Scottish Parliament, 22 January 2004

380 contributions from 80 members. The official report.

Introduction

Higher Education (Top-up Fees)

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-803, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on the impact of top-up fees on higher education in Scotland, and two amendments to that motion.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am pleased to open this Opposition debate on higher education, which is the first debate that we have had on the subject since the new Executive was elected in May last year.

We have much to be proud of in our higher education sector. We must see the future of higher education not only in the context of the developments in competition for research and staff with England, but in the European and global context. Given that the knowledge economy is critical, where do we foster that knowledge if not in our universities? If we want a smart, successful Scotland, where will the ideas and intellect be fostered and promoted? Our universities are critical to the country's economic future, but they are also critical to its economic present. The university and higher education sector in Glasgow contributes £0.5 billion to the local economy; here in Edinburgh, the figure is £0.75 billion; and the figure for Scotland as a whole is more than £2.5 billion. The Executive needs to see the sector as an investment, not as a cost burden.

I say at the outset that our preference would have been to debate the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on the issue, but as Westminster will vote on the Higher Education Bill next week, it is important that, within that timescale, we take the opportunity to send a clear message to the elected politicians from Scotland at Westminster about why the introduction of top-up fees in England would disadvantage Scotland. Regardless of the top-up fee proposals in England that we are debating today, the Government in Scotland should be planning strategically to ensure that our higher education sector is well placed to meet and maximise the international opportunities in the future. However, it is unforgivable not to do so when we have the threat of top-up fees and their impact in Scotland. The Executive has seen the English higher education budget in the current six-year period grow at twice the rate of that in Scotland, even before the introduction of top-up fees.

The Scottish National Party will always stand up for the Scottish interest, wherever and whenever that interest is threatened. The SNP MPs at Westminster will vote on the Higher Education Bill next week because until we have financial independence and the powers to compete fairly with England and the rest of the world—and while our financial arrangements are so tightly constrained by the Westminster system—it is our duty and responsibility to do so. I make it clear that Scotland will not receive a Barnett consequential from top-up fees—which will be classed as private money—although we can anticipate some Barnett consequentials from the non-top-up fee student support package. However, in the long term, we will be at a disadvantage.

If any member is under the illusion that the bill will be backed by huge amounts of public money, I point out that, despite daily concessions from Tony Blair to sweeten the variable-fee pill, there is still no clear definitive statement of how much new money will go into the system.

On 15 January, Tim Yeo, the Conservative education spokesperson, asked Mr Clarke:

"There is a substantial burden of new costs associated with the Government's Higher Education Bill—costs that have increased as a result of some of the concessions that the Secretary of State has been forced to make. Will these costs be met within the higher education budget or by additions to that budget?"

The answer from Mr Clarke was:

"The former."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 15 January 2004; Vol 416, c 941.]

One concern is that a raid on the existing higher education budget will have a knock-on effect in Scotland. Clause 1 of the bill will establish a research council under the Department of Trade and Industry to implement the Government's privatising agenda down south. While I am on the subject of research, we cannot and must not accept the Westminster Government's plan to polarise research and to develop an elitist ivy league system.

The Scottish Labour MPs' problem is that they are exercising their vote, but doing so against the Scottish interest. The Tories' problem is that their sole Scottish member will not even stand up for Scotland, but prefers to sit on his hands—sometimes.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Principle.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Excuse me—Peter Duncan has voted at least 37 times on English affairs, including three times on top-up fees, one of which was as recent as June last year. That is hypocrisy in action.

There is a clear consensus that we must take action to address the funding issues in Scottish universities and that the bill will disadvantage Scotland. Our choice is whether to try to influence the vote before it takes place—from our unique perspective and armed with the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report—or to react after the event. Do Scotland and Scotland's Parliament lead or do they follow?

As the Deputy First Minister well knows, I accused him of sleepwalking through the issue and of exhibiting complacency and arrogance towards the sector by not acknowledging that there was a problem.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If the minister is sleepwalking, surely he is doing so subconsciously and therefore he cannot be blamed?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Although I have concerns about the minister's well-being—particularly given that he has told 700 of my constituents that he is delighted that their jobs are moving elsewhere—I perhaps will not be as cruel as Mr Monteith is.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Does Fiona Hyslop acknowledge that, in the light of the white paper from the Department for Education and Skills, the Executive set up a review of higher education funding back in the summer of last year in anticipation of the possible impact? That is not sleepwalking; that is taking a measured step to examine all the issues. It is the SNP that has only recently woken up to the issue.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I welcome the fact that the Executive has set up a private and secret review group.

I return to my point that, whether or not there was a debate on top-up fees in England, the Executive should have been considering the issues anyway. What has the Executive been doing for the past four years? I know—it has ensured that while the overall Scottish budget has increased by 23 per cent, the higher education budget has increased by only 15 per cent.

Political pressure and pressure from Universities Scotland forced last week's admission from Jack McConnell that something must be done and that Scotland's funding advantage is more in the order of 3.6 per cent and not the 20 per cent that the Executive has been hiding behind. Because the SNP has forced a debate on the issue, we have seen movement today in the Executive amendment, which makes some kind of acknowledgement that there would be a disadvantage for Scotland. We thought that progress was being made until we started hearing from the true voice of Labour at Westminster that top-up fees in Scotland are inevitable.

Top-up fees are wrong in principle and we should rule them out. Student debt is already a serious problem for young people. The Prime Minister's logic seems to be that the new measures are okay because students already have debt. We either have financial independence under the SNP to grow the economy and our higher education system or we will be softened up for top-up fees from Labour. Who do we believe on those issues?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, I want to carry on.

Unless we see a concerted effort from the Labour-Liberal Executive to come up with financial provision, we have no option but to believe that the Executive is being softened up for the post-2007 introduction of top-up fees. The SNP can stop that by using the powers that financial independence can bring. Who speaks for Labour on the issue? Which minister was Sam Galbraith referring to in his conclusions the other night on "Newsnight"?

We have given options for tackling the short-term challenge: we should use the £47 million from the council tax consequentials, which would not cut other budgets and would keep up with the pace of investment elsewhere. I want our universities to maintain their competitive position and to continue to produce world-class research. From the Executive, I hear the silence of lambs. It might be too much to expect the roar of lions, but all the SNP is asking the Executive to do—and giving members the opportunity to do—is to speak up and speak out for Scotland's national interest.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Higher Education Bill published by the Department for Education and Skills on 8 January 2004 will have an adverse effect on Scottish higher education and therefore calls on all Scottish MPs to vote against the bill at Second Reading.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I take great pleasure in having the opportunity to move the Executive's amendment to the Opposition's motion, which I will briefly dismiss. Unlike the Conservative party, I believe that Scottish MPs elected to the Westminster Parliament should feel free to vote on issues in that Parliament. In our parties, we can discuss with Scottish MPs which way they should vote, but it is pompous and preposterous for one Parliament to tell members of another Parliament which way they should vote. We all know that, if the Westminster Parliament were to pass a motion saying what members of this Parliament should do, the biggest howls would come from the SNP benches. There is an absolute reek of hypocrisy. The SNP would be the first to squeal if the boot was on the other foot.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I am certain that the minister is aware of the section in the Scotland Act 1998 that allows Westminster legally to override any decision of this Parliament.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Yes, but no one is suggesting that that is what is happening here.

Scotland's distinctive higher education system is a national asset, as Fiona Hyslop acknowledged. We have world-class universities in Scotland that are vital to our economic success. The Executive is determined not to let their status diminish. In that regard, I am pleased that we have the support of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I want to take this chance to place on record the fact that I welcome the committee's recent thorough and thoughtful Scottish solutions inquiry report, which makes a very helpful contribution to the debate. Paragraph 3 of the executive summary of the report supports the principle that higher education is fundamental to Scotland's economic development and success.

As I said yesterday at the University of Glasgow, growing the economy is the Executive's top priority. I believe that investment in higher education has a hard and irrefutable business rationale to it. It is vital to boost skills and knowledge in our workforce and to increase our research and development capacity. For that reason, as well as for the broader social and cultural reasons that we also rightly prize, we will take whatever action is necessary to ensure that our universities retain a competitive advantage in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom and in a European and global context. That aim is bound to require some additional investment as well as some creative thinking on the part of universities. That is acknowledged by the Enterprise and Culture Committee in its findings, when it says that it

"believes that universities have a responsibility to continue to seek other sources of funding, and to work to maximise best value for public funding."

