Scottish Parliament, 2 February 2012

368 contributions from 83 members. The official report.

Colleges (Funding)

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01876, in the name of Liz Smith, on college funding.

I invite members who wish to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now. I remind all members that time is very tight, so they will get their allocated time and not a second more.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Lately, it has responded effectively to the need for reform and to the need to develop new structures that combine cost-effective models with the specialisation that is described in the Griggs report, which was published yesterday.

It was a Conservative Government that granted the colleges their independence in 1992, as a result of which they have enjoyed much greater autonomy and flexibility, and have been able to drive up standards, which I very much hope will not be threatened in the future.

As a Parliament, we pay tribute to that work and to the manner in which the colleges have coped with some very difficult challenges. Given that success, however, why have we each received thousands of e-mails from students, staff and trade union members expressing concerns about the future of our college sector and seen several question times in the Parliament and numerous column inches devoted to exactly the same issue?

At last Thursday’s education questions, the issue of college funding was raised in no fewer than seven out of 18 questions, but the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning—with his usual modesty—did not appear to be in the least bit concerned. Indeed, he even accused the Opposition parties of not accepting the truth about spending on Scottish education, of always looking back rather than forward and of not listening to what he was saying.

I am in a relatively charitable mood this morning. The Scottish Conservatives want to debate the truth about spending on Scottish education; we are happy to look forward rather than back, and we are even happy to listen to the cabinet secretary, however painful that may be.

We have before us the Budget (Scotland) Bill and the worthy supporting document over which I am sure Mr Swinney has expended—and, I hope, is still expending—much time and energy. If the cabinet secretary would like to have a look at page 24 of the supporting document, he will see what has happened to college funding.

I know that Mr Swinney will want me to put that in the factual context, so I will do just that. He has faced some tough choices: fact. He produced an extra £15 million transformation fund to help with college rationalisation and reform: fact. That £15 million therefore reduces year 1 of the budget cuts from £38 million to £23 million: fact.

However, let us dig a little deeper and pursue some of the other facts, which I suspect the SNP does not like quite so much. The consequences of the tough United Kingdom situation have resulted in a real-terms cut of 1.3 per cent—that is the Scottish National Party’s own figure—so it would be unfair of me to stand here and argue if Mr Russell had asked Mr Swinney to make similar savings in the Scottish FE budget.

However, what no one can understand—however hard they try—is why, at a time when there are no fewer than 88,000 young people aged 18 to 24 unemployed in Scotland, and when the Scottish Government has a flagship policy to provide a training opportunity, education or work for all 16 to 19-year-olds, the college sector is being asked to cope with cuts of 8.5 per cent in teaching grants on top of all the cuts that it faced last year. The colleges are being asked to cope with a cut in funding from £544 million to £470 million. There will be progressive cuts of £38 million in year 1—less £15 million—£50 million in year 2, and £74 million in year 3, so that by 2015 there is an annual cut of £74 million. They wonder what on earth they have done wrong.

At last week’s education questions, Mr Russell said that he would prefer politicians to listen to the experts in the college sector rather than deal in their own spin, so let us do that. John Spencer, convener of Scotland’s Colleges, has said twice that it is inconceivable that colleges will be able to absorb more cuts without harm being done to student places, staffing or the quality of courses. We now know that those cuts could amount to over 20 per cent in real terms, assuming that student support is maintained at a flat cash level. That view is echoed by Miles Dibsdall, principal of Edinburgh’s Telford College, who has said:

“To think that the sector could operate or indeed maintain provision after having our budget slashed by 10 per cent last year was challenging, but to have them reduced again 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.”

Robin Parker of the National Union of Students has said that the SNP was absolutely right in May to promise to protect college budgets but “absolutely wrong” to be proposing such extensive cuts at a time of such large-scale youth unemployment—a view shared by Andy Willox of the Federation of Small Businesses.

Why has the Scottish Government chosen to punish the colleges so hard, particularly in the current economic circumstances?

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

The member asks about punishing colleges. Perhaps she can answer this simple question: why has the UK Government decided to punish Scotland so hard in its budget arrangement for the forthcoming three years ?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is perfectly true that there are cuts south of the border, but the Scottish Government is responsible for the cuts north of the border, and that is what we are debating.

The Scottish Government simply cannot get away from the fact that 1,000 staff were shed in the FE sector last year and that several colleges have warned the cabinet secretary that more are likely to go this year. They are telling him very bluntly that many of the savings and efficiencies have already been made and that there is less and less scope for cuts without paring down some of the most essential parts of the sector. Colleges are looking at their budgets for 2012-13 and having to focus on the more expensive end of the scale, which is the 16 to 19 age group, since the higher costs of student support are to be found in that age group. That is on top of the real-terms cut of £11 million in student support. Many of those students are on national certificate courses at the start of the learning process and need more support, so there is surely a potential impact on some of our more vulnerable students.

What will happen to provision for part-time students, mature students and students with disabilities, who could, according to the Scottish Consortium on Learning Disabilities, lose up to 34 per cent of part-time places? Those groups are all essential to ensuring that we have a more mobile and flexible workforce across the economy.

The Scottish Government cannot claim any longer that there cannot be greater flexibility in its budget decisions about higher education and FE. It is nonsense to say that the college cuts are all the fault of the Westminster Government. The Scottish Government had a choice to make and got it wrong—and I think that it knows it has got it wrong. It was a political choice, and the responsibility for it must lie firmly with the cabinet secretary.

I return to where I began by praising the outstanding work that has been done by those in the college sector over recent years. They have coped admirably with the challenges placed on them, and they are undoubtedly a hugely important part of the post-16 reforms in building a more flexible and stronger economy. They should be congratulated rather than punished by a Government that has muddled its priorities and ended up with a total lack of coherence in FE and HE policy. They are fearful of further cuts and fearful of cutbacks in student places—or, if the places can be maintained, cutbacks in teaching time. They are fearful about whether exciting new projects will ever see the light of day, and they wonder just what mergers will mean to them. In short, there is considerable doubt that the college sector, which has made such outstanding progress, will emerge anything other than weaker at the end of the day.

Mr Russell told us last week that his Government is second to none when it comes to supporting student finances—far better than any previous Government north or south of the border and probably better than any arc of prosperity in the world, if Mr Russell had his way. He said that his budget figures are “impeccable” and that the budget settlement is “fair, full and final”. Well, I invite him to accept the seriousness of the situation that he has created, to swallow his pride and to cut through all the shameful bombast of the past few months. Colleges deserve our support, and I suspect that the vast majority of members in the chamber—even within the ranks of the SNP—believe that it is time for Mr Russell to ask Mr Swinney to reconsider his budget proposals.

I move,

That the Parliament warmly congratulates Scotland’s colleges in terms of the outstanding contribution that they have made to improving educational opportunities for a wide range of learners, improving the alignment between available skills and local employment opportunities and in embracing the need for structural reform; condemns the Scottish Government for forcing on the sector deeply damaging financial cuts for the period 2012-15, which are disproportionately greater in 2012-13, and which will inevitably have a detrimental impact on staffing, student places and support for students from more disadvantaged backgrounds; fails to understand how these financial cuts can be reconciled with the Scottish Government’s flagship 16 to 19 policy and the need to address the very worrying youth unemployment statistics that have revealed that 88,000 young people aged 18 to 24 are now out of work, and calls on the Scottish Government to urgently reconsider the proposed budget settlement for the further education sector.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We see something interesting this morning. The Tory press release that was issued moments ago includes this quote from Liz Smith:

“There is an overwhelming opinion across Scotland that the proposed cuts to the further education sector are excessive and will be deeply damaging when it comes to maintaining college places and staff numbers.”

I am interested in her opening phrase. I do not think that the Tories are in a position to talk about overwhelming opinions across Scotland because I do not think that they know them. I will tell members what the overwhelming opinion in Scotland is.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I will not.

The overwhelming opinion in Scotland is in three parts. The first part is against the Tory-Liberal coalition and its cuts—that is the overwhelming opinion in Scotland. The overwhelming opinion in Scotland is also against paying for education. It was incredibly disingenuous of the Tory spokesperson this morning not to talk about raising money by raising student fees, which is her prescription for paying for education in Scotland. She has talked of it before, but she would not talk of it today. Why? Because she is in alliance with Labour, and Labour is edging towards that Tory policy as well. Maybe she wants to give Labour the advantage of it.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will make a third point before I take Liz Smith’s intervention.

The overwhelming opinion across Scotland is also against hypocrisy and scaremongering about colleges, and we have heard more scaremongering this morning. I have regular meetings with the college principals and we are working together to ensure that we get the best out of the situation. Exploitation of them and of students is taking place in the chamber today—we have heard it from one side and we will hear it from the other shortly.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What more bombast can we have from the cabinet secretary on this? If the Conservatives had their way, there would be extra money in the HE sector that we would not have to put back into the college sector. That is exactly what the SNP policy has led to. The Government is punishing the colleges because it has not had enough money for the HE sector.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Let the vice speak its name. Is the member suggesting that the Tories would raise fees from students in Scotland? Yes or no?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes, absolutely.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Ah! There we are. Out of her own mouth she is condemned. Liz Smith is talking about raising fees in Scotland in order to pay for education. The people of Scotland rejected that absolutely in May and they would reject it again. It will be interesting to see whether Labour has the courage to continue with its policy against people paying for education or whether it is moving on to that dreadful, anti-Scottish, anti-educational track. [Interruption.] No—the Scottish tradition is free education and I stand proudly for it. I recommend that members read Iain Macwhirter’s column in today’s The Herald, in which he writes of a Scottish educational tradition that is, unfortunately, foreign to the Tory benches, which explains why the Tories languish where they do.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I will not. I want to talk about the reality, not the fiction that the Tories have been involved in.

Let me give Parliament some facts. From 2007 until the end of the current spending review period, we will have invested £4.7 billion in colleges alone—40 per cent more, in cash terms, than the investment made under the two terms of the previous Administration. Although the spending review has been tough for colleges—the result of the unholy coalition that is trying to destroy Scottish education, among other things—we will continue to make a significant investment in the sector of more than £500 million in 2012-13.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I want to make progress. I will let the member in in a moment.

By comparison, the UK Government is reducing its investment in English further education by £1.1 billion from £4.3 billion to £3.2 billion. That is a 25 per cent reduction in cash terms, which is 7 per cent higher than the reduction in Scottish sector funding over the same period. In other words, further education in England is having a real-terms cut of 32.3 per cent. That is a fact.

With regard to capital investment, non-profit-distributing investment in colleges represents an additional capital investment of £300 million. Through NPD, we will invest £200 million to build a new City of Glasgow College and are making a combined investment of £100 million to build new colleges in Inverness and Kilmarnock.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The investment that we are making in 2012-13 and 2014-15 will be larger than in any single year of the previous Administration.

Moreover, I have listened closely to the sector’s views on the pace of reform. After all, this is reform; we need reform and the colleges know that. In response, I announced a £15 million college transformation fund, which has been welcomed by the NUS and Scotland’s Colleges.

In last year’s manifesto, we said that we would maintain student numbers—and that is what we will do. On 11 January, I wrote to colleges to confirm that no college will have a funding reduction of more than 8.5 per cent; indeed, I made it clear in that letter that the delivery of the commitments is based on published Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council baselines. Moreover, not only was I able to identify the 96 per cent of target numbers that we would maintain in a traditional way but, working with the sector and consistent with its suggestions, we are now moving to a different and more flexible provision for 4 per cent of places.

Our record on student support is second to none. As has been made clear in various letters, there is no reduction in the baseline for college student support. Baseline student support budgets have increased every year under the Scottish National Party—

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I will take Mr Findlay when I have finished this fact. Since 2006-07, we have increased college student support by 25 per cent from £67.3 million to £84.2 million whereas, in the previous four years, the previous Administration increased student support by just 8 per cent.

I give way to Mr Findlay.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am happy to take the member’s intervention.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Carry on.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is very good of you, Mr Findlay. I am looking forward to your speech as part of the Tory-Labour alliance on this matter.

As part of our review on post-16 education, we are reviewing college student support to ensure that the balance between national policy and local discretion is right. That is why I met the NUS yesterday to discuss this issue. We have agreed to ensure that we move quickly to find a better way of paying FE student support that takes away some of the discretionary problems that were put in place by the Tories—of course.

We must ensure that, with the sector, we move forward on radical reform to get the best we can from the investment we make. That is our responsibility in this chamber. It is a great pity that only the SNP recognises that.

I move amendment S4M-01876.1, to leave out from “condemns” to end and insert:

“acknowledges the difficulties resulting from the UK Government’s cuts of over £3 billion to the Scottish block and the inescapable pressures that this creates for college budgets; welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government is ensuring that £265 million of capital investment in colleges is made over the spending review period, including through the non-profit distributing programme; further recognises that the support is in place to maintain student numbers in the coming year; commends the hard work and commitment of college staff and students at all levels, both to improve learner outcomes and to take forward the progressive programme of reform set in train by the Scottish Government, including its plans for a regional structure in which learning provision is better matched to need, and reiterates its support for the creation of 125,000 modern apprenticeships over the current parliamentary session and for the introduction of the Opportunities for All programme, which will provide a suitable place in learning or training for all 16 to 19-year-olds who require it.”

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

Labour disagrees with the Tories and the Liberal Democrats on many issues. However, it is arrogant to suggest that people elected to the Parliament who are doing their job and listening to concerns from staff and students across the country have no right to come to the chamber and raise those concerns.

What we have heard from the cabinet secretary this morning is another unfortunate example of what has happened since the election. There is an arrogance, an intolerance and a view among those now in government that no one—except them—has the right to speak for anyone in Scotland. That creeping intolerance will at some point lead to their saying that freedom of speech for the Opposition should no longer exist and that everything should be articulated only through them.

It is a given fact that Scotland’s colleges have an outstanding record of service delivery and success. No one can quibble with, for example, the 350,000 learners per year and the fact that 55 per cent of attendees are women who want to develop their skills and potential; that 30 per cent of students come from Scotland’s most deprived areas; and that 70 per cent of students who go into FE gain employment.

Now, with an unemployment crisis in this country, we need Scotland’s colleges more than ever. We need their expertise, their delivery and their success. Now, more than ever, is the time to invest in Scotland’s colleges.

In the past few months, we have heard a lot about preventative spending and the idea that spending now will mean that we will need to spend less on solving problems in the future. If that is the case, what better preventative spending could there be than investment in Scotland’s colleges, given the record that they have demonstrated? In Liz Smith’s motion, which I am happy to support, she clearly outlines some of the issues and, in her excellent speech, she detailed the scale of the problem that is looming. Some 88,000 18 to 24-year olds in Scotland are unemployed. Now, more than ever, we need to give that generation our support, and it is the colleges that will make the difference. If we fail them and do not give them the resources that they need, they will be unable to respond to the crisis that is confronting us.

Scotland’s Colleges has said that the cuts will make it increasingly difficult to protect the quality of college education and keep access to courses local and fair. We hear about choices that need to be made, and this is a choice. The SNP Government has chosen to allocate a certain amount to the education budget, and Mike Russell has chosen how to use his money within that budget. He has made the choice to deprive Scotland’s colleges—he and no one else. If he is not prepared to stand up for Scotland’s colleges, who else in the Government can we look to to defend those who have a proven record of success?

The Government is prepared to fund redundancy and unemployment, but it is not prepared to invest in creating opportunities for those who need education the most. It is not prepared to support young people from deprived areas, women who want to develop their skills and potential, or people with disabilities. Courses are being cut, choices are being limited, and workload is increasing. The Educational Institute of Scotland has described the reduction in staff numbers as a matter of significant concern.

What we are doing as an Opposition in the Parliament is telling the cabinet secretary to listen to the worries and concerns of the people who elected him and us because, frankly, they are the people who matter.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

In the stage 1 budget debate, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth was told by the Opposition to find extra resources for local government, housing, colleges, the air discount scheme, fuel poverty and road equivalent tariffs. In other debates in this session, it has been parts of the protected national health service, that hardy perennial the Glasgow airport rail link, active travel, police, roads and business rates cuts.

