Scottish Parliament, 3 October 2012

271 contributions from 68 members. The official report.

Infrastructure, Investment and Cities

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good afternoon. Question 1, from Neil Findlay, was not lodged, but I have received an explanation for that.

Rail Services (Glasgow, Paisley and Ayr)

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what consultation has taken place regarding changes to the timetable for rail services between Paisley Gilmour Street, Ayr and Glasgow Central. (S4O-01337)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Consultation took place with regional transport partnerships, Passenger Focus and local authorities during May 2012 on the details of changes to rail services between Glasgow Central station and Ayr in December 2012.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the minister explain why consultation started only after a new timetable had been confirmed? Will he also explain why he continues to insist, as he did in his recent letter in the Paisley Daily Express, that there will be no reduction in rail services from Paisley Gilmour Street to Ayr, even though the new timetable halves the off-peak train service between Paisley and Ayr to one per hour? Is the minister trying to mislead the travelling public, or does he fail to understand the scale of the cuts to rail services that he is imposing?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The timetable had not been agreed in advance of the consultation, and we followed exactly the same process as the Labour and Liberal Democrats followed in previous consultations. The process was carried out by ScotRail and involved the partners whom I mentioned.

I would have thought that Neil Bibby would have taken the opportunity to acknowledge that, with no additional subsidy from the Scottish Government, there will be two additional services between Ayrshire and Glasgow in the morning peak period, which will provide an additional 500 seats. Perhaps he will acknowledge that. There will also be two additional services from Glasgow to Ayrshire in the evening peak period, providing a similar number of seats. All those services will call at Paisley Gilmour Street.

The new timetable is forecast to generate more than 500,000 additional passenger journeys each year. That is good news for passengers, and I would have thought that Neil Bibby would have taken the opportunity to commend us for that. I understand that, in discussions that he had with officials, he said that he was content with the changes, so I am not sure why he is complaining.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

As the minister will be aware, Paisley Gilmour Street is the fourth busiest train station in Scotland and a major transport hub in my constituency. Will the minister order an evaluation of demand for services at Paisley Gilmour Street?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

In discussions with the member, I have made clear that ScotRail, which has responsibility for the matter, constantly reviews its timetables. There are constraints in the current franchise, which should be acknowledged: if we make changes to the timetable we must pay the franchise holder for that.

We have managed to reach agreement, and ScotRail says that it will carry out additional work to ensure that passengers who use the service have a chance to express their views—I am more than happy to have a further passenger survey, to ensure that that is formalised. Of course, when we have the new franchise—notwithstanding events today—further changes can be made at the time.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

My constituents and I very much welcome the proposed timetable changes for services between Ayr and Glasgow Central, but a minor concern remains that connectivity between Ayrshire and Paisley Gilmour Street, which is the gateway to Glasgow airport, has not improved—as I understand it, the situation is unchanged. Is there flexibility in the system to address that minor concern?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I said, the timetable will improve connectivity between Ayrshire, Inverclyde and Glasgow in a number of respects. For example, the current half-hourly Sunday summer service from Glasgow to Ayr, which calls at Paisley Gilmour Street, will become an all-year-round service, which will be an improvement for the member’s constituents.

As I said to George Adam and in response to consultation with members, I am more than happy for ScotRail to look at the situation, through the passenger survey, so that it can find out the views of the most important people in all of this: the passengers.

Regeneration (Inverclyde)

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to assist the regeneration of Inverclyde. (S4O-01338)

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The Scottish Government is committed to the regeneration of Scotland’s most disadvantaged areas and to strengthening local communities, including Inverclyde. Although overall responsibility for local regeneration and economic development rests with Inverclyde Council, we continue to support Riverside Inverclyde urban regeneration company and the council in taking forward their plans for the benefit of the people and communities across the area.

We have already committed to continuing grant funding for the URC, with £2.5 million in 2012-13 and £1.5 million in 2013-14. Thereafter, funding is likely to be available to the URC from a range of sources and my officials are working with the company on revising its business plan and considering potential funding streams to support Inverclyde’s on-going regeneration. We have also provided it with accelerated funding of £3.4 million for a number of shovel-ready projects in the area that will improve the environment, improve employability, safeguard existing jobs and create jobs in construction.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Although I thank the minister for her response, I clearly differ with her about the investment in the URC. I see the Cabinet secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities shaking her head, but the evidence is clear.

Nevertheless, I seek not conflict but consensus in how we can be positive and move forward in the area. Next year’s cruise season at Clydeport’s ocean terminal is set to be a record breaker, with 85,000 passengers coming through Inverclyde as the gateway to Scotland, and I am sure that the minister agrees that Andrew Hemphill, the terminal’s general manager, and his team deserve great credit for that. However, visitor numbers could be increased by 20 per cent if berthing capacity at the quayside were extended. Does the minister agree that such a move would provide a significant opportunity not just for Inverclyde but for tourism in Scotland, and will she meet the partners to ensure that that opportunity appears in Inverclyde’s business development plan?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The member makes a good point. The cruise industry is expanding, particularly in the Inverclyde area, and I understand that the member has met the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, and other members to discuss how the matter might be progressed. I also understand that Transport Scotland officials have met Clydeport to discuss the potential to increase cruise-ship capacity and extend the quayside and I am willing to meet the partners to discuss the issue further.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Regeneration takes many forms, one of which is job creation and job sustainability. Given that, will the minister update the chamber on the work of Ferguson Shipbuilders in light of the Scottish Government’s £20 million investment in two new hybrid ferries?

Margaret Burgess (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

In November 2011, we announced a £20 million contract for two state-of-the-art diesel electric and battery-powered vessels designed for use on the Caledonian MacBrayne Clyde and Hebrides ferry services. In securing the contract to build the vessels, Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow has not only created 20 new apprenticeships but been able to support around 175 shipbuilding jobs in Port Glasgow and Inverclyde.

Haudagain Roundabout

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Aberdeen City Council regarding improvements to the Haudagain roundabout. (S4O-01339)

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Transport Scotland officials last met Aberdeen City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and Nestrans—the north east of Scotland transport partnership—on 12 April 2012 to discuss improvements to the Haudagain roundabout and other infrastructure projects. At the meeting, officials reconfirmed the Scottish Government’s commitment to starting improvements to Haudagain once the Aberdeen western peripheral route has been completed.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As the minister will be aware, the traffic modelling for the Haudagain roundabout improvements showed that the works would be effective only if the third Don crossing were developed as planned. Given that Aberdeen City Council’s Labour-led administration is now considering relocating the crossing or possibly scrapping it altogether, does the minister agree that such a move would put the Haudagain improvement works back at square one and would mean further expenditure by both council and Government and another lengthy planning and modelling exercise? Would it not be far better if the council administration stuck to the original plans for the third Don crossing, which would help to tackle congestion in the city?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I could not agree more with the point that Mark McDonald makes. It is worth saying that all options to emerge from the Aberdeen City Council Scottish transport appraisal guidance report require both the AWPR and the third Don crossing to be in place before the solutions work effectively. If the third Don crossing is not put in place, the proposed solutions at Haudagain will simply not be effective. However, it is clear that the completion of it and the AWPR would ease the strain on the Haudagain junction and assist during the construction process for delivering improvements at that bottleneck.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Could a revised plan for a third Don crossing not work well with the current proposals for the Haudagain roundabout? Is the delay to the improvements at the Haudagain not being caused by the minister’s insistence on bundling the project with the AWPR and not beginning work at the roundabout until the AWPR is completed? The work could begin right now—it is a shovel-ready project—so why does the minister not get on with it?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I will have to give the same answer that I have given to the same question from Richard Baker over a number of months. I have just made the point, as has Mark McDonald, that the studies that have been done show that the benefits to come from the Aberdeen western peripheral route require the improvements to the Haudagain roundabout to come afterwards. We have taken professional advice on the matter, including the STAG report that was mentioned, and are following it. That is the order in which to do the projects.

We are, of course, frustrated by the delays to the AWPR and await the outcome of the court process. However, in the meantime, we must ensure that we go about it in the right way, not only because it will be the most effective solution but because it is the most effective use of public resources.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I accept that there are all sorts of consequences in the plans for the AWPR, the Haudagain roundabout and the third Don crossing. However, for the benefit of my constituents, the minister might want to consider whether the Government and the council can act a little more quickly to end the uncertainty for the residents whose homes are likely to be purchased by compulsory purchase orders when the upgrade to the Haudagain roundabout goes ahead. Could we have some clarity on that?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

As I said in my answer to the first substantive question, of course we are willing to discuss with our partners, including Aberdeen City Council, how best we can expedite the process. The major decision is still to be taken and we are hopeful that it will be taken shortly.

I am well aware of the uncertainty that Brian Adam mentions. I am more than happy to work with our partners on that and to come back to him with a further update once we have done so.

4G Mobile Phone Services

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what its strategy is for the roll-out of 4G mobile services. (S4O-01340)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As set out in “Scotland’s Digital Future—Infrastructure Action Plan”, enhanced mobile coverage across the whole of Scotland is a priority for the Scottish Government. We continue to have discussions with mobile operators about improving coverage across Scotland.

As telecommunications regulation is currently reserved, the Scottish Government has limited powers on the future roll-out of 4G in Scotland. The Office of Communications has responsibility for auctioning the 4G spectrum, setting licence condition requirements—which include a coverage obligation—and ensuring that mobile operators fulfil them. The mobile operators themselves will make commercial decisions on their investment in Scotland. The Government has successfully lobbied Ofcom to secure a high 4G coverage obligation in Scotland. That has resulted in a 95 per cent indoor coverage target having being set in all four United Kingdom nations. That is a considerable improvement on the targets that were originally proposed and will extend 4G services across the whole country.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed answer. I am the convener of the cross-party group on digital participation, and one of the common messages that we hear is that rural communities in particular must not lose out when new technologies are introduced. Will the cabinet secretary reassure me that the Scottish Government will do everything that it can within its powers to ensure that the roll-out of 4G mobile technologies in Scotland will serve all Scotland, not only the areas that are most lucrative for commercial service providers?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, I assure Willie Coffey that that is our clear intention and determination. We will work with key industry partners to facilitate early and comprehensive roll-out of 4G throughout Scotland. As I said in my initial answer, we have already worked with Ofcom to secure a higher coverage obligation in Scotland than it originally proposed.

We are encouraged by the new timetable for 4G roll-out that has recently been agreed with mobile operators. That will ensure that 4G services are available throughout Scotland from early next year. As part of our world class 2020 programme, we will also look for opportunities to support early deployment and testing in Scotland of the next version of 4G technology, LTE advanced, or true 4G.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s response and echo Willie Coffey’s comments about the importance of 4G mobile coverage, particularly in rural areas. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the process that was adopted in Germany during the last roll-out whereby there was a requirement to link up rural areas before the more populated urban areas were linked up, as a way of incentivising mobile operators not to pick the low-hanging fruit but to deal first with the difficult-to-reach areas?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

We are keen to have these discussions with the providers of mobile technology. As I said in a previous response, the regulatory framework is reserved. That is why it was so important that we worked with Ofcom to ensure that a higher coverage target applies across Scotland. I understand the concerns and needs of rural communities, particularly communities as remote and rural as the ones that Liam McArthur represents. We will therefore do everything that we can to ensure that nobody and no community is left behind as this very important technology is rolled out across the country.

Properties at risk of External Sewer Flooding

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

6. To ask the Scottish Government how many homes affected by external sewer flooding are listed on Scottish Water’s register of properties. (S4O-01341)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Scottish Water has been tasked in this investment period to create and maintain a register of all properties that are at risk of external sewer flooding. It currently has some 2,100 locations on that register. Scottish Water is carrying out investigations to confirm whether those cases of external flooding are the result of capacity issues in the sewerage system.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Residents in the Kingsknowe Crescent area of my constituency have suffered since the 1990s from severe external sewer flooding. Despite assurances from Scottish Water’s predecessor, East of Scotland Water, that the cause would be addressed, no work has taken place to resolve the sewer capacity issues. Scottish Water had an operating surplus of close to £300 million in 2011-12; are there any restrictions on Scottish Water reinvesting such surpluses in capital projects to alleviate external sewer flooding?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The issue that Gordon MacDonald raises is of huge importance to the constituents he refers to. I know that Scottish Water is aware of the seriousness of the external sewer flooding problem at Kingsknowe Crescent. As the member is aware, it is a complex problem that arises from the fact that sewers and drains are not large enough to drain both the sewage and the surface water in the locality when there has been high rainfall. Scottish Water is currently undertaking a study specific to Kingsknowe Crescent with the City of Edinburgh Council to try to obtain a better understanding of the problem. I understand that it will present the results of the study and the options for resolution at the meeting that you will have on 22 October.