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

On the question of investment, can Mr Wallace square his remarks about the importance of investment and sustaining the competitive advantage of our universities with the fact that support to the higher education sector is now a much smaller proportion of the Scottish Executive's budget than it was when he became the Deputy First Minister?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can testify to the Executive's investment in higher education. Since the Parliament was established in 1999, investment in education in real terms has increased every year. It has gone from something like £600 million a year to £800 million a year at the end of the spending review. If spending is less as a proportion of overall expenditure, that is because in areas such as health, expenditure has also increased, which is something that the SNP has called for many times. No one can gainsay the sustained increase in investment that the Scottish Executive has put into higher education.

We want to consider these matters properly. That is why we want to quantify Scotland's present advantage and the challenges that we face. We recognise that the universities are under pressure and that we need to make sure that the extra investment meets the needs of the sector. That is where we take a rather different line from that taken by SNP members, who seem to have woken up only very lately to the importance of supporting our higher education institutions properly. The SNP manifesto for the election last year makes only a passing reference to the core funding of higher education. It suggests only that the SNP's proposed review of student finance would be able to look in passing at the

"the overall context of ... higher education funding".

That is why I find it a bit rich of Fiona Hyslop to say that we should be planning strategically. There was no strategic planning for the core funding of higher education in last year's SNP manifesto.

It was clear that Fiona Hyslop seemed to have missed the fact that our strategic planning has been such that we have established not only the third phase of the higher education review but also initiated two previous phases of work to examine other aspects of higher education in Scotland. Phase 2 of that work reported in March last year.

It was only at the end of last year that SNP members became switched on and decided that higher education was extremely important to them and that they would commit the one-off consequentials from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pre-budget report to the long-term funding of the sector. Until then, their priorities for extra spending had been wide and diverse—from litter bins in Stirling to new rail bridges in Dornoch.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I do not have time. As I indicated to Fiona Hyslop, we have been engaged in a proper and detailed process, building on our higher education framework document, published last March, which in turn built on 18 months of detailed discussion with the sector.

Further, we have conducted our higher education review. The fact that Fiona Hyslop described that as "private and secret" shows how much attention she has been paying to the situation because, having conducted its Scottish solutions inquiry, the Enterprise and Culture Committee endorsed our approach, concluded that the Executive's measured approach was "wholly appropriate" and—wait for it—commended the "open and inclusive" process that we have put in place. Far from conducting a private and secret process, we have engaged stakeholders, university principals, staff and students.

I expect to receive the phase 3 report of our higher education review at the end of next month. Given that we have embarked on a process that the committee believes is wholly appropriate, open and inclusive, it would be wrong to prejudge that report or have a knee-jerk reaction to it before we have seen it. We will take the report forward and it will inform the spending review that will take place later this year. That is a proper and responsible process. The fact that any legislation from Westminster will not begin to come into effect until 2006 will give us time to do that.

We are building on a strong track record. We have increased funding from £600 million in 1999 to £800 million by 2005-06. In the three years covered by the previous spending review alone, the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council saw a rise in cash terms of 15 per cent, which is 6.9 per cent in real terms. That level of investment speaks for itself. One of the things that it should say to people is that the Executive takes higher education extremely seriously and that when we say that we will take the necessary steps to retain a competitive edge for our universities, we mean it.

What we do will be driven by Scottish priorities, not by knee-jerk reactions to what happens across the border. I remind the chamber that Scotland has a lifelong learning strategy and that the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report particularly stressed the need to continue to consider further and higher education side by side. I was sorry to note that Fiona Hyslop's speech said nothing about the importance of the role of further education colleges, not least with regard to providing a large volume of vocational higher education.

Our approach makes sense for Scotland. The Executive has a good story to tell. Since 1997, the SNP has changed its policy on student support more times than one would care to imagine. Its 2001 UK election manifesto was described by its own student group as a seriously watered-down version of the SNP's policy and as having led to a real sense of disappointment in the Federation of Student Nationalists. That manifesto also says that attempts to mitigate the impact of policy moves south of the border will not work in the long term.

However, the Executive will not give up so easily. We are proud of our Scottish higher education institutions. Our support for them has increased since devolution.

We have a good record and a strong starting point, which we will defend. Above all, we will do whatever is right for the needs, circumstances and priorities of Scotland, at the right time and through a measured process. We have set our own agenda for higher education and lifelong learning and we will not be deflected from it by opportunists who want only to make headlines.

I move amendment S2M-803.2, to leave out from "believes" and insert:

"recognises that Scotland's distinctive higher education system is a valuable asset which must be maintained and developed for the good of the nation; further recognises that its competitive advantage must be maintained; welcomes the commitment in the Partnership Agreement that the Executive "will not support the introduction of top-up tuition fees" in Scotland; notes that the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report on its Scottish Solutions Inquiry considers that the Executive's decision to respond to developments in England by proceeding with a third phase of its higher education review in order to establish a robust evidence base "is wholly appropriate", and looks forward to this third phase of the review reporting in the early spring."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity that this debate provides for the Conservative party to set out its opposition to top-up tuition fees north and south of the border. I also welcome the opportunity to expose the shameless opportunism of the SNP on this issue.

We have always opposed the introduction of tuition fees and top-up fees in Scotland and in England, and Michael Howard and his Conservative colleagues in the House of Commons have been leading the opposition to them. Top-up fees might deter students from less well-off backgrounds from applying to universities. The previous Conservative Government had an excellent record in extending higher education to all and we think that top-up fees could reverse that trend.

One of the reasons why the Scottish Conservatives oppose top-up fees in England and Wales is that we recognise that they might have a detrimental impact in Scotland. I am a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee and other speakers in the debate have referred to the committee's report, which makes that point perfectly clear. There is concern that universities in England and Wales have higher incomes and that they will therefore be able to pay higher salaries. They might attract staff from Scotland and might have a higher status in the eyes of overseas students.

There is a growing political consensus that top-up fees might have a detrimental effect on the Scottish sector. That is why our amendment calls on the Executive to respond to the bill by bringing forward proposals to address the impact on Scottish universities and Scottish students, whether they study here or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

For accuracy, will the member concede that the issue is not so much academics' salaries as their background support packages, because there are national pay scales to govern these matters?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is a fair point. Universities have the opportunity to offer additional support packages to academics, so the base salary is not always the most important factor.

The support of other parties and the Labour rebels is welcome, but it is the Conservatives who will lead on the issue at Westminster so that we can—as we must—defeat top-up fees.

The stance that the SNP has taken on the issue is both hypocritical and politically opportunistic. The SNP supports an independent Scotland. If Scotland was independent, no one in Scotland would have any say whatsoever about what happens in the English higher education sector. Even if we were an independent country, there would still be a knock-on effect on Scottish education because we have a single market in the UK with cross-border flows of students and staff—that would remain the position in an independent Scotland. The SNP proposes a policy under which we would have even less say on the impact on Scottish universities than we have at the moment.

The SNP's real agenda is now apparent. It has no real interest in supporting higher education in England or even, I suspect, in Scotland. It is trying to ensure that MPs who represent Scottish constituencies vote on an issue in which they have no direct interest, and it hopes to encourage an English backlash that will destabilise the current constitutional settlement. No unionist, of whatever party, should have any truck with such an approach.

The SNP approach is not just politically opportunistic but tactically inept. It would have made much more political capital if its Westminster MPs had decided to abstain and had shown up Labour MPs on the issue. Typically, the SNP has not had the wit to see that political opportunity but, given its past record, we should not be surprised about that.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, but I am in my final minute.

In contrast to the SNP's opportunistic stance, the Conservatives have a principled stance and our Scottish MP, Peter Duncan, will abstain from the vote on the issue.

We recognise that the current constitutional settlement is imperfect. In an ideal situation, the Speaker would certify which of the bills that are before the House of Commons apply to England and Wales and which affect the whole of the UK. MPs who represent Scottish constituencies would vote only on the latter. Until that happens, there is a judgment to be made on all pieces of legislation and Peter Duncan is quite right not to vote on this particular issue. Unlike the stance that has been taken by the SNP, which picks and chooses when to have principles, our stance is consistent.