As the Tories were once so fond of telling us, we cannot spend what we do not have. If members want to sit there and wring their hands, that is their right. Members have a right to be heard in the chamber. However, unless they present solutions, they simply will not be taken seriously. This is familiar territory for the Labour Party, which always opposes as old Labour and governs as new, but it is unusual for the Conservatives, who have never tired of telling us about Labour’s deficit and, to paraphrase their favourite Prime Minister, the impossibility of spending other people’s money. That turnaround is the only new thing in the motion. We only have to look at it closely to see the real Conservative Party solutions.

Let me turn to a brief positive note. The Conservative Party manifesto was thin on colleges as it contained just one paragraph on the subject, but next to it we saw a welcome suggestion that universities could be encouraged to share administration on a regional basis. That was interesting. I take it that regionalisation is one thing that we can agree on.

The Conservative Party’s flagship policy for all tertiary education, of course, was to put a price tag of at least £6,000 on going to university. That initiative has been so successful that there has been a 10 per cent drop in numbers in England in just one year.

Perhaps the answer is to abolish the education maintenance allowance, as the Conservatives have done in England, and use that money to fund colleges. That really would be taking with one hand and giving with the other. EMA payments of £30 a week may seem small to a Tory MSP, but they can make all the difference to 14,000 college students.

If the Conservatives think that we should raise taxes to provide more funding to the public service that we are discussing, that really would be a turn-up for the books.

I could continue, but I could not discuss Tory hypocrisy on tertiary education in four hours, let alone four minutes.

Yesterday, Jim Eadie and I met students from colleges and universities throughout Edinburgh. We had a very worthwhile session. We talked about opportunities for all, which will give every young person aged 16 to 19 a place in education or training if they are not employed.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am almost in my final minute.

We went over the Scottish National Party’s proud record. There has been record capital investment in the long-neglected college estate and an unprecedented expansion of student support. We explored the financial situation in depth, how places are protected, how the need for a transformation fund had been recognised, what the pressures are, and what the reality is. There is a fixed budget that has been set by another Government, with which the Conservative Party has more than a passing familiarity.

All members recognise the importance of colleges, the challenges that they face, and the difference that they can make. We have all seen that. However, when organisations come to us, it is not our role to pass a tissue and feel their pain. Rather, it is our role as MSPs to govern, make difficult choices and find solutions.

The Conservative motion is bandwagon politics of the worst kind. Many areas have a case for additional resources.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

If the Conservatives want us to spend more, they should realise that they are the problem.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I, too, thank Liz Smith for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I am glad that the motion

“congratulates Scotland’s colleges in terms of the outstanding contribution that they have made to improving educational opportunities for a wide range of learners”.

The importance of access to further education should not be underestimated at any time, least of all in times such as these, with youth unemployment at an all-time high.

This week, like every other week for the past few months, I have received e-mails from constituents who support NUS Scotland’s our future, our fight campaign. Over that time, I have met and actively listened to lecturers, principals and students, who share strong fears about the future of further education colleges in Scotland.

Members often hear that our young people are Scotland’s future. Nobody knows that more than the lecturers and support staff who work with young people every day in our colleges. However, those lecturers are also Scotland’s future. Many staff who have contacted me have many working years ahead of them. However, that is in theory, because between now and 2015, those staff stand to lose out in the same way as current and prospective students from a 20 per cent real-terms cut. With class contact time already down and class sizes being increased, the long-term consequences of those cuts are deeply worrying.

The people whom I have met also have concerns about the knock-on effects that could damage their educational opportunities—for example, students are concerned about being unable to afford travel to different campuses if the course that they want to do is withdrawn from the local college. The uncertainty about what courses colleges will be able to run is an issue that I regularly hear about from people who contact me. The cuts have already created that issue.

In addition, students and staff need to know about the future of their local community campuses. That is a particular worry for young parents I have met, many of whom wish to take FE courses. They have told me that they are worried that they will have an ultimatum to stretch their own finances further for the additional travel and childcare if community campus closures force them to go further afield.

I have touched on the concerns of students and lecturers. It would be folly of me not also to point out the importance of maintaining the employment of all the other staff who also contribute to the running of Scotland’s colleges—the maintenance and support staff are also concerned about the possibility that, as the lowest-paid workers, they will be the first to be squeezed as the budget cuts hit. We must remember the people who play a vital role in making sure that the campuses are clean and maintained for use and who also help students—particularly new students—to find their way around a new environment and engage with the college in general. Those members of our community worry that the future of their jobs is at risk. They, like the students and teaching staff, deserve to have full support in helping to build Scotland’s future, and do not deserve to lose their jobs as a result of what are clearly cuts to the FE sector.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Once again, the Conservatives come to the chamber claiming to be the guardians of students in the college sector but I am sure that, at 5 pm, they will once again be found wanting.

Not one person in the chamber this morning would wish to reduce the budgets for our further education establishments, but the Government needs to make tough decisions because the budget of the Parliament has been slashed by the UK coalition of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Normally, I would, but I have only four minutes.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat members of the Scottish Parliament will, of course, defend their colleagues in Westminster by saying that this reduction is necessary as a result of the shambles of the UK public finances that was inherited from the previous Labour Government. Listening to Liz Smith this morning, the message that I received was that the FE cuts in Scotland should be proportionate. She later mentioned the fear of future cuts. We also heard from her that the way to ensure that there are no further cuts is for students to pay instead of having free education in Scotland.

I looked at the funding figures for the college sector going back to 1999. Then, £213 million and £4 million was spent on the resource and capital allocations respectively. In 2006-07, that had increased to £510 million and £88 million. Since 2007-08, the figures have increased until this year. However, as we all know, even though there were increases, that was never going to be enough for some in the chamber. Year after year, we heard and read of the complaints from some parties that the college sector was being short-changed, even though its funding allocation was increasing.

The commitment to maintain student numbers should be welcomed across the chamber.

The economic conditions in Scotland, across the UK and around the world, are difficult and, as a result, it is imperative that students who wish to attend colleges have that opportunity to improve their education, skills and employability.

At the same time as maintaining student places, we have a welcome opportunity for college reform. I understand that change can be frightening to some, as they are unsure of what will happen. However, the current college sector was established some 30 years ago, under the then Conservative Government with the aim of creating more competition within the sector. That had the inevitable effect of creating duplication. It also created institutions where there has been a level of strife between management and the lecturers, with the result being that students do not always obtain the level of education that they deserve. The history of James Watt College in Greenock over the past 10 years bears that out.

I remember taking part in a march and rally prior to the 2005 election in support of James Watt College and its students. Things settled down when the principal at that time left but, in recent weeks, lecturers have once again been on the picket lines and students have suffered. The strike has been suspended for two weeks for further talks, but the situation is one of great confusion and apprehension.

I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer.

The students and lecturers who have contacted me are raising issues not about the funding to the college but about how their college is being managed.

James Watt College is one of the colleges that have reached a no compulsory redundancy agreement, as was mentioned by Anne McTaggart. That was signed last May and is due to expire in June. I have been informed that management sent out a letter in October, indicating that 29 senior lecturers will lose their positions, with 15 learning enhancement lecturer positions being created instead, obviously on reduced terms.

Whether the issue is the funds that are going to colleges’ budgets or the money that colleges have themselves, we in the chamber should agree on how that money is managed. It should be managed efficiently and it should—

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I have listened carefully to the SNP Government’s response. It is interesting to note its interpretation of matters. The SNP describes a 1.3 per cent real-terms cut to the overall Scottish budget as a slashing, burning and savage cut, but an 8.5 per cent cut to the college budget is described as fair and generous and as having resulted from tough choices.

In a speech that was, as ever, bombastic, Mr Russell said that he does not like hypocrisy. I have tried to intervene on every SNP member so far—I tried to intervene on him a number of times—but none of them accepted an intervention. I ask any SNP member to explain why a 1.3 per cent real-terms cut to the Scottish budget results in an 8.5 per cent cut to college funding.

We must look at the facts. Conservative members accept entirely that the Scottish Government will have less money in real terms next year than it has this year, but we point out that it will have more money in cash terms—£250 million more—than it has this year.

The reason why the issue is important and why the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens have joined in with the Conservative Party today is the terrifying youth unemployment figures. As Elizabeth Smith said, 88,000 people between the ages of 18 and 24 are unemployed. That figure goes to well over 100,000 when 16 to 24-year-olds are considered. That number is particularly bad because it has increased by 20,000 in the past nine months. Since the draft budget and the SNP manifesto were pulled together with the aim of maintaining student numbers, the youth unemployment situation has deteriorated. That is why we need action on colleges.

We have heard about the magnitude of the cuts. In year 1, the cut will be £38 million, but we admit and accept that that is negated by £15 million from the transformation fund. However, that fund is for one year only. The cut will be £50 million in year 2 and will go up to £74 million in year 3. We ask the Scottish Government to explain why Scottish colleges will get such a large cut in their budget in comparison with the size of the overall cut. That is about political choices from the SNP; it should not blame the Westminster Government for cutting the budget as a whole.

We welcome the moves on youth unemployment that the Scottish Government announced yesterday in its draft strategy and we support the appointment of Angela Constance as the Minister for Youth Employment, but we need a bit of joined-up government. When we are trying to tackle youth unemployment, what is the point in giving Angela Constance a budget of £30 million while at exactly the same time taking away £40 million from the college budget?

I note that college funding will not decline in next year’s Welsh budget. That comes back to the point that the Scottish Government must explain why it thinks that the college budget deserves such a large cut next year in comparison with other parts of the Scottish budget.

We have heard that a multitude of organisations and people across Scotland are fighting for the colleges. The Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberals and the Greens are all telling the cabinet secretary in advance of stage 3 that the budget should provide more money for colleges. Will he—

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Last year, the Government published “Putting Learners at the Centre: Delivering our Ambitions for Post-16 Education”. The ministerial foreword to that document quotes John F Kennedy, who said:

“our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education.”

The foreword also says:

“Education ... plays a central role in improving ... chances for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and learning in all its forms and settings has a wide reach.”

The SNP Government is absolutely committed to education and to improving outcomes for all our young people, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, whether it be through early years intervention and the preventative spend agenda, extending nursery places to those from disadvantaged backgrounds, giving people the opportunity to gain further education, or the appointment of a minister who is dedicated to tackling youth unemployment and ensuring that all our 16 to 19-year-olds get opportunities from the programme. That means all our 16 to 19-year-olds, including people who have disabilities and women.

The draft strategy that was published yesterday sets out a clear and targeted approach to supporting young people as they are looking for employment and fulfilling their ambitions in life. It focuses on opportunities in the apprenticeship programme, which our colleges will support, and it targets support on helping young people in our new and emerging commercial opportunities, especially in the area of the low-carbon economy. It also looks to Skills Development Scotland working in partnership with our colleges and employers, and changing the way in which we deliver our further education programme to ensure that it meets the needs of our employers and improves the life chances of our young people.

We have also included an early years action fund, run by Inspiring Scotland, to improve outcomes for our vulnerable young people. I am delighted that, in one of her first announcements as the Minister for Youth Employment, Angela Constance targeted her support at young carers and those who are leaving the care system so that further education opportunities are made available to them.

I listened to members’ speeches. I agreed with the start and end of Liz Smith’s speech and her wonderful praise for our further education colleges. That is absolutely right, but establishing the independence of our colleges caused problems. Their charitable status is flawed because of the possibility of Government influence and direction on how the colleges should proceed, and it sets up competition between the colleges.

Many things in our colleges need to be looked at, especially student support. When they go to college, students should be able to expect that there will be no discretionary element to their support. The regionalisation and pulling together of resource should enable us to tackle some of those issues.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

You have only a few seconds left. Please conclude.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am convinced that the regionalisation model will give the opportunity to reform and improve our college sector.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

We have heard a lot recently about Scotland being progressive and a beacon for others. Like most SNP soundbites, that claim is more about self-serving and rhetorical trumpet blowing than factual analysis of its policies. Child poverty in Scotland is increasing while the SNP Government is giving handouts to millionaire bus owners through the council tax freeze. It takes the biggest of brass necks to proclaim that that is progressive. Add to that the funding proposals that prefer the university sector to our colleges and the propensity to look after the already better-off shines through yet again. Once more, the haves are looked after at the expense of those for whom university education is too often an unrealisable aspiration, even for those who have the ability to go on to higher education. What sort of progressive budget is it that cuts college funding while protecting the share of the likes of Mr Russell’s alma mater?

While Mr Russell was enjoying the benefits of University of Edinburgh tutelage, as a lesser mortal I was leaving school at the age of 15 to take up an apprenticeship as a welder. I wanted to go to university and my teachers tried to convince to me stay on to achieve that aim but, for me and the majority of my peers, getting a good trade was the level of aspiration set for us by the financial reality of the family income.

My education continued through day release at Motherwell College. I was able to achieve the highest level possible in City and Guilds, and I am eternally grateful for the solid grounding that the college gave me. Fifteen years later, with manufacturing going through the floor under the Thatcher regime, I began to look for an alternative career path and was fortunate to obtain a place at Cambuslang College on a higher national certificate course in social sciences that was made available through a partnership with the University of Paisley and Glasgow Caledonian University. Completion of the HNC guaranteed access to second year on the social sciences course at either of the two higher education institutions and in 1996, 19 years after leaving school, I graduated with honours in politics and sociology at Glasgow Caledonian University. I know at first hand the value of both college and university education.

Recently, the Finance Committee has discussed the sustainability of funding. It came as no surprise that someone such as Jim Gallagher said:

“if we do one thing, what else are we not doing?”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 25 January 2012; c 579.]

It is clear that this Government has chosen to fund universities and not colleges but, for me, one cannot be protected at the expense of the other. That is why, when the SNP was bragging about its progressiveness, I was standing in the forecourt of Motherwell College with the staff and students, who had come together to protest at the funding cuts that will inevitably lead to staff cuts, cuts to courses and hardship for students.

Their choosing colleges as the subject of this morning’s debate shows that even the Tories can see the need for equitable treatment. Yes, there are budgetary restraints, but we cannot allow ourselves to be forced into agreeing with a Government that, because of populist decisions, looks after its own and forgets those who might be left behind. It is not too late for the cabinet secretary to see the error of his ways and become a genuine progressive. I ask him to give our colleges a fair funding settlement and to give everyone a chance to be what they can be.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I congratulate Liz Smith on bringing the motion to the Parliament and helping to maintain the focus on an issue on which I genuinely believe that there is a consensus across the parties, which includes some SNP back benchers. Although this further opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s planned cuts to the funding of Scotland’s colleges is welcome, I am increasingly perplexed by the cabinet secretary’s approach.

During last week’s stage 1 debate on the Budget (Scotland) Bill, Mr Swinney assured the Parliament that he was open to further discussion on how the budget might be improved. In response, the consistent message to Mr Swinney was that housing and colleges should be the principal beneficiaries of the substantial additional resources that the UK Government had made available since the publication of the budget but, despite Mr Swinney’s offer and cross-party support for the needs of his portfolio, 24 hours later, Mr Russell told the chamber that he thought that the £40 million cut to college budgets over the next three years was

“a fair, full and final settlement”.—[Official Report, 26 January 2012; c 5795.]

That seemed to be a remarkable admission of defeat.

As well as the evidence from Scotland’s Colleges about the effect that the cuts will have on the quality, accessibility and affordability of college provision across Scotland, and the warning from NUS Scotland that

“colleges may be forced to close their doors to new students ... and cut support to existing students”,

Mr Russell could pray in aid the support of the Parliament’s Education and Culture Committee in making the case to Mr Swinney for a rethink, yet the more he is pressed, the more Mr Russell digs in his heels.

Of course, Mr Russell chooses to blame Westminster, but ignores the fact that, according to the Scottish Parliament information centre, the Scottish ministers have an additional £850 million at their disposal since the 20 per cent real-terms cut to college budgets was first announced. In addition, Mr Russell represents those who challenge him as being anti-reform. That is untrue—the need for reform is accepted, and colleges have stressed their willingness to work constructively to that end.