The member also notes that Scottish Water has significant operating surpluses. In 2011-12, Scottish Water had £74 million of surplus before tax, which I can tell the chamber was fully reinvested in the improvement of services.

Construction Companies (Public Sector Contracts)

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it ensures that construction companies headquartered in Scotland are provided with the best possible opportunities of being successful in bidding for public sector contracts. (S4O-01342)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

As part of the Government’s drive to promote sustainable economic growth, we have greatly increased ease of access to public sector contracts through the introduction of the public contracts Scotland website, which provides suppliers free of charge with a single access point to thousands of Scottish contracting opportunities.

We are also working with business to deliver improvements to the public procurement process. As I announced today, we will shortly begin a thorough review of construction procurement across the public sector and we are currently consulting on a procurement reform bill that will embed procurement systems and practices that are streamlined and business friendly.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

In my recent meetings with Robertson Construction Group and Ogilvie Homes, both of which are based in my constituency, the companies expressed concerns about the speed at which public sector contracts are being brought successfully to the marketplace and about the number of pre-qualification questionnaires that they are required to submit compared with the number of successful outcomes. Will the cabinet secretary review those matters closely to see what can be done to speed up the contract process and remove any unnecessary and expensive burdens from the pre-qualification process?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Yes, we will. I agree with Bruce Crawford about the importance of getting more projects under way and getting them under way more quickly. That is why, despite the significant cuts to our capital budgets, we have used innovative ways to maximise capital spending to support infrastructure investment and jobs. Examples include the national housing trust and the hub initiative.

We have worked with public and private sector representatives, including firms in the construction sector, to introduce standardised questions to test supplier capacity and capability in the pre-qualification process. Those questions are being rolled out across the public sector.

International Development

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its future budget plans are for international development. (S4O-01346)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government has committed to maintaining the international development fund at £9 million per year up to the end of the spending review period in 2014-15. That has been supplemented by a £3 million Scottish Government contribution to the climate justice fund.

The Scottish Government’s £2.5 million contribution to the Scottish sport relief home and away programme will attract match funding from sport relief for development projects, approximately half of which will be in Scotland and half of which will be in the world’s poorest countries.

Roderick Campbell (Scottish National Party, North East Fife)

I welcome the minister to his new post and wish him every success. Will he provide an update on what the Scottish Government is doing internationally to protect some of the world’s poorest communities, which are worst affected by climate change?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The latest round of the international development fund supports Scotland-based organisations that work on the ground in sub-Saharan Africa and which are taking forward projects to respond to the effects of climate change.

The member will be aware that the First Minister and the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, came together earlier this year to launch the Scottish Government’s £3 million climate justice fund, for which the Scottish Government is providing £1 million a year for the next three years. That is open to applications for water projects in Malawi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia, and the successful projects are due to be announced shortly. The groundbreaking climate justice fund is important, as it recognises that those in the developed world, who have the most, contribute most to climate change, yet the effects of climate change impact disproportionately on the poorest in the developing world.

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Following the successful visit of Che Guevara’s daughter Aleida to Scotland last month, which included a visit to the Parliament, will the Scottish Government consider opportunities to develop links with Cuba as part of its international development budget plans?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The member will be aware that the international development budget is extremely tight. To get the maximum impact from that, we focus absolutely on countries that need support most—the sub-Saharan African countries that I mentioned and countries on the subcontinent that are low on the human development index. For that reason, it is important to keep a geographic and thematic focus.

I know that ministers have had engagement with Cuba and with representatives from Cuba, but there are no plans at the moment for the international development fund to go further than its current geographic focus.

Youth Olympic Games 2018

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what involvement the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs will have with Glasgow City Council regarding the 2018 youth Olympic games under the major events strategy. (S4O-01348)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government is delighted to work with our partners Glasgow City Council and the British Olympic Association on a youth Olympic games bid that we believe will delight and surprise the International Olympic Committee. The bid falls under the portfolio responsibility of Shona Robison, the Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport. As a result, she chairs the bid board, on which Councillor Gordon Matheson, Glasgow City Council’s leader—and, of course, Anne McTaggart’s former boss—and Lord Colin Moynihan, the BOA’s chair, sit.

The bid board meets regularly. The meetings have been productive and all the members are focused on producing a bid that is in keeping with the national events strategy’s mission to develop events that deliver a clear and lasting impact for Scotland. The bid will emphasise the superb infrastructure that is in place and our nation’s unrivalled passion for sport.

Anne McTaggart (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the minister to his new post. Does he agree that we need to create a positive working relationship between stakeholders and that all elected members should be involved in helping to bring the 2018 youth Olympic games to Glasgow, to build on the legacy of the 2012 Olympic games and the 2014 Commonwealth games?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I could not disagree with that. I absolutely endorse everything that the member says. The success of the 2012 Olympics came through collaborative, consensual working between all partners. The 2014 organising committee has met on many occasions and also takes much heart from that approach. We will do the same. In that spirit of consensus, not only do we have Glasgow City Council, the Scottish Government and the BOA working together, but every party leader in the chamber has signed up in support of the bid, as well as the independent member, Margo MacDonald. Even all the United Kingdom party leaders have signed up to it. In that spirit of consensus, I can ensure that the member is given an official Glasgow 2018 bid lanyard, which I am sure that she will wear with great pride.

Annabel Goldie (Conservative, West Scotland)

Maybe I will not be eligible for a lanyard, but if one comes I will be happy to accept it. Given the importance to the areas surrounding Glasgow of the impact of any successful bid, will the minister engage with other local authorities—for example, those in Renfrewshire and, on the north side of the Clyde, in Dunbartonshire—to consider what input they might have and what contribution they might make?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Much as for the Glasgow 2014 bid, there have been discussions with a number of local authorities not just in the central belt and surrounding areas, but across the country, as I mentioned in my previous answer. Shona Robison is chairing and leading the bid board, and I have no doubt that she and the board will engage with the surrounding local authorities on the impact of the bid. We want to ensure that, should the bid be successful, the legacy is not just for Glasgow or even just for the surrounding areas, but for the whole of Scotland.

Young Scots Fund

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made with the young Scots fund in supporting emerging young talent. (S4O-01349)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Early progress is being made through the investment of £505,000 that we have provided in 2012-13 for a graduate incentive programme with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which seeks to increase graduate recruitment in Scotland’s small businesses. The young Scots fund is a manifesto commitment covering the five-year term of this Parliament, and planning is progressing well for the national conservation centre, the national centre for youth arts and the national performance centre for sport.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

In the draft budget, the fund appears to be £12.5 million for the financial year 2013-14 but the figure drops substantially the following year to £7.5 million. Why is that?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

As I explained, a number of the projects that are being developed now are capital projects. I am delighted to say that the national conservation centre is now attracting not only European Union funding but Heritage Lottery funding, so it will be even more ambitious than it was originally. Initially, there will be projects that relate particularly to graduate employment and the opportunities for all youth employment proposals. In most of the capital spend, especially in my portfolio area, there is a big focus on 2012 to 2014, although progress on the national performance centre for sport will be made particularly in 2014-15 and 2015-16.

Digital Participation

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made to increase digital participation across Scotland. (S4O-01350)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The latest figures from the Scottish household survey, which was published in August, report that in 2011 more than 75 per cent of Scottish adults used the internet. The market communications report from the Office of Communications, which was published in March, reports an overall increase of 7 per cent in broadband uptake last year. A range of initiatives are under way, through the Scottish Library and Information Council, in schools and communities. In the first six months of 2012, the Scottish Government funded projects across Scotland that reached more than 4,500 people.

In the member’s region, over the past five years more than 10,000 people in Fife have attended internet taster sessions in local libraries. Yesterday, Fife Council, working with the digital participation action group, which brings together public, private and third sector organisations that are committed to improving digital participation, held an event in the Rothes halls, Glenrothes, as part of the programme to increase the level of digital participation in Fife, in particular among the over-55 age group.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Good progress is being made, but obviously online sources for services can be very important for people in rural communities. Will she give some idea of the specific commitments that the Scottish Government might have in place to help rural communities?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Clearly, there is supply and demand. In Glasgow we have to make sure that we stimulate demand for usage, but in rural areas there are connectivity issues. My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities will be taking forward the procurement proposals, which are well advanced, particularly in the Highlands and Islands, to make sure that we have the connectivity that is required to ensure that there can be rural uptake on the supply side.

World Festival of Flight 2013

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what discussion it has had with interested parties regarding the proposed world festival of flight 2013 to be held in the Ayr constituency. (S4O-01351)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Investment met the co-curator of the world festival of flight 2013 in November 2011 and I met the co-curators in March this year. We both expressed our interest in the event and asked to be kept updated as the proposals progressed.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. She will be aware of the growing interest in the world festival of flight 2013, including the proposed aviation film festival, the proposed aviation history exposition and the celebration of the first use of Monkton meadows as an airfield in 1913. Given the cabinet secretary’s local knowledge and her role in cultural and economic development, will she give her full support to the event, including the lecture series running up to the event as well as the festival itself, please?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am very interested in the festival. I think that John Scott is right to identify that film was starting to develop at the same time as flight, so the combination of film and flight as part of the festival is very attractive. I have encouraged the organisers to contact Creative Scotland and EventScotland for what I think could be a very exciting event. I am familiar with the area—I used to spend weekends at Prestwick airport a long time ago—and I think that this is an exciting project. I wish it very well.

Cultural Exchange (Non-EU European Nations)

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

7. To ask the Scottish Government what cultural exchanges it is pursuing with non-European Union European nations. (S4O-01352)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government recognises the value of cultural exchanges with a range of countries across the world, including our priority countries and non-EU European countries. The Scottish Government supports the work of our partner agencies, such as Creative Scotland and the National Museum of Scotland, to pursue exchanges. For example, NMS has recently collaborated with the State Hermitage Museum of St Petersburg to bring the Catherine the Great exhibition to Edinburgh.

Cultural exchanges are an effective means of developing Scotland’s international relations and promoting our unique heritage and distinctive culture, which in turn can open up opportunities for investment in Scotland, contributing to economic growth.

Colin Keir (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Western)

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer. Has the Scottish Government been made aware of non-EU cultural organisations having difficulties in obtaining United Kingdom visas, which makes participation in events such as the Edinburgh festivals more difficult?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

No concerns in that regard have been raised with me or my officials, but I suspect that any concerns would be raised with the United Kingdom Border Agency and immigration officials. However, if the member is aware of an impact on artists involved in the Edinburgh festivals, I am more than happy for him to write to me and I will investigate.

BBC Scotland

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

8. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met representatives of BBC Scotland and what issues were discussed. (S4O-01353)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I met the then director general of the BBC, Mark Thompson, on 8 September 2012 and the chair of the BBC Trust, Lord Patten, on 22 September 2012, who were chairing events at which I was speaking. I discussed cuts to BBC Scotland, in particular with Mr Thompson. I also expect to discuss that matter with the director of BBC Scotland at a meeting scheduled for 8 November 2012.

Siobhan McMahon (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for raising the issue of cuts. In an answer to Ken Macintosh, she said that in an independent Scotland viewers will be able to

“enjoy more home-grown content, including a Scottish national broadcaster that will build on the existing staff and assets of BBC Scotland, while enjoying the same programmes and channels as they do now.”—[Official Report, 20 September 2012; c 11700.]

Does that mean that the new independent broadcaster will purchase the existing BBC infrastructure and resources in Scotland? How does the Scottish Government propose to fund such a generous service?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

Clearly, we will set out our programme in the white paper in November 2013, but let me reassure Siobhan McMahon that the licence fee revenue for Scotland is currently £320 million and we will certainly have a share in the assets of BBC Scotland.

I remember that Ken Macintosh was particularly concerned about whether David Attenborough’s “Frozen Planet” was shown in Ireland. I can confirm that David Attenborough’s “Frozen Planet” is shown even in independent Ireland, on RTÉ2’s television channel. I reassure the member—as I did Ken Macintosh—that the biggest threat to the BBC is currently coming from the future faced under a Tory Government as part of the union.