I urge MPs who represent Scottish constituencies to follow Peter Duncan's lead and abstain from the vote on tuition fees in England. I have no doubt that if they do so, the damaging proposal of top-up fees will be defeated and we will avoid the dangerous consequences to the UK of this unpopular and unwanted policy being carried through for England on the back of votes from the Labour MPs who represent Scottish constituencies.

To conclude, I contrast the principled stance that we have taken with the opportunistic and tactically inept stance of the SNP. We want tuition fees to be defeated both north and south of the border. If all the MPs who represent Scottish constituencies follow our principled lead, I have no doubt that top-up fees will be defeated. I urge them to do so.

I move amendment S2M-803.3, to leave out from "will" to end and insert:

"imposing top-up fees may have an adverse effect on Scottish higher education; calls on the Scottish Executive to set out its proposals for dealing with any consequential impact on Scottish universities and on Scottish students if top-up fees are introduced in England; rejects the politically opportunistic stance of the SNP on this issue which is intended to destabilise the Union, and calls on all Scottish MPs to follow the lead of Peter Duncan MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, and abstain from voting on this Bill and, indeed, all Bills that relate only to England and/or Wales."

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

As always, it was instructive to listen to Fiona Hyslop's opening remarks. I was astonished to hear her say that the Executive should see the higher education sector as an opportunity and not as a "burden". I hope that I have quoted her correctly. I would like to see evidence that the Executive sees the sector as a burden, bearing in mind the increases in funding that have already been outlined and which will, no doubt, be referred to again in the debate.

The standard of the research that Fiona Hyslop put into her speech was revealed by her amazing comments about the secret cabal or group that is the phase 3 review of higher education in Scotland. Jim Wallace mentioned that the Enterprise and Culture Committee, of which I am a member, said in its report that the group is open and inclusive. To show how open and inclusive it is, I point out that it includes groups such as Universities Scotland, the Association of Scottish Colleges, the Association of University Teachers, the Educational Institute of Scotland, National Union of Students Scotland, Unison and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council—it is hardly a secret group.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member take an intervention?

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I will in a moment.

Fiona Hyslop might want to respond to the most surprising thing, which is that the committee is chaired by her colleague Alasdair Morgan, and includes Brian Adam as a member. I sat through most of the meetings, if not all of them, and I do not remember the view being put forward that it was a secret group—we welcome the study that is being undertaken. I would welcome Fiona Hyslop's comments on that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do indeed want to comment. My concern is that this is the first debate that we have had on higher education since this Government came into office. It would have been helpful to and instructive for the public in Scotland to know not just that the review was taking place but what it has done and what it has influenced. We have review after review after review, but it is results that matter.

Mike Watson (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

As I understand it, the group will report next month. At the moment, we do not know the final form of the bill or even whether it will be passed by the House of Commons. The issue is an imprecise one, just as it was when the Enterprise and Culture Committee considered it. In fairness, the Executive is doing as much as it can, given the imprecise nature of the issue. That has not prevented continuing increases in investment in Scottish higher education throughout this session of the Scottish Parliament.

On the hypocritical content of the SNP motion, which tells MPs how to vote, how indeed would we react if Westminster told us how to vote? All MPs were sent a copy of the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report, which contains clear recommendations, including a recommendation that the Scottish Executive should significantly increase its investment in higher education in real terms. I am sure that MPs will have read the report and I hope that they will take it into account when they vote, but I am not going to tell them how to vote any more than I would want them to tell me how to vote.

We dismiss higher education in Scotland rather too easily. We must recall that in 2002-03, funding per student, excluding support, was £146 in Scotland and £122 in England, which represents a difference of some 20 per cent. It is certainly incumbent on the Executive to do whatever it can in the spending review to ensure that that level is maintained. Anyone who listened to Jim Wallace yesterday will have heard him stress that his main ambition in the spending review is to build on the substantial investment that is already being made in tertiary education in Scotland. That is the Executive's position and we should support it.

Fiona Hyslop made a rather dismissive comment about Barnett consequentials. There will be consequentials if, as looks likely, the scheme includes considerable DFES student support. That is not to be dismissed—it will be on-going and we have to accept that. That is not to say that there are not threats in the bill being passed as drafted—those threats are recognised in the committee's report and I am sure that they will be taken on board by the Executive.

The SNP has commented that any increase that is applied in England should also be applied in Scotland through general taxation. That is what John Swinney said on Newsnight two or three months ago, and on that occasion he prayed in aid Professor King from the University of Abertay Dundeee and Dr Ian Johnston from Glasgow Caledonian University. In fact, those two august academics have argued for a graduate tax. The SNP must be clear about where their support comes from and to what extent they are supported.

My final point is on the SNP's call on the Executive to rule out ever applying top-up fees. For a start, we cannot top-up fees in Scotland because we do not have any fees. The SNP should be asked whether, if it was ever in a position in which it could influence such matters, it would, in principle, outlaw raising personal or business taxes to pay for the unspecified maintenance of the advantage that we have over the English universities. That point needs to be answered because, as usual, the SNP has lots of ideas but no outline of how it would fund them. The Executive has indicated through its policies in the past four and a half years that higher education is a priority, and I am sure that that will continue in this year's spending review.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

It is extremely difficult to manage debates on subjects as important as those that we have this morning within the very short time that is available. We want to encourage dialogue, but at the same time we must have a balanced list, so it is likely that some speakers will drop off the list, even though speeches are now limited to four minutes.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

As I watched the debate on variable top-up fees unfold at Westminster in the past few weeks and saw the dwindling number of Labour rebels, it brought to mind the famous description of a shiver running through Labour ranks desperately looking for a spine to run down.

The Labour Party's U-turn on top-up fees is surely as stark any political volte-face in living memory. I remind the minister that Labour's 2001 election manifesto said:

"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."

It does not say much about the Labour Party's powers of prevention when it cannot even resist itself. The amendment that the minister moved today, in which he says that

"the Executive 'will not support the introduction of top-up tuition fees'",

has the same hollow ring to it.

It is clear that nothing discredits politics in this country as a lie, a U-turn and a blatant betrayal. As one Labour MP put it, the impression is that,

"once you have sold the principle, you will sell everything else as well."

In truth, the significance of the debate on top-up fees is that the Labour Party is now applying its Tory free-market philosophy to education; that is precisely what we are debating. In one way, that is an entirely dog-bites-man story, because we have seen that happen repeatedly.

It would be one thing if the Labour Party stood up and said, like John Maynard Keynes, "When the facts change, so do our opinions", but the reality is that nothing has changed. Top-up fees are the extension of Labour's pursuit of individualism over common cause. In the Labour Party's theory, universities are now businesses, and the logic is simply that those businesses must be allowed to charge their customers a fee. Labour's ultimate legacy will be education as a commodity. On "Newsnight" on Monday night, Tony Blair said, in that bewildering way that he has of making the most immoral suggestions sound meek and mild:

"It's only right, surely, that those who gain from a university education should pay for it, isn't it?"

The reality is that they do pay for it already. If his argument is taken to its logical conclusion, what will he say next: that only the ill should pay for health care or only pensioners should make a contribution to their pension when they retire? That is the logic of his argument. To add insult to injury, it comes from a man who did not pay for his education in that way—neither did Charles Clarke, Jack Straw nor any of the proponents of top-up fees in the UK Parliament. It is no wonder that the country at large is sick of the debate.

Top-up fees represent a double jeopardy—a second tax. According to figures that I saw on Monday, when top-up fees are introduced postgraduates will be on a tax rate of 41 per cent, once taxes and the fees are added together. Students will pay a higher rate of tax than the richest men in Britain; they will pay a higher rate of tax than the Prime Minister, who is on £200,000 a year, when they are on £15,000. That is the reality.

I am in favour of extra funds for universities—they are long overdue—and I would like the bill to include measures to reintroduce maintenance grants for all students, provide rent-free accommodation for those students who need it and pay proper wages to staff in universities. Members might ask how those would be paid for, but I pre-empt their question: they should be paid for out of general taxation by, as the NUS has suggested, taxing those on incomes of over £100,000 a year at 50p in the pound, which would bring in £4.6 billion, and increasing company taxation in line with taxes throughout Europe, which would bring in £2 billion.

In spite of those suggestions, the Prime Minister says that there is no plan B; his creator said, "There is no alternative." The reality is that the problem is less about getting into a university than it is about staying in one. In regard to students, the universities have changed from being gatekeepers to being repomen and bailiffs. I hope that the bill will be defeated at its second reading, but I fear that the Thatcherisation of the Labour Party means that it has gone too far and that those who oppose it are too weak and ineffectual to stop it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will mention two or three things that are growing into myths in Scotland before I go on to deal with the substantive issue.