However, as Scotland’s Colleges points out, that

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

In return, colleges require a fair deal, which recognises that cost savings take time to realise, that success in reforming the sector depends on the way in which reform is introduced and that the array of commitments that ministers have made cannot be achieved on the cheap. It is wholly unreasonable for ministers to make commitments and set priorities without willing the means to achieve those ends.

On the proposed cuts, which follow last year’s 10 per cent cut, Scotland’s Colleges has warned that

“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.”

It is not hard to see why, given that evidence is emerging that the value of weighted student units of measurement is likely to fall dramatically between 2009-10 and 2012-13. While Mr Russell emphasises a commitment to maintain college places, colleges question how on earth quality can be maintained under such circumstances.

Meanwhile, NUS Scotland expresses similar concerns about what amounts to an £11 million cut in student support budgets. Mr Russell disputes those figures but, as NUS Scotland points out, the SNP manifesto pledge was unequivocal and Angela Constance confirmed that the SNP would

“guarantee the additional funding for bursaries, not just for next year, but for the full four-year parliament.”

To make matters worse, uncertainty over individual allocations makes planning difficult, if not impossible, for colleges and students alike. Mr Russell must clarify when colleges will be told their final budgets, including any strategic allocation from the funding council and how the additional funds from SDS will be allocated.

Scotland’s colleges are critical to addressing the issues that were highlighted at yesterday’s timely summit on youth unemployment. They improve the life chances of thousands of people of all ages in all parts of the country. They provide students with the skills that they need to get up and get on and they deserve a fairer deal from the budget.

On that basis, I am happy to support the motion.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I remind members that the Scottish Government has managed to maintain in Scotland a truly progressive approach to further and higher education, which is based not on the ability to pay, but the ability to learn. In doing so, it has managed to preserve student numbers and maintain the education maintenance allowance, and will provide £265 million of capital spending over the next spending review period.

That progressive approach has served Scotland well since the days of the enlightenment and is all the more important today, when we seek to reindustrialise Scotland with emerging technologies. I accept that we need skilled people to drive that forward and our commitment to colleges must be one of the most important investments that we make. However, the achievements that I mentioned—EMA, student numbers and the additional capital investment—have been made despite the fact that we face a falling block grant from the Government at Westminster, with its emphasis on austerity and a reduction of about one third in the capital budget.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will Roderick Campbell give way?

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

No, I have only four minutes.

This is a Conservative debate. I read the Conservatives’ manifesto from last year’s election, “Common Sense for Scotland”. It is a 36-page document but has a short paragraph at the bottom of page 14 that outlines the Conservatives’ plans for colleges:

“We want to encourage greater scope for colleges to work with local schools, universities and businesses to enhance their economic and social contribution and to open up new opportunities to students through better integrated learner pathways.”

I hope that members did not blink, because that appears to be the Conservatives’ plan for Scotland’s colleges.

As I said, one of the defining characteristics of the Scottish Government is its progressive vision of Scotland, which stands in stark contrast to the miserable mix that the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition proffers the people of England.

Let us remember that the SNP is investing in excess of £500 million in colleges in 2012-13. From the day that the SNP Government came to office in 2007 up until the end of the spending review period, it will have invested £4.7 billion in further education.

Meanwhile, the UK Government is directing a 25 per cent real-terms cut at further education in England between 2010 and 2015. That is massive, disproportionate and twice the size of the cut in Scotland. Couple that with the trebling of tuition fees in England and I am sure that Scotland’s college students share my relief that the days of direct Tory control over further and higher education in Scotland are a distant memory.

However, events do not stand still. The plans for regionalisation that are detailed in “Putting Learners at the Centre” and in Russel Griggs’s report, which was announced yesterday, will change the nature of the FE sector in Scotland. Those plans will, I hope, make the sector more responsive to skills demands, particularly in the green sector. They will also help to ensure that colleges are in the best position to deal with the difficult public finances that the country faces.

In my constituency, which is served by Elmwood College, there will be regionalisation of the non-land-based provision while the college pools its resources with the Scottish Agricultural College and others to provide a land-based specialism. There may be a paradox between the two approaches, as the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning said yesterday, but it is geared towards delivering a modern and efficient further education system. There is, of course, no threat to the campus at Elmwood.

We have spoken a lot about college funding. I sensed a touch of confusion between price and value. We have also spoken about youth unemployment. Of course youth unemployment is too high. That is why we established a Minister for Youth Employment and the opportunities for all programme. We need to look at matters in context—

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

We will be preserving the total number of college places.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Michael McMahon, Liz Smith and Anne McTaggart set out well the terrific work that colleges do and the need for the services that colleges provide. I am a product of West Lothian College, where, like Michael McMahon, I was taught craft skills when I was an apprentice and where I studied at night school to gain the qualifications that I needed to go to university. Later, I undertook leisure classes at the college.

We need colleges at all times and especially at times of significant and rising unemployment, as Gavin Brown said. Yet here we are, discussing serious and disproportionate cuts to the colleges budget that will have far-reaching consequences for institutions’ ability to deliver the courses of which we have been speaking so highly. It is completely illogical to cut college funding at such a time. We have been told time and again that it will be impossible to maintain courses and places.

I thought that the Government would pull the consequentials rabbit out of the hat and ensure that colleges got additional funding. I honestly thought that the Government had got the message. We know that the cabinet secretary likes nothing more than the sound of his own voice, but I thought that he would have heard very clearly the voices of the 70,000 students who have contacted members of this Parliament, and the voice of the NUS, beside whose representatives he was glad to be photographed signing the NUS pledge before the election.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Will the member give way?

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

No chance. I have four minutes.

It appears that the cabinet secretary has not heard those voices. His ears are closed. Let us be clear: he has taken a deliberate political choice on the matter and he cannot blame anyone else.

The cabinet secretary has made much of his £15 million transformation fund, but what is the money for? It is not a transformation fund; it is a redundancy fund. It is a sacking fund and a job-losses fund. The only thing that will be transformed is people’s status; they will go from being employed to being unemployed. That is the cabinet secretary’s transformation fund.

Despite cuts of 8.5 per cent or 10 per cent—depending on the figures that we look at—we are told that colleges have been instructed to maintain student numbers at 96 per cent and that SDS will make up the 4 per cent shortfall. Presiding Officer, I do not know whether you are an economist or a mathematician; perhaps you can help me out. It strikes me that a college that loses 18.5 per cent of its teaching grant over two years will find it somewhat difficult to retain courses, places and staff. Liam McArthur exposed the issue well.

It is appalling that college principals still do not know what their budgets will be for next year, even though it is February. They were promised the news in December. Perhaps someone will tell us today when they will get the news of their budget allocations.

In November the cabinet secretary attended a seminar at Dunblane Hydro. As a result of a freedom of information request we received information about what was said. These are comments from the people whom the cabinet secretary charges with delivering the changes:

“The reform program is not being pursued on the basis of evidence. There seems to be no concrete evidence that a regional model will deliver better results. This invites the view that the reforms are about saving money alone”.

“The pace of the reform is far too quick.”

“Considering cuts to funding, Government has unreasonable expectations of the sector.”

The cabinet secretary tries to kid us on that it will all be fine. We know that that simply does not stack up.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Let me start with the one area of agreement in the Parliament today—with the exception of the personal abuse, which I will not get involved in—[Interruption.]

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It was interesting to hear personal abuse, because I know—and other politicians, such as the Conservatives, know—that when the argument is thin the abuse always comes out, which is what happened.

Our one area of agreement is that colleges in Scotland are very much needed and very much valued. However, that does not mean that they are immune from the cold winds that are circulating in the entire economy, which were fanned first by Labour and then by the Tories and Liberal Democrats. The kindest thing to say about Mr Findlay is that he lacks understanding of public finances. He believes that there is some “consequentials rabbit”. Well, there is no consequentials rabbit, okay? Labour shot it and the Tories have eaten it. If Mr Findlay is looking for a consequentials rabbit, he will spend a lot of time looking into black holes, because it is not there. We are faced with the reality of financing.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, I will not give way to Mr Brown. I have heard too much from him this morning, and it has all been nonsense.

The fault lies in the UK economy, the funding of the Parliament and the unnatural nature of the constitutional settlement. If we had a constitutional settlement that allowed the Scottish Government and Parliament to spend and raise money in a normal way, we would not be having this debate. However, we do not have such a settlement. The extraordinary situation is that the Opposition parties know that, but cannot admit it to themselves.

There has been no answer whatever on where the money will come from. We have simply had constant complaint. I want more money for all education.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

No, you do not.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Yes, I do. Unfortunately, we are going to have a pantomime, because I will simply reply: “Yes, I do.”

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No, indeed. Probably, Mr Brown will see the consequentials rabbit hopping across the chamber somewhere.

The reality is that there has been not one indication of where the money will come from. We are facing the reality. It is the college sector, not the Opposition, that is rising to the occasion and taking forward a difficult programme professionally and well to ensure that the places and quality continue.

As I have only a short time to speak, I will simply set out 10 facts that indicate the reality. First, from 2007 to the end of the current spending review, we will have invested £4.7 billion in colleges, which is 40 per cent more in cash terms than the investment that was made under the two terms of the previous Administration. Secondly, south of the border, in England, there is a 25 per cent reduction to further education in cash terms and a 32.3 per cent cut in real terms, which is coming from the Tories and Liberals. Thirdly, the Scottish Government’s NPD investment in colleges represents additional capital investment of £300 million at a time when the resources that are available to us are declining. Fourthly, those planned developments, together with our on-going capital spending, will ensure that the value of our capital investment each year will be larger than that in any single year of the previous Administration.

Fifthly, in our manifesto last year, we said that we would maintain student numbers and college student support, and that is exactly what we are doing. Sixthly, there is no reduction in the baseline for college student support. We have written to all college principals to make it clear that the student support budget will be maintained at the record baseline level that the Scottish funding council published in December 2010.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention on that point?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

No.

Seventhly, we have increased college student support by 25 per cent since 2006-07, from £67.3 million to £84.2 million, whereas in the four years prior to that, the previous Administration increased student support by just 8 per cent. Point 8 is that we have protected the education maintenance allowance, when the UK Government has scrapped the scheme for students in England, which has a direct effect on colleges. Ninthly, we will ensure that every single 16 to 19-year-old has a place in learning and we will prioritise college places for 20 to 24-year-olds. Finally, recent figures show that 88.9 per cent of school leavers are going to positive destinations, such as work, training or education, which is a 2 per cent increase on last year and an overall increase of nearly 5 per cent.

I am strongly behind the college sector. [Interruption.] The difference between me and the empty vessels that are cackling away among the Tories is that I am working with the sector to ensure productive and positive change. I am not indulging in the class war that we heard about this morning, and nor am I doing the dangerous thing that we heard from Mr McMahon, who actually talked down the achievement of our universities. I am solidly in favour of colleges and universities and the progress of education in Scotland, and I am proud to be a member of a Government that is driving that forward. We will drive it forward successfully and we will see the results.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful to all members who have contributed to the debate. Its level and intensity reflect the public interest in and concern about the subject, which is demonstrated, as many members said, by the thousands of communications that each of us have received from across Scotland.

Graeme Dey (Scottish National Party, Angus South)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will make some progress first, if I may.

We have become used to debating the SNP’s broken promises in the chamber. As Neil Findlay just reminded us, every SNP MSP in the run-up to the election signed up to NUS Scotland’s reclaim your voice campaign, pledging to protect graduate numbers and college places, to improve student support and to rule out tuition fees. It is arguable that the SNP has failed even on that third point, due to the hike in fees for students coming to Scottish universities from the rest of the UK. There can be no dispute, however, that the SNP is breaking its promise on the first two points.

We have seen a typically robust defence from the cabinet secretary this morning. The word “bombastic” has been a bit overused in the debate, but it came straight from the Michael Russell textbook: the first line of defence is to accuse your opponents of distortion and scaremongering. There are tens of thousands of e-mails that tell a different story. That is not distortion and scaremongering; it is a reflection of genuine concerns.

We have only to listen to those in the sector, such as Hugh Logan from Motherwell College, who talked about the “deeply disturbing” cuts, or John Burt from Angus College, who talked about a

“severely impaired ability to deliver for future learners”;

or NUS Scotland, which has said that it is “deeply concerned” by the situation. I say to the cabinet secretary that that is not scaremongering. That is representing people’s concerns, which is what we are paid to do in this chamber.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Given the volume of contact that members have had with people on the issue, does Mr Fraser not find it astonishing that in a debate as emotive as this we have not heard a single utterance of criticism from any SNP back bencher? Is that not astonishing?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am long past the point of being astonished by the meekness of the SNP back benchers. I hope that one day they may find their collective backbone.

I will move on to the second line of the Michael Russell textbook defence: blame somebody else. In this case, he blames the UK Government for the budget settlement. However, as we heard from Gavin Brown and others, the Scottish Government’s budget has been cut by 1.3 per cent in real terms, but Mr Russell’s cut to colleges is 8.5 per cent. That is a choice that the SNP and no one else has made.

John Swinney told members in the chamber last week that the consequentials were £130 million. The only rabbit in sight is the cabinet secretary caught in the headlights of this debate.

The third, final and desperate line of defence from the Michael Russell textbook is that if all else fails, you descend to the gutter and accuse your opponents of being anti-Scottish. We have heard that from SNP back benchers before, but to my knowledge this is the first time that we have heard that particular line from an SNP cabinet secretary. The mask has slipped this morning and the true, ugly face of the SNP has been exposed. I say in all seriousness to the cabinet secretary, for whom I had a great deal of respect, that I expected better from him. I hope that in a moment of quiet reflection he will realise that to call into question the patriotism of his political opponents just because they take a different view on a political issue is unworthy of him and his party.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Of course, that is a typical tactic of the Tories. The point to which Mr Fraser refers is my allegation that the Scottish tradition of free education is so important that to put it in jeopardy risks the whole of Scottish education. I have said that repeatedly and I will go on saying it, because it happens to be true. If the member is proposing fees he should say so, because that is against the Scottish tradition of higher education.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a pathetic attempt to wriggle out of the expression of abuse in the chamber. Accusing his opponents of being unpatriotic is beneath him. I had hoped that he might apologise, but it says much about the man that he missed that opportunity.

Hugh Henry was absolutely right that it is not just the SNP that speaks for Scotland. Its overwhelming mandate in May last year represents less than 23 per cent of the population. There are other voices in Scotland that should be heard and not dismissed.

Far from improving student support—Liam McArthur made a fair point about this—we are seeing cuts to bursary funding. The cabinet secretary uses weasel words when he talks about the baseline. The facts are simple: we are seeing an £11 million real-terms cut in bursary funding. I remember working on a cross-party basis in the previous Parliament with NUS Scotland to deliver an additional £15 million of bursary funding, but that is now being reversed. That breaks a clear promise in the SNP manifesto, which says:

“For the future, we will protect the advances already made.”

As Liam McArthur reminded us, in February 2011, Angela Constance, the then Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning, said in a press release:

“I can confirm we will guarantee the additional funding for bursaries, not just for next year, but for the full four-year parliament.”

Nothing could be clearer than that; it is yet another SNP broken promise.

It is no excuse to say that those promises have been broken because of a difficult budget settlement. The SNP was well aware, going into the election in May, exactly what the funding settlement was. The SNP made the choice to cut student support—no one else did that for them. We know why that choice was made. The money that could have gone into colleges has been diverted into higher education because of the SNP’s dogmatic opposition to a graduate contribution. Despite everything that we have heard from the cabinet secretary, the Scottish social attitudes survey in December could not have been clearer. Only 20 per cent of people in Scotland support the proposition that students should have to pay no fees. Every choice has a consequence, and we are seeing the consequences for college funding of that choice by the Scottish Government.

