as do community councils, which understand that they have a role to play in attracting new younger members and members from different communities, in the engagement process.

Community councils have an important statutory role in our country’s governance and they share the desire for community councils to be much more representative. I am happy to meet Mark McDonald to discuss any proposals or interest from community councils in his area about how we can develop that.

Mechanical Engineering Graduates (Career Destinations)

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what the career destinations are of mechanical engineering graduates from Scottish universities. (S4O-00211)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Data that can be accessed via the Higher Education Statistics Agency website shows the destinations of qualifiers from Scottish universities six months after graduation.

I understand from data that is taken from the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services Scotland’s “What do Graduates do? Scotland” website, which is supported by the HESA, that mechanical engineering graduates from Scottish universities fare very well in the jobs market. In 2009, more than 66 per cent entered employment and a further 21 per cent were in further study or a combination of work and study. That compares favourably with figures for the United Kingdom as a whole in 2009, which show that 65 per cent of mechanical engineering graduates were in work and that 18.5 per cent were in further study or a combination of work and further study.

Margaret McCulloch (Labour, Central Scotland)

Anxiety is felt in the engineering sector about the apparent shortage of job-ready mechanical engineering graduates and about the number of graduates who decide not to pursue a career in the industry. I learned of those difficulties at first hand when Scottish Enterprise arranged for me to visit Clansman Dynamics Ltd, which is a superb engineering firm that is based in Lanarkshire. That company has grown, but its managers are concerned about the pipeline of engineering talent in Scotland. Does the Scottish Government agree that many such problems could be addressed if better links existed between universities and employers? If so, how will it help to foster such partnerships, which are important to the sector?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I agree profoundly with Margaret McCulloch. I am glad to say that I anticipated her question, because we published a paper about post-16 education two weeks ago. In that, we addressed the issue of job-ready graduates and how graduates can be produced in colleges and universities. The articulation of students from colleges through to universities, particularly in science and engineering, is important to us.

I assure Margaret McCulloch not only that I accept her point, which she and her local employer make well, but that we are acting on it. I am sure that she will go back to that employer to point out how thoughtful the Scottish Government is being and to say how strongly she supports our initiative.

Public Procurement Procedures

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve public procurement procedures. (S4O-00213)

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

As well as developing savings of nearly £1.2 billion across the public sector since 2006, the Scottish Government’s procurement reform programme also aims to improve public procurement from a business perspective. We are improving the efficiency of procurement processes and making it easier for businesses to compete for contracts. For example, over 55,000 businesses are now registered on the Government’s public contracts Scotland advertising portal, which is making it simpler than ever before to find public sector work.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am very pleased to hear about the Scottish Government’s actions to improve public procurement procedures and I am sure that the business community in Scotland will be, as well.

How is the community benefit clause working in practice? How is the Scottish Government’s lobbying of the European Commission progressing with regard to the need to take into account local economic impact?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Every major contract that is issued by the public sector will have a community benefit clause, and high on our agenda for such benefits will be apprenticeships, training and recruitment of unemployed people.

With regard to the Commission, two months ago, I had a very productive meeting with the relevant commissioner in Brussels and we have asked that, in deciding the outcome of public sector contracts, we be allowed to consider local economic impact. After all, the cost of such impacts can amount to more than the savings made in the contract. The commissioner listened sympathetically and we have some support from other member states. However, I regret to say that the point was not supported by the United Kingdom Government.

The other major aspect of European Union reform is increasing the threshold at which a contract has to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union. I can fairly predict that, when the reforms are announced, that particular reform will feature.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

How is the Government using the procurement process to deliver the Scottish Government’s 42 per cent carbon reduction target? Is it monitoring the reduction of carbon emissions through the use of public procurement contracts? Finally, will it be able to report back to Parliament on its year-on-year targets?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

We are very conscious of the need to use public procurement to drive down our carbon emissions as well as to achieve other objectives. We are still engaged in our reform programme and are looking at how we can achieve that objective more effectively, and how we can encourage and facilitate the ability of more small to medium-sized enterprises to obtain public sector work in Scotland. People should be aware that there is £10 billion-worth of work from public sector procurement in Scotland and we are determined to make the system work better for the people of Scotland in order to promote the growth of the Scottish economy.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

I support the implicit criticism of the Government’s record in Annabelle Ewing’s question. Despite the minister’s assurances, why do many small to medium-sized businesses feel that the process has let them down?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First of all, I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on his straw-poll showing in Aberdeen at the weekend. I believe that he got 57 per cent of the vote.