First, the Tories have an absolute cheek to say that they will not vote on behalf of Scotland when, for 18 years, they used their English majority to overrule every one of Scotland's interests and the Scottish people's democratic wishes.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Alex Neil give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not have time, unfortunately.

The second myth is the Labour-Liberal Democrat myth that tuition fees have been abolished. Sam Galbraith—God bless him, the only honest Labour politician of recent years—gave the game away the other night when he stated clearly that it was a myth in the minds, not the brains, of the Liberal Democrats that tuition fees had been abolished. How can they be abolished when, after students graduate, they have to pay them back? By definition, fees have to exist to be paid back.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Alex Neil said that students have to pay their tuition fees back but, of course, the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Act 2001 specifically says that the money is ring fenced for student support; it has nothing to do with fees. It is not possible to top up something that does not exist.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mike Rumbles has just proved Sam Galbraith right.

The third myth, which was reiterated by Mike Watson, who has not done his research, is that there is a 20 per cent differential in our favour at the moment between the spend on universities south and north of the border. All the objective research shows that the differential is nearer 3 per cent than 20 per cent.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Does Alex Neil not accept that that is because we have a 50 per cent participation rate in Scotland, unlike the universities south of the border, which are desperately trying to play catch-up to reach the level that we have in Scotland?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

George Lyon's numeracy is as good as his literacy. We were talking about pounds per head, which totally defies the nonsense that he has just uttered.

I will try to do something that neither the Tory speakers, Liberal Democrat speakers nor Labour speakers have done: deal with the fundamental issues. First, we need to ensure that our universities are second to none not only in the UK and Europe but, as Fiona Hyslop said, worldwide. We cannot create a smart, successful Scotland without heavy investment in our universities—the structure and the students. I hope that we are all agreed on that point.

The second fundamental issue is that, to achieve that objective, we must recognise that Scotland's universities are grossly underfunded. Even if we were not having the debate about top-up fees south of the border, we would still face the need for additional funding for our universities.

As I have only a few seconds left, I will deal with the third point. When the Cubie report was published, the SNP proposed a comprehensive programme for the funding of our universities; we called it Cubie plus. The Executive did not implement the Cubie report—it implemented only part of it—but had it implemented the report in full plus the additional measures that the SNP suggested, we would not be in this situation today.

I tell the Executive members to waken up, forget the cheap jibes and do something for Scotland's universities.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Alex Neil's trademark is cheap jibes, so we can start from there.

In recent years, Scotland has outperformed not only the rest of the UK but the rest of the world by successfully increasing the number and proportion of young people from poorer backgrounds who enter higher education. Glasgow Caledonian University, where I worked for more than 20 years before I entered the Parliament, has been outstandingly successful in that regard, but many other Scottish universities have excellent track records too. The SNP fails to recognise those facts, and the only explanation that I can come up with for its opposition to the graduate endowment scheme, which has been so successful in boosting participation, is its ingrained habit of running Scotland down.

It is clear to everyone in higher education that more money is needed if our universities are to maintain their competitiveness—not only with their English counterparts but internationally. However, the underlying issue is the fact that in recent years university staff salaries have not increased at the same rate as those of other workers. That is the main element of the money that is needed. We must address that issue if we are to attract top-quality people into academic life and to keep them there.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Des McNulty referred to the increase in the number of students who are going to university and to Glasgow Caledonian University. Does he acknowledge that the increase happened during the Tory term in office, or is there a coincidence in that it happened only after Des McNulty left Glasgow Caledonian University?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Part of the increase occurred during the Tories' period in office, but the record since 1997, when Labour came to power, shows that there has been a further significant shift forward. That is to be welcomed by everyone. It is not a question of who delivered what—we all have an interest in improving and boosting participation.

Every time that the SNP sees a political advantage in promising additional spending, it makes a commitment knowing that it will not have to deliver. That is fundamentally dishonest. The SNP cannot have Jim Mather and Fergus Ewing running round the country saying that they will reduce taxes, at the same time as it says that it will spend more and more on transport, education and health. There is a debate to be had about the genuine implications for Scottish higher education of what is proposed south of the border. I am concerned that if a variable fees scheme is introduced, it is likely that a future Administration—perhaps a future Conservative Administration—will increase the level of fees sharply. That is what the conservatives in Australia did. The most meaningful commitment that we can get from Michael Howard is not to put up variable fees if they are introduced.

There is also a genuine concern that the Government's estimates of the average repayment period do not take account of the differential in average earnings between men and women. Men on average earnings may take between 10 and 12 years to repay their debt, whereas women on average earnings may take between 15 and 20 years to repay exactly the same amount of debt for exactly the same course. That is a genuine issue. It is the kind of question that we should be debating. The differential impact of top-up fees may have a significant effect on the choices that people make—not only on their choice of courses for which to enrol, but on their future life decisions.

The UK Government has changed its scheme by making fees and grant remission in the form of bursaries available to poorer people. However, for the SNP to argue that general taxation should cover the funding needs of the universities is fundamentally dishonest. The argument that we need to have in Scotland concerns how we should modify the current scheme to take account of the needs of our universities and the implications of the new proposals in the rest of the UK. I still believe that consideration should be given to a graduate tax scheme, which would link payments to the benefits derived from university rather than to costs associated with the course. I know that many other people in higher education share that belief. That is the serious debate that we need to have. It does not help that the stance that the SNP takes in this debate is that characteristic of the ostrich—head in the sand, bottom up.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

We have heard that universities are the intellectual boiler houses of Scotland, with an international reputation. It is worth while to consider some international comparisons. Only two Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries charge outright variable fees for higher education. One is Australia; the other is the USA. Even before top-up fees are added, the USA spends per capita from public funds a much higher proportion of its gross domestic product on higher education. It is an almost unprecedented move—the only exception is Australia—to shift from a state education system to a system based on variable fees. I believe that that is a very risky step to take.

I came to Scotland—to the University of Edinburgh—in 1990. I was an intellectual migrant to Scotland. I hope that, like other such intellectual migrants, I have made a contribution to Scotland since I arrived. I am very worried about what the introduction of variable fees in England will mean for future English-born students who want to come to Scotland. There is a huge lack of detail about what the measures will mean. Will English students who come to Scottish universities have to pay top-up fees, as they would if they studied at a university in England? If so, over a four-year course, that will be a major disincentive for English students to come to Scotland.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The urgent need for action to be taken and reports to be implemented now is illustrated by the fact that the University of Edinburgh is already having to draft publications to attract students who will graduate in 2008. The university has no idea what the Scottish Executive plans. Is that not a problem here and now for the university?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I agree completely that that is a major problem. A corresponding problem is that if the University of Edinburgh and similar universities do not manage to attract English students to Scotland, as happened previously, there will be a gap in their student rolls. How will that gap be filled? There is a complete lack of detail concerning the impact of the new measures.

It is a week before the Higher Education Bill is debated at Westminster. Before the bill's second reading, we need more details from the Scottish Executive concerning the impact of the measures on Scotland. It is no good saying that a report will be published in March, as it will appear after the vote. The information that we need is missing. If there is a head-in-the-sand approach, it is being taken by the Executive. The Executive has finally recanted its belief that top-up fees in England will not affect Scotland, but it is still uncertain about how they will do so. Until we are certain about the effects of top-up fees, it is not prudent to proceed with an experiment that has been done in so few countries and to move to a system of variable top-up fees.

My underlying fear is that Professor Sutherland, who was the principal of the University of Edinburgh when I studied there, is right—that there is a choice to be made between state funding of education and a free market, and that variable fees will open up a free market in education. Professor Sutherland talked about students being charged the market rate. That is what I am worried about, and that is what I think variable fees will end up meaning.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

All of us have an interest in the pursuit of excellence in education. I have two sons at universities, one in Scotland and one in England.

Today I wish to speak about the very important representation that the British Medical Association Scotland has made. I do so in particular because the University of Edinburgh is a recognised centre of excellence for medicine and medical education. The BMA Scotland is particularly concerned because it fears that the introduction of top-up fees in England will make Scotland suffer a shortage of doctors. It believes that access to university should be based not on the capacity of the student to pay but on academic ability, with equity of access to medical schools for all young people.