Historic Built Environment (Highlands and Islands)

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

9. To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to improve the historic built environment in the Highlands and Islands, given the increase in funding to Historic Scotland as set out in the draft budget 2013-14. (S4O-01354)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The additional £1 million allocated to Historic Scotland in the budget for 2013-14 is to help the efficient management of the Historic Scotland estate, increasing opportunities for local maintenance contractors and supporting jobs throughout Scotland including the Highlands and Islands.

Mike MacKenzie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

How much of the cost of repairs to Scotland’s built heritage will be clawed back by the United Kingdom Treasury in VAT imposed on repairs to historic buildings? What impact will the imposition of VAT on approved alterations to listed buildings have on our struggle to maintain the viability of our historic buildings?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government has repeatedly requested that the UK Government stimulates economic growth in construction in the heritage sector by reducing VAT. The imposition by the UK Government of 20 per cent VAT is an attack on economic growth and the built environment. It is the wrong move and it is in the wrong direction. Using past data, the Treasury would be likely to take an amount somewhere in the range of £25 million out of the construction industry in the VAT hike for 2013-14, but what is even worse is that that tax hike to 20 per cent could discourage the commissioning of work in the first place.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister join me in welcoming Historic Scotland’s recent funding support for Campbeltown’s historic wee picture house? What other support can that cinema receive to allow its restoration project to go forward?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I am pleased that Historic Scotland has been able to support the film house in Campbeltown. It is a good example of how investment, in cinema houses or in borough halls the length and breadth of Scotland, is not only helping to regenerate town centres but contributing to a vibrant cultural scene. I am pleased that support has already been given and I will be interested to hear from the member about any further plans that the cinema has. I am sure that funders across the country, whether Creative Scotland or others, would be interested in that programme.

Trade Unions (International Projects)

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

10. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with trade unions regarding support for international projects in which they are both involved. (S4O-01355)

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The Scottish Government is keen to engage with all sections of society in working together to promote our international engagement. There are a number of areas in which we collaborate with trade unions in Scotland. For example, at the last biannual meeting between the First Minister and the Scottish Trades Union Congress it was agreed that the STUC would undertake a study to look at lessons that could be learned from the manufacturing sector in Germany, with support from Scottish Government analysts.

The recent Mandela day celebrations were a positive example of the Scottish Government working with trade unions, civic society and local government to engage the Scottish people in international and development issues.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The minister will be aware of my interest in the Fire Brigades Union’s Palestinian training project that is taking place in Dundee to train some 20 fire officials from the Palestinian civil defence department. What assistance might the Scottish Government be able to provide? Specifically, is the minister examining possibilities for assisting with the accommodation of those officials?

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I thank the member for the question and note his sustained interest in and passion for the issue.

The Scottish Government has previously supported efforts in international development and aid for Palestine, including humanitarian aid for Gaza. The particular issue raised by the member is with officials and I am happy for the member to be updated once a decision is reached.

Scotland’s Future

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-04340, in the name of Johann Lamont, on Scotland’s future. I remind members that the debate is heavily oversubscribed. Your time limits will be extremely strict. I hope that we can accommodate all members who want to speak.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Presiding Officer, I note what you say about the debate being oversubscribed. It is our aspiration that this be a serious debate for the whole of Scotland. The noises from the Scottish National Party benches to my right suggest that those members have no intention of having a serious debate about these matters.

Life in opposition could be very easy: sit back; do not say anything controversial; criticise the Government’s weaknesses; and hope that, come the election in a few years’ time, people will think that we can do a better job. However, a few weeks ago, I met a group of carers and, for me, it was the final straw with regard to things that have been worrying me for many months.

The carers were home helps—kind and compassionate people who support our elderly in their homes, providing meals and helping them to wash and to do other day-to-day tasks that most of us take for granted. While talking to them, I learned of the concept of task and go. I heard about carers who have to fit in four visits in an hour. I heard about carers who are instructed not to talk to their clients, because they simply do not have the time.

We know that there are elderly people in our communities who see a different face every time they are due a visit. We remember all too well the powerful testimony of the widow of the late Ken Maitland, who had the indignity of having more than 106 carers through his door in a year. We know that there are elderly people who opt out of the care support because it is no longer working for them. Is this really the kind of care that we want for our grandparents, our mothers and fathers, and—when the time comes—ourselves?

I decided that enough was enough. Every week, we are told by the SNP Government how wonderful life is in Scotland and that any overhanging problems can be swept away with one magic solution. The presentation that we hear from the First Minister every Thursday bears no resemblance to what I am hearing in my community and across Scotland every other week.

We are not playing the game anymore. We cannot tell these women that everything is going to be fine. We cannot finesse something that is not delivering for people. We will refuse to have respect for a Scottish Government that claims to care but refuses to acknowledge those women and their concerns—a Government that refuses to acknowledge what is going on in the real world.

The Scottish Government does not like to be confronted with reality. In March, the First Minister accused my colleague Jackie Baillie of telling scare stories about the shortage of blankets in Scottish hospitals. It took a visit to Parliament by 92-year-old Helen Macbeth and Jack Barr, a grandfather, to tell him about their experiences before he was prepared to admit that old people were going without blankets at night.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does the member accept that the real people in my constituency, which is one of the neediest in the country, are very positive about no tuition fees, free prescriptions and the freeze in council tax?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I would hazard a guess that some of the women I met in Glasgow come from Mr Mason’s constituency. It is no comfort to them to tell them that things are fantastic when they know, every day of their lives, that that is not the case. They asked me, “How can this go on? How is it allowed that we create these kinds of circumstances in our communities?” The member might want to hide from it, but he should listen to people across our communities who are telling us something different.

The First Minister told his party conference last year that

“the rocks will melt with the sun”

before he allows tuition fees for Scottish students. He did not say, “unless you are a part-time student or a graduate.” He did not say that the rocks would melt with the sun before he cut the bursaries of Scotland’s poorest students by nearly £900. He did not say that the rocks would melt with the sun before he let the number of people going to college drop by 18,000. He said none of those things; he let Michael Russell go ahead and make all of those things happen in what is probably the single biggest betrayal of Scotland’s young people.

It cannot be finessed, wished away or spun, and it cannot be explained with the selective use of statistics; that is what is happening in the real world and the SNP Government refuses to acknowledge it.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

On that point, I wonder whether Ms Lamont would like to tell us how she would reply to NUS Scotland, which said in an e-mail to us all this morning that it is

“deeply concerned by any suggestions of a return to tuition fees for Scotland’s students,”

and that it is

“clear that Scotland as a country and a society values the principle that access to education should be based on the ability to learn not the wealth to pay.”

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I would ask the NUS: is it right that students who cannot get a place in a further education college are to pay the price of Mike Russell’s policies? We do no students a service and we do them a grave disservice by implying that one set of students is more important than another.

Mike Russell is the man who penned that great work “Grasping the Thistle”, in which he tells us of his plans to privatise the national health service and informs us that Scotland’s real problem with the union is that we get too much money out of it—he says that it is literally killing us with kindness. We do not agree with Mike Russell on many things but, for those members who were not watching the Labour Party conference this week and going on Twitter, let me read this passage from Mr Russell:

“Put bluntly universality now drags down both the quality of service to those most in need, and the ability of government to provide such services. However, our political parties do not have the courage to address the issue for fear of losing votes.”

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank the member for raising my sales again. I am more than prepared to say today that my experience of the recession and of the loss of 25,000 university places south of the border makes me believe that I was wrong. [Interruption.]

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That is the generous contribution to the debate that I will make. Will Ms Lamont now admit that she is wrong to victimise Scotland’s young people?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I think that the real difference is that Mr Russell opposed Alex Salmond when he wrote the book but now relies on his patronage. It is illogical to say that we would spend less on the poor in a time of recession than in a time of plenty—it makes no sense whatsoever. [Interruption.]

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Unlike Mike Russell, I am not against universality. I just want to know how we are going to pay for it. We know that such concerns exist at the heart of the Government, but those who have them are too cynical to voice them.

I will quote another one of the SNP Government’s front bench, our Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Alex Neil, who said:

“It would be inappropriate to use scarce resources to provide free central heating systems for some of our retired bankers, for example, who receive substantial pensions.” —[Official Report, 14 May 2009; c 17481.]

That is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but it is at odds with the view of the Deputy First Minister, who claims that she does not believe in means testing, even though she was the cabinet secretary in charge at the time of Alex Neil’s statement.

If Nicola Sturgeon is serious about universality, I look forward to her reversing the means testing for the education maintenance allowance, which cuts off at £20,000; I look forward to her extending universality to dental treatment; I look forward to her ending hotel charges in care homes; I look forward to her withdrawing the bill that increases means testing for legal aid; and I look forward to finding out where she is going to find the money to pay for it all.

We have a Deputy First Minister who decries anyone who challenges her definition of universality and we have a First Minister who has never met a tax that he does not want to cut. We know that those things are not consistent—they are incompatible—and yet this dishonest Government continues the myth that in an independent Scotland we could have Scandinavian welfare while cutting tax to a level that would make Mitt Romney blush.

Alex Neil is right about one thing—that we have scarce resources, with £3.3 billion still to be removed from the Scottish budget. I agree with the SNP that the Tory Government is cutting too far and fast, but the reality is that those cuts will have to be addressed.

Last week, Nicola Sturgeon invented a Labour cuts commission, but what precisely did she imagine that John Swinney asked Crawford Beveridge and Campbell Christie to do? He asked, “What do we do in tough times?” and Beveridge said that we should ask not whether something is desirable but whether it is affordable and whether, in tough times, we expect those with the broadest backs to carry the heaviest burden.

Of course, Nicola Sturgeon is in complete denial, but the reality is that people out there are facing the consequences of SNP cuts every day. [Interruption.] SNP members might think that it is funny, but to care workers, mothers who are worried about the quality of their children’s education or young people who cannot access college, it is not funny or imagined—it is the real world. How will the SNP protect people and on whom will it put the burden?

Last year, the Christie commission report, which was commissioned by John Swinney, warned that

“Contentious issues such as the continuation of universal entitlements must be considered openly and transparently, rather than in the current polarised terms.”

I urge the SNP to listen to the man who responded to its request and set up that commission. It seems that, in Scottish politics, it is just not possible to consider those issues openly and honestly. The debate has been closed down because it suits some people to keep it polarised.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

Johann Lamont has said:

“Scotland cannot be the only something for nothing country in the world”.

To which people in Scotland was she referring?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The fact is that the people whom I described who are living with the consequence of SNP cuts are paying the price for the SNP’s pretence that everything is dead straightforward. Everybody pays a price but, in tough times, it ought not to be the weak and the vulnerable—it should be those of us with the broader backs.

I believe that my approach is in the national interest. The easy option for me as leader of the Opposition would have been to sit back, put my fingers in my ears and pretend that we can afford to pay for everything for evermore. However, I care too much about Scotland to do that and I care too much about public services to let them bleed to death. The debate that I called for is not one about universality versus means testing; it is about what we can and cannot afford. It is about affordability and sustainability and how we protect the most vulnerable in these tough times.

What the SNP has to say about universality will be of little comfort to young people from poor backgrounds who cannot get a place at college, older people who are faced with declining standards of care, and people who lose their jobs.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The reality is that the SNP does not have a basic understanding of fairness. In my remaining time, I can give only one example. Is it fair that a mother has to pay £5 a day for breakfast club and £11 a day for after-school club just so that she can get to work?

We want and need an open and honest debate. As long as the SNP closes down the debate, makes a false argument about the challenges and remains in denial about the cuts that it is implementing, the people who pay the price will be those across Scotland who do not have the power of sitting at the table with Alex Salmond and having his ear. The poor people in our communities and working families are concerned. They have the right to have their voices heard and the Government has an obligation to respond to them.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that cuts are currently taking place at both national and local level and having an impact on people’s daily lives; recognises that it is those most in need that are often acutely affected by these cuts; notes that the Centre for Public Policy for Regions has calculated that over three quarters of the real-terms decline in resource spend has still to come; recognises that, at the same time, demographic and social pressures are increasing; agrees with the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services that “Contentious issues such as the continuation of universal entitlements must be considered openly and transparently, rather than in the current polarised terms”, and calls on all members to consider how to fully fund and sustain high quality public services in Scotland that best support the needs of Scots now and in the future.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is always good to start on a consensual note, so let me kick off with something on which I agree with Johann Lamont. We have big questions to ask and answer about the future of Scotland and the kind of country that we want to be, so I do not criticise her for asking the questions. Unlike her friends on the Tory benches, however, I take issue with the conclusion that she has reached.