We are working very closely with all six major business organisations on our procurement reform programme. I chair the public sector procurement reform board and we are actively involving the SME sector in, for example, refashioning the pre-qualification questionnaire procedure and contents. I repeat that the sector will be actively involved before we finalise the detail.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Will the cabinet secretary consider an urgent review of PQQs? My discussions with businesses in my constituency suggest that they are overly bureaucratic and inhibit the ability of SMEs to win contracts.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Not only will I consider it, but we are—as I said in my previous reply—doing it.

There are three major problems with the PQQ process, the first of which is the ridiculous situation in which companies have to submit a full PQQ every time they bid for work. Instead of reinventing the wheel every time, they should have only to update the PQQ. Secondly, the PQQ should be SME-friendly, which it is not at the moment. Thirdly, we want to simplify and streamline the PQQ to ensure that it is much easier for every business to understand. I am sure that the member will follow progress closely and I will be delighted to keep him abreast of the Government’s progress.

Engagements

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00164)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I have a range of engagements that will carry forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

How disappointingly mundane. On Tuesday, the First Minister told a conference that he was leading the greatest step forward for civilisation since the hunter-gatherers put down roots 10,000 years ago. I thought that, this afternoon, he might at least be ushering in an epoch of world peace or perhaps personally parting the North Sea for the interconnector to Norway. Perhaps he could just try to keep his promise to protect the national health service budget in real terms. Why is he cutting Scotland’s NHS budget by £300 million?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The budget to health boards—the revenue budget of the NHS—has been protected in real terms by the Government. Of course, that is unlike what would have happened if the great misfortune had occurred—which would almost be approximate to parting the North Sea and just about as likely, incidentally—and the Labour Party had come to office. I know that Iain Gray has spent a lot of time this week reprising the election campaign and I do not want to add to his agony, but does he not remember saying on “Newsnight Scotland” a year ago:

“We wouldn’t ring fence the health budget”?

We know that Labour did not mean to pass on the consequentials because the Labour Party in government in Wales has not passed on the consequentials to the health service. One thing of which we can be absolutely certain is that, if that great North Sea misfortune had befallen the people of Scotland and Iain Gray had triumphantly led the Labour Party into government, less money would have been spent on the national health service than will be spent in this spending review period.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

See what the First Minister did there? I asked him a question about NHS budgets and he gave me an answer about Labour’s manifesto, the Welsh Labour Party and NHS board budgets. That was not the promise that he made. He promised that a Scottish National Party Government would protect the health budget, but it has not done that. Since the First Minister was re-elected in May, we have had fewer doctors, midwives and nurses. He has got rid of 1,700 nurses since 2009. Does he still have the brass neck to say that he is protecting our NHS?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

All the commitments that we made to the national health service are being met, and we will protect the NHS budget. Table 7.02 on page 64 of the “Scottish Spending Review 2011 and Draft Budget 2012-13” shows how the NHS budget is being protected. We pledged to pass on the consequentials, which Iain Gray would not commit to do during the election campaign. We have done that; he will find that on page 58 of that document. We promised to protect the national health service and ensure shorter waiting times and treatment that continues to improve. That means extra investment of £1 billion over the next four years. He will see that in table 8.03 of the document. The SNP Government has met—indeed, more than met—each and every commitment that we gave the national health service.

I know that it is a long time ago, but Iain Gray should remember that, when he was the deputy health minister at a time when there was not a Tory Government imposing massive cuts from Westminster, nursing numbers in Scotland—guess what?—fell during his period of office, and there were 5,000 fewer nurses in the national health service than there are now under this Government.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Table 1.06 in a financial scrutiny unit document on the draft budget shows that the change over four years in the total health spend is -£319 million. That is a cut. If the First Minister cared to examine nurse and midwife numbers, he would find that there are fewer nurses and midwives in our NHS now than there were in 2007 when he became First Minister. However, members do not have to take my word for it; let us ask the people who really know. The Royal College of Nursing states:

“Our nursing workforce is at breaking point”.