One key point that worries the BMA Scotland is that medical students' courses last five to six years. The costs of medical courses are much more considerable than those of other degrees and from year 3 the academic year consists of up to 50 weeks for medical students, as opposed to 30 weeks for students on other courses. The concentrated nature of the work, coupled with the length of the term, makes it very difficult for medical students to supplement their income through part-time work. They also have other expenses—books, clothing, stethoscopes and essential travel to and from clinical placements.

Medical degrees in England could easily incur top-up fees, with the result that they will cater either for the very poor or for the very wealthy. That would have the knock-on effect that many more students from England, predominantly from the middle-income bracket, would apply to Scots universities but return to England to practise, leaving Scotland short of doctors. In other words, we would have a brain drain—something that Harold Wilson deplored before he became Prime Minister.

There is a danger that the introduction of top-up fees will have two effects. First, there may be a big influx of predominantly middle-income bracket students from outwith Scotland. Secondly, there may be a brain drain of staff and graduates after qualification.

We believe that access to universities should be based on merit and excellence and be open to all. The Scottish university system should provide sufficient graduates to meet Scotland's needs. The great worry is that Scottish universities may lose their competitive edge. There is a shortage of doctors in Scotland, although Scotland produces infinitely more doctors than the number of doctors who work for the national health service in Scotland. I understand that there are more than 200 vacant consultant posts in Scotland.

The BMA is opposed to top-up tuition fees. However, if top-up fees come in south of the border, the Executive should examine closely and monitor the inevitable impact on our universities and our medical facilities and be prepared to come up with effective solutions to the problem.

Will the Deputy First Minister please keep a very close eye on the situation and keep it under review? The First Minister has given this commitment:

"We will ensure that whatever proposals are finally agreed by the House of Commons, the Scottish university system will stay ahead of the game."—[Official Report, 4 December 2003; c 3966.]

I hope that the Deputy First Minister and his ministerial colleagues—incidentally, I am surprised that neither of the education ministers is present, because this is an extremely important issue for Scotland—will, individually and collectively, honour the First Minister's commitment. I hope that they will keep in mind the particular difficulties of all students in Scotland, including medical students, who must not be forgotten.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I hope that we all agree that education in general and university education in particular should be a vehicle for unhindered social mobility. However, top-up fees are likely to have the opposite effect—especially here in Scotland.

In an ideal Scotland—with the right economic conditions—education, hard work and ambition should be the only attributes that people need to have successful and fulfilling lives. However, if the economic conditions are not optimal and the education system is diluted or damaged, the other two attributes will not be enough to deliver the full potential of individuals and their nation. That must be the likely consequence of top-up fees.

That view is endorsed by the many voices from all parts of the political spectrum who have weighed in with their concerns on the issue. Implicitly, all those voices are recognising that the current devolved settlement is producing complexity, unforeseen consequences and adverse outcomes for Scotland.

The reason for that is straightforward. Scotland without financial freedom—the defining attribute of a distinct economy—is almost powerless to alleviate the adverse effects of moves such as the application of top-up fees down south. We can alert people to the fact that the proposal will do nothing to improve growth, increase incomes or reverse our population decline. The SNP will continue to make the case that Scotland will always be boxed in and inhibited while the United Kingdom Parliament exclusively retains all the economic levers and takes decisions that undermine our competitiveness.

I do not need to stress the point—it is increasingly obvious—that Scotland is being denied the chance of the optimal economic performance that we need to provide adequate funds for our universities; to remove the fear of debt as a barrier to education; to retain skilled academics; to attract bright, motivated students; to attract research funding; and to bring all that to bear to maintain and hone Scotland's long-term competitive edge.

Certainly, the Executive cannot achieve those objectives when the only option that it has is to raid its finite pot of money in the upcoming spending review. The bleakness of the situation is perhaps best expressed by a Universities Scotland spokesman, who stated:

"If top-up fees go through, students in England are going to be taught in better classrooms, work in better laboratories and better libraries and be taught by the best staff. If we get nothing, we are going to end up with second-class students—a massive betrayal of our reputation of being the best in Britain."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Given that Jim Mather is on the record many times as saying that he wants to cut taxes in an independent Scotland, how on earth would he maintain the current level of spending on higher education in Scotland?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is not a zero-sum game. I am ambitious for Scotland and ambitious to build the revenue of Scotland.

If we want to continue to be the best in Britain, the status quo is becoming less and less sustainable, as it puts us at an increased competitive disadvantage and will make unhindered social mobility the subject only of nostalgic discussion. That is a deep affront to people of my generation and of my working-class roots who were beneficiaries in a previous era of unhindered social mobility; it is a deeper affront to a new generation of young people, who can see the benefits of such a strategy accruing to their contemporaries in Finland and Ireland.

Therefore, the situation cries out for a better approach and a strategy that can deliver both a vibrant, competitive, growing economy and thriving universities. The strategy that is needed to provide that better future is simple. It is one that answers the call from Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who stated in yesterday's edition of The Scotsman:

"the real solution has to be found in tackling deprivation, which includes educational deprivation."

The solution in question is the one that we have been promoting for years and which has recently been winning more and more converts. It is the solution that will never go away. It is to give Scotland the financial independence that it needs to compete. In the context of this debate, financial independence would allow Scotland to emulate role-model countries and learn from wise heads such as Stewart Sutherland. That would enable us to produce the blend of economic conditions and university funding that works elsewhere and would give us the power that we need to compete, grow and root wealth and talent in Scotland.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

The question—[ Interruption. ] Thank you.

The question of whether what is happening in England will have a serious knock-on effect in Scotland is serious. The motion states that it will, the Tories say that it might and the Executive says that it will not. Who knows? Frankly, I do not know and I do not think that anyone can be sure of what will happen. Until we see these matters working out in practice, it is impossible to make such predictions.

However, an equally serious question is what we in Scotland should do if a funding gap is created. On that issue, I suspect that I part company with most members. The motion and the debate are based on the assumption that what is happening in England is wrong in principle. Fiona Hyslop says that it is, and so do Colin Fox and Murdo Fraser—that is an unholy alliance if ever I saw one. I happen to disagree.

If universities need additional funding, the proposals that are currently at Westminster are a rational and equitable means of providing that.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

No. I do not have time.

Under the proposals, no student requires to make payment up front and no student therefore needs to be deterred from going to university because he or she is unable to find the money. That is very important.

Poorer students will be better off while at university, thanks to the new support package of maintenance grants and bursaries. Such repayment as is required will come into force only when the student is earning decent money and is therefore reaping the reward of their years at university. If members look in detail at what is proposed, they will see that in a variety of ways the repayment system will be much fairer and easier than it has been.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Gordon Jackson really think that it is fair that someone who is training to be a consultant will end up having to pay back not £30,000 but £40,000? That might be okay for families that have two incomes coming in, but it is not okay for the majority of the public.

Gordon Jackson (Labour, Glasgow Govan)

I think that it is okay, because it is better than any alternative that is being suggested.

The overall result is that those who come from a poorer family will be much better off in the short term while they are at university and no worse off in the long term. People who are from a better-off background will of course be required to make some repayment as and when their earning power makes that possible, but even they will not be required to make payment up front.

That is a fair and rational method of dealing with any current funding gap. Those who instinctively and, if I may so, sometimes irrationally disagree need to tell us what a better solution is. I notice that there has been no detailed analysis of the proposed system by any of its opponents. Of course, one answer is general taxation, but even if those of us who make more were taxed more, that would not be a better way forward in the real world, where priorities have to be fixed in education and beyond.

We should not be telling our Westminster colleagues that they are doing wrong. We should support them in what they are doing and I say bluntly that if there is a funding problem as a result, we should be prepared to follow them.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Before I ask Jamie Stone to speak, I should say that there are still three or four members who wish to speak. Therefore, speeches after Jamie Stone's will be down to two and a half minutes.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am sure that Gordon Jackson enjoyed his supper with Sam Galbraith last night.

We should be in no doubt that the future prosperity of our economy, and indeed of our nation, depends on the performance of our higher and further education sectors. I am afraid that the Scottish National Party has, again, chosen to make cheap political points rather than consider the substantive issue of how we should ensure that our universities play a key role in the future.