As we heard from Hugh Henry and other members, there could not be a worse time to cut college places. Youth unemployment has doubled since the SNP came to power in 2007. Young people do not want to sit at home doing nothing if they cannot find jobs, as is the case, sadly, for all too many of them. They want the opportunity to take up college and training places, which is why it is so short-sighted to cut back on college funding now. Unless the SNP is prepared to change its ways, the consequences of its actions will be with us for many years, with a lost generation of young people.

In the budget next week, the SNP has the opportunity to put matters right. I hope that despite all the noise and bombast that we have heard in the debate this morning, in a moment of quiet reflection in the few days that remain before the budget is finalised, the SNP will listen to the voices in the debate and take the right steps to restore funding to our colleges and support our young people.

Prison Visiting Committees

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01878, in the name of Annabel Goldie, on prison visiting committees. This debate is every bit as tight as the previous one, so I ask members to keep strictly to their times.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate prison visiting committees this morning. I thank Patrick Harvie for lodging a motion on 17 January that encapsulated admirably why this issue is so important. I had no hesitation in supporting the motion and I was not alone in doing so. To preserve that consensus, I have repeated the motion verbatim—I could not improve on it. I look forward to Patrick Harvie’s contribution to the debate.

I use the word “debate” advisedly. The Scottish Government’s approach to this matter is less than perfect; indeed it is manifestly flawed. However, I have noticed since last May that although the First Minister and I disagree on many things, he has not regarded his majority as a mandate to steamroller through any Scottish National Party pet project. Indeed, where reasoned argument has been deployed and the possibility has emerged that the Scottish Government might not have got something right, he has deferred to the Parliament and shown a willingness to listen. I very much hope that this debate may allow that precedent to be observed today.

I shall comment briefly on the role of our Scottish prison visiting committees and, in doing so, thank and pay tribute to the dedicated volunteers who organise and carry out those visits. They do something unique. In a captive situation, which is what a prison is, no matter how well intended the Scottish Prison Service and prison officers are, for prisoners they are part of the system—part of officialdom. Many prisoners feel unable to trust them or confide in them.

The prison visitor, on the other hand, is something very different: a person who is independent, who has no axe to grind and who is not part of the system. It is no surprise, therefore, that prison visitors can establish a positive relationship with the prisoner in a way that is impossible for many prison officers. That is not a comment on the prison officer; it is simply a consequence of what prison is.

There is ample evidence to suggest that a prisoner may speak to a prison visitor when they will speak to no one else. That is not supposition on my part: the HMP Addiewell prison visiting committee’s response to the 2011 consultation notes a variety of ways in which the prison visitor was able to intervene in important issues in an important way.

The other aspect of prison visitors is that they do not inspect; they independently monitor, and they do so consistently. It is also acknowledged that they may be far better able to identify a potential suicide risk.

It is not surprising, therefore, that prison visitors are regarded as helping and supporting the prison service in a very positive manner. That is certainly the private view of a number of governors and prison officers. Indeed, it would be bizarre for a prison officer to hold a different view, unless to such a prison officer a conscientious prison visitor was a tiresome inconvenience.

Prison visitors enjoy an attribute that I would have thought would be irresistible to any Government: they are free, because they volunteer their services. The cost of training and operating the VC scheme annually is approximately £75,000, and the services that visitors volunteer for that modest outlay are impressive.

I have mentioned the Addiewell example, but there is also the visiting committee for young offenders in Cornton Vale. According to its 2010-11 report, seven visitors made 205 visits in that period. I understand that each visit is six hours long.

Interestingly, for pretty obvious reasons, the prison visitation scheme has never needed anyone to plead its case. The virtues have been self-evident, as was recognised in the 2005 review. The “Report on the review of prison visiting committees 2005” stated:

“At the outset, the group tackled in depth the fundamental question of whether there was still a need for VCs paying particular attention to the existence of the Prisons Inspectorate and the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commissioner ... Discussions took place with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Complaints Commissioner who agreed that there was a distinctive and important albeit complementary role for visiting committees. Principally, the distinctiveness arose from VCs being representative of local communities, being independent of the prison service and in the sustaining of a continuing regular relationship with a particular prison.”

Importantly, that review group concluded that visiting committees “should be retained”.

Following that review, the then Labour-Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive accepted 32 of the 39 recommendations. In 2007, the incoming SNP Government endorsed that position.

The Scottish Government then—for reasons that were at best opaque, because it had already endorsed the 2005 report—decided to undertake a further consultation last year. I say “opaque”, because normally a consultation is instigated when something is no longer working or is no longer relevant, or when external circumstances have dictated change.

However, that was not stated to be the case in the consultation document. Tellingly, it said that the key driver for the consultation was the Scottish Government’s commitment to simplify the landscape of public sector organisations in Scotland. It was nothing to do with prisoners or prisons, with trying to replace a very good service with a better one or with the most basic of human rights. I support the principle of public sector reform, but not if that means trampling all over people’s human rights, and not if a very good service is replaced with a less good one at far greater cost to the taxpayer.

Nonetheless, the consultation proceeded, and the results are most informative. Overwhelmingly, respondents voted and believed that the visiting committees should remain, and that they should complement Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. The respondents overwhelmingly endorsed the 2005 review and overwhelmingly rejected integration of visiting committees with the Scottish Prison Service.

Any view that the work of prison visitors could be undertaken by HM inspectorate of prisons was blown out of the water by HMIP itself, whose submission recognised

“the importance of local and regular monitoring of individual prisons. The individual Visiting Committees carry out this role, which also includes dealing with complaints. HMIP does not deal with prisoners’ complaints.”

To me, the most intriguing response came from the Scottish Prison Service, which was the only organisation to oppose the continuation of visiting committees. Its response is that prisons have changed and that more people from outside enter them in a variety of capacities. Well, what has changed so dramatically since 2005? The answer is nothing. So, overwhelmingly—indeed, one might say crushingly—

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Much has changed. There is more collaborative work between councils and the health service. Organisations dealing with harm reduction and with dependency and substance abuse are now present in prisons. That is certainly the case in Inverness.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I accept the point that Mr Finnie makes about the ancillary activity that takes place, but nothing has changed about the fundamental character of a captive prisoner being looked after by a prison service and the complete conflict of interest if the prisoner has an issue with the prison service.

The reek of self-interest from the Scottish Prison Service’s submission is overpowering. I do not think that the SPS likes independent prison visitors or their monitoring prisoners, establishing relationships that the SPS cannot emulate or investigating complaints, all of which are probably about as welcome to the SPS as a thistle in the backside. If I were the SPS, I probably would not like it either. But this is not about the SPS; it is about prisoners who, whatever they have done, are entitled to independent—

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Will the member give way?

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I am very tight for time, Mr MacAskill. Please forgive me if I continue with my argument.

The Scottish Government may be inclined towards a narrower view of the SPS and the position of prisoners within it, but my concern is that prisoners must have access to independent help, support and advice, because that may well be needed at times when they are making a complaint against the prison service or against the Scottish Government. On the whole issue of human rights, I think that everyone in the chamber will have received a letter from the Scottish Human Rights Commission in which it says explicitly that it shares my concerns and fully supports my motion. So this is not solely my interpretation of the matter.

I urge the Scottish Government to consider this very carefully. Why abolish the much admired provision of independent support to prisoners carried out by committed and able volunteers? Why replace it with a contracted service that will be liable for VAT and cost the public purse an estimated £1.2 million; will be unable to replicate the depth and extent of the service provided by prison visitors; will result in greater pressure on prison officers; will almost certainly contravene international law and invite legal challenge; and, most important, will leave that most vulnerable section of our society—a captive prison population—without resort to truly independent support and help?

I have pleasure in asking the cabinet secretary to listen carefully to the views advanced in the debate. We will not be supporting the amendment.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern the Scottish Government’s proposals to abolish prison visiting committees and replace them with a prisoner advocacy service; considers that the independent scrutiny of prison conditions through regular, unannounced inspections and the independent examination of prisoner complaints is an important check and balance for the prison system; believes that, as they provide regular external scrutiny, are appointed from the local community and are independent from the Scottish Prison Service, prison visiting committees provide a distinct but complementary role to Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons; notes that the Scottish Government’s consultation on the independent monitoring of prisons, which was carried out in 2011, did not include proposals for an advocacy service to replace the committees and that 59 out of 60 respondents to the consultation wanted to retain the independent oversight role that it considers the committees fulfil; further notes that, in 2005, a review of the committees recommended that they be re-established as independent monitoring boards and that there should be changes to improve their impact and consistency; understands that, on 22 December 2011, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice said that the cost of running the committees was less than that anticipated for the proposed advocacy service, and believes that prison visiting committees offer excellent value for money, that they should be retained and that the proposed prisoner advocacy service should complement, but not replace, their role.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Let me first put on record my thanks to Annabel Goldie for the constructive manner in which she has articulated her case on the radio and in the chamber. While we disagree on various matters, including the legal advice, we are more than happy to enter into discussion with her and other parties. We have already put on record the fact that we will be entering into discussions with stakeholders about how we ensure that we continue to provide the services that are necessary for prisoners and that those services are fit for purpose in the 21st century. I echo her by taking this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all those who have worked as volunteers in prison visiting committees for their service over the years. I appreciate their efforts and the dedication that led them to work in this field.

Visiting committees were first created for Scottish penal establishments in 1877. Obviously, our prisons during the Victorian age were very different places from prisons in the 21st century. Times have changed and it is right that support for prisoners also changes. Prison visiting committees were originally intended to serve two key purposes: first, to resolve complaints and issues from prisoners; and, secondly, to provide independent monitoring of prisons. We undertook a consultation exercise on the first of those purposes last year, seeking views about the current role of the prison visiting committee system.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Why were no focus groups undertaken in the women’s prison as part of that consultation? Having worked there for 19 years and having been a justice minister, I know that the visiting committee at Cornton Vale has had a profound influence on that institution and on maintaining it. Now that women are dispersed to Saughton and Greenock, it is even more necessary that women prisoners—who are different—should have their rights sustained by PVCs.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The consultation that was carried out was meant to be limited, which is why we are carrying out further consultation as we are statutorily required to do, although we also seek to do it as a virtue. I will be happy to engage with Richard Simpson on that. We recognise that there are specific problems in women’s prisons and I look forward to working with Richard Simpson and Annabel Goldie when we receive the report of the Angiolini commission. It is welcome that we are united in the chamber in ensuring that we address the difficulties that prisoners face and in looking for a solution. I look forward to a more constructive debate in Parliament in future years—I welcome the fact that Dr Simpson is nodding—to address the particular problems that afflict those who are in female prisons.

In addition to carrying out that written consultation, we met several prisoner focus groups. The majority of prisoners to whom we spoke were not aware of visiting committees and the fact that they could resolve complaints and issues.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The cabinet secretary will also know that those prisoners who had experience of visiting committees had a very positive attitude towards them.

I ask the cabinet secretary to solve a mystery for me. How can it be sensible or logical for him to introduce legislation to ensure that there is visiting of police cells to fulfil our obligations under international law while, at the same time, he is removing visits from prisons? People are genuinely puzzled by that contradiction.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

That proposal is in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill because the visiting committees for police cells are not currently compliant with the optional protocol to the convention against torture—OPCAT. They are not on a statutory basis and we are putting them on a statutory basis. The same does not apply to prison visiting committees. In respect of prisoners, we have Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons for Scotland and we are subject to challenges under the European convention on human rights—a matter that sometimes vexes the Conservatives, although I welcome the transformation there—with legal aid and litigation lawyers. The difference is the statutory basis.

The recent HMP Barlinnie inspection report by HM inspectorate of prisons told us that, in 2010-11, only 14 prisoners asked to see a visiting committee member. Given the fact that, in 2011, Barlinnie had more than 6,400 admissions, that strongly supports the view that visiting committees are not well known among prisoners and that prisoners make little use of them. There is an unmet need.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I have to make some progress.

The second purpose of visiting committees—to provide independent monitoring—also needed to be revisited. Prisons today are more accountable, transparent and open than they were in 1877. Nowadays, the Scottish Prison Service, headed by the chief executive, is fully accountable for all that goes on within prison walls. HMIP carries out a full programme of routine and follow-up inspections, and a range of service providers regularly visit and work in prisons.

We know that there are two things that we need to do. First, we must independently monitor prisons. Secondly, we must provide a service that supports prisoners with complex needs, such as those who abuse alcohol or drugs or who have mental health problems. The time is right to ask some questions. Are we providing the right service to meet the complex needs of prisoners today? Are visiting committees still the best way of meeting those needs?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I am afraid to say that I do not have the time.

Do visiting committees have the right set of skills to meet the challenges or do we instead need to develop a service that brings increased expertise?

We need to safeguard prisoners who are vulnerable and discriminated against; empower prisoners who need a stronger voice; enable prisoners to gain access to information and whatever help they need; and represent prisoners who are unable to represent themselves. I want a service that has a professional and effective approach to helping prisoners to make decisions and take control of their lives, that will modernise our approach to supporting offenders and that will complement all that we are doing.

A further public consultation will start in May. We will use that opportunity to seek a broad range of views on what a new service fit for purpose in the 21st century might look like. I am happy to engage with representatives of Opposition parties on that work and look forward to reflecting on the issues and ideas that are raised in the consultation. My officials will continue to work in collaboration with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other partners to help to shape thinking about how we modernise our approach and services to meet prisoners’ needs.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I look forward to the consultation. I do not believe that a status quo that was established in the 1870s is credible in the 21st century. We need an advocacy service that provides for prisoners’ needs but we are happy to work with members and people elsewhere to ensure that we deal with needs and wants, that we are compliant and that we meet prisoners’ rights through independent monitoring.

I move amendment S4M-01878.1, to leave out from “notes with concern” to end and insert:

“recognises the dedication and commitment of volunteer members of prison visiting committees but considers that, since the role and remit of the committees were designed in the 19th century, it is necessary now to develop an appropriate service fit for the 21st century; further notes that complaints by prisoners are now dealt with by the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) in line with best practice as set out by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman’s Complaints Standards Authority; notes that, on monitoring, the chief executive of the SPS is accountable to the Scottish Ministers for compliance with legislation on the management and treatment of prisoners and that inspection of prisons is being delivered efficiently and effectively by HM Inspectorate of Prisons; further notes that research has identified that prisoners need a dedicated advocacy service that could provide them with independent advice and support; notes that the Scottish Government is considering how to build on the role performed presently by visiting committees by introducing a dedicated independent prisoner advocacy service to support prisoners in ways that match modern needs, and notes that the Scottish Government intends to carry out a further public consultation on these proposals in 2012 and will discuss the proposed timetable with stakeholders in developing the best way forward.”

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I very much welcome today’s debate and the cross-party approach that has been taken by both Annabel Goldie and Patrick Harvie and which will attract very widespread support across this Parliament and beyond.

Equally, concern is widespread about Kenny MacAskill’s announcement in December that he favoured the abolition of visiting committees. That decision, which I hope he will genuinely review, appeared, as Annabel Goldie pointed out, to pay heed only to the views of Scottish Prison Service senior management and not to the views of the many others who responded to last year’s consultation. For example, Alec Spencer, the convener of the Scottish Consortium of Crime and Criminal Justice, which comprises many outside bodies with knowledge and experience of the prison service, spoke for many this week when he said:

“the system is in need of modernisation. But that is a different proposition to their abolition ... Visiting committees”

need

“to be made effective and relevant to the current Criminal Justice landscape.”

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

In 2009-10, visiting committee visits in Aberdeen totalled 20, with two applications made. Does the member acknowledge that that does not suggest any growing demand among the clientele?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Quite the contrary. I would put forward Aberdeen prison visiting committee as a model of exactly the kind of independent local voice that will speak out on behalf of those serving time in prison. Indeed, on Tuesday, Councillor Jim Kiddie, the convener of Aberdeen prison visiting committee, told the Evening Express:

“There are SNP councillors on prison visiting committees who are extremely dismayed at the Justice Secretary's decision.”