General practitioners tell us that “panic measures” to compensate for SNP cuts will compromise the NHS. Who should we trust on the NHS: the First Minister, who made the choices in his budget, or the doctors, nurses and patients, who have no choice except to live with the consequences? Who is telling the truth: Alex Salmond or the doctors and nurses?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

In May, people had the opportunity to judge between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray and, fairly resoundingly, they decided on the Scottish National Party Administration. I named the three key tables in the spending plans, but Iain Gray chose not to reference them; instead, he glided across to the budget including capital spending, presumably oblivious to the fact that the Conservative Party is cutting capital spending in Scotland by 36 per cent over a four-year period. That is the dreadful Conservative Party, but it adopted the plans that were left to it by the Labour Administration.

What did we do to try to counter that? Did we say, as Iain Gray did last year, that we would not even pass on the consequentials? No; the Government, through the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth and the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy, introduced a non-profit distribution programme that will add £750 million to expenditure in the national health service in the next few years.

I have quoted the three tables, cited Iain Gray’s deplorable record and explained how we are getting another £750 million investment in the national health service. Perhaps Iain Gray will have the grace to acknowledge that, if he comes along to ask questions on the NHS, neither on his record, performance nor understanding of statistics is he on safe ground.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

No matter where the First Minister goes in his budget, it unravels. Last week, he promised that the Government would invest in capital infrastructure. Then the Centre for Public Policy for Regions examined the figures and we discovered that the Government is cutting capital investment even faster than George Osborne and the Tories are. The First Minister promised to protect businesses, but then we discovered that he is taking an extra £850 million off them. Last Thursday, he promised to protect universities, but on Friday he gave the University of Abertay Dundee five weeks to merge into the University of Dundee. To paraphrase Al Gore, is not the truth just an inconvenience for the First Minister?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Last week, I wondered why Iain Gray kept asking about closures, since there will be no closures of colleges or universities in Scotland. Then, as Mike Russell mentioned in the education debate earlier, we found out that one of Ed Miliband’s advisers is advocating the closure of half of England’s universities. It is no wonder that Iain Gray was obsessed by closure.

I turn to the figures that were produced on capital departmental expenditure limits by the CPPR, an institute that seems to engage in treble counting. The last time that we had treble counting in the United Kingdom was when Gordon Brown was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1997 to 1999; coincidentally, that was exactly the same period in which John McLaren was a Labour Party special adviser. It seems that old habits die hard.

The capital DEL is only part of the capital spending story. It is because of the near 40 per cent cut that the Tories introduced, and which was planned by the Labour Party, that Mr Swinney has engaged in the non-profit distribution programme and the transfer from resource to capital in the budget. That is why the capital budget is increasing in Scotland, which is the only place in the United Kingdom where it is increasing. I heard that same mistake repeated by Ed Miliband on the radio this morning. I can only imagine that he got his information from Iain Gray. As that interview wended on, as the BBC news site tells us, Ed Miliband was unable to name all the Scottish Labour leadership candidates. He got two out of three, which is two more than the rest of the population.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00153)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

A meeting with the Prime Minister is not planned in the near future, but no doubt we will get round to it.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister knows that I share his serious concern about sectarian behaviour in Scotland. Indeed, I have already raised the issue with him twice this year at First Minister’s question time. I do not doubt his commitment to tackling it.

However, the First Minister will be aware of growing concern about his proposed legislation. We know that the consultation period has highlighted evidence that existing law, if it was enforced more robustly, may be adequate and that new law may not be required. In recent days, we have had impressive evidence of existing law being used to good effect. What does the First Minister consider is not covered by the existing law?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I am sure that Annabel Goldie knows, the Lord Advocate explained that in full detail to the Justice Committee, which is studying the proposed legislation. All members should look at that evidence from the Lord Advocate because he went through, in precise detail, a number of cases in which behaviour that most reasonable people would consider to be an offence had not been covered by the breach of the peace legislation. He gave the example of racist offences. Some courts have decided that breach of the peace must be seen in the context of the effect on others in the situation. Someone could make remarks that are totally unacceptable but which, in the context of their effect on others, are not covered by the breach of the peace legislation. The Lord Advocate spent a great deal of time explaining to the committee why that is a deficiency in the current range of legislation. I hope that Annabel Goldie and the rest of the chamber will look at that evidence.