I have to say to Fiona Hyslop that her contribution to the debate was misdirected and premature. It was misdirected because the real debate is surely about the substance and detail of what we can do to ensure that our universities maintain their competitive advantage, rather than about telling Westminster MPs which way they should vote. That is up to them and, as Jim Wallace said, we would not like it if MPs told us how we should vote.

Let us be quite honest and straightforward about the fact that the Scottish Executive's position on the matter is absolutely clear. It was written into the partnership agreement that there would be no top-up tuition fees in Scotland. Watch my lips: there will be no top-up tuition fees in Scotland. The Executive opposes in principle the introduction of such fees. Indeed, that principle led us to abolish tuition fees in 2000. As the father of three children who attend Scottish universities, I can tell members that my children have been among the first to reap the benefit of the abolition of tuition fees. I received an e-mail from a friend who attended the University of St Andrews with me and who now lives in Devon. It said, "Alas and alack; my children are approaching the stage that yours are at. What a pity it is that we do not live in Scotland." Facts are chiels that winna ding.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member agree with the former Minister for Children and Education's authoritative comment that the claim that tuition fees have been abolished is merely a con?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Ah, yes—dear Mr Sam Galbraith. I am sure that he is enjoying a happy retirement and that we are all glad to see him in his retirement. Sam Galbraith once famously referred to one of Fiona Hyslop's colleagues as needing a good cormorant—[ Laughter. ]—or, rather, cousin of the cormorant.

Liberal Democrat MPs at Westminster will defend the principle that top-up fees should not be introduced and Liberal Democrat MSPs in the Scottish Parliament will do the same. Unlike the Tories, our position is consistent. Murdo Fraser—and anyone else in the Tory party—might like to consider two points. First, the Tories' policy of opposition to top-up fees is linked to a cut in the number of students who gain access to higher education. Will the Tories spell out which universities and departments will be cut and which young people will have their dreams shattered? Secondly, on 31 October 2002, Brian Monteith said that the need for income

"may require the best universities to charge top-up fees ... There is no reason why this should not be allowed".

What is the Tories' position? Do they support Brian Monteith's policy on top-up fees or Michael Howard's anti-fees stance?

The Enterprise and Culture Committee commended the Executive's approach, which recognised the need to consider the wider issues. I welcome that approach and I hope that when the review reports next month it will provide the evidence that we currently lack. I urge the minister to take heed of the committee's report on Scottish solutions; I know that he has done so.

The Executive amendment is sensible. It recommends a gradual and considered approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction. We cannot play fast and loose with the issue; we must get it right. I know that the Executive will do whatever need be done and I will take great pleasure in supporting the minister in that endeavour.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

When tuition fees were introduced by the Westminster Government, we were told that top-up fees would not be allowed. That commitment was reiterated in the most recent Labour Party manifesto. However, next week, Tony Blair, aided and abetted by some Scottish Labour MPs, will attempt to ditch that commitment.

Is it any wonder that young people are disillusioned with politicians? Is it any wonder that more and more young people do not even bother to turn up to vote? They see politicians parading themselves on the telly, proclaiming in patronising tones that they want to "engage" with young people. When I was a boy, "engaged" meant that the phone was blocked or the lavvy door was locked. Now the blocked minds of politicians are trying to lock the minds of young people and throw away the key.

Education is the key to the liberation of people, in particular young people and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Top-up fees would deter many such young people from going to university, because they would face carrying a millstone of debt around their necks for many years after they graduated.

That might be difficult for someone like Tony Blair to understand. He comes from a privileged background and neither he nor his family had to make the sacrifices that many families have to make so that someone can go to university. However, there are MPs in the House of Commons, some of whom represent Scottish constituencies, who should know better. Those politicians paid no fees and received generous student grants to enable them to go to university, but now they are kicking away the ladder of opportunity for many young people.

I urge the Executive to stand firm in its commitment not to introduce top-up tuition fees and I ask the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to join me in urging all MPs who represent Scottish constituencies to vote against the Higher Education Bill next week, because the bill is a reactionary piece of proposed legislation that will do immense damage to higher education in Scotland and south of the border.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Dennis Canavan has demonstrated why it is absolutely relevant that this Parliament should make heard its point of view on top-up tuition fees. We have a lobbying function because we are a devolved Parliament and we occasionally have to go cap in hand to our Westminster colleagues.

If I was a Westminster MP, I would vote alongside Tam Dalyell, against the Government's proposal. I would do so first, for the same reason as Tam Dalyell: he will break his principled self-denying ordinance, which prevents him from voting on measures that apply only to parts of the UK other than Scotland, because he believes that it is more important to prevent the introduction of a policy that will militate against the best interests of Scottish universities. He is as correct about that as he was when he pointed out the flaws and idiosyncrasies in the Scotland Act 1998, which placed us in the position that we are now in—although many members of the unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament sincerely believe that it is possible for us to produce and carry through a distinctively Scottish agenda, as the Deputy First Minister suggested.

The other reason why I oppose the Government's proposal is, of course, that the ethos of the Scottish Parliament has been to build a sense of community in Scotland. Although I can make plenty of detailed criticisms of the Executive's programme, I believe that the Executive's intention is to try to bridge the gaps in opportunity that exist between different groups of people and different regions in Scotland. I hope that I will not be proved wrong, but I do not expect to hear a defence of the policy on top-up tuition fees that is constructed along the lines of the patronising, selfish, stupid and divisive defence that has been offered by Tony Blair and some of his supporters. Dustbin men, hospital cleaners and porters have the same interest as doctors, lawyers or MSPs in ensuring that all parts of our education system are as good as possible and that entry to higher education depends on the ability to learn, rather than on the ability to pay.

The people who benefit financially from having obtained a university degree should pay their dues through income tax, when they are earning the big bucks. No one will be deterred from going to university by the knowledge that they will pay the top rate of tax when they earn more than £100,000 per year. However, people will, by the knowledge that they could choose a cheaper degree and pay £20,000, be deterred from attending a university at which they would pile up a debt of £30,000. I was that student—that answers Gordon Jackson's point. It is not just the fact that someone gets a degree that matters; the sort of degree that they get and what they can do with it matters, too.

The credo that is being introduced in England will leach over the border. Every member of this Parliament has a duty to oppose such a distortion in the balances of responsibility among all sections of society.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You must finish now.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

The Executive might feel that it might get an under-the-counter payment through the Barnett formula if it does not present too much opposition, but it is highly unlikely that that will happen. How can the Executive expect to be treated with respect if it is prepared to risk our educational heritage?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

One of the most important legislative changes that the Scottish Parliament made in its first session was to abolish student tuition fees. The fact that we are now having this debate on the effect of the proposals to allow English universities to charge students even higher levels of tuition fees demonstrates how right we were to abolish fees altogether for full-time students in Scotland.

There has been a huge amount of misinformation in the media about the fact that our students do not pay tuition fees, but pay into the student endowment fund after they graduate. Sam Galbraith has made much of that recently. That he fails to understand what was done just confirms how weak was his grasp of what was going on.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Rumbles give way?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I would if I had the time, but I do not.

I well remember when the Education (Graduate Endowment and Student Support) (Scotland) Bill was first published. It failed to ring fence the endowment payment strictly for student grants. I brought that to the attention of ministers and, almost uniquely, the bill was immediately withdrawn and republished as it should have been in the first place. Our legislation makes it clear that the endowment fund can be used only to help students. It cannot go to the universities for them to spend on what they wish. One cannot top up something that does not exist, but one can ask the Scottish Executive to increase its payments to our universities, and that is what our university sector is doing.

I have never understood Gordon Jackson's argument that our students should pay for the tuition because they benefit financially from their university education. Anyone who benefits financially will automatically contribute more through income tax. That is what income tax is designed for. What could be fairer than income tax?

I have no doubt that top-up fees are unjust for English students down south, but that is an issue for our MPs, and we should not be telling them how to vote. They are all over 21 and they can make up their own minds. The coalition Administration will not countenance the return of tuition fees to Scotland for our full-time students, whether they are top-up fees or not.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Once again, a debate on student funding has provoked a wide range of strongly held opinions. Nobody disagrees that the prospect of top-up fees in England represents a major challenge to our higher education sector, but we should all be clear that the challenge is to keep Scottish education where it is now—ahead of the game. We have heard various figures quoted, but what is undeniable is that higher education in Scotland has for many years had higher levels of funding than higher education in the rest of the UK has had, as Mike Watson illustrated.