Of course, Mr Kiddie is an SNP councillor and member of Aberdeen City Council administration. I am sure that his concerns are shared by many in all parties who give time and effort to support prison visiting committees.

Annabel Goldie mentioned the SHRC, which, although it

“welcomes”

the cabinet secretary’s proposal to create

“a new advocacy service for prisons ... considers that this should run alongside the human rights protections that are currently provided by prison visiting committees.”

Moreover, the cabinet secretary did not answer at all Malcolm Chisholm’s point on the Government seeking to strengthen statutory protection for those in custody in police cells while weakening the position of those who provide such protection to people in prison.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

As we know, an advocacy service will visit prisons on a very planned basis. Does Lewis Macdonald agree that one of the huge strengths of visiting committees is that their visits are frequent and unplanned?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

That is indeed one of their many significant strengths. Indeed, it is worth emphasising that the members of visiting committees are local volunteers, often local elected representatives, who are unpaid and give freely of their time and effort.

The cabinet secretary and Mr Finnie referred to the low number of people who take matters up with visiting committees. I am sure that they both, and indeed members across the chamber, know ex-offenders who will vouch for the difference that prison visitors make to their ability to deal with and change their offending behaviour.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Is the member not aware of the support for the Government’s position of providing an advocacy service from Tom Halpin, the chief executive of Sacro, which is precisely the organisation that deals with the care and resettlement of offenders and interacts with them? Does the member agree that Mr Halpin, who was on the radio along with Ms Goldie, has knowledge and should be listened to?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

I heard Mr Halpin. There are now two people who support Kenny MacAskill’s position. That is clearly a lot better than one, but Mr MacAskill must listen to all the other voices and all the other people with knowledge and interest in the area, including members of his party in local government and, I suspect, on the back benches.

If the timetable is to consult on his proposals in the spring, will the cabinet secretary not merely meet the statutory requirement and the letter of the law, but consider the spirit of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, under which he seeks to take the action that he proposes? Its spirit is to challenge costly and inefficient delivery of public services. Will he recognise that the service that prison visiting committees deliver is neither costly nor inefficient but is successful because it takes the best possible advantage of the enthusiasm and commitment of prison visiting committee members? Before he seeks to pursue the abolition agenda, will he please take those concerns away and think again?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I, too, welcome the debate, and I welcome the amendment. Many have been concerned about what seemed—I stress the word “seemed”—to be a fait accompli on the question of the continuation of prison visiting committees. I ask Annabel Goldie to look again at the amendment, which does not use the word “abolish”, I am delighted to say. It leaves the door open by stating:

“the Scottish Government is considering how to build on the role performed presently by visiting committees”.

As we all know, the cabinet secretary is—how can I put it?—a robust reformer. That is no bad thing in itself, but he is a man in a bit of a hurry. Some of us end up saying, “Hold on a wee minute. What’s happening here? What is proposed?” He is not in reverse at the moment, but I am glad that he has put the brakes on things for the time being.

We heard a reference to the statutory process from the Labour benches. I am delighted that we are taking that route, but I should say to members that the Justice Committee has been concerned about prison visiting committees and considered the evidence that should be put before us, and it might look into the matter, perhaps in tandem with the statutory process or before it. It is up to the committee to decide on that in considering its work programme. I stress that I am not speaking as convener of that committee today, but as a back bencher.

The Parliament, and back benchers of the Government party in particular, have a duty to ensure good governance, but it is also appropriate that that duty is embodied in the committee structure. We must all remember that, regardless of whether a majority Government comes from a single party or, as we had in the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament, a coalition—that was also a majority Government. The Parliament should now be mature enough to debate matters that deliver the better governance of Scotland.

As for the substance of the issue, the process has been delineated in a letter from the deputy director of community justice to the Association of Visiting Committees. A draft order will be laid by 30 April and there will be a 60-day sitting and public consultation process. Thereafter, there can be further consultation. We at least have that as a backstop. As I said, the Justice Committee might do other things.

I want to look at the continuing role of prison visiting committees. I quote from a letter from Neil Powrie about the committees:

“Of 60 responses to the consultation, 59 wanted to retain VCs and only one, the SPS - the very body which VCs are set up to monitor - was in favour of abolition.”

The independence of the prison visiting committees is terribly important.

The issue of independent advocacy is also extremely important. The cabinet secretary is right to say that times have changed and prisoners have complex problems. Those of us who have been here for 12 years are well aware of the great difficulties: mental health problems; drug and alcohol problems; literacy problems, and so on. The move towards independent advocacy is much to be welcomed because it will give us the link to throughcare. Those of us who have been on the relevant committees in the Parliament know that, when prisoners walk out of prison, that is sometimes the end of the care.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the member take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I am terribly sorry. I have exactly one minute to say the rest of what I want to say.

For me, the jury is out. I tend towards the position of supporting prison visiting committees. I see, for instance, that they have made 246 visits to Cornton Vale, and I know that Alison McInnes has drawn the Justice Committee’s attention to the real issues there. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons could not have made those 246 visits, and that point is terribly important. Perhaps the figure is not as good for other prisons, but the visits to Cornton Vale are important. However, we also require to consider independent advocacy.

I look forward to the debate opening up. I am pleased that the motion was lodged, as I know that prison visiting committees have been an issue for members across the political parties, and I am glad to see that the amendment does not use the word “abolish”. It leaves the door open to debate. I would like members to consider the terms of the amendment before they vote tonight.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

I register my concern at the Cabinet Secretary for Justice’s plans to abolish prison visiting committees, which have a vital role in our prison system. The service model is envied throughout the United Kingdom and Europe.

The decision to abolish the prison visiting committees seems to have been taken solely by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, with a push by the SPS. That was the only body that called for their abolition in the consultation. The voices of the majority of the other correspondents are being ignored. Fifty-nine out of 60 favour keeping the prison visiting committees. The majority of those who are in favour of keeping them are, like me, not opposed to an advocacy service, on two conditions: first, that it works in parallel with the prison visiting committees; and, secondly, that any new body is independent of the Scottish Prison Service.

The work of those who volunteer for prison visiting committees is being undermined and the removal of the statutory protection of prisoners’ human rights is further punishment for those who are serving any length of sentence. Independent inspections ensure the wellbeing of prisoners and highlight areas of concern that prisons and staff must address. Prison visiting committees have a statutory right to visit prisons at any time to address issues that affect prisoners and their wellbeing. An advocacy service would have no such role. That adds to the gap that was left by the abolition of the Scottish Prisons Complaints Commission in 2010.

The proposals make no economic sense. The advocacy service would cost an extra third of the cost of the prison visiting committees. There is also the human aspect. Families of prisoners need peace of mind that their loved ones are safe and are being looked after in prison. The prison visiting committees help to give such clarity to families. They know that the prisoner can highlight any complaint and that prison visiting committees can detect any abuse in the prison system.

Prisoners can be confident that the issues that they raise with prison visiting committees, regardless of their nature, will be dealt with appropriately. Prisoners with mental health issues can speak in confidence to prison visiting committees, and their families can be assured that the support that they need is being provided. Governors regularly meet members of prison visiting committees and they give comprehensive reports on a number of issues. The independence of the prison visiting committees gives them their strength. Their loss is at odds with the Government’s commitment to fairness, compassion and social justice.

Over the past few weeks, I have received many letters of concern about the proposal to abolish the prison visiting committees not just from prisoners’ relatives, but from volunteers. Some are concerned that the proposal is being seen as an attempt to abolish public bodies. There are 16 independent prison visiting committees; there is not one umbrella organisation, as some members have suggested.

In the Hugo Young lecture last week, the First Minister emphasised his commitment to Scotland being a “beacon for progressive opinion” and a more socially just and tolerant society. In August last year, a Russian delegation came to Scotland to find out more about prison visiting committees and what they do. They found an independent service that protects prisoners’ human rights. As I stated earlier, the service is envied throughout the world, and it must be protected. If the decision is what the First Minister and his party claim to be a “beacon for progressive opinion”, they are clearly misguided.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

A couple of weeks ago, I met up with three representatives from a prison visiting committee, and was greatly interested in their comments and their passion and commitment to what they do. I appreciated their honesty when they said that they knew that the prison visiting committees system needed to be updated. There was a slight—I emphasise the word “slight”—touch of, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”, but in the main there was an understanding that an organisation that was created in the 19th century should be brought into the 21st century. They were not against change and were more than happy to play their part in it.

Another point that they raised was their welcome of the introduction of an advocacy service. They said that it should have happened many years ago and they warmly welcome the cabinet secretary's determination to introduce it. They accepted that professionalising assistance in prisons can only be a positive step forward.

I do not mind saying that I was extremely heartened by the generosity of spirit and time from the individuals I met, and by their determination to provide the best possible service. As the cabinet secretary knows, as a result, I wrote to him about the issues that were raised.

I have had to consider what the right way forward is for the service and for services to prisons as a whole. I have had to ask myself whether the visiting committees should be scrapped. After all, they were established in the 19th century, and life today is different from then.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

I realise that amnesia can be alluring and attractive for politicians, but I remind the member that something has happened since the 19th century, namely the intensive review of 2005, the findings of which were endorsed by the SNP.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I will come to that point later in my speech.

Life is different now from how it was in the 19th century. Prisons are different, inspection services are different, the services available to prisons are vastly improved and there is even more scrutiny of the situation for the returning prisoner.

I am not so naive as to think that we will never need prisons or that any Government of any hue will solve the problem of the revolving-door prison population—that is, repeat offenders. If we, as a society, had the answers to those problems, we would have introduced them some time ago—obviously, we have not. As a result, we need to consider the range of services that are provided and think about who receives public money.

Across the chamber this morning, we have been unanimous in our appreciation of the work that the prison visiting committees undertake. The cabinet secretary could not have been clearer in his comments or in his amendment. However, the amendment also states that there is a clear procedure for prisoners to utilise if they wish to complain—they can do so through the SPS complaints system. Further, the chief executive of the SPS is accountable to Scottish Ministers for the treatment of prisoners.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I am in the last minute of what is only a four-minute speech.

Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons also carries out inspections. I do not think that any MSP, irrespective of the side of the chamber on which they sit, could argue that the HMIP reports are a sop to the Government of the day. The independence of HMIP and the reports it publishes may not always be welcomed by the cabinet secretary or his predecessors, but that is a strength of our system.

I welcome the introduction of a further public consultation on the proposals, and discussing the timetable with the stakeholders is a positive step forward.

I acknowledge what has been said about the 2005 report. However, to be honest, if it will take only a couple of months to get a longer-term system in place, I welcome that. I do not think that a delay of a couple of months should concern the chamber.

I urge the Parliament to work to get this right for the future and I hope that there is regular scrutiny of whatever is implemented as a result of the consultation.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

On 5 December last year, members of the prison visiting committees—who are unpaid volunteers—received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, informing them of the outcome of the consultation on the independent monitoring of prisons, which stated that

“the time is now right to replace the current function of the Visiting Committees”

and that, consequently,

“the current service would be replaced by a dedicated independent advocacy service.”

That is the general background to the decision.

From that, the following points are evident. First, in deciding on that course of action, the cabinet secretary dismissed the fact that a majority of respondents—98 per cent—are in favour of the retention of visiting committees. He said that that is because the majority of the respondents—55 per cent—were visiting committee members. If that approach is taken to its logical conclusion, we can confidently predict that if, in the Scottish Government’s forthcoming consultation on separation—which is more commonly referred to as the independence referendum—a majority of people decide in favour of Scotland remaining within the United Kingdom, their views will be dismissed on the basis that they are unionists. How ridiculous.

Section 259(1) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 creates a legal requirement that

“Every person with a mental disorder shall have a right of access to independent advocacy”.

That includes prisoners with mental health issues. However, despite that requirement, the evidence that the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance presented to the Equal Opportunities Committee when it carried out post-legislative scrutiny of the 2003 act confirmed that

“Access to independent advocacy by prisoners is generally non-existent”.—[Official Report, Equal Opportunities Committee, 16 March 2010; c 1480.]

Independent advocacy is a legal requirement and should already be available to prisoners who have mental health issues, and to other vulnerable prisoners who have complex needs. To that extent, the new independent dedicated service is welcome. The nub of the issue is that the advocacy function—under the 2003 act, for example—is intended to provide more specialised independent support to deal with complex issues for vulnerable people who do not have the capacity to speak or advocate for themselves. That is entirely different from visiting committees’ functions and role.

Rather than duplicating services that are proposed or are in place, visiting committees provide complementary services which—crucially—include truly independent and objective monitoring of prison conditions, operations and services, and the handling of prisoner complaints, through regular unannounced visits. Visiting committees provide invaluable information—often at variance with the official SPS line—for parliamentary committees that are taking evidence on prison conditions and issues that face prisoners. That might well explain why the SPS was the only consultation respondent that is in favour of abolishing visiting committees.

Given the Scottish Government’s stated commitment to open, transparent and accountable government, it is astounding that that principle is not being applied to monitoring of the SPS, which is an agency of the Government. Visiting committees have a proven track record and are a source of unique and virtually daily in-depth, immediate and independent intelligence about prisoners and how prisons are working.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

You must close, please.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Consequently, the visiting committees should be retained as an integral part of any improvements.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

It is clear that members across the chamber agree about the valuable role that prison visiting committees have played over the years in monitoring and improving prisoner conditions, but we must accept that prisons today are more accountable and transparent than they were when the visiting committees scheme was established. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement that consultation will take place on how best to meet our prison population’s complex and varied needs. The focus of a modernised service must be on rehabilitation and on ending the revolving prison door.

In my previous job, I was involved in delivering an advice and information service for prisoners in HMP Kilmarnock. That started with an information day that involved prisoners, prison officers and representatives of local statutory and voluntary sector organisations. The object was to find out from prisoners what services they felt would help them to prepare to be resettled in the community. When I spoke to the prisoners, I was struck that many of their concerns were similar to those that people brought to the local citizens advice bureau, although prisoners’ problems related to the impact of their prison sentences on matters such as their bank accounts, benefits, housing and pets. Some such issues can be sorted out relatively easily by third-party intervention, but if they are left they can become a problem for the prisoner later down the line.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What Margaret Burgess says is crucial, but is not of much relevance to prison visitors. I commend the Government for having introduced a new system for dealing with complaints, concerns and comments in the national health service. Prison visitors deal with comments and concerns before they become complaints—that is the system that is being abolished.

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The cabinet secretary has said that he is going to consult on the service that he feels is best for our prison population. I am saying that I think that the advocacy service is the best service.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

Will the member give way?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

No. I have used up half my time by giving way.

Many prisoners also have mental health issues and addiction and literacy problems. They require intensive support and mentoring to help to build confidence and skills and to develop links with the community. That does not happen through the prison visiting service.

I was also struck by the number of agencies in prisons providing services to prisoners. Lots of good work has been going on but it has not been fully co-ordinated. Any prisoner support service will undoubtedly involve a range of agencies, and it might well involve some of those who are involved with prison visiting, but the service needs to be simplified, co-ordinated and, above all, effective for prisoners and their families. We need a holistic service that is tailored to the needs of individual prisoners to ensure that every prisoner who needs it gets effective and responsive advocacy that will give them the opportunity to improve their situation and access mainstream services.

Any new service should be standardised throughout the prison estate, and should have the prisoner and their family at the centre. The same quality and depth of service should be provided in every prison, thereby allowing support to continue seamlessly should the prisoner be moved to another prison—which is not uncommon—or be released to somewhere other than their home area. It is essential that community links that are established be maintained.

I believe that this modernised approach to our penal system that focuses on breaking the cycle of reoffending is the right way forward. I encourage all interested agencies and individuals to take part in the consultation. I support the amendment in the name of Kenny MacAskill.

Graeme Pearson (Labour, South Scotland)

In the light of the Government’s consultation, any fair-minded person would question the wisdom of a Government proposal that is partly justified by the view that there are too many public bodies and a measure that would get rid of 17 of them in one go.