If we see gaps in the current legislation, given Annabel Goldie’s clarion call for action earlier this year, it is our public duty to ensure that our police, our prosecution service and our Crown Office are equipped with the range of legislative instruments that they believe they require to face down and tackle evils in society. Sectarianism and sectarian displays are unacceptable across Scottish society, and they should not be allowed to attach themselves to our beautiful game of football.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

The First Minister and I know that all of us in the chamber are united in condemning sectarian behaviour wherever it occurs. That is precisely why we must not do a disservice to the public by making bad law just for the sake of making law.

Will the First Minister confirm that he will keep an open mind on legislating and that he will be swayed by the evidence that is presented to the Parliament rather than by an understandable, but perhaps misplaced, desire to create new law just because he can?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I recommend that Annabel Goldie read the explanation that the Lord Advocate gave the Justice Committee on 22 June 2011. It is a detailed explanation. When I read it, I thought that it made the case for legislative change beyond any peradventure. I am not certain whether Annabel Goldie has had the opportunity to study it in careful detail, but I commend it to her and, indeed, to the rest of the chamber. It is an excellent exposition of the gaps that exist in the breach of the peace legislation and why, over time, the interpretation of breach of the peace has changed and left those gaps. I am sure that when Annabel Goldie reads that explanation, she will understand that, if we are to act decisively, we must ensure that we give the people who are charged with enforcing our law—the police and others—the tools that they require to do the job that we expect them to do.

Lastly, I would like to say something else about the issue that will be important. As a Parliament, we must be able to get into a state of thinking in which we recognise that there are some things that we must tackle jointly as a society. Earlier this year, Annabel Goldie and others said that they wished to have more time to consider the proposed legislation. I gladly agreed to that, not because I did not think that our bill would get majority support, but because I wanted to take the entire chamber with us. We have to take the entire Parliament with us, but that is the responsibility of Opposition as well as Government. The Opposition parties must rise above the quick trick and the point that is easy to make, and must acknowledge the statements that the Lord Advocate made.

Unless we face down what has happened in and around our football grounds and have the courage and integrity to tackle it as a Parliament, we will not have a football game left in Scotland. The European authorities find what they have seen in Scotland unacceptable, and they would take action. Surely, as a Parliament, we can find it in ourselves—as we should as a society—to face down sectarianism and give the police, and those who are responsible for the law, the instruments that they have asked us for so that they can do the job that we expect them to do.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

The First Minister will appreciate the public concern about yesterday’s appeal court decision on Robert Foye’s conviction for a heinous crime that was committed in my constituency. What assurances can the First Minister provide for my constituents and the general public throughout Scotland that a mechanism is built into the justice system to ensure that, if Robert Foye is still regarded as a danger to the public, he will spend the entirety of his sentence behind bars?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I can give two reassurances. First, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will introduce the required and considered changes in the legal framework for which Lord Hamilton called at the time of the initial judgment in March. They will enable us to close what seems to be a complex but nonetheless distinct loophole in the law.

Secondly, on how the punishment and other parts of sentences are imposed, no one has been released in Scotland over the past few years unless and until they were judged no longer to be a danger to the public.

We recognise the gap in the law and are grateful for the support that Victim Support Scotland expressed today for the actions that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice is taking. Before the year is out, the Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the changes in the law that are necessary fully to protect Scottish society.

Cabinet (Meetings)

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00162)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss matters of importance to the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This morning, I met the latest recruit to the Liberal Democrats: Councillor Mike Dillon from Paisley who, after a brief flirtation with the Scottish National Party, has returned to the Liberal fold. That is good news. However, it is not such good news that there are an estimated 830,000 victims of crime in Scotland every year. What will the Scottish Government do to support victims?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Let us start with the real issue first: the victims of crime. I am sure that Willie Rennie acknowledges that crime in Scotland is now at a 33-year low. That is the result of many of the policies that this Government has advanced, in particular the policy of putting 1,000 extra police officers on Scotland’s streets and in its communities. That policy was widely supported in the Parliament, although the Liberal Democrats were not among the advocates for it.

The people of Scotland have the security that crime has been driven to a 33-year low.

On Councillor Dillon, I will quote what he said on 3 July:

“Members and supporters of the LibDems do not understand why their party leadership in Scotland have become the cheerleaders to Tory policy and Tory beliefs ... Michael Moore and Willie Rennie sound more Tory than the Tories, and enough is enough.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I say to the First Minister that Mike Dillon is back with us. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The serious issue is that the First Minister has relegated his victims’ rights bill out of this year’s legislative programme. Will he agree to change his mind and introduce it this year?