That conclusion has its roots in Labour’s deeply misguided belief that this Parliament should be responsible for divvying up the national cake but that it should have no power to influence the overall size of that cake. That conclusion puts at risk many of the hard-won social policy victories of this Parliament, such as free personal care for the elderly, and the council tax freeze that only five months ago was backed by Labour when it promised to continue with that approach for the next five years.

Nick Clegg has apologised for breaking his promises in Government; Labour must be the first party on record to manage to break its promises from opposition. That would be funny were it not so tragic. It beggars belief that a Labour leader would reach the conclusion that the best response to Tory cuts is to take away benefits and opportunities from pensioners, the sick, families who are already struggling to make ends meet, and working-class kids who aspire to a university education.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

First, does the cabinet secretary think that Campbell Christie was a Tory? Secondly, the responsibility of Government, regardless of the size of the cake, is to ensure that the cake is distributed fairly. By any test, her decisions and those of her Government have not led to a fair distribution. It is not good enough to say that we do not have the powers; the Government still has the responsibility. The cake is the size it is and the Government needs to answer why it has not distributed it fairly.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I will come on to the choices that we should be able to make, but let us first remind ourselves about how Johann Lamont described policies designed to take pressure off household budgets, to give our elderly people dignity and peace of mind, and to ensure that education is not the preserve of the wealthy but open to all who have the ability to learn. She called all those policies part of a “something for nothing” culture. What an insult to those who work hard, pay their taxes, save what they can and simply expect that their Government give them something back in return.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is it dignified to lie in a hospital bed without a blanket?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Labour is arguing that we should remove free personal care from our elderly. I take no lessons in dignity from anybody on the Labour side of the chamber.

Here is the lie. Labour tries to say that it is all about making the well-off pay more—people such as Johann Lamont and me—but let me tell Labour the truth and say who Johann Lamont has really put in the frame and who she has chosen to make this debate about. She has made the debate about the pensioner in my constituency who has worked all her life and who told me recently that, before concessionary travel, she rarely saw her elderly sister who lives in Inverness but that she can now do so whenever she wants; the woman with a serious, life-limiting chronic condition earning not much more than £16,000 a year who told me that she often had to choose which of her medicines to take because she could not afford to buy them all; the dementia sufferer, whose free personal care may make the difference between her having to sell her family home and not; and the young person from a working-class family who dreams of going to university but who knows that if she has to pay tuition fees she will not be able to do so.

Johann Lamont likes to make things personal, so let me tell her that that last anecdote is about me—I was that working-class kid going to university. We are the beneficiaries of free education; we have no right to pull up the ladder of opportunity and deprive today’s young people of what we took for granted. Those are the people that Johann Lamont has chosen to make the debate about. No wonder that voices in her party are calling her approach chaotic and shambolic.

Let us put it to the test. Hands up those on the Labour benches who think that we should take away the bus pass. Hands up those who think that we should reintroduce tuition fees or take away free personal care. Hands up those who think that we should restore prescription charges. [Interruption.]

Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab) rose—

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary used two examples—elderly people and the services that they rely on, and a young person going to university. What is her answer to the elderly person who faces an unfair system of social care charging? What is her answer to the student applying to college this year, under the SNP Government, and not when she was a student applying for university?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

It is that this Parliament should have power to grow the economy and to increase revenues and should not be forced to choose between one student and another. [Interruption.]

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

Order. We cannot hear the cabinet secretary.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Those on the Tory benches would have been quick to put their hands up to my questions, because all the people that I talk about are people that Labour thinks should bear the brunt of Tory cuts—the people that Labour would subject to the indignities of means testing for their bus pass or their personal care.

We think differently. We will protect the council tax freeze, free education, bus passes, personal care for our elderly and the principle of healthcare free at the point of need. We will do it within a balanced budget—a budget that has been cut year on year by the Tory Government that Labour is so keen to team up with—and we will strive to boost growth, to protect jobs and household budgets, and to make Scotland a fairer place to live.

Neil Findlay rose—

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

I think that it was a mistake right enough, but I think that I am the only one here old enough to have a bus pass.

Members: No.

The cabinet secretary gave the example of her constituent’s elderly sister in Inverness. My sister will kill me for saying that she is elderly but, although I believe utterly in the principle of universality, I would not mind having a certain number of passes per year that I could use to go and see my sister. The cabinet secretary was asking for ideas. She could tinker with the bus pass without giving up the principle.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Stewart Stevenson might take issue with the member’s claim to be the only person in the Parliament who qualifies for a bus pass.

We hear lots of examples cited of millionaires who qualify for bus passes. Most of them will not use their bus passes, and we do not pay for people who do not use their bus passes. People like my constituent rely on the bus pass—those are the people whom Labour wants to penalise. [Interruption.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

The point is that we have made choices and they are choices that we will stand by and choices that we were elected on.

However, those choices are not the biggest difference between Labour and the SNP. The biggest difference is that, while Labour is happy to accept a future for Scotland that has us simply deciding how we pass on Tory cuts, we are not. The real tragedy of Johann Lamont’s speech is that she has allowed herself to be imprisoned in a Tory straitjacket. We think differently. We want all of this country’s resources to be available to this Parliament so that we can seek to chart a different course and shape a different future.

I have said it before and I will say it again: independence is not a magic pill. It will not take away the difficult financial climate or the difficult decisions that we face but it will open up different choices.

Neil Findlay rose—

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

In Johann Lamont’s world, the only choices are whether to punish the pensioner or the student and whether to pass the cuts to the sick or the family struggling with council tax. With independence, we will have the ability to make different choices: the choice to get our economy growing faster so that revenues increase and the choice to shape a welfare system that reduces welfare costs by lifting people out of poverty. We will also have the choice—the real choice—not to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on Trident nuclear weapons but to invest instead in the things that really matter.

That is the real debate. It is a debate about who will determine the choices that define our politics and who will shape our future as a country: a right-wing Tory Government or this Parliament and the people whose lives are affected by the decisions that we take. I know that it was not Johann Lamont’s intention, but I have no doubt that her interventions last week will lead many more people to the latter option and to the conclusion that our destiny should be in our own hands—the conclusion that Scotland will be better off independent.

I move amendment S4M-04340.4, to leave out from “that cuts” to end and insert:

“the clear choice now facing the people of Scotland between managing a declining budget determined by the priorities of a UK Government or choosing a better way in which a Scottish Parliament, elected by the people of Scotland, has access to Scotland’s resources in order to ensure a fairer, wealthier and stronger society; recognises the health, societal and economic benefits of the universal provision provided under devolution and rejects the idea that this offers “something for nothing”; welcomes the actions taken by the Scottish Government since 2007 to ensure the sustainability of spending in Scotland, including the focus on preventative spending, reform of public services and the empowerment of communities as set out in the Independent Budget Review and the report of the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services, and agrees that, in order to ensure that Scotland reaches its full potential, can tackle poverty, protect key public services such as the NHS and deliver a socially just and economically vibrant society, it is necessary for the Scottish Parliament to have the full powers of an independent parliament.”

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

The Deputy First Minister began her speech on a note of consensus, so I will begin mine on a note of consensus. I agree entirely with Nicola Sturgeon when she says that independence is not a magic pill—it is nothing of the sort.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Will Mr Brown take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Normally, I would not take an intervention so early in my speech but, as Mr Findlay has been desperate to intervene on every speaker, I will take one.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Is the magic pill that the member talks about the same one that is being given to prisoners in jail for their conjugal rights?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I have no comment to make on that—I am genuinely stumped.

Let us be serious. If we are honest, the debate on universal services is not one that any member wants to have. People like universal services. Inaction on those services feels like the path of least resistance and, in the short term, it most certainly is. It is not a debate that we want to have, but it is a debate that we need to have. I agree with what Johann Lamont had to say on that point. We must take some decisions now, and we must look into the issue extremely carefully.

Why? First, universal services cost substantial sums of money. In a report last year, Audit Scotland said that the combined cost of free personal care, eye tests and travel was around £870 million a year and rising. That is not to say that the Conservative Party or any party in the Parliament wants to get rid of any of those services as the Deputy First Minister suggested—I make that absolutely clear—but it means that we should look at how they operate, including the age limit and other criteria that make people eligible for them. Holding that view does not mean automatically that we want to get rid of them.

Those services cost a lot of money. At the same time, we face a tough environment for public finances, with demographic change coming in behind it. Between 2008 and 2033, the number of people aged 60 or over will rise by 50 per cent, and the number of people aged 75 or over is set to almost double. If we are honest, we know that doing nothing is not an option. It is not good enough just to make a stump speech about independence. It is important to look carefully, critically and analytically at the issues.

Today, the Scottish Government has given the impression that it is not open to any discussion on any universal service. Let us look at bus travel, on which the Deputy First Minister gave the impression that there is no chance of anything changing under the SNP. A couple of years ago—in 2009—in its own review of the Scotland-wide free bus travel scheme, the Scottish Government concluded:

“there may be a case in the future for examining the value for money of concessionary travel for those passengers over the age of 60 in full time employment”.

One of the final recommendations in that report was

“That further work should be undertaken specifically to examine the long-term sustainability of the Scheme.”

In 2009, the Scottish Government accepted that the system could be reviewed and that the age criteria could be changed over time, but in 2011, just before the Scottish Parliament elections, it was suddenly against the idea and felt that such changes would be a terrible crime. Ever since, the Government has made it sound as though anyone who questions concessionary travel automatically wants to remove it. What a lot of rot, given the Government’s own words a mere three years ago.

The reason why it is so important to examine our universal services is that they are primarily demand driven. With the very best of intentions, we have created demand-driven engines in our budget. Professor David Bell said:

“the big thing about universal services is that they are open-ended commitments. I think that they should be revisited every five years to see whether they remain affordable.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 25 January 2012; c 578.]

It is also important to look at the afford-to-pay principle. We heard some discussion of that and we heard some examples of people who benefited from the concessionary travel scheme—Nicola Sturgeon gave an excellent and perfectly fair example. However, we also hear examples of people who can and are perfectly willing to pay but who do not pay because they have free bus passes. We could trade examples, but let us look at what the former Auditor General for Scotland had to say. He is someone who did not just assume that millionaires did not go on the bus although they have bus passes. He said:

“the cost of providing free transport to people who are over 60 and still in employment is £34 million or so.”—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 25 January 2012; c 587.]

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I have only 12 seconds left, Mr McDonald. I apologise, but I cannot take your intervention.

My amendment is likely to be defeated, because Mr Swinney’s will pass. However, we have asked that, as a first step, the Scottish Government agrees to publish in a few months’ time 10 years’ worth of projected data for universal services so that we can all analyse the figures to the best of our ability and have an open, honest and transparent debate on the issue.

I move amendment S4M-04340.3, to leave out from first “cuts” to end and insert:

“demographic and social pressures are increasing; agrees with the Commission on the Future Delivery of Public Services that “Contentious issues such as the continuation of universal entitlements must be considered openly and transparently, rather than in the current polarised terms”; calls on all members to consider how to fully fund and sustain high quality public services in Scotland that best support the needs of Scots now and in the future, and calls on the Scottish Government to publish, by the end of 2012, the most accurate possible forecasts for spending on universal services in Scotland for each of the next 10 years.”

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

When I first saw that the title of the Opposition debate was “Scotland’s Future”, I thought that we would be debating the fact that six months after Scottish Labour’s leader announced her intention to appoint a “let’s try again to kill independence stone dead” commission, she had finally confirmed its members and timetable. However, this debate is about a different Labour commission—the “let’s kill the principles of the Labour Party in Scotland stone dead” commission, or, as Johann Lamont called it earlier, the cuts commission.