Prison visiting committees have more than 100 years of experience of visiting prisons and dealing with prisoners’ concerns. Staffed as they are by local, unpaid, independent-minded, concerned and motivated people, the committees are not Government-paid service providers who are mindful of the next contract round. The current proposals remind me of an earlier debate about the abolition of the police complaints commissioner—an option that was equally rushed but was, thankfully, later abandoned in the light of members’ concerns.

People in our prisons, some of whom have been convicted and some of whom are innocent but are being held on remand, are in a particularly vulnerable position. Many are weak, poorly educated, mentally ill or confused because of language difficulties. All prisoners need to know that prison visiting committees exist not because it is a paid job and the visitors are beholden to the state, but because they are locally based, fair-minded and committed to ensuring an independent assessment of prisoners’ circumstances with a view to delivering—this is the important element—fair and decent treatment.

I have no reservations about supporting SPS staff. Their efforts are there for us all to see. Long gone are the violent decades of prison disruptions. However, the high standards in our current system are in no small part due to the efforts of independent visiting committees that exist to safeguard proper treatment and humane standards. The Government’s proposals to abandon the work of those volunteers look mean spirited and short-sighted. The idea that some agency, or even the current committees, could tender and win the contracts and administer them more effectively by spending a small amount of money on training staff is perverse and without the support of evidence.

The Government should invest in the current prison visiting committees so that they can reorganise and ensure that appropriate training standards are maintained. The history and commitment of prison visiting committees, acknowledged by the minister in his “cheerio” letter of 5 December, deserve better. Prison visiting committees merit our support. Without doubt, much is still to be done to improve prison policy and service, but the proposal seems to me to be tinkering at the margins. I support Annabel Goldie’s motion.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is important to say at the outset that, despite the concern that exists that the Government does not recognise the role of prison visiting committees, that is far from the case. In his speech, the cabinet restated his thanks to the members of prison visiting committees for their work, just as he had done in a letter to the Justice Committee. It is important to put that on the record.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

As one of my colleagues said, it is a case of, “Thanks and goodbye.” Does Jamie Hepburn not realise that, although its amendment talks about building on the role of visiting committees, the Government wants to abolish that role and to create a completely different service that is highly desirable, but which will not in any way perform the role of the visiting committees?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I can only imagine that Mr Chisholm was asleep during the cabinet secretary’s opening remarks, when he said quite clearly that the process that he was talking about was one of open consultation. That process will continue, so it will be possible for such views to be heard. I do not think that the cabinet secretary has had anything but good words to say about the work that visiting committees have done in the past, and he has made the important point that the role should continue.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I think not: we back benchers do not have as much time as those who sit on the front benches. I will continue, if Mr Macdonald does not mind.

It is important to recognise the reality of the situation. I understand the point that Annabel Goldie made when she said that things have not changed since the consultation that was undertaken in 2005, but I do not think that it is entirely correct. John Finnie was clear in stating that things have changed in our prisons since 2005. I will say no more than that, because his words speak for themselves.

The environment in prisons in the 21st century is dramatically different from the age when visiting committees were first established. In the modern era, we have an independent inspectorate. We have a higher standard of facilities, although there is still work to be done in that regard. In addition, we have human rights legislation that did not exist back in the 19th century. It was interesting that Annabel Goldie referred to political “amnesia” in an intervention on my colleague Stuart McMillan; I remind her that it is her party alone that wants to withdraw from the European convention on human rights and to abolish the Human Rights Act 1998. We should face the fact that, in the modern age, we are in a very different set of circumstances from the circumstances that existed when visiting committees were first established.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am afraid that I will not, because I have only just over a minute left.

It has been suggested that there will be a gaping hole if the proposed changes are made. There has been a failure to recognise—although not across the board, because Margaret Mitchell recognised this—that there is, potentially, a gaping hole at the moment. The cabinet secretary’s remark that very few prisoners are aware of visiting committees or engage with them was well made. We should remember all the prisoners who have serious issues such as mental health and substance addiction issues, to which Margaret Burgess referred. Let us think about the gaping hole that exists in current arrangements for those prisoners. That must be the flipside of the argument.

It has been suggested that it is the prison establishment—prison governors—that supports the Government’s position. That is partly true, but it is also the case that Tom Halpin, the chief executive of Sacro, has said that he supports the Government’s position, so it is hardly just an establishment view.

It is correct that we examine the current arrangements to see whether they are fit for the 21st century. We should remember that we are talking about an open consultation that will continue.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

These are strange days. This morning, not just one, but two Tory motions that I can whole-heartedly endorse have been brought to the chamber. Indeed, one of them is so well drafted that I could almost have written it myself. [Laughter.] Last night, a member was heard to refer to Annabel Goldie as “comradely”. These are strange days for all of us.

These are also strange days because the SNP Government, which is normally never done congratulating itself for its surefootedness, has such a confused and unclear position on the issue.

The Government’s amendment talks about building on the valuable role of visiting committees, as did the cabinet secretary in his speech, but only on Monday this week, the Government sent a letter setting out a timetable, the last line of which ends “disbandment of VCs”. If the Government wanted to begin a consultation and—as the cabinet secretary said—to ask questions about whether visiting committees are the right structure for the future, most of us would be perfectly open to that discussion and to considering the options. However, the Government has begun the process with its conclusion that prison visiting committees should be disbanded. I ask the cabinet secretary to say—if the Government is serious about having that consultation and that discussion—in his closing speech that he will withdraw the letter of Monday this week that specifies a timetable for the disbandment of visiting committees, because that is not an honest and open consultation.

The position on prison visiting committees is puzzling and unclear also when we compare it with the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill, chapter 16 of which will put on a statutory footing an independent visiting service for custody. If the right approach for custody is not only to continue current practice but to put it on a statutory footing, why is it the wrong approach to endorse the independent visiting service for prisons? The Government advances a completely contradictory position. I ask the Government not only to clarify the confusion between the arrangements that it proposes for custody visiting and those for prison visiting but, if it is serious about a consultation, to withdraw Monday’s letter and the timetable that specifies the outcome of that consultation before it even gets under way.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I echo the point that my colleague Graeme Pearson made about the imperative for the reform. The cabinet secretary set out his imperative for the reform in a letter that he wrote to the convener of the Justice Committee. He said:

“We have reduced the number of public bodies ... The SNP’s election manifesto makes clear commitments in this regard.

In this context, since taking office in 2007, the current administration has been considering the role and function of prison visiting committees.”

The reduction of the number of public bodies is not really the context in which we should consider abolishing the important independent scrutiny role of prison visiting committees.

In his opening speech, the cabinet secretary pointed out that visiting committees are not well known among prisoners. Well, in that case why does he want to reinvent the wheel? It is clear from the evidence that the committees are doing an effective and invaluable job, so he should promote them more in our prisons.

The cabinet secretary said that an advocacy service has to be fit for 21st century prisons. There is a role for more advocacy in our prisons, but the cabinet secretary is not replacing like with like and the need for an advocacy service does not override the need for independent scrutiny.

The cabinet secretary also doubts the principle of visiting committees because they were established in 1877. I am of the opinion that many principles of law do not become irrelevant with the passage of time. Indeed, principles such as independent scrutiny, backed up by European law and international protocols on torture, should never become outdated just because the cabinet secretary wants to reduce the number of public bodies.

He also cites Sacro as one of the two supporters of his proposals. That comes as no surprise to me because, only last week, in answer to a question in the chamber, he cited Sacro as one of the potential contractors for his proposed new advocacy service. It is no surprise that it has joined the Scottish Prison Service to support his proposals.

Stuart McMillan said that complaints can be referred to the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service. I met the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service at Polmont prison on Monday afternoon: I can assure Mr McMillan that the chief executive is a busy man. There are 8,000 prisoners in the Scottish prison estate—that is one of the highest proportions of any country in the world. The Scottish Prison Service’s chief executive cannot have eyes and ears everywhere. Indeed, even if he did have, the elephant in the room would be the inherent conflict of interests.

Stuart McMillan and Margaret Burgess talked about the revolving prison door. I do not think that any member disagrees that we must reduce reoffending in Scotland, but that is not the point. The cabinet secretary is not replacing like with like and he is not even touching on reoffending. We need more advocacy, but the independent scrutiny that visiting committees provide is a completely different function.

The cabinet secretary’s proposals are opposed by the chief inspector of prisons, the community justice authorities, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Association of Visiting Committees, 59 out of 60 consultees so far and all parties in the Parliament except the party of the Government.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Let me kill a canard that Jenny Marra and Graeme Pearson have put forward. Visiting committees are collectively treated as one, so it is not about clearing the landscape by culling numerous bodies, as has been suggested.

I welcome the tone of the debate. Members have acknowledged that there is an issue and that the Government has made a commitment to engage constructively. I look forward to hearing from Mr McLetchie, because on 4 December he said:

“It seems too many prisoners are wasting valuable staff time by making complaints about anything and everything.”

I look forward to hearing from a reconstructed Tory party and, as we move towards having Elish Angiolini’s report, I look forward to constructive commitments from members of all parties on how we will deal with the rights of the most vulnerable prisoners.

Many members, in particular Margaret Burgess, flagged up the problems that we face. Prisons have moved on—prison visiting committees were set up in 1871, not 1877, but I do not want to argue semantic points. Prisons have changed dramatically and there is unmet need. Some 50 per cent of prisoners do not even know of the existence of visiting committees and 50 per cent do not know what the committees do. As John Finnie said, there were two requests in Aberdeen and there were seven in Inverness. Out of 6,400 admissions to Barlinnie prison, 14 prisoners asked to see the visiting committee in 2010-11 and in the previous year the number was 29.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I will let the member in shortly.

There is unmet need, which we must address. That is to be welcomed. As members said, matters can be dealt with in a variety of ways, because there are two issues: monitoring and advocacy. I welcome the acknowledgement that advocacy services are required. Advocacy services cannot properly be provided by visiting committees, which do not have the resources, the knowledge, the skills or the expertise to do that. The people on visiting committees are good people who care immensely and do many good individual actions, but they are not trained or qualified, which is why we need a specialist advocacy service.

There is an argument about monitoring, which we must consider.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary be clear? He talked about beginning a consultation, but on Monday his Government set out a timetable that leads to disbandment. Has he already decided to disband visiting committees, or has the proposal been dropped?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

It is clear that under the status quo the system is not functioning properly, as the visiting committees themselves accept. We must address the matter. I have undertaken to consider not just the statutory consultation but the spirit of the debate.

We require a specialist advocacy service. I acknowledge that there are issues to do with monitoring, and I am happy to enter into not just debate but discussion with Mr Harvie and other members.

On the issue that Mr Harvie raised in his speech, police cell visiting is not on a statutory basis, which is why it is in the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Bill. The OPCAT issue is clear. We are OPCAT compliant not because we have visiting committees but because of an array of other matters. As Mr McLetchie knows, the Government is subject to the ECHR and we have an independent inspector of prisons who deals with such matters and who has staff who are not simply a secretariat, but people who carry out investigations. Not only does the inspector carry out set and routine inspections of the prison service, but he can and does make spot checks—one at Cornton Vale has been mentioned.

We also have the Scottish Human Rights Commission, which has been mentioned, and we have legal aid and lawyers. As Miss Goldie will know, challenges to this and previous Governments relating to prisoners’ rights have been of great concern. The cost to the Government in relation to slopping out and other matters did not arise because of challenges that were brought by visiting committees; it arose through challenges that were based on the ECHR and which in many instances were brought by legal-aided lawyers or by lawyers who were working speculatively. Therefore, the Government is held to account by those who pursue prisoners’ rights. As I said, that comes at great cost. On that basis, we are already OPCAT compliant.

I recognise the arguments that the role of HM inspectorate of prisons is different and distinct from that of visiting committees. On that basis, I am more than happy to enter into debate and discussion to consider how we can ensure that we are compliant on monitoring.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Given that the cabinet secretary has said that he wants to hold a consultation, debate and discussion with all interested parties, will he confirm for the benefit of local authorities that he anticipates that they will follow the usual procedures by replacing or renewing the membership of prison visiting committees following the local government elections in May?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

On those matters, I will enter discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. COSLA has not expressed opposition to the proposal, but I will again discuss the issue with it. With prison visiting committees and police and fire committees, we must ensure that matters continue to run.

In summary, the status quo is not tenable, given that the system was set up in 1871 and particularly given the unmet need that Margaret Burgess, among others, mentioned. We must have an advocacy service, but there are understandable and legitimate concerns about monitoring. I give an assurance that the Government will discuss that with members of Parliament and other stakeholders. I look forward to a similar commitment across the chamber when we deal with other matters, such as the Angiolini report.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

Earlier this week, we heard about the phantom support of 11 SNP back benchers for the motion that was originally lodged by Patrick Harvie and which is replicated in the motion in the name of Annabel Goldie that we are debating today. That turned out to be a human error, rather than a political conspiracy, although one wonders how it took the SNP so long to wake up to what was going on. No doubt questions are being asked in that respect. However, the fact is that SNP back benchers should have signed up in support of the motion, because they should be joining the rest of us in trying to persuade the cabinet secretary to drop his ill-conceived proposals to abolish prison visiting committees.

It has been maintained that prison visiting committees are being abolished so that they can be replaced by a Government-funded independent advocacy service, whether it is to be run by Sacro or A N Other. However, it is not an either/or situation. The new advocacy service will not deal with prisoners’ complaints, nor will it monitor their welfare and conditions or the administration of prisons, which is what the visiting committees do. That is an entirely different role from that of the advocacy service that is envisaged, as Margaret Mitchell and Malcolm Chisholm pointed out. However, the Government has wilfully misrepresented the situation as being an either/or one.

The Government, in talking about the support that it claims to have for its proposals, has misrepresented the views of the chief inspector of prisons and of prison governors. In fact, the only view that has not been misrepresented, and the only view to which the cabinet secretary has paid any attention—not for the first time—is that of the Scottish Prison Service. However, even then, it is only the view of the executive members of the SPS board; the non-executive board members were never consulted.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

Is David McLetchie not aware of the statement that was issued by Rod MacCowan of the Prison Governors Association, who says,

“Nevertheless, VCs were established in the 19th century”,

and who goes on to say that “much has changed” and then to welcome the proposed changes? Bill McKinlay, the respected former prison governor of Barlinnie, who recently retired, talked about “the passing of time” and went on to say that we need

“A truly independent advocacy service expressly for the use and benefit of all prisoners but especially directed toward the most vulnerable”.

Does Mr McLetchie not wish to listen to the practitioners?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothian)

No one disputes the value of an independent advocacy service. The issue is whether it is an either/or situation or whether it is complementary. There was nothing in the cabinet secretary’s remarks that contradicted that.

It is a great pity that Cathy Jamieson is no longer a member of Parliament, because in her time as Minister for Justice in the Scottish Executive a review of visiting committees was undertaken that concluded in its first recommendation that

“Visiting Committees continue to serve a valuable function distinctive from other players and should be retained and their specific features capitalised on to contribute to the wider reforms taking place in the criminal justice system.”

Mr MacAskill endorsed that recommendation in December 2007 but, barely four years later, he is intent on the abolition of visiting committees. Indeed, he is trying to airbrush the Jamieson review out of history as if it never took place. Why? His pandering yet again to the SPS is no doubt part of the reason but, as Jenny Marra pointed out, he is in essence playing a crude numbers game to reduce the number of public bodies as part of the so-called decluttering of the landscape. The abolition of visiting committees will serve a useful purpose in that respect; indeed, it was the key driver behind the Scottish Government’s consultation, as its own summary admits and acknowledges.

The fact that visiting committees cost a mere £75,000 a year to run and involve 230 informed and committed volunteers in the independent and frequent inspection of our prisons and in safeguarding the welfare of prisoners, is apparently of no account—they are all to be sacrificed for this trivial purpose.