Will the First Minister also increase the amount of work and training that takes place in prisons and start to use some of the proceeds from prisoners’ earnings to help victims? Steps are being taken elsewhere in the UK to help to make that happen. Would not such a move assure crime victims that their interests are being taken seriously?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Victim Support Scotland is working closely with the Government on a range of issues. If Willie Rennie has specific proposals such as the one that he has just mentioned, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will certainly consider them. That, indeed, is a serious issue.

He will come to regard it as a mistake, but Willie Rennie has chosen to develop that serious issue alongside Councillor Dillon’s incredible endorsement of the Liberal Democrats. Given what he has said, if Willie Rennie thinks that Councillor Dillon is one of his foremost supporters, I can only think that there might soon be another candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland.

Crown Estate (Minerals)

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

4. To ask the First Minister what recent discussions the Scottish Government has had with the Crown Estate regarding the ownership and benefits that might flow from minerals mined in Scotland. (S4F-00157)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Whether it is mineral wealth, the value of a shoreline or the opportunities that are offered by renewables, Scotland’s future economic growth and the strength of our communities rest on having control of our assets. For that reason, the Government has long argued for control of the Crown estates to return democratically to Scotland. The current Scotland Bill provides an excellent opportunity to do that and, given that the Parliament supported the proposal by a large majority, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland might consider that proposals that were resoundingly endorsed by Scotland’s communities in the election and by a clear parliamentary majority should be included in the Scotland Bill.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The time is right for the archaic legislation governing the Crown estate to be brought into line with the realities of devolution in a modern Scotland, to make it accountable to the Scottish Parliament and people, and to deliver direct benefits to our communities. Will the First Minister continue to make the case to the United Kingdom Government that the Crown estate should be devolved to Parliament as soon as possible?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I met the chief executive of the Crown Estate and the Scottish commissioner last week. On 22 June, we submitted a detailed paper to the UK Government that set out the case for change. The Crown estate in Scotland should be administered in Scotland and accountable to the Scottish Parliament. The revenue should directly benefit Scotland and its communities. In the year to March 2011, the Crown Estate generated a surplus £9.9 million. Those resources were raised in Scotland and the Scottish Government ought to be able to democratically direct them to the benefit of Scotland and its coastal communities.

That democratic process of accountability would be somewhat better than having some sort of lottery, which was the most recent extraordinary proposal from the UK Government, and which has been roundly criticised by our coastal communities.

Nurses

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on reported concerns by the Royal College of Nursing that nurses are at breaking point due to fears over workloads, job security and falling care standards. (S4F-00165)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

We are maintaining our policy of no compulsory redundancies to increase job and economic security, and we are passing the health Barnett consequentials of £1.106 billion in full to NHS Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

There is no doubt that nurses’ morale is plummeting. They are desperately worried about falling care standards and they are uncertain about the future. As the SNP and the First Minister are fond of reminding us, they promised to protect all the health budget, not just health boards or part of the budget, and yet there has been a real-terms reduction of £320 million of revenue alone. That is a fact.

Will the First Minister give me a simple answer? If the SNP is protecting the NHS, why this year are there fewer doctors and consultants, fewer allied health professionals, and fewer nurses and midwives in the NHS than there have been at any point since 2005?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

More people are working in the health service in Scotland now than there were in 2007.

No one would argue that the NHS is not under the same budgetary pressure as every other public service in Scotland. That budgetary pressure comes from the cut to Scotland from the UK Government. Incidentally, that cut was not just the work of the Conservative Party; two thirds of it was planned by the Labour Party.

The person who was the Labour chancellor at the time now tells us that he wanted to go further than the cuts that he described at the time as being further and deeper than those of Margaret Thatcher. Given that we know that the Labour Party would not have protected the national health service as this Government has protected it, how on earth can Jackie Baillie—or any other leadership candidate known or unknown to Ed Miliband—come to this chamber and claim that they have any credibility regarding a service that they refused even to protect with the Barnett consequentials?

Just last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth announced that our no compulsory redundancy policy, which is unique across these islands, is to be extended for a further year precisely to address the question of job security.

Apart from our workers in the health service, who do excellent, fantastic work, there is another category of people whom we should consider: the patients, and what they feel about the NHS. The most recent survey in August found that 86.4 per cent of the people of Scotland were very or fairly satisfied with the national health service in 2010; that was up from 81 per cent in 2007. So, it is not just that members should recognise the work of our national health service; we should also be aware that the people of Scotland recognise and support the excellent work that it does.