The motion invites us to agree with Campbell Christie that we require open and transparent consideration, rather than consideration on the current polarised terms. Yesterday on BBC Radio, Johann Lamont called for “a mature debate”. However, last week, Johann Lamont made it clear that for her, the debate is over. In the language of The Daily Mail, she targeted Scotland’s elderly, her sick, and her young people to carry the can for the economic crisis that was precipitated by Labour and worsened by the Tories. The welfare state—trumpeted by the better together campaign as the “glue of the Union”—was dismissed by Johann Lamont as the “something for nothing culture”. She tells us that we misunderstand. She simply wants a debate and claims not to know in what direction Labour’s policy is heading. Unfortunately for her, we don't need to rely on Johann Lamont to see where Labour is going.

Watching Labour’s conference, I saw Margaret Curran, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland at Westminster, rush ahead of Johann Lamont, leader of Scottish Labour, to greet Ed Miliband. That action revealed Labour’s true pecking order. It reminded me that, as long ago as January, Margaret Curran gave much the same speech as Johann Lamont gave last week. So, Margaret Curran at Westminster signals policy changes on devolved matters before Johann Lamont gets there.

That was of course reinforced by Liam Byrne—he of the note that said “there’s no money left”. Ironically, Mr Byrne is now Labour’s welfare spokesman. At the Labour conference, he said:

“There has always been a balance in the welfare state between universal benefits and targeted benefits and I’m afraid as part of Ed’s zero-based review that balance has got to be looked at”.

So, what was trumpeted as being the leader of Scottish Labour laying out her stall in a grand speech was actually just a badly executed part of a London-led campaign aimed at the 2015 United Kingdom election. The more Johann Lamont struggles to align her actions to Labour’s UK campaign, the clearer it becomes that the term “Scottish Labour” is just an electoral fig leaf. London calls the shots and is more interested in Scotland’s voting strength than it is in allowing Scots to have the power to make decisions that affect their children, their families, their community and their country.

Scottish Labour even called in its fourth emergency service—Douglas Alexander—to try to rescue that speech. He invoked Aneurin Bevan, who said:

“The language of priorities is the religion of socialism”.

The priorities of the people of Scotland, socialist or otherwise, are different from those of United Kingdom Labour. The people of Scotland showed that clearly when they voted in May last year for the SNP—a party that espouses social democratic values and laid out an honest manifesto.

Of course Labour’s 2011 manifesto included a pledge that there would be

“no upfront or back-end tuition fees for Scottish university students.”

Scottish Labour has welcomed the abolition of prescription charges, and as we heard from the Deputy First Minister, Labour’s council candidates pledged council tax freezes and falsely accused the SNP of trying to do away with concessionary bus travel. Yet Labour members wonder why no one takes them seriously when they say that they want an honest and mature debate.

Yes, choices have to be made. The SNP Government has made hard choices and has competently and efficiently delivered balanced budgets.

The much-loved and much-missed Campbell Christie explained that a supportive and inclusive society is about much more than money. He said:

“People say we can’t afford things now but in 1948 we couldn’t afford the NHS and the pension schemes but we did it”.

It is about the common good. It is not about people wanting something for nothing.

That is not to pretend that there is no crisis—of course there is a crisis. So much for the union dividend. However, if we are to deal properly with the crisis, make choices, decide priorities and maintain the values that Scotland holds dear, we need power over all aspects of tax and welfare.

Whatever the outcome of the 2015 election, Labour cannot or will not deliver. The better-together parties want to maintain the status quo—Westminster business as usual—extracting maximum benefit from Scotland for the UK Treasury.

If we follow Labour’s line, the price will be wholesale withdrawal of benefits from low-paid Scots and a bloated bureaucracy to enforce means testing. Who would have thought, after all the years of the working people’s struggle, that the best that the Labour Party could offer would be an end to universal benefits and one-nation conservatism?

The only way to get the powers that this Parliament needs and to sustain Scotland’s values is by voting a resounding yes to a Scotland with the full powers of independence. I support John Swinney’s amendment.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

It is a shame when a debate as significant and serious as this one is reduced to sloganising about independence. Whether or not Scotland votes to separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, we will still have to confront the problem that is in front of us and we will still have to face up to hard realities. That will not change, whatever Scotland decides.

The SNP is attempting to present itself as favouring universalism while all the other parties are against it, so let us get this clear from the start: the SNP is not in favour of universalism. The SNP has not advocated universal housing benefit or council tax benefit. It did not argue for universal free central heating systems. It does not support universalism in the context of NHS dental treatment, NHS optical vouchers, travel costs to hospitals, free school meals or legal aid. This debate is not about one party supporting universalism and the others opposing it.

The debate should be about what we regard as our country’s priorities and how we use our resources to tackle those priorities. Is it a priority to do something for the sick, the disabled and the disadvantaged? Is it right to skew resources in favour of people who are least able to look after themselves? Or do we think that the easiest thing to do is to give all members of the Scottish Parliament more money, through a council tax freeze, through free prescriptions and in other ways?

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

Given what the member has just said, what about the position of Glasgow City Council, which promised a five-year council tax freeze in May?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

It is in exactly the same position as my own council in Renfrewshire, which said the same thing in the local government election campaign. The reality is that if those councils do not freeze the council tax for five years they will be financially penalised by this SNP Government. They faced a very hard choice: were they willing to make the elderly, the poor, the sick and the disabled pay even more as a result? They decided, pragmatically and correctly, that they could not do so.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Will the member give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

No.

What is the reality of what is happening in our councils across the country? I can speak only from my experience in Renfrewshire; in fact, Renfrewshire Council’s ex-leader, Derek Mackay, is in the chamber this afternoon. In 2010, under this SNP Government, that council faced £75 million of cuts targeted over three years—and the situation has worsened. It produced what it termed a difficult choices consultation and decided that in order to do all these things that are so good for everyone in the chamber it would have to cut £300,000 from home care services, £175,000 from care homes for older people and £743,000 from the social work budget.

As for the question whether we believe in universalism, do we believe in it for those who have to rely on community alarms and who had to pay more money for that service? Do we believe in universalism for the older people who go to and get meals at day centres? We asked them to pay more every day for those facilities. Do we believe in universalism for those who need extra care and get housing meals? We put up their charges by £7 a week. Do we believe in universalism for disabled people or those with learning disabilities who need transport to day centres? In Renfrewshire, when Derek Mackay was council leader, we decided to charge them £2.50 a day so that people like me could get their council tax freeze. Is that fair? Is that humane? Where is the universalism there?

Derek Mackay (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Mr Henry referred to the consultations that councils have carried out—in this case, Renfrewshire’s. Is he aware that when the choices were outlined and communities asked whether they supported the council tax freeze—no matter whether it was SNP policy—the public in Renfrewshire, even in light of all the information, still chose to have it?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

This will be the same Derek Mackay who voted to give free school meals to the school that his child attended while cutting all the other services. He can afford it. This debate—[Interruption.]

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

This debate should be about priorities for the least well-off. The SNP has shown that it has no care or compassion for those people.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Of utmost importance to me and I am sure everyone in the chamber is Scotland’s future, whether as a normal independent nation, which I obviously favour; as a country with the limited powers that we currently have; or as a country with more powers, as promised by the Prime Minister earlier this year. Time will tell and the people of Scotland will decide.

I grew up at a time when the economic heart—[Interruption.]

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

When I was growing up, Inverclyde’s economic heart was being systematically dismantled by a Tory UK Government. In that time, Inverclyde, the area where I still live, has survived. Nevertheless, there have been some positives. For example, Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow, through Scottish Government investment, is building the world’s first two hybrid ferries and creating jobs, and Stepper Technology in Greenock has doubled its workforce over the past year. Nevertheless, more needs to be done.

There have been huge challenges and there still are, but Inverclyde—the area where I grew up and still live—can have a successful future. As well as addressing employment issues, we need to ensure that we protect everyone who lives there.

That is where the Parliament has worked, not only for Inverclyde but for Scotland. It has introduced a number of initiatives that have had a positive impact on all our constituents: free personal care for the elderly, free eye tests, the concessionary travel scheme, free dental check-ups, free prescriptions and the council tax freeze.

I note that the West Dunbartonshire Council leader, Martin Rooney, only today warmly welcomed the council tax freeze in the Lennox Herald. He said:

“we have no plans to raise council tax over the next five years. I accept the right of my leader of the Labour Party to make these comments”—

the comments from last week—

“but we’ve made plans”.

I agree with him on that point.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will Stuart McMillan accept that it is perfectly reasonable for local councils to make their own decisions about setting local taxes? Indeed, is that not the right way to go in future?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I agree that local authorities should make their own decisions, but I also—[Interruption.] I also agree that the council tax freeze has been hugely beneficial throughout Scotland, including West Dunbartonshire.

I also appreciate that Scotland and other parts of these islands face financial challenges due to the huge debt burden left by UK Labour and the failing austerity measures introduced by the Tory-Lib Dem coalition—a cuts agenda that goes too far and too fast.

We all know that the former chancellor—and now the leader of the anti-independence campaign—Alistair Darling said that Labour’s cuts would be deeper and tougher than Thatcher’s. He said that before he was booted out of office in 2010. I know how Margaret Thatcher’s cuts affected Inverclyde and I assure members that I do not want to go back to that.

Johann Lamont’s speech last week and the verbal gymnastics that happened in its aftermath only highlight to SNP members what Scotland’s continuing in the union would look like. Like Mr Miliband and Disraeli, I, too, can use the phrase “one nation”. With one nation, they will slash more services. In one nation, we will pay more council tax. We should vote for one nation if we want free personal care to be scrapped, if we want to pay tuition fees and if we want to pay for prescriptions. The list could go on, and I am happy to provide some more helpful slogans to the anti-independence campaign.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will Stuart McMillan give way?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I have already taken one intervention.

According to Professor Arthur Midwinter, who advises Labour on its cuts commission, all universal provision is on the table. If we are to have an open and honest debate with everything on the table, will Labour confirm or deny whether any of the following will be on the hit list? Will free eye tests and dental check-ups be on it? Are there to be fewer apprenticeships when, week in, week out, Labour members continually call for more apprenticeships?

We have already heard about Glasgow. In its campaign in Glasgow in May this year, Labour’s manifesto highlighted the fact that Glasgow City Council was the first council to introduce the council tax freeze—a manifesto policy on which Johann Lamont obviously campaigned. As I said a few moments ago, Martin Rooney of West Dunbartonshire Council obviously agrees with that policy.

Labour in Glasgow also pledged to provide an affordable warmth dividend of £100 to all people aged over 80 every winter. Will that now be a goner? It also stated that it would continue to

“provide free swimming for the under 18s and over 60s, free golf for the under 18s and free bowling and tennis for all”,

and said:

“Labour will extend free golf on Council courses to the over 60s.”

Labour’s contribution to the debate is clear and obvious. It is that we should pay more council tax, pay for prescriptions if we are ill and pay for eye tests and dental check-ups. It is that senior citizens should pay for travel and their personal care. However, if we play golf, swim, bowl or play tennis, we can do it for free.

The praise that has been lavished on Johann Lamont by her Tory friends in Scotland and Wales may be nice for her to hear, but it is galling for Scotland’s senior citizens, who remember Margaret Thatcher. Who would have thought that Johann Lamont would become Scotland’s Margaret Thatcher?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I wonder how Stuart McMillan feels about his leader saying that the people of Scotland did not have a problem with Thatcher’s economic policies.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I am sorry, but I say again to Johann Lamont: who would have thought that she would become Scotland’s Margaret Thatcher?

People to whom I have spoken have been shocked by Labour’s conversion to Tory policies, but all members know that they are joined at the hip in the better together campaign. They should change the title of the campaign from better together to poorer together. At least some honesty would then come from the unionist parties in the debate.

Let us support Scotland and back John Swinney’s amendment.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

We have faced many challenges in this Parliament, but we did so secure in the knowledge of year-on-year budget uplifts and the trend of increasing resources. We all know that times have changed. The economic forecast remains bleak; unemployment is rising and it remains persistently above the level in the rest of the UK in percentage terms; there are 30,000 fewer public sector workers and our public services are under enormous strain. This is not about talking Scotland down; it is about recognising the reality of the situation that we face in our communities across Scotland.

Over the next few years, our budget is likely to fall by £5.5 billion. We have so far managed to save about 25 per cent of what is required, so it does not take a genius to work out that three quarters of the cuts are still to come.

Meanwhile, out in the real world families are squaring up to that challenge to their household budgets. They are looking at what they need rather than what they want and are considering what is essential rather than what is desirable. It is time that this Government did the same. We need an honest debate that is explicit about the choices that we make. We should not let things happen by default.