As we have heard, the UK is a signatory to United Nations and European conventions on the prevention of torture that aim to protect prisoners against ill-treatment. Independent inspection and monitoring is part and parcel of ensuring that our prisons comply with the highest international standards. No civilised society should treat the deprivation of liberty and the incarceration of prisoners lightly. The care that we take in that regard distinguishes our free society from oppressive regimes and criminal justice systems that have scant regard for human rights and due process, and in which mistreatment and inhumane conditions are all too commonplace. Accordingly, the support, to which Lewis Macdonald referred, that the Scottish Human Rights Commission has given for the retention of visiting committees comes as no surprise. However, like Patrick Harvie, I am astonished to find that the Government that is putting the role of independent custody visitors of police cells on to a statutory basis in order to comply with international conventions is also proposing to abolish independent prison visitors. Where is the logic in that?

Members from other parties know very well that Conservative members are no dewy-eyed softies when it comes to prison. We believe that prison works. For us, it is no mere coincidence that in Scotland today we have a high prison population and the lowest crime rate for over 30 years. That is a simple equation that seems to be lost on the cabinet secretary.

However, even though we believe in the value of prison, that does not imply on our part a disregard for or indifference to the rights of prisoners and their welfare. I have been impressed by the commitment of many Conservative friends and colleagues who serve, and who have served, on visiting committees, to their work and their belief in its worth and value. I am sure that there are many MSPs of all parties who have received similar testimony in recent weeks.

The timetable for the proposed change has been put back by three months. Like Christine Grahame, I welcome that putting on of the brakes. It would be better if the cabinet secretary were to use the intervening period to drop the proposal. He could then flesh out the concept of his independent advocacy service, which was never consulted on yet has miraculously emerged as the outcome of the consultation. He could also implement the remaining recommendations on visiting committees that were in the 2007 review that Cathy Jamieson commissioned, and which would build upon what they do rather than destroy them. That would be a very good use of his time indeed. I beg to support the motion.

Common Repairs

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government how it can assist private owners to meet the costs of common repairs where councils or housing associations propose significant improvements or repairs to the external fabric of blocks of flats with a proportion of private ownership. (S4O-00629)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

In 2011-12, local authorities received more than £67 million in their capital and revenue grants to assist home owners, including in relation to maintaining and repairing properties. Although it is for the local authority to determine what assistance is provided, it can include providing advice and guidance, practical help or financial assistance by way of grants or loans.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister aware of the situation of private owners at Relief Land in Inverary, who are faced with a proportion of the significant cost of external repairs to the long-neglected 200-year-old tenement? What advice can he give to a pensioner with little savings who is suddenly faced with such a situation? Will he encourage Argyll Community Housing Association and Argyll and Bute Council to adopt a sympathetic attitude to such owners and make efforts to seek a constructive solution that minimises the immediate financial burden on owners?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am aware of the case that the member mentions. The tenements in question need repairs because of water ingress. I understand that Argyll and Bute Council and Argyll Community Housing Association have been working with tenants and owners to try to resolve the issue. I encourage Argyll and Bute Council and Argyll Community Housing Association to continue working with the owners who are affected by the matter and advise any owner who is concerned about the cost of the work to speak to the council, which will be able to tell them what help is available in their circumstances. It is worth noting that Argyll and Bute Council has a care and repair service, which provides free, independent and confidential advice and assistance to older home owners.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the minister consider the idea that all flat owners should contribute to some kind of reserve or sinking fund so that, when a major common repair comes along, there will be funds available to pay for it?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That suggestion and the suggestion of a loans fund have been considered. However, we believe that it is right that local authorities, with the resources that they are given, should take the lead in the matter. It is for local authorities to consider these issues and provide whatever assistance they can.

Scottish Road Works Commissioner

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the Scottish road works commissioner. (S4O-00630)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I met the Scottish road works commissioner on 17 January 2012, along with the national joint utilities group and the Scottish joint utilities group. I met the commissioner again last week to review the report on the impact of utility works on Scottish roads.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware that roads are dug up and repaired in Glasgow extremely frequently over a relatively short period—in one instance, 16,000 times in one year. That undoubtedly has a damaging effect on the long-term quality of our city’s roads, even if the repairs are to an adequate standard.

In his discussions, has the minister ever considered a levy of a small fee on utilities companies undertaking non-emergency road works, with the intent that the funds be accumulated over a set period of time and used to repair roads that have been subject to a history of road works?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As part of the Scottish roads maintenance review, the Scottish road works commissioner was asked to consider the use of existing legislation that has never been invoked to ensure that utility companies contribute to the cost of making good the long-term damage that can arise in the way that the member describes. The commissioner presented his report to me at the end of 2011. The Government is considering how such a contribution scheme might operate and intends to bring forward proposals that will then be the subject of public consultation.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

3. To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy last met members of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what matters were discussed. (S4O-00631)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to discuss issues of importance to local people.

Paul Martin (Labour, Glasgow Provan)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s decision to reject the plans by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to close Lightburn hospital. However, she may be aware that while the consultation process was taking place, a number of services were withdrawn from Lightburn hospital or were scaled down. I seek an unequivocal assurance from the minister that she will ensure that those services are reinstated to the hospital.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde went through all the appropriate processes in presenting its proposal on Lightburn hospital. I considered the proposal—which it is my responsibility to do—and I reached the view, in line with the Government’s commitment to provide local healthcare whenever possible, that it was not the right decision.

When I made the decision at the end of last year that Lightburn hospital should be retained, I asked the health board to work to maintain and improve the quality of services that were delivered from the hospital. The health board has assured me that that is the case, and it is currently actively considering what additional use can be made of the on-site facilities in the best interests of local people. I am sure that the board would be happy to discuss that in greater detail with the local member.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

In her discussions with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, has the cabinet secretary discussed the positive contribution made by Scotland’s only breast milk bank, which is based at Yorkhill, to the health of sick and premature babies? Will she urge other health boards to consider providing such a service?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I thank Elaine Smith for her question and for her on-going interest in that issue. As she said, Glasgow hosts the only breast milk bank in Scotland. I recently attended an event in Glasgow to mark the fact that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has become the first health authority in the whole United Kingdom to achieve the United Nations baby-friendly accreditation, which is a great credit to all those who work there. I assure Elaine Smith that I will discuss the issue with officials in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, and involve officials in other health boards to see whether further steps require to be taken.

Whistleblowers (National Health Service)

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Executive what national health service structures exist to support whistleblowers and what plans there are to develop them. (S4O-00632)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The recently published partnership information network policy on implementing and reviewing whistleblowing arrangements in NHS Scotland sets out the key principles that are to be followed by NHS boards to ensure that staff are able to raise concerns safely, both internally and, in certain circumstances, externally. There are no plans at this stage to develop additional structures to support whistleblowers, although the PIN policy will be subject to regular review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, within the NHS, lines of accountability become very blurred if an employee undertakes a particular role in, for example, a community health and care partnership, which has its own management and governance structures? If issues arise in such a case, to whom can the employee speak without fear of victimisation or reprisal?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The PIN policy to which I referred sets out the key principles to which boards must adhere within the local policies. That includes information on who the member of staff concerned should raise concerns with in the first instance.

I am happy to furnish Annabel Goldie with the PIN policy. If, having seen it, she has further questions, or if the constituents whom she is no doubt representing here today have further questions, I am happy to answer those specific points. The policy deliberately seeks to protect staff who have issues of concern to raise. All eligible staff are also covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 in that regard, but I am happy to enter into further correspondence with Annabel Goldie if that would be helpful.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s new revised PIN policy. Will she ensure that the policy—or, at least, a link to the policy—is circulated to every member of staff so that they are aware of it? In light of the concern about the cuts in nurses and allied health professionals, and the potential effect on front-line services that the cabinet secretary has committed to maintain, will she establish a helpline for whistleblowers to advise them on the correct course of action in the PIN policy and to support them if they decide that the matter must be taken further?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We will ensure that the PIN policy is appropriately circulated to staff, because any policy will serve its purpose only if staff are aware of it and of how to take advantage of it. I have said to Richard Simpson previously—and I repeat today—that I am happy to examine the issue of a helpline. I will not give that commitment here today, but I am happy to consider it.

On the wider issue, we have very good partnership arrangements in the health service that have served us well, and I believe that they will continue to do so in what is now a difficult financial climate.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the University of Nottingham report that was published yesterday, which shows that NHS Scotland is a world leader in its industrial relations. I put on record my thanks to the staff, those in trade unions, and health board and Government officials who have worked so hard for a number of years to establish such positive procedures.

Edinburgh Tram Project

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on assistance to those affected by the Edinburgh tram project. (S4O-00633)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Last September, City of Edinburgh Council agreed to allocate £445,000 for 2011-12 to its open for business fund to assist businesses affected by the project, with a further £455,000 allocated for 2012-13. The council announced last week that it is considering allocating a further £100,00 for 2011-12.

Marco Biagi (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I am principally concerned about support for businesses in the west end. Can the minister confirm the Scottish Government’s continued belief in the overarching principle that adequate support must be put in place for those businesses—for example, through repeating the 2009 discretionary non-domestic rates relief to compensate them for the disruption caused by the project?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am aware of the member’s concerns and the work that he has been doing in this area. I assure him that both I and the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment, Alex Neil, have made it clear to those involved in the trams project that they should be as sympathetic as possible to the long-standing issues affecting businesses. However, the Scottish Government has no locus to intervene in the Scottish assessors’ decisions. The Scottish assessors are solely responsible for determining rateable values in Scotland, and in doing so they are independent of the Scottish Government.

Agri-environment Budget

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive what the impact of the proposed reductions in the agri-environment budget will be. (S4O-00634)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

In the current financial climate, we have looked carefully at the demand for agri-environment funding in Scotland and consider that our proposed budget will meet this demand.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary may be aware of concerns that true demand in the sector is masked by the difficulty in getting the right support and advice to apply for agri-environmental support. When that is in place, demand for such support, which contributes to our biodiversity targets and supports land managers, increases. In the light of the cut to the budget, how will the Scottish Government monitor its progress towards the 2020 biodiversity target and assess the contribution that the agri-environment budget is and could be making? Will the annual report to the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee provide sufficient information to allow such an assessment to be made?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will happily work with the committee to monitor the situation over the coming years. Against a very difficult budget backdrop, we believe that we have enough money in the pot to meet expected demand. The expected outturn for the current year is about £39 million, and we had budgeted £40 million. Despite there being a lower figure in the first year of the spending review period compared with the previous year, given the number of legacy schemes that have come to an end and the number of new schemes that are expected to come on stream, we believe that the budget will be there for the next three years, but we will continue to monitor this very closely.

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

Will the cabinet secretary agree to review the complex rules that classify land eligible for rural priorities funding for high nature value farming to make the scheme more user friendly and to encourage farmers and crofters to use the scheme and to maintain our precious biodiversity?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Rob Gibson correctly highlights the fact that crofters and farmers play a crucial role in protecting biodiversity and Scotland’s precious environment. It is important that we learn the lessons from the current rural development programme, which is due to come to an end in 2014, to ensure that we get the next programme, which will last from 2014 to 2020, correct. We must very much take into account the factors that he raises.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

The cabinet secretary said that there was a reduction in the agri-environment budget due to a lack of demand, but does he agree with me and with RSPB Scotland that the demand has been altered by the removal of popular projects such as hedging, which were creating quite a large amount of demand?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The budget has been cut not just because of a lack of demand but because the Lib Dem-Conservative coalition Government in Westminster cut Scotland’s budget in the first place, so perhaps the member could direct some of his fire towards his United Kingdom colleagues in London. Individual schemes or measures under the budget headings change from year to year in line with demand, and we continue to keep a close eye on where that demand comes from.

Single Fire and Rescue Service

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

7. To ask the Scottish Executive how it will ensure that the proposed single fire and rescue service has the capability to effectively co-ordinate emergency responses across Scotland at a local level. (S4O-00635)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The Scottish Government’s reform of the fire and rescue services will protect and improve local services by creating more equal access to specialist and national capacity across the country and will create a new formal relationship with each local authority in Scotland. Local plans and a designated local senior officer for every local authority will strengthen co-ordination of the emergency response arrangements for all our communities.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the minister guarantee that a similar system of gold commanders will be used under the single fire service? If so, how will she ensure that they maintain the local knowledge that they currently depend on to tackle the most severe emergencies effectively under the new, unified service?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The issue that the member raises will be for the new national fire service to make a decision on in considering a variety of other issues. We do not want to mandate that new fire service in advance with our view of what it ought to do. It will be for the new chief officer and the new fire service to put in place the appropriate mechanisms to ensure delivery on the ground. The whole purpose of the move is to strengthen the local delivery and the quality of the emergency services, and I am certain that that will happen.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give me an assurance that the vital network of retained fire stations across rural Scotland will be maintained under the Government’s reforms?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The retained fire service is a vital part of Scotland’s national fire service and will, of course, continue in existence after the emergence of the new single national fire service, although the precise logistics of that will, no doubt, change over time, as they have changed in the past. It is something that the new service will have to look at and consider. As every member will know, there are issues in some areas that need to be addressed. However, in a country with the geography that Scotland has, the intention must always be for the backbone of much of the fire service to continue to be provided through the retained service.

Prison Visiting Committees

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what services will be lost when prison visiting committees are replaced with an independent advocacy service. (S4O-00637)

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

The new service is being designed to enhance prisoners’ access to services in custody and the community that will contribute to reducing their reoffending. We want those who will deliver the service to have a good knowledge and understanding of the community justice system and be able to support prisoners as they move through the system. As well as looking to improve offender outcomes, we will ensure that there is no detriment to the overall service provision if the Parliament agrees to disband the visiting committees.

Margaret McDougall (Labour, West Scotland)

My question has been superseded by this morning’s debate. The cabinet secretary said that a lot of prisoners do not know about the service. Surely, that is a failing in the system and we should do more to promote the visiting committees rather than replace that first-class service, which is praised overall in the consultation. Although I support the advocacy service, I think that it should be run in conjunction with the prison visiting committees and should not replace them. Does the minister not agree that we need a body that monitors prisons and checks on prisoner welfare independently of the Scottish Prison Service?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Eastern)

I appreciate the member’s points. As she says, 50 per cent of prisoners do not know of the existence of visiting committees. As was pointed out in the debate, only two people sought their services in Aberdeen; there were only seven requests in Inverness; and, out of 6,400 admissions to Barlinnie last year, only 14 people requested their services.

There are two issues. First, how do we provide an advocacy service? We think that that is better dealt with through the provision of more specialist resources in that more complex area. Secondly, both Margaret McDougall and others raise a valid point about independent monitoring. We are happy to enter into discussion and debate about that. However, let us be clear: we must operate under the European convention on human rights until such time as David Cameron changes that fact, and we are subject to challenges. We have an independent inspectorate of prisons, we have a Scottish Human Rights Commission and, as we all know, the Government is frequently litigated against by people pursuing prisoners’ rights who are not members of visiting committees but lawyers. Nevertheless, we will ensure that the doubt that people have about monitoring is addressed, and we will enter into debate and discussion.

Engagements

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00438)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Later today, I will take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Excellent.

Today I would like to discuss a Royal Bank of Scotland banker who enjoyed huge success but whose arrogance drove him to overreach himself and lead Scotland to disaster. [Laughter.] The First Minister need not worry—I am not talking about him. I am, of course, talking about Fred Goodwin, the Fred Goodwin to whom the First Minister wrote to back the deal that broke the bank. The First Minister wrote:

“Dear Fred,

I wanted you to know that I am watching events closely on the ABN front. It is in Scottish interests for RBS to be successful, and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide. Good luck with the bid.

Yours for Scotland,

Alex”.