The rest of the UK is playing catch-up on student funding. When other members were taking their seats in the first session of Parliament, I was campaigning for better student funding in my role as president of NUS Scotland. In that job, I met countless people who had benefited from Labour's policy of widening access. The introduction of bursaries for poorer students remains one of the most significant achievements of the Scottish Executive, and we heard from the minister about the significant increases in funding that the Executive has pledged to higher education.

Challenges there may be, but the doom-mongers among the SNP and Tory members are well wide of the mark. Ever since I have been involved in the debate on university funding, it has benefited from processes of careful consideration. From Cubie to Dearing to the Executive's own current review of lifelong learning, the debate represents the strategic thinking that Fiona Hyslop demanded. By contrast, as Jamie Stone said, knee-jerk reactions and political point scoring that are backed up by no practical proposals for long-term funding of higher education benefit no one, least of all students.

In this Parliament, far from there being a gloomy outlook, there will be no fees; it is right to say that they are not fees but contributions to bursaries. We will also review the level of bursaries for poorer students.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Mr Baker give way?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

In the long term, if top-up fees in England proceed, there are a number of measures that we can take that will help our universities to compete without disadvantaging students. Legitimate concerns, which were constructively outlined by Mike Watson and Des McNulty, include the possible impacts on academic staff and on Scottish students studying in England.

However, a number of tools to deal with those issues have been suggested in the Enterprise and Culture Committee's report. The report's suggestions should be implemented. There should be better support for staff, particularly junior support staff, and institutions should be encouraged to diversify their funding streams through working more with business, for example. We must also prioritise any possible Barnett consequentials for higher education.

Those useful proposals are in stark contrast to the paucity in the Opposition's response to the situation. An example of that is the opportunism of the Tories. Murdo Fraser accuses Labour of opportunism, but what could be more opportunistic than to oppose a policy without proposing an alternative. Phil Gallie and Murdo Fraser talked of the Tories expanding access, but at least until the demise of Iain Duncan Smith the Tories' policy was to restrict access to higher education.

The SNP, which has no ideas or plans for increasing investment in higher education, instead indulges itself once more in misguidedly using today's debate to attack the constitution. I agree with Murdo Fraser that to do so is irrelevant because an independent Scotland would face exactly the same challenges. Mike Watson's questions about how we would pay for what Opposition members propose have gone unanswered. Jim Mather supports the comments of Lord Sutherland, who advocates an entirely free market in higher education. It is surprising that Jim Mather should support such a view.

Perhaps all Parliaments in the UK should in future give more consideration to how their decisions will affect one another. When there were changes to student funding here, the SNP did not suggest that we consult MPs first. Now SNP members tell us to tell Westminster what to do. If the reverse were true for the Scotland Act 1998 or any other act, they would be furious with MPs.

Today's debate has been another example of the Opposition's being high on criticism but short of ideas on finding a way forward. The Executive is well placed to meet the challenges and to give Scotland's universities and colleges the support that they need to continue to be accessible to people in every part of our society and to be among the best, not just in the UK, but in the world.

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is such a pleasure to join in this debate, especially as my name has been quoted so often. I must draw to Parliament's attention the fact that as soon as Jim Wallace stood up to reply to the Opposition, he turned towards the Conservative benches. Even in what is called Opposition time, Jim Wallace notes that the real opposition to his Executive comes from our benches, not from the SNP.

The first point that I would like to pick up from the debate concerns the principle of SNP members at Westminster voting in the debate on top-up fees. Fiona Hyslop has told us that that is right and proper until such time as we have powers in this Parliament to address matters of higher education. Do not we actually have those powers? We certainly have the legislative powers. Whether one likes the graduate endowment or not, and whether one wants to abolish it or not, that legislation was passed here; it is a Scottish creation. We have those legislative powers, but is it perhaps that we do not have financial independence? Well, I am sorry to say to the SNP that we have a thing called the tartan tax. If we seriously believe that more funding is required, we can raise the basic rate of our income tax, find more money and give it to the universities. Do I hear about that from the SNP benches? No, I do not, because it is a policy that the SNP has dropped.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will Mr Monteith give way?

Brian Monteith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I do not have enough time to take interventions—Mr Stone knows that.

The SNP does not have enough principles. It is not so much a case of "The Silence of the Lambs", because Fiona Hyslop is no Clarice Starling—maybe she is Hannah Lecter, Hannibal's long lost sister. The real silence is coming not from the Executive, as she suggests, but from Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has the University of Edinburgh in his constituency. That is where the silence is. Let us hear him argue in the pages of the Edinburgh Evening News and The Scotsman for top-up fees, which he will no doubt vote for. There is also the silence of Anne McGuire, MP for Stirling and Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Scotland. With so many University of Stirling students in her constituency, she will still vote for top-up fees in England and Wales. That is where the silence is and that is where, I believe, the point of attack should be.

Alex Neil tried to tell us that decades of Tory policies that were imposed on us against the wishes of Scots mean that our MPs in Westminster must vote against top-up fees. We have had almost 300 years of what I love to call the great union of Great Britain. In that time, we have had Liberal Governments with majorities from Scotland voting against England's wishes, and Labour Governments voting for policies against England's wishes because their majorities came from Scotland. That is part of the deal and it is a deal that I am quite happy with. What we have now is quite different: we have Scots MPs making decisions on English policies that no UK MPs can decide on for Scotland. For that reason, Peter Duncan is quite right and quite principled to abstain in the vote.

The bare-faced duplicity that exists comes from members who say that they will not introduce such policies, but do. Tony Blair said that there would be no tuition fees, but they were introduced. Tony Blair said that there would be no top-up fees in his time in the next Parliament, but he introduced them just after that. The Executive parties tell us that there will be no top-up fees. I say to members: if those parties are returned to Government in 2008, watch this space.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will again do the courtesy of addressing Brian Monteith first. He asked why his name had been mentioned a few times in the debate. I rather suspect that it is because of the official Conservative press release that he issued on 31 October 2002, in which he said:

"To fund this may require the best universities to charge top-up fees. There is no reason why this should not be allowed".

Given that the whole thrust of Murdo Fraser's speech was that top-up fees are fundamentally wrong, we can now see where the gaps are appearing.

Murdo Fraser and Richard Baker pointed out the opportunism of the SNP in calling on Scottish MPs to vote in a way which, if the boot was on the other foot, they would be howling about. The SNP position is hypocritical. Indeed, as Murdo Fraser and Richard Baker also pointed out, if Scotland was an independent country, there would be no Scottish MPs at Westminster to vote on fees. Murdo Fraser rightly highlighted the consequences that the SNP fear could still apply in respect of the flow of students unless, that is, the SNP is suggesting that an independent Scotland would somehow or other put up the barriers.

Jim Mather said that everything would be different if we had fiscal autonomy, but he ran away from George Lyon's question about whether that meant that the SNP was going to raise taxes to fund all that he proposed. I am also interested in Jim Mather because he quite properly pointed out the importance of higher education. However, in his wish list for the Highlands, which he published in The Press and Journal on 3 January this year, there was a deafening silence about the importance of the UHI Millennium Institute, which is an important higher education institution for the Highlands and Islands.

I could not quite follow Murdo Fraser's argument when he said that Michael Howard was leading the fight against tuition fees with such strength and conviction that Peter Duncan would abstain. He said that that was a matter of principle—no doubt it was the same kind of principle that I am told led Peter Duncan to vote on the Mersey Tunnels Bill.

That apart, some important issues have been raised in the debate. I welcome the robust way in which Jamie Stone reminded us of the partnership agreement commitment, which is set out in the Executive amendment, which states:

"the Executive "will not support the introduction of top-up tuition fees" in Scotland".

I repeat and reaffirm that commitment.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No, I have not got very much time and I gave way in my opening remarks.

We need also to nail the myth that tuition fees have not been abolished in Scotland. Of course, they have been abolished in Scotland. [Interruption.] I declare my interest—I have a daughter who is in her first year at the University of Glasgow and I am not paying any tuition fees for her course. The graduate endowment is ring fenced to fund student support; the kind of student support that, as Richard Baker pointed out, we also want to see being improved.

If the SNP wants to abolish the graduate endowment, its members must say where, in times to come, they will find the additional resources to increase and improve student support. I assure Dennis Canavan that we stand by the commitment in the partnership agreement.