At the heart of the debate is social justice, which is the issue that brought many of us into politics and motivates many of us across the chamber to this day. That does not diminish because we have a debate about universal versus targeted provision. It is false for the SNP to propose that one is somehow against the other, because the issue is much more complex than that.

Most mature countries have a mix of universal and targeted social policies. The truth is that many will have systems of targeting within a universal framework, with extra benefits afforded to low income groups.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will give way to Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

I thank the member for giving way—I know that she is under time pressure.

I think that at least two of us on this side of the chamber agree with her absolutely in principle. We have to accept that we are making the best of a bad job. She said that we have been promised that the situation will continue for about 20 years. Does she now see why people want to vote yes in the referendum?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The problem that I have with that premise is that this Government argues that somehow things will be better if people vote for independence. However, people are suffering now and the Government is not dealing with that.

When members consider that the NHS largely functions as a universal benefit—it is free at the point of need and everyone receives a service—they must also consider that parts of it are not universal. To name but a few such examples: NHS dental treatment is means tested, optical vouchers for people to get their glasses are means tested and travel to hospitals is means tested.

I will touch on free prescriptions. The cost of making prescriptions free was £57 million last year and the cost is projected to rise to £61 million next year. That is enough to pay the salaries of 2,000 nurses. That is the choice.

As a nation we spend £1.18 billion on prescriptions—that is a lot of money.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is projecting a £30 million increase in its prescribing budget this year. It also plans to cut the number of clinical staff by an extra £15 million—that is 500 nurses.

What is the choice? Hands up those on the SNP benches who want 2,500 fewer nurses and midwives—taking their numbers to a seven-year low. No one has raised a hand. Is that the exchange for free prescriptions? We have a choice to make.

Hands up those on the SNP benches who believe that providing an advantage for people such as bankers is right when food banks are appearing in our towns and cities. That is the choice that we face.

For the final time, hands up those on the SNP benches who are content to ignore the anecdotal evidence from general practitioners that people are presenting for cold remedies or indigestion tablets that they would previously have bought over the counter, and to continue to provide free prescriptions rather than investing in patient care. That is the choice, and I see no hands going up.

Last week, Nicola Sturgeon talked about a “dividing line”. Today’s performance shows that she clearly does not realise that the time for soundbite policies and retail politics is over. We need to reflect on the reality of our financial circumstances and to decide what is important now, not at some point in the distant future.

In coming to a close, I will talk about social care. Local government is shouldering the burden. It has been passed 83 per cent of the Scottish Government’s budget cuts, yet those in local government are the very people whom we expect to deliver on the increasing demand for social care. For the first time, people are paying for essential services such as home helps, community alarms and aids and equipment for the disabled. Some costs have risen by 50 per cent in the past three years.

There is a postcode lottery of care. We have different charges, different eligibility criteria and a system of rationing that sees 15-minute care visits as ticking the box. That is not social justice; that is the consequence of the choices that the SNP Government has made.

We all say that we believe in social justice, but we need the courage to deliver it. In times of scarcity, it is essential to target our resources at people who face the biggest challenge.

Presiding Officer, I will leave you with a quick quote.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The quote is:

“The current and future challenges we face could, if not properly responded to, threaten the fabric of social cohesion in Scotland.”

Those are the words of Campbell Christie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

The Government cares about division, derision and denial. That is its motto and the people of Scotland deserve better.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I very much welcome the debate. Given the reaction to Johann Lamont’s speech last week, not least in her party—I watched closely the reaction to her speech today and I cannot say that her back benchers universally welcomed it—I would have thought that the subject was best avoided. However, who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth? I am happy to speak in the debate.

Jackie Baillie is absolutely right—people are suffering now, and we recognise that. It is interesting to hear the Labour Party and Jackie Baillie say that people cannot wait until the referendum in 2014 because they are suffering now. Given that, why will the commission that Labour has established to come up with all these solutions to help people who are suffering now not report until 2015, which is one year after the referendum?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The next meeting of our economy group will take place next Monday. When will Mr Swinney start acting on what Campbell Christie and Crawford Beveridge said?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am sure that we all wait with bated breath for the findings of Labour’s economy committee and look forward to hearing what it says.

I was surprised by Johann Lamont’s announcement last week, which seemed to be predicated on the idea of Scotland having a something-for-nothing culture. I reject such divisive terminology, which it is unfortunate to inject into public debate. More than that, I do not accept that there is a something-for-nothing culture; let us remember that people pay taxes into the system.

Why can Johann Lamont not explain what she means by the something-for-nothing culture? On “Good Morning Scotland” yesterday, she was asked four times to explain what she meant by that, but not once could she explain it. I am happy to give way if she can tell me what she means by “something for nothing”.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I will tell the member what I mean—I mean us getting free prescriptions, the price of which is paid by somebody who cannot get the care that they need in our community, and I mean the women who spoke to me last week. Nobody gets anything for nothing—somebody somewhere bears the cost. I am happy to pay through taxation, but the reality is that, under the SNP’s budgets, what is happening—

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I look forward to—

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The SNP’s policies—

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

—Johann Lamont supporting independence in 2014, so that the Parliament has powers over taxation and we can instigate a proper system of progressive taxation.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Should I let her chunter on?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Alex Salmond said that he would cut corporation taxes in an independent Scotland. How would that improve the public purse?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I did not hear the end of Johann Lamont’s intervention, but I was not particularly interested in hearing it anyway.

I am surprised not only by the Labour Party’s terminology but by its change in position.

Linda Fabiani rightly mentioned a number of pronouncements by Labour figures at the Labour Party conference. Yesterday, Ed Miliband referred to the Tory-Liberal Government as an

“incompetent, hopeless, out of touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make it up as you go along, back of the envelope, miserable shower”.

He is absolutely correct to refer to the Tories and the Liberals in that way. However, I suggest that he should look closer to home, at the Scottish Labour Party and Johann Lamont.

Let us look at the 2011 Labour Party manifesto. Labour pledged that it would not instigate tuition fees and that it would not reintroduce charges for prescriptions in Scotland. It said that it would sustain the concessionary travel scheme and it talked about retaining the commitment to free personal care. Now, we have a cuts commission where nothing is off the table. So, when Ed Miliband refers to an

“incompetent, hopeless, out of touch, U-turning, pledge-breaking, make it up as you go along, back of the envelope, miserable shower”,

he could be talking about Johann Lamont and Scottish Labour.

Johann Lamont has suggested that the volte-face is predicated on injecting honesty into the debate. Given that the commitments to which I have just referred were made in Labour’s election manifesto last year, is it not safe to say that Labour presented a dishonest prospectus before last year’s election?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

In terms of the issues before this Parliament, can Mr Hepburn explain how his party will deal with families living in overcrowded accommodation in my constituency? What budget choices will he make to address that concern on the ground now?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

More homes are being built by this Government than were ever built by the Labour Government—that is how we are dealing with that.

I will talk about why what the Scottish Government is doing is important. It has been interesting to hear the council tax freeze criticised on the basis that the wealthiest are benefiting the most. Frankly, that is not the case. The figures for this year show the average impact of the council tax freeze by income decile: the percentage of net household income saved by the council tax freeze among the bottom 10 per cent is 0.8 per cent whereas among the top 10 per cent it is 0.3 per cent. The poorest in society are benefiting most from the council tax freeze.

I finish on an important point about free prescriptions. I want Johann Lamont to explain to the 600,000 people earning under £16,000 who benefit from free prescriptions why they should not do so. I would not want to have to tell the 7,000 people in my constituency and the nearly 9,000 people in her constituency who are in that position why they should not benefit in that way.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

It is not 9,000.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

She should know that it is 600,000 people because it was from an answer to a question lodged by Johann Lamont that we established that there are 600,000 people earning £16,000 or less who are benefiting from free prescriptions.

I look forward to an honest debate continuing.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is interesting that Jamie Hepburn started his sometimes reasonable speech by saying that he welcomed the debate. No one would have thought that last week, given the hysterical reaction from the SNP benches. It was hysterical to the point of trying to shut down the debate, which is interesting because it was two reports that the SNP Government commissioned—the reports of the independent budget review and the Christie commission—that asked for a non-polarised debate and transparency, as Gavin Brown suggested, on the cost of universal benefits. The independent budget review also said that the universal benefits were commendable but may simply no longer be affordable and called for a debate. I am pleased that Jamie Hepburn now thinks that there should be a debate because I, too, think that there should be one.

That does not mean that we are against universal benefits. The Liberal Democrats and our colleagues in the Labour Party, when we were in government together, delivered many universal benefits including free dental and eye checks, free personal care, free tuition—I whisper that one—and free bus passes. We delivered many universal benefits together—it was not the SNP that delivered those, although one would not think that now. We delivered those things together, and we are not against universal benefits in principle. The issue is not universalism but what wider benefit we get from the investment, which must be evidence based.

For instance, we face big challenges on health—as one of the sickest nations in Europe, we need to tackle that—and on life chances and social mobility. We also face huge challenges on climate change and, with our ageing population, on demographics. Those are the principles that we should be addressing and the big goals that we should be trying to deal with.

On free eye checks, for example, there was a report by the Association of Optometrists—one might say that they would say this anyway, but the report includes some excellent figures—suggesting that the cost of poor-sightedness is around £2 billion a year. Free eye checks cost around £30 million, but the return is in the order of £400 million because there are an extra 300,000 eye tests a year. That is a good thing to have. That is the wider benefit of preventive health; the principle there is about preventive health rather than universalism as the policy helps us to deal with a greater goal.

On life chances, the tax thresholds that we are changing at Westminster are taking a whole load of people who are on lower incomes scales out of tax altogether. That is a good thing. It is a social good to try to improve social mobility.

On nursery education for two-year-olds, we are failing miserably here in Scotland. In England, 40 per cent of two-year-olds receive nursery education support whereas in Scotland only 1 per cent do. In England, the most disadvantaged receive support, whereas only 1 per cent do so up here. I want us to do more, and I welcome Nicola Sturgeon’s remarks on that last week.

Look also at the pupil premium that we are introducing down south, which is based on free school meal entitlement. A whole load of people from disadvantaged backgrounds are getting extra support, which improves their life chances.

On climate change, the insulation programme applies irrespective of income. We have a big challenge on the climate, so that is where the investment should go. It is not just about universalism. In some ways, the debate, although welcome, is actually not about universalism versus not—that is what Jackie Baillie was referring to—but about what other goals we are trying to achieve.

On free personal care—

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, East Kilbride)

I am interested in what Willie Rennie is saying. Campbell Christie’s report talked about trying to alter the silo mentality, so does the member agree with me that to pick out random statistics, as members of the Labour group do in these debates, is to do down what they themselves are saying? We should be looking at the whole cost to society and the net cost, rather than picking random figures out of the air.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I was trying to make an elevated contribution to this debate, but I struggle with interventions like that. I think that all parties are prone to using selective statistics, so we need to be careful when we accuse others of doing that.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

I agree that we should talk about universality as opposed to targeting if we are talking about principles, but if there is an urgency, we must look to see how we can cut our coat according to our cloth. There should not be any disagreements in the chamber over that, but having to choose between elderly people in care and children who need looked after is an odious choice. That is one of the reasons why I will look at getting universality as soon as possible. Incidentally, I will also look at putting a charge on some services that can be recouped through income tax.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Mr Rennie, you have 40 seconds.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member makes a good contribution. I will try to make the rest of my elevated contribution within 40 seconds.

The big problem that I have is with the council tax freeze. I cannot understand how the universalism in that has been dressed up as equity. “The Government Economic Strategy” mentions sustainability, cohesion and solidarity, which are great principles, but I am not sure how the council tax freeze fits with those. How can Fred Goodwin being given a discount of £3,000 be of benefit to the wider community? I have a big issue with that and I think that we need a debate about that.

Universalism itself is not the principle; the big issue is what benefit we get from the investment that we make.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It is possibly the lowest form of politics to bring another member’s family into a debate and use it as an argument.

Hugh Henry rose—

No, Mr Henry, you will sit down and you will listen.