University Mergers

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the First Minister who has responsibility for decisions regarding university mergers. (S4F-00166)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council is the body responsible and it can make proposals, but ultimately it is for the universities themselves to decide.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On Tuesday, Lord Sutherland described the consultation process regarding the possible merger between the University of Abertay Dundee and the University of Dundee as a “merger by fax”. Does the First Minister believe that it is acceptable for those universities to have just six weeks to respond to the Scottish funding council’s request that a possible merger be considered?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish funding council makes proposals, but just as there will be no closure of any college or university in Scotland, there will be no forced merger of any institution either, which contrasts with the situation elsewhere. The Scottish funding council is entitled to make proposals and it was entitled to do so in the case in question because—as Liz Smith should be well aware—there were concerns about governance issues that involved the suspension and then retiral of the then principal of the University of Abertay. There were also concerns about the costs that such matters may well have to the public purse—the Scottish funding council, of course, supplies the bulk of the funds in that regard.

We as a Government are not going to force any merger between unwilling parties, and it is not for me to advise university courts. However, perhaps in the current circumstances—of excellent university funding, incidentally; I am glad that Liz Smith by her silence seems to recognise that— [Interruption.] I merely say that Liz Smith has told us for over a year that the funding settlement for Scottish universities would not be adequate, but now that every university thinks that it is superb she says nothing about it.

Universities could do a lot worse than to look to the city of Aberdeen, where there will be a meeting tomorrow between the principals of Robert Gordon University and the University of Aberdeen. They will look again at how the further sharing of facilities in that great city can enable those two distinct, independent institutions to gain economies, increase the services that are available to their students and run their universities in an even more efficient manner. It seems to me that there might be a light in the north that many institutions could have a look at.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Lord Sutherland also said that he could not imagine a worse way of undertaking a merger. Does the First Minister agree with him that the message of the experience of the University of Abertay Dundee and the University of Dundee will send a chill down the spines of colleges and universities across Scotland?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Perhaps the member should catch up with the consequences of the agreed merger between the three Glasgow colleges. I do not know whether he has seen the evidence this week and the strong endorsement of the impact of that merger. I note that there was a saving of £4 million in financial efficiencies from a measure that has established a great new college in the city of Glasgow. Incidentally, there were 69 mergers of colleges in the period of the previous Labour Government in England. Let us not have the idea that a merger between institutions is anything new, or other than something that could benefit the institutions themselves.

Let me repeat that as far as this Government is concerned, there will be no closure of any college or any university in Scotland over the period of this Government and there will be no forced merger either. However, our education configuration in Scotland is not set in stone. As has been demonstrated by the three colleges in Glasgow, there can be occasions when a great deal can be gained, both for the colleges and for the public purse, in having a merger that achieves such an excellent result as that.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

In light of the First Minister’s answer to Liz Smith that there will be no forced mergers between institutions, will he confirm that the merger talks between the University of Dundee and the University of Abertay Dundee will come to a halt at the end of October as the Scottish funding council set out in its letter?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

It is for the universities to respond to the Scottish funding council’s proposals—and I am sure that they will. I will give the member a serious answer, given that last week she was able to ask a serious question, unlike her party leader, who was talking about closures.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

You just can’t help yourself, can you?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I think that most people who were here last week would say that what I just said was a reasonable estimation of the position.

It is for the funding council to make proposals and it is for the university courts to respond to them. Given the circumstances of the past year or so affecting Abertay and its governance, it is entirely reasonable for the funding council to have concerns. That is reasonable, given that the amount of money that is devoted to these things can have severe implications for the amount of money that is available for staff and students.

I hope and believe that the response of both universities—and of Abertay university court—will be such that they will come back and demonstrate that they have a plan that will achieve proper efficiencies and value for the public purse in a way that they find compatible with their future.

Let me repeat that just as there will be no closures of institutions under this Government, there will be no forced mergers either.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Have you had time to reflect on the point of order that I raised with you two weeks ago in respect of the length of time that it takes the First Minister to answer questions? Can you update Parliament on your reflections?

Rural Affairs and the Environment

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Question 1 has not been lodged.