Yesterday, the First Minister admitted that with “the benefit of hindsight” he would “do things differently”. Does that mean that he is prepared to apologise to the people of Scotland for his serious error of judgment?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As I said yesterday, I regret writing that letter. That much is obvious. However, as I said to Johann Lamont last week, I really do not think that Fred Goodwin is the Labour Party’s strongest suit. After all, as we now understand, my predecessor Jack McConnell recommended him for a knighthood and Gordon Brown as Prime Minister appointed him as one of his economic advisers. I certainly regret writing Fred Goodwin a letter, but I did not have him as a financial adviser; I did not have six meetings with him as chancellor as Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling did in the space of just over a year; and he was not at the heart of this Government, advising on economic policy. I really suggest to Johann Lamont that Fred Goodwin and the Fred Goodwin story are not the Labour Party’s strongest suit.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

In my previous life as a schoolteacher, if I asked a child to accept that they had done something wrong, I did not accept the defence of, “It wisnae just me.” It is not a defence to say that other people made mistakes as well. What I asked the First Minister to do—and what he has singularly refused to do—was to apologise for his error of judgment. His judgment was wrong and he should apologise.

More important, however, the First Minister needs to learn a lesson from this. Mr Goodwin clearly got carried away with himself, did not ask the hard questions and became blind to the consequence. As the First Minister is in danger of doing likewise, let us look at the hard questions about separation; after all, I am not the only one who questions the First Minister’s judgment. His former economic adviser, Professor John Kay, says that if Scotland were to remain in a currency union,

“It might ... cause people to start wondering what the point of independence was in the first place”.

Will the First Minister tell Professor Kay and the rest of us what, exactly, the point is?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Before Johann Lamont wanders off the subject of Fred Goodwin, I remind her that the report on the Financial Services Authority’s inquiry into the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland was published on 12 December last year. It names three politicians as being influential in the FSA’s extraordinary decision to have lax financial supervision. The first is Tony Blair; the second is Gordon Brown; and the third is Ed Balls—one gone, one going and one still there.

As for the benefits of fiscal independence, I suspect that they have something to do with the fact that, right now, this Parliament controls about 12.5 per cent of Scotland’s finances and resources. Under the Calman proposals, that figure will creep up towards 20 per cent. However, under independence, we will control 100 per cent. That sounds to me like a benefit of independence.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The First Minister needs to learn from history, not rewrite it. The fact is that it was the First Minister who said that the problem with banking regulation was that it was gold plated and that he would lighten it.

I am curious as to why the First Minister is sticking by his plan to remain in a currency union. Last week, to bolster his position, he told us that there were 67 countries with a similar arrangement; however, all week, in response to my office, to the Scottish Parliament information centre and to the media, he refused to name them. Indeed, he named them only 30 minutes ago. It took him seven days to get information that he could have got in seven seconds from Wikipedia. [Interruption.]

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Order. Please settle down.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

We do not want to have people making things up on the hoof. Will the First Minister clear this up and give us three good examples of countries that do not have a central bank and are in a currency union?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Again, Johann Lamont tried to ask two questions in one. I turn to the first part of her question. She complained about one comment from me in 25 years about light-touch regulation. I remind her of the comments of the former Prime Minister who was in charge of these things in November 2005, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gordon Brown argued in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry on 28 November 2005 that he was proposing not just a light touch in regulation, but a limited touch. He went on:

“more than that, we should not only apply the concept of risk to the enforcement of regulation, but also to the design and indeed to the decision as to whether to regulate at all.”

He was not just proposing light-touch regulation. He was proposing no regulation. [Interruption.]

The Labour Party should not have to rely on the Scottish Government to provide it with ammunition. If Johann Lamont wants to ask me the question, she should ask me the question. [Interruption.] Is it not better to come along and ask the question as opposed to wanting the answer in advance?

On the other question, of the 20 most prosperous countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 11, including Switzerland, are in monetary unions. That sounds to me as if monetary unions are a pretty common feature across the planet and across prosperous countries.

Johann Lamont seems to complain that we have suggested that there should be a monetary union between Scotland and England after independence. We have merely pointed out last week and this week that such arrangements are not uncommon in the modern world and that the countries involved are still independent countries. It strikes me that, if it is good enough for all those other countries around the world, including 11 of the 20 most prosperous countries in the OECD, it might not be too bad a thing for Scotland.

Last week I helpfully explained why, given the huge protection that it would offer to the balance of payments, it might be rather a good thing for England as well. I am just trying to be helpful and co-operative. [Interruption.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Would that it were so. The fact of the matter is that, whatever that was, it was not an answer, and it certainly did not clarify anything.

The reality is that up to a third of the countries that are identified in the 67 have no influence whatsoever. It appears that the First Minister is saying that he is pursuing independence at any cost. His case for independence is beginning to look like the RBS deal that broke the bank. He cannot provide the detail, and when we look at the proposal closely, it falls apart. He is proposing a currency union just like those in, say, Togo, San Marino or the Federated States of Micronesia.

In 2003, we were getting the euro. In 2005, we were getting a Scottish central bank. Yesterday, it was sterling, but somehow free from the Bank of England. Is it not demonstrably the case that the First Minister is simply unable to make an economic case for independence? Is he not in danger of becoming the Fred Goodwin of Scottish politics? [Interruption.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Johann Lamont seems not to have appreciated my point that 11 of the most prosperous countries in the world are in a monetary union. It is not an unusual state of affairs. Nor has she taken on board the point that I made last week, that Gordon Brown gave away the right to set interest rates in 1997, when he declared the Bank of England independent. I think that the Labour Party has to catch up with the policies that it pursued in government.

Johann Lamont finds it amusing that the countries that she named are in monetary unions. Let us look at some of the countries in the world that are not in monetary unions. The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran and North Korea are not in a monetary union. So what exactly is the point? It is a reasonable proposition to argue that a monetary union is not uncommon in the modern world. I referred to 11 of the top 20 most prosperous countries in the OECD. I believe that, of the other nine, all but Japan have been in a monetary arrangement at some point in fairly recent history. Therefore, monetary unions are not uncommon in the modern world.

The purpose and point of independence is to control the country’s taxation policy, resources and wealth. If we look at the past five years of Scotland’s balance of income and revenue, we will see that it is a fact that we would have been £7.5 billion better off if we had controlled our own revenue and resources. That seems to me to be a rather powerful economic argument for independence.

Prime Minister (Meetings)

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-00432)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am seeking early meetings with the Prime Minister, as I have been for the past six months or so. I hope that there will be an early meeting with him so that we can take forward a few matters on a mutual agenda.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I presume that the mutual agenda is the referendum. Since the referendum consultation was launched in the chamber, members on the Government benches, from the First Minister right through his Cabinet and down to the lowliest of lowly back benchers, have been using the removal of nuclear-armed and powered submarines from Faslane as a reason for Scotland to become a state separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. The Faslane naval base is the largest single-site employer in Scotland, with 6,500 people working on the Clyde.

The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that there are 18,000 uniformed and civilian defence personnel based across 30 of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas. That does not include the 4,500 workers in yards in Rosyth and on the Clyde who are building navy destroyers and aircraft carriers, or the thousands of other defence contractors throughout Scotland who are engaged in work for the UK military.

We know that the First Minister wants to decimate the 6,500-strong workforce at Faslane, but how many defence workers—uniformed or otherwise—does he plan to keep?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The estimated cost of a replacement for the Trident submarine fleet over the next generation is £100,000 million. I do not believe that even Ruth Davidson would argue that there could not be more sensible investment that would create far more jobs than investment in a new generation of Trident submarines.

The guarantee that we have given, as opposed to what has happened under the UK Government, is that we would maintain the military establishment in terms of bases after independence. That includes a naval base at Faslane, which, incidentally, is not just the home of the Trident fleet; it is also the home of minesweepers and other submarines.

I am interested in the proposition that there could be no orders for Scottish yards post-independence. On 4 October 2011, “Jane’s Defence Industry”—the bible of military procurement—said:

“The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is entering the final round of bidding for its MARS (Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability) Tanker requirement, with just three of the original six contenders left in the frame … Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (South Korea), Fincantieri (Italy) and Hyundai Heavy Industries (South Korea) remain in contention.”

Is Ruth Davidson’s proposition really that the Ministry of Defence will purchase from Italy and South Korea, but not from the Clyde yards or Rosyth? Under current European Union regulation, that is perfectly permissible and possible. The Clyde yards exist because of the excellence of their workforce and the efficiency of the products that they produce. It would be quite interesting if, given its lowly position in Scottish politics, the Conservative Party realised that talking down Scotland in such a manner is not the way to obtain votes from the Scottish people.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

So, no answer then on the number of jobs that the First Minister plans to keep, just as there is no answer on what the one naval base in an independent Scotland would have in terms of minesweepers, destroyers or frigates, or on what would be done with the Marines and what would be done about a fleet auxiliary.

Let us look at the experts’ response to the First Minister’s defence plans. A former commander of the Black Watch, Lt Col Sir Andrew Ogilvy-Wedderburn, said that the First Minister had

“absolutely no grasp of how the British Armed Forces work”.

Lord Robertson—[Laughter.]

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

Lord Robertson, the former secretary-general of NATO said that the First Minister’s plans have “no coherence or relevance”. He continued:

“And what about logistical troops? Or combat support and combat service support? Engineers, medics, communicators, reconnaissance, surveillance and intelligence forces ... Nothing is said about how this gap is to be filled”.

Colonel Clive Fairweather, a former commanding officer of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers and former deputy commander of the SAS, said:

“I have respect for some of the stuff the SNP come up with and are proposing, but when it comes to defence I don't think they have a scooby.

I do find Mr Salmond very, very, very weak in this area. I have watched him, I have been with him, he doesn’t really understand it. He really doesn’t get it.”

There are many unanswered questions on the Scottish Government’s plans for defence, but I will ask just one, which comes from a young Scottish soldier who is based down south and wrote to me this week.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

He has not been sacked yet, then.

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

I would have thought that the member would have more respect. [Interruption.]

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

He wrote:

“Dear Ms Davidson,

I am currently serving in the British Army and have done so for the past 2 years.

I am due to deploy on operations in Afghanistan in early April, I love my job and am proud to serve this country.

I am sure you are aware of the phrase ‘back of a fag packet’ and this it seems, is how Mr Salmond has developed his ‘plan’ for the Armed Forces.

I would be greatly appreciative if you could raise the following question for me ... Does he envisage a point where those serving will be forced to make a choice between the uniform in which they have faithfully served the crown and in many cases tragically lost friends, and the country of their birth?”

Well, does he?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

People would certainly have a choice in terms of the armed forces in which they served. At the last count, I think that there are members of 23 nationalities serving in the British armed forces.

The issue of choice is a valuable one. The soldiers who are being made compulsorily redundant at the moment do not have a choice. They are being made compulsorily redundant by the Government that Ruth Davidson supports while many of them have been in theatres of conflict. That is no choice at all.

I met Clive Fairweather when I was marching to defend the Scottish regiments that were being shut down by the Labour Government. In that regard, I do not think that George Robertson is the strongest suit for the Conservatives. After all, not only did George Robertson say that devolution would kill the Scottish National Party stone dead, which I do not think has quite happened—[Laughter.]

Ruth Davidson should have a glance at today’s Ipsos MORI opinion poll, which shows 49 per cent support for the Scottish National Party and 12 per cent support for the Conservative Party, which is a reduction even on that party’s previous record low levels.

As I was saying, George Robertson described the strategic defence review as being neither strategic nor a defence review. Ruth Davidson should be careful whom she quotes.

On advisers, I liked the quotation that I read from the former financial adviser to the Conservative Party and former member of this Parliament, Brian Monteith. Only two days ago, he wrote:

“By taking a position of no more powers because he says so, the Prime Minister has laid his party open to the charge of arrogance and left isolated those Tories who seek to defend him. With these injudicious comments in his name, the Prime Minister has consigned Ruth Davidson’s nascent leadership in Scotland to ignominy and failure.”

I never thought that I would find myself in agreement with Brian Monteith, but perhaps he is on to something at last.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

The First Minister will be aware that, over the past three weeks, the chairman and three members of the board of Adam Smith College have resigned following allegations of bullying, intimidation, victimisation and financial mismanagement. What actions can be taken to hold an external investigation into the governance and management of Adam Smith College?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government takes very seriously allegations of this kind. It is important that all the facts are scrutinised before any specific course of action can be taken. To that end, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning has asked the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to take appropriate steps and report on the issue, taking account of all the evidence available and seeking assurances that the college’s governance and management practices are properly and effectively serving the needs of learners.

John Pentland (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I have been informed that one bid in relation to the Forth crossing included the supply of steel by Tata from the Dalzell plant in Motherwell. That would have been a major boost for employment in my constituency and in Lanarkshire, and for Scotland’s steel industry. Will the First Minister therefore explain why Transport Scotland has said that no Scottish firms were involved? Will he meet Tata’s chief executive to discuss the Scottish steel industry’s role?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I would certainly be glad to arrange a ministerial meeting. I point out that 118 subcontracts have been awarded to Scottish firms from the total of 155 subcontracts that have been awarded to date. That represents 76 per cent of total subcontracts. We can also consider that 870 of the 1,041 supply orders that have been awarded for the principal contract have gone to Scottish companies.

I cite those figures as strong evidence because I know that the member would not wish to give a misleading impression about the willingness to award contracts to Scottish companies when possible. The figures illustrate that determination. I am happy to arrange ministerial meetings, because the evidence indicates a strong willingness among the consortium’s members—including Morrison Construction—to make awards to Scottish contractors when possible.

Higher Education (Scotland-based Students)

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

3. To ask the First Minister what impact the increase in applications to Scottish universities from Scotland-based students will have on the higher education sector. (S4F-00445)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I am delighted that institutions in Scotland are reporting an increase in the number of applications from Scottish students. The Government has protected funding to our universities to ensure that Scotland continues to deliver world-class higher education. That is recognised in the fact that five of our universities are in the top 200 universities worldwide, which should be a matter for general celebration in the Parliament.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

Does the First Minister agree that, as applications by English students to English universities are down by 9.8 per cent and the number of Scots who are applying to study in England is down by 16.4 per cent, that demonstrates perfectly the destructive nature of the fee regime south of the border?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I noticed that the National Union of Students said that the figures fully vindicated the Scottish Government’s approach of abolishing tuition fees for Scottish students. The figures mean that the fears and claims that the Labour Party expressed have proved to be totally ill-founded. When the initial figures came out, it was explained that the Labour Party should wait until the complete figures were available. Labour should have taken that advice from the education secretary. Given the difficult position that faces our universities and students, the overwhelming opinion is that our universities are better funded than are any similar institutions across these islands.

Back in 1979, some people in the university sector campaigned not to be under the province of any Scottish Parliament. Now, I doubt whether a single person in the university sector would want to have anything other than the sympathetic treatment of this Parliament, as opposed to the fate that has been delivered to universities in England.

The decline in the number of English students who are applying to Scottish universities is half the decline in English students who are applying to English universities. It seems to me that the education secretary and our universities have got the balance right in maintaining the standard of education in Scotland, maintaining the excellence, maintaining the broad cross-section and—above all—maintaining the entitlement to free education for the people of Scotland.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

The £75 million per year that the Scottish Government is using to provide free tuition for foreign students could be spent on Scotland’s colleges. Will the First Minister give me a guarantee that such spending will stop?

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

As the member knows, the education secretary is working to ensure that a charge of some kind can be applied to other students from the European Union. Hugh Henry should reflect on the fact that, across the sector, the biggest rise in student numbers has been in international students from outwith the European Union. I would have thought that he would agree that that indicates the excellence and quality of Scottish university education.

On the college sector, I point out the extraordinary increase in capital investment that affects colleges such as Forth Valley College, Dundee College, Inverness College UHI, the colleges in Glasgow—an amazing amount of capital investment has been made there—and Kilmarnock College. That investment is many times the investment that was made in any year under the Labour-Liberal coalition. The member should reflect on the fact that the regional structure for colleges and the capital investment that is being made is substantially good news for the college sector in Scotland. Just as there seems to be no complaint now, there is substantially good news for the university sector in Scotland.

Youth Unemployment

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government is taking to address unemployment among young people. (S4F-00437)

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I appointed Angela Constance as the first Minister for Youth Employment anywhere in these islands to lead our response in driving up youth employment, and I announced an additional £30 million investment to support the opportunities for all commitment.