To bring Derek Mackay’s family into the debate and use it as an argument against him is one of the most despicable things that a politician could do.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Renfrewshire South)

It is about choice—

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mr Henry is right that it is about choice, and I want to speak about someone whom I have the right to speak about in relation to choice. I am a member of Aberdeen City Council, which faces tough budget choices. Frankly, I think that the pernicious lie that removing the council tax freeze would have allowed us to simply wish away those tough choices demeans the debate. Those tough choices would have remained. We faced tough choices around our additional support needs and learning disability budgets and we took the decision to make reductions in those knowing that we needed to reshape the services. I have an autistic son, so do not dare tell me that the members of this party do not understand how to make tough choices when family members enter into the frame, Mr Henry.

Allow me to quote from Campbell Christie, because the Labour Party has made it clear that it wants to talk about the Christie commission. In an interview with Holyrood magazine, he said:

“People say we can’t afford things now but in 1948 we couldn’t afford the NHS and the pension schemes but we did it ... The politicians of that era were determined that the supportive community environment should be underpinned by state provision, even in the most difficult of economic situations.”

Those of us on the Government benches have chosen our priorities. We set them out to the people in 2011. In many instances, the Labour Party backed us on those priorities either in votes in the chamber or in the priorities in its manifesto. Indeed, a recent visit to the Labour website showed a list of things such as free prescriptions, free personal care and the council tax freeze as policies that the Labour Party was seeking to advance.

We hear Labour Party politicians quoting Nye Bevan to us, forgetting that Nye Bevan resigned from the Government over the introduction of prescription charges, so free prescriptions are entirely in keeping with the spirit of Nye Bevan and what he wished to espouse.

I mentioned tough choices in Aberdeen. One would think that if the Labour Party was staying true to the mantra that Johann Lamont espoused, the Labour Party in Aberdeen would have joined in the debate and outlined tough choices. Did it at any stage move an alternative budget from opposition? No. Did it at any stage engage in the discussion around the choices that the council had to make? No. Instead, it carped and moaned from the sidelines, because when the going gets tough, the Labour Party gets going.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As he is one of the main culprits, I give Mr Baker the opportunity to atone for his sins.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am happy that we did not proceed with plans for more than £100 million of borrowing for a scheme in the city centre to concrete over Union Terrace gardens. We know that when that is the kind of tough choice that we need to make, we will invest in services and not cut care services in the way that the SNP did when it led the council.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

That is an interesting comment from Mr Baker, because one of the reasons why we had to make those tough choices was the Labour Party’s profligacy when it was the administration. The call comes out from Labour members that they want to have a debate. We need to know Labour’s position before we can have a debate. It is not good enough to simply stand up and say that we must have a debate. [Interruption.]

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Johann Lamont began her speech by saying that she did not want to just sit back and criticise the Government. She then spent 14 minutes criticising the Government. We want to know what the Labour Party’s position is on these issues. It is not enough to simply stand up and say that we need to discuss whether we can afford to do these things or whether it is right to afford to do these things. This party has laid out its position and said that it believes not only that it can afford to do these things but that it is right to do these things and that it is to the benefit of the Scottish people to do these things. The Labour Party cannot simply stand up and say, “We need to have a debate, but you’ll have to wait until 2015 to know what our position in the debate is going to be, because that is when our commission will report back.”

Over the past year, we have heard calls from the Labour Party for an extra £37.8 million for colleges, £100 million for housing, around £0.75 billion to re-regulate buses, £25 million for fuel poverty, £22.1 million for an air route development fund, £10 million for kinship carers, £65.19 million for NHS nurses, £20 million back into the Crown Office, £136.6 million for job creation, £319 million back into the NHS budget, £24,500 to charities, £4.6 million to the video game industry—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

To continue, £1 million for the inquiry into the PIP implants, £1 million for a public inquiry into the legionnaire’s disease outbreak, £2.4 million to reinstate cuts to drug misuse budgets and £2 million to reinstate the cut to the Scottish Court Service. That is a grand total of £1.5 billion in spending calls in the past year alone from Labour Party members.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

From Jackie Baillie.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

As my colleague Mr Hepburn says, a large number of those calls came from Jackie Baillie.

Even if we were to take the Labour Party’s position on universality to the extreme and cancel all the universal benefits, it would not pay for those spending requirements. Where, exactly, is the tough-choice agenda there?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Presiding Officer,

“many people ... have accepted the principle that it is right that those who can afford to pay towards the cost ... should do so ... That must be right when public finances are under such pressure. The expansion of contributions will allow us to target ... assistance at those who need it most”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 18 September 2012; c 1717.]

Those are not the words of Michael Russell in 2006 but the words of Kenny MacAskill to the Justice Committee, only two weeks ago, referring specifically to the Scottish Government’s plans to introduce means testing of criminal legal aid.

Until now, Governments of all parties have backed universal access to legal aid in criminal cases, regardless of the resources that are available to the accused. Now the SNP plans to save £10 million, in real terms, from the legal aid budget over the next two years, and it is using the Scottish Civil Justice Council and Criminal Legal Assistance Bill to end that universal entitlement.

John Finnie (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Is the member aware that the Labour members on the Justice Committee agreed that in principle, and that it was included in the report yesterday?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Absolutely. We completely support the principle behind that.

Let us remember that the proposal is not a means test only for those who are guilty of crimes; accused persons have been offered no way to recover their legal costs after the event, even if they are acquitted. Nor is it a means test that is targeted only at those who are well off. Limits on legal aid kick in at a disposable income level of only £68 a week, and there is to be no help at all for those with a disposable weekly income of more than £222.

As Mr Finnie has said, we agree that it is hard to justify universal access to criminal legal aid in such financially tough times. I suspect that we will oppose some aspects of the Government’s plans, but we will support the principle that those who can afford to make a contribution should be required to do so. That principle could equally be applied to other universal benefits too.

There are plenty of good things that could be done with the resources that have been saved by cuts in legal aid. Scotland’s courts face a cut in real terms from the SNP Government of nearly £11 million over the next two years. Proposals to close a series of local courts are currently out for consultation. Staff numbers in the Procurator Fiscal Service have fallen by 8 per cent in a single year.

Last week, we debated the reforms to Scotland's criminal justice system that were proposed by Lord Carloway. He proposed that corroboration should no longer be required for a case to proceed in the criminal courts. The evidence from the Crown Office is that many more cases would come before the courts each year as a result. The Lord Advocate says that a change in the law would also allow hundreds of rape cases that have not been proceeded with due to a lack of corroboration to be looked at again. Many more new cases will be brought to court each year, as well as a backlog of cold cases.

If millions of pounds are to be saved in criminal legal aid and the Scottish Government wants to pursue radical changes in the legal system, it could choose to direct extra resources into Scotland’s courts and fiscal services. However, that is not what the SNP proposes to do. It will make savings from means testing one formerly universal benefit, but it wants to take that money out of the justice system to fund all the other universal benefits that it lacks the political courage to review.

The same situation applies in relation to headline targets. When the SNP promised to deliver 1,000 extra police officers, it forgot to say that all those officers and more would end up doing jobs that were previously done by civilian staff. Almost 1,000 civilian jobs have already gone in the past couple of years, according to the Government’s figures, but that is only a small part of the devastating cuts to Scotland’s police service that Kenny MacAskill has in store. Scotland’s new chief constable, Stephen House, let the cat out of the bag last week when he confirmed that “many, many hundreds” more jobs are set to go.

At the weekend, we learned about the detail of the Government’s secret plans. Some £11.2 million is to be spent on dumping 550 civilian staff even before the new police force comes into being and another £74.3 million is to be spent on dumping thousands more in the three years after that. However, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice will still not take responsibility for the thousands of jobs of loyal public servants that he intends to axe.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you.

A Scottish Government spokesman told the Sunday Herald this weekend that

“it will be for the new chief constable and the Scottish Police Authority to determine the balance between police officers and police staff in the new service.”

No doubt he will soon be telling us that large-scale privatisation in the police service is also

“an operational matter for the chief constable.”

I do not imagine that Stephen House believes any of that, and David O’Connor of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents is clearly none too impressed either. They both know that

“the balance between police officers and police staff”

has already been determined by Kenny MacAskill, because the SNP will insist on keeping its headline figure of 17,230 warrant-holding police officers, even though hundreds and soon thousands of those officers will be turned into back-room bobbies doing civilian jobs.

Just as the SNP will not face the conflict between law reform and courtroom closures, so it hides from the damage that it is doing to Scotland’s police service. It is not just about how many police officers we have; it is about what they do when they get to work. Most people in the service know that, and ministers must surely know it too. It is only when the SNP faces up to those issues honestly that it can make a real contribution to the debate on the future of Scotland’s police.

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

I am pleased to have been called to speak in this fairly lively debate on Scotland’s future. Of course, all the work that we do in the Parliament, as we scrutinise legislation and deal with other matters that are brought before us, is to consider in the various sectors of economic life that we have a say over the kind of Scotland that we wish to see in the future. To try to condense how I see Scotland’s future into a six-minute speech is therefore not without its challenges, so I will focus my remarks on certain issues only.

I stress at the outset that for Scotland to prosper we cannot continue to operate with one hand tied behind our back. That is simply an illogical position for any nation to be in. In order to transform our country and to see real social justice here, we need the powers that are necessary for doing the job—that is, we need the powers of an independent country.

Claudia Beamish (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

I want to make progress.

It is only with those powers that we can gain control over all our resources and make use of them in accordance with our country’s priorities.

Jenny Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

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

I want to make progress.

It is only with the powers of independence that we can rid ourselves of the obscenity of spending billions and billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde, which of course Labour seems to be keen to do.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Normally, the choice is posited as Trident or schools and hospitals. Is it not the case that the SNP’s policy is that if Trident is cancelled, all the money goes into defence spending?

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

Jackie Baillie may not want to hear the answer that I will give, which is that, as an independent country, we could choose not to spend billions and billions of pounds on the obscenity of nuclear weapons and could, for example, spend that money on tackling child poverty and on securing a first-class education service and health service in our country. Those are the kind of choices that the people of Scotland wish to make and which I believe they will make in 2014, even if at that stage we have still not heard from the Labour leader as to whether she supports the renewal of Trident.

As an independent nation, we could make our country the prosperous country that it should be, given the vast natural resources that we have at our disposal. What could be more important than the health and wellbeing of our people and the education of future generations? It saddens me therefore to see the Labour Party moving away from the idea of universal good in society, which stems from the centuries-old tradition in Scotland of the common weal, which is particularly important at this time of economic difficulty for so many of our fellow citizens. Indeed, in times of such difficulty, surely it is even more important that the common bonds of society and humanity that link all of us are reflected in the economic choices that we make. That is why the social wage that the SNP Government secured delivers some protection to households across Scotland in the face of the massive Tory cuts to public spending.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Does the member think that it is part of the common weal to deny people with learning disabilities the opportunity to learn to live independently by attending college, which was a cornerstone of the quiet revolution that emptied our long-stay hospitals and gave people dignity and the ability to achieve their potential? The member’s Government is cutting those places in further education right now.

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

I have two things to say to the Labour leader in Scotland, who still has not taken the opportunity to clarify whether she supports the replacement of Trident. First, Labour in Scotland prefers Tory rule over welfare to home rule. Secondly, we in the SNP do not need to take any lessons from Labour, the party that abolished the 10p tax rate, on how to improve the lives of our citizens.

The degree of economic protection that the social wage affords inspires the hope, which all of us in society need, that a better day is coming. We need that hope so that we can work together as a nation, with the common weal in mind, to make progress towards a better and more just society. How on earth would reintroducing a tax on the sick help our country to move forwards? As we have heard, until the SNP Government abolished prescription charges, about 600,000 people in Scotland with an income of less than £16,000 were charged for prescriptions when they became ill. How on earth does the Labour Party think that punishing those people by reintroducing prescription charges will improve their lives? How dare the Labour Party say that those citizens are getting something for nothing.

To take Labour’s new opposition to universality to its logical conclusion, where would the line be drawn? Will we be charged for going to see the doctor or for having operations or stays in hospital? What is the cost of the proposed means testing system? It has to be remembered that the Labour Party has form on the issue because, in the Westminster Parliament, it voted for foundation hospitals, which have paved the way for the privatisation of the health service south of the border.