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority (Meetings)

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and what issues were discussed. (S4O-00215)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Scottish Government has regular meetings and discussions with representatives of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority on issues regarding its operations.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I am delighted to hear that. The minister will therefore be well aware of the concerns raised by the community in Luss regarding the use of the visitor centre for commercial purposes. He will be aware that the national park authority dealt with that property, but has now leased it out. That is having a detrimental impact on the future viability of other local businesses, which I am sure the minister regrets.

Will the minister suggest to the national park authority that it takes action quickly to resolve the matter before any local businesses close?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I understand that the business to which the lease has been attributed is based inside the park area, so it is at least contributing to the local economy. There is a meeting on 28 October—which will involve the chief executive—to discuss some of the concerns that have been raised on the subject. I encourage all those who have issues with the lease to engage in that process.

Without commenting specifically on the Luss visitor centre and other centres, I point out that the programme has been a successful initiative by the park authority to raise further money, which has been reinvested in communities such as Luss. There are benefits to it, albeit that there are remaining concerns that must be resolved at the October meeting.

Scotland Rural Development Programme (Application Process)

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to speed up the application process for the Scotland rural development programme. (S4O-00216)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Following the recommendations of the Scotland rural development programme first-stage review by Peter Cook in 2009, we have taken a number of actions to improve the application processes. Those include an option to bypass the first stage of the two-stage rural priorities application process; the transfer of support for community services and facilities applications from central control to the more locally based LEADER—links between activities developing the rural economy—scheme; and the introduction of an on-going approval process for woodland creation and for agri-environment grants on designated sites.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the cabinet secretary confirm the financial allocation that is to be awarded by the Argyll regional project assessment committee for the remainder of the seven-year programme?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As Mike MacKenzie can imagine, I have been carefully examining the implications of the recent spending review and I will announce a future agri-environment round. We are also consulting our stakeholders before announcing arrangements for other RPAC rounds. As the end of the programme gets closer, there is less funding available and the spending review has had an impact on the amount of resource available to the Scottish Government, especially in capital grants, but I assure members that there will be further rounds.

Alex Fergusson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the cabinet secretary take steps not just to speed up the process but to simplify it, so that it becomes more accessible for smaller farmers who find it difficult to afford the fees that professional agents ask for? Will he also take steps to make the process easier for people who are not computer literate to apply, so they may do so not necessarily online? Those two problems are often flagged up with me.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Alex Fergusson raises valid concerns and issues that many applicants throughout Scotland have raised. I feel confident that we have addressed a number of those concerns in the past couple of years, and the system is much simpler than it was before, but I accept that it is perhaps still not simple enough.

There are many administrative European Union regulatory checks—including a 5 per cent inspection requirement—that must be carried out before any claims can be paid. As members can imagine, that often slows up the process. There are lessons to learn about how we administer the scheme in Scotland, but we must also ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard in Brussels so that the next rural development programme is simpler, as the member calls for and as I would certainly support.

Cereal Farmers (Wet Weather Assistance)

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what it can do to aid cereal farmers whose crops are in jeopardy as a result of unusually wet weather.??? (S4O-00217)

That was the weather before this week.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thought that I was going to get off lightly.

The 2011 harvest has been difficult for farmers because of unfavourable weather conditions. The Scottish Government has stayed in regular touch with the industry throughout these challenging weeks. It is fortunate that crop maturity has been relatively late this year, so crops were not ready to harvest until later than usual. Conditions in the past few days have allowed farmers at least to make progress. The Government is collating data on crop yields, which we will publish next month.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross)

I look forward to finding out what the harvest has been. There are fewer baled straw crops for the future and the high price of winter feed is likely to increase.

Can the Scottish Government help farmers and crofters to install small renewable equipment to reduce the cost of drying malting barley during future wet-weather episodes?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Rob Gibson describes some reasons why the bad weather in recent months has adversely affected harvesting. He is right to highlight the example of damage to straw and straw bales. The higher costs of drying crops that farmers will have to pay will also be a difficulty.

I am interested in considering the issue that Rob Gibson raises—the help that can be made available to farmers around Scotland to put in place the equipment to mitigate such situations in the future. That is on our agenda, and I will write to him with an update.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

On aid for cereal farmers, the recent spending review cut by 19.3 per cent in real terms the payments and inspections administration budget. Will the cabinet secretary explain how that shortfall will be plugged and assure our producers that the costs will not be passed on to them?