The way forward for Scotland is to take charge of our affairs and to secure the normal powers of an independent country to transform our country and see real social justice. Roll on the 2014 yes vote in the referendum.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the debate because—apart from the genuine interest in the Labour Party’s policy repositioning—it is, as Hugh Henry alluded to, about the services that the state should and should not be in charge of. Therefore, the debate is very much about the extent of the burden that we expect our taxpayers to bear. As Willie Rennie rightly said, Labour has paid heed to the central themes of the Christie and Beveridge reports plus the utterances of the many people in the business and civic communities across Scotland who have warned that the current universal benefits payments are simply not sustainable unless there is an increase in overall tax receipts in Scotland or significant reductions in other areas of public spending. All that comes at a time when there are concerns about the bloated size of the public sector in Scotland.

So let me say why, in the context of discussing universal benefits, there is a specific debate to be had about higher education, and why we decided some time ago that there should in Scotland be a graduate contribution to increase our universities’ income. First, we studied at length the evidence that was provided to us by senior figures such as Andrew Cubie, Stewart Sutherland and Gavin McCrone, and by groups such as the Confederation of British Industry, Universities Scotland and Scotland’s Colleges—individuals and groups that have spent much of their working lives examining the effects of policy decisions on our higher and further education sectors.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

To pick up on the point about the effect of policy changes, why is it that application rates to English universities have plummeted by 8.6 per cent, while in Scotland, where tuition is free, application rates have remained steady?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is not true of people from less well-off backgrounds.

We examined higher education structures in other countries, with two specific things in mind. First, the maintenance and enhancement of the academic excellence of our Scottish institutions and secondly, our ensuring that they remain world-class institutions when set against the highly competitive global community and the premise that has been part of every Government strategy—Westminster or Scottish Governments—that it is a good thing to have more people at university.

We argued then, and continue to argue, that public funding of our universities is not sustainable in the longer run if we are to achieve both those aims without also damaging other key public spending priorities. That is why, like the experts that I have mentioned, we think that there should be the means to secure additional income for our universities, particularly in the light of the overwhelming evidence—some of which was given to the Education and Culture Committee in the past two weeks—that a sizeable funding gap exists between north and south of the border. That gap will get bigger, especially if we see a trend where there are more Scotland-domiciled students, and European Union students are coming to Scotland at a faster rate than students from the rest of the UK or the international community, and additional income is required because that burden falls on the taxpayer.

There are other considerations. University education provides both public and private benefits, which is why a balance should be maintained in funding. Twenty per cent of our population remains functionally illiterate or innumerate; we therefore made the judgment that that group deserves greater priority within education spending. A graduate contribution has, in other countries, a history of providing more bursary support.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not at the moment, thank you.

There is also the need to ensure that Scottish universities continue to punch well above their weight when it comes to research funding and the development of knowledge exchange. Members should make no mistake about the competitive edge that accrues and the extent of the finance that we need to do just that—a point that was made clearly at recent meetings of the cross-party group on colleges and universities.

There is also an inherent discrimination in the Scottish Government’s higher education funding policy: discrimination between those who pay fees and those who do not, for the exact same course. That makes a mockery of the SNP's claim that university entrance is based only on the ability to learn and not on the ability to pay. There is also the on-going anomaly for EU students who, by virtue of EU law, come here free of charge. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning may have partially solved the Irish anomaly, but he cannot solve the EU anomaly because, by law, that cannot be done, so when he makes that claim, he is grasping thin air, rather than the thistle.

The SNP blandly argues that none of that matters, and that it is all about numbers, but at what price to our colleges, to the competitiveness of our world class institutions, to their staff, their research funding and their ability to stay ahead of the game for decades into the future? That is why we made the choice to support a graduate contribution.

Gavin Brown eloquently set out why we have major differences with Labour and why Johann Lamont need not get too worried about becoming the Tory poster girl just yet, but there is one thing on which we certainly agree with Labour—we need an honest debate. We will advance that debate.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

There have been times in my political life when I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Last week’s announcement by new new Labour was one of those moments. Whoever would have imagined that new Labour could out-Tory the Tories? Even Margaret Thatcher had more sense than to say that

“Scotland cannot be the only ‘something for nothing’ country in the world”

Sadly, that was not the case for the new Labour Party.

Let me tell Labour a few things. Whatever we decide to do with our money is for us to decide, particularly because the money that we are talking about is ours—not just some of it, but all of it. In fact, what we get to spend is less than what we contribute—Scotland subsidises others by paying in more than we receive—and the way that Labour articulated its “something for nothing” announcement smacks of the “subsidised Scotland” fear strategy that has persisted from the Labour Party and its fellow unionist parties for years.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I will not give way at the moment.

All that is designed to undermine the self-confidence and self-belief of the people of Scotland.

Then there are the specifics of what Labour promotes. For instance, identification of those who qualify for free prescriptions will result in the introduction of means testing—the wrecker of self-respect and self-confidence. I wonder whether any of the people who are responsible for the proposal have ever been on the receiving end of means testing. I will tell members about it first hand, having been forced to take handouts at school.

As a young child, the humiliation that I experienced, and the jibes and bullying that went with it, were utterly soul destroying—so much so that often I preferred to go hungry rather than be hit with the stigma surrounding handouts. Of course, Labour suggests that the reason for the proposal is a shortage of cash and says that some people who are well off enough to pay benefit from free prescriptions, but is happy to put those who are genuinely in need through the misery of means testing. Its reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny; its proposal would cost more in bureaucracy than it costs to provide free prescriptions for all our people.

Let us look more closely at the impact that charging for prescriptions would have on the general population. When I was taking evidence during the previous session of Parliament for my member’s bill, the Palliative Care (Scotland) Bill, I visited hospitals, hospices, care homes and many other institutions, and talked to doctors, nurses, patients, family members and friends. I sought views about the desirability of such a bill for people who are at the end of their lives.

On one occasion, I spoke to a gentleman who described his personal journey and how life could have been made a bit easier for him and his family. He explained that he had been very unwell and off work. After a while, his condition improved enough for him to return to work. As he was earning money, he now had to pay for his prescriptions which—if my memory serves me well—consisted of five items. He informed me that he could afford only three or four items. His doctor had said that he needed to take the full prescription in order to advance his recovery, but because he could not afford it, he effectively made himself sicker. We do not know whether he would have lived longer had he been able to take the full prescription.

If that gentleman had had access to free prescriptions, how much would it have cost the taxpayer in real terms? I suspect that the cost would have been a lot less because, instead, he had to go through sessions of acute care, which is—as we all know—far more expensive and more stressful for patients and their families. I am sure that all members of Parliament have had constituents who have been in similar situations. We should honour our commitment to ensuring that our people live and die with dignity. Free prescriptions for all, regardless of income, lives up to that commitment.

In the manner in which they follow their leader—I do not mean Johann Lamont, but their real leader Ed Miliband, who is abandoning those who are least able to defend themselves in order to play to the south-east of England—Labour members should hang their heads in shame for that betrayal and should know that the rightward shift of the Labour Party is not yet complete. London institutions and policy makers are calling for public sector wages to be capped in the regions in order to subsidise further those in the south-east. Tory MPs are clamouring to outflank the Labour Party and are making the divided United Kingdom even more divided than it is now.

What that means is that those who live in the leafy suburbs of London, who are in secure jobs that have been created by the Government, in an area that is already oversubsidised, will benefit more, while the rest suffer. Once they retire, many of them will cash in their subsidy bonuses and head for the poorer regions, where they will outbid the local inhabitants for housing.

I support the Government’s amendment.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I have always thought that the Deputy First Minister is a superb debater and today she spoke with her usual forcefulness and style, but her speech—as were those of her colleagues—was constructed from building blocks of fantasy: fantasy about Labour’s position on these matters; fantasy about the world of limitless resources that she would rather have than the world of declining resources that we live in; and fantasy about Scandinavian welfare with Romney-type tax cuts, which is her prospectus for an independent Scotland.

The first mistake about Labour that she made was to say that we broke our promise on the council tax. We made it absolutely clear in the run-up to the election 18 months ago that we supported the council tax freeze for two years. As far as I know, this is the second year of the parliamentary session, so let us hear no more such accusations.

The second mistake about Labour that she made—one that was also made by all the other SNP speakers—was to say that we are against universal provision. Of course we are not. We created the welfare state, but the welfare state has always been a combination of universal and targeted provision, and the principle of universality has always been applied on a case-by-case basis.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Mr Chisholm might not wish to hear this, but I have had a great deal of respect for him as a politician ever since he resigned from Tony Blair’s Government over a cut to benefits for single parents. Should those same single parents be forced to go through the ignominy of means testing for some of the benefits that this Government is providing to them for free?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

If Mark McDonald had thought before he made that intervention, he would have realised that single parents benefited very greatly from the measures that the Labour Government introduced in a targeted way through tax credits and childcare tax credits.

I think that, in their heart of hearts, Scottish Government ministers also believe in a mixture of universal and targeted provision. I heard rather a good speech from Derek Mackay at the early years conference on Monday. I wrote down some of the phrases that he uttered during that speech, because I thought that they were striking: “sometimes universal”; “sometimes targeted”; “just evidence that”. I wrote them down because we will adopt precisely such an approach in our review. Alex Neil came to exactly the same conclusion a couple years ago in relation to the central heating programme, when he changed the universal provision that we introduced and made it targeted, and I do not criticise him for doing so.

For the avoidance of doubt, we will consider, openly and transparently, contentious issues such as the continuation of universal entitlement, as Campbell Christie urged us to do, and in doing so we will avoid the polarised terms that he warned against, and which we have heard in spades from the SNP this afternoon. The SNP is in denial about the real world of political choices and is failing to recognise that every specific decision has an opportunity cost. That is a central rule of politics, especially at a time when budgets are going in one direction and demographics in the opposite.

None of the universal entitlements that are being discussed today was a linchpin of the post-war welfare state in the way that the NHS is—which is not to say that they are not desirable or that I do not have a particular personal commitment to some of them, such as free personal care. That will not surprise people, given that I chaired the care development group and introduced the legislation. However, I fully accept that all that must be reviewed. As we look around Scotland today, many other desirable objectives are before us.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I am very grateful to Malcolm Chisholm for giving way. He said clearly that he supports universalism when the evidence shows that it is beneficial, but not on the basis of how much money is in the budget, so will the Labour review look not just at shifting away from universalism, but at shifting towards progressive revenue raising?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The answer to that last bit is obviously yes, but it is still a flight from the real world to say that we cannot take account of the overall budget that we have. To do so is to engage in more fantasy politics. We might wish that we had more resources, and the SNP might tell us—although we do not believe it—that it would have limitless resources in an independent Scotland, but at the moment we must deal with the resources that we have.

As I was saying before Patrick Harvie’s intervention, there are many other desirable objectives that I am sure many members of the Parliament share, such as the new ambitions that we have on the early-years agenda, which has grown in providence over the past few years; I welcome that.

Other desirable objectives include the abolition of child poverty, ending homelessness, introducing the living wage, and providing services to the most disadvantaged in our communities and giving them the opportunities that others have but which they do not. Politics is about making hard choices between competing desirable objectives in the light of the available resources. That is the real situation that we confront. It is not the case that some of the entitlements that we are discussing today are undesirable—for goodness’ sake, we introduced most of them when we were in Government. Of course they are desirable, but everything is relative.

We have heard from members on the Labour benches, led by Johann Lamont, of all the problems that we have in our disadvantaged communities and more generally. It is a matter of weighing up the competing desirable objectives and deciding which are most desirable for us within the current financial situation. We have taken that ground-breaking step: it is time that others moved on and took the same step.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

We in the SNP believe that access to education should not be based on the ability to pay, and we believe that healthcare should be free at the point of need. We believe in protecting hard-pressed family budgets in a time of recession, and we believe that older people should be treated with dignity and respect and be able to enjoy an independent old age. Sadly, Labour no longer appears to believe the same. Murdo Fraser summed it up last week, when he said that it was

“Good to see Johann warming to Tory ideas.”

In two years, Scots will not only have the choice to vote in a referendum to re-establish Scotland as an independent nation, but will face a stark choice regarding the kind of society that they wish to see. I am therefore pleased that we have had a chance to explore that today and am grateful to the Labour Party for lodging its motion—even if I find it ironic that its members wish to debate the long-term future of our nation when those political chameleons seem to be incapable of maintaining a policy position on anything for more than a few short months.

The comments that were made by Johann Lamont, which I presume bounced her party—certainly, the Scottish Trades Union Congress knew nothing about it—were nothing short of remarkable. They show a Labour Party that is long bereft of any policies or ideas. I understand that this summer its members went round to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations to ask whether it had any.