The review of higher education was mentioned on a number of occasions. Fiona Hyslop wondered whether the review had done anything. I say to her that the phase 2 report that was published in March last year is pretty comprehensive. It seemed to me that Fiona Hyslop did not know that the phase 3 review is going ahead. It will look into all aspects of the possible implications for Scotland of the proposals south of the border.

Members quite properly mentioned that there could be implications for cross-border flows of students and for recruitment and retention of staff. It was because we identified those possible implications that a working group was set up as part of the review to try to get some sort of handle on what might happen. We have never denied that there could be implications. What we said was that, until we saw the shape of the UK Government's legislation, it would be difficult to quantify the nature of the implications. That is a perfectly sensible way to proceed. Fiona Hyslop suggested that the review is "private and secret", but it is actually Richard Baker's successor at NUS Scotland who is chairing the working group that is considering the cross-border flow of students.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton raised the question of medical students. We will keep the issue under review. At the moment, we are conducting an inquiry into medical education. That inquiry, which is led by Sir Kenneth Calman, is due to report soon and we hope that the report will help us to identify the steps that we will need to take to ensure that we have an adequate supply of the doctors that Scotland needs in the long term. I reassure Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that the matter is one that we take very seriously indeed.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No—I am in my last minute.

I believe that there is consensus that universities are an important investment for Scotland and that they are important for our economic future. We believe that we have an advantage. As we say in our amendment, the

"competitive advantage must be maintained".

I assure Parliament that we put that in our amendment because we will stand by it and we mean it. I believe that higher education is one of Scotland's rich and valuable assets and it is an asset that we do not want to diminish. It is an asset that we want to see flourishing as we go forward into the coming years of the 21st century.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Albert Sorel said that politics divides those who seek to change the world to suit their ideas from those who seek to modify their actions to suit the world. The debate encapsulates that. Those of us on the SNP benches classify ourselves in the former category, but it is clear that the Executive members fall into the latter category. Rather than drive forward with an agenda that would give Scotland a prosperous future in a new millennium, they sit back and allow events at home and north and south of the border to affect us; indeed, to buffet and, ultimately, to damage us. If "do less, better" is the Executive's maxim, the public's exhortation is, "For God's sake, do something." To do nothing is most certainly not an option.

There are several aspects to the debate. The first is the question of voting in the Parliament in England, which was raised in particular by members on the Tory benches. Let us be quite clear that it is the duty of every Scottish elected representative, no matter how high or how humble, to defend Scottish interests. It is their duty to do so in every chamber, at every opportunity and in every forum or jurisdiction. To vote against top-up fees is not only to defend Scotland's students and universities, but to defend all Scotland's economic interests. For Scottish MPs to fail to vote would be an abdication of responsibility and to vote for top-up fees would damage and undermine their constituents and their country.

Another aspect is the question of whether tuition fees have been abolished. I do not want to mull too much over the private grief between the Liberal Democrats and their Labour colleagues. The fact of the matter is quite clear: Sam Galbraith's statements are irreconcilable with those that were made by members on the Liberal Democrat benches and—in particular—by the minister. The fact of the matter is that if Sam Galbraith is telling the truth, the minister most certainty is not. All of us know about the shameless deal that was put together by the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties and it is quite clear that, in this respect, the deal is a sham. In fact, in this case, the old adage, "they speak with forked tongue" has been shown to be true.

What can be done? Two quite different positions were put forward by Mr Jackson and Mr Baker. Again, their positions showed how irreconcilable are the differences not between the views of members of the coalition parties, but between the views of members of the same party. The fact is that it is quite clear that the changes down in England will affect us. I say to the Executive members that either they should accept change and become masters of their own destiny by taking fiscal responsibility or continue to throw money here and there out of the limited pocket money that the Executive is allowed. The sticking-plaster approach is fundamentally affecting the Scottish economy.

An article in Tuesday's Financial Times showed clearly that the successful cities in the European Union and beyond are those that invest in their education and which do so through taking fiscal responsibility. I suggest to the members who are giggling on the Liberal Democrat benches that if they have not read the article they should do so.

Jeremy Purvis (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No. I do not have time.

The successful nations and successful regions and cities that were mentioned in the article are not Nottingham, Newcastle, Manchester or other English regional or metropolitan areas; the most successful city was Stockholm, followed by Helsinki, followed by Copenhagen—all of which are cities in small nations that follow their best interests. Rather than do that, members in the Liberal Democrat and Labour benches would have us follow the method that is taking those regional areas in England into economic penury. We should follow the examples of the Scandic nations.

I refer to a meeting that was hosted by the Association of University Teachers in which the Finnish Minister of Education, Mr Heinonen, addressed the subject of higher education in a small European nation. He said about Finland:

"At the moment, higher education and research are the very essence of the Finnish national strategy devised to redefine our position in the new international setting and globalized economic environment."

That is very much a smart and successful Finland. He set out the goal—which is ambitious in comparison to ours—of providing higher education for 60 to 65 per cent of the relevant age group. We pat ourselves on the back because we achieve a figure of 50 per cent. They wish to drive considerably further forward.

The conclusion that Mr Heinonen came to was that for a small nation to maintain a high-quality higher education system, government must invest heavily in it because external funding from business and industry is not nearly as easy to obtain as it is in bigger national economies. That is still the only survival strategy for a small nation to compete successfully in the production and utilisation of knowledge. That is why Finland has refused tuition fees, that is why it continues to support its students and, indeed, that is why it wishes to increase its student population percentage.

We are at a time in Scotland when we are looking back at our history. On Friday night we can watch "Scotland's Empire" and we can read Tom Devine's book and Arthur Herman's "The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots' Invention of the Modern World". We praise what we have done, and if we asked those academics why we what we did, they would say that the driving force was that our people were educated. Our people became, to an extent, the cadre of the British empire. When they hit the foreign shores of the new world and elsewhere they were able to drive forward because we invested centuries ago in education, when other countries had not even thought about such a thing, we had the Education Act 1696, which conferred literacy and numeracy on our people. We did that and we reaped the benefit. Other nations that did not have the same literacy levels paid the price.

Centuries on from that, we could learn from our forefathers: we could invest, as they did, not just in literacy and numeracy but in higher education, because in the new millennium, higher education will be ever more vital. Indeed, it could be argued that higher education is comparable to literacy and numeracy in the 17th century.

We will not be able to replicate what our forefathers did unless we invest in our education system at the basic and higher levels. If we do that, instead of follow the downward track of the English metropolitan cities, we will drive forward while emphasising our correspondence with the success that is being delivered in the Scandinavian and other small nations. To do that, we require fiscal autonomy. We should take charge so that, rather than react to events, we will be able to dictate events and follow the successful Finnish model.

Fisheries (December Council)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-798, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the fisheries council in December 2003, and two amendments to that motion.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I begin by welcoming Allan Wilson to his new role, which he will carry out for the next few months. We are delighted to hear that Ross Finnie is recovering from his operation.

Given the brighter outlook before December's talks, we all expected to be here early in 2004 finally sailing into calmer waters, yet ministers once again find themselves in the middle of a storm. Only a few weeks ago, things were looking up and our fishing communities were poised to turn the corner after so many disappointing fishing deals. The troubled cod stocks were recovering, haddock stocks were at record levels, other stocks were robust and we had a much smaller fleet. Despite that, ministers managed to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory in Brussels.

At some ungodly hour, the United Kingdom signed an agreement that blatantly discriminated against its fishing industry and left the white-fish sector fighting for survival. Industry representatives from every sector have united in their appeals to the courts for justice. Fishing communities in Buchan, the Western Isles, Shetland and around Scotland's coast have denounced the deal. Many have called it worse than the notorious 2002 deal. The SNP calls on ministers to stop defending the indefensible, to reopen the negotiations in Brussels and to demand that the UK Government gets behind Scotland or gets out of the way.

The deal that is set to come into force in less than 10 days' time is not only unjust, it is unworkable. It is the most complex deal ever, which is saying something when we are talking about the common fisheries policy. The producer organisations that manage the quota for the fleet are tearing their hair out, because they do not know how they will be able to implement the new regime that has been foisted on them. Ministers still claim that the deal is good for Scotland, perhaps believing that, if they repeat it often enough, people will begin to believe them. That view insults the intelligence of the fishing industry and shows nothing but contempt for our fishing communities.

Ministers point to increased quotas in the North sea, particularly for haddock, but they ignore the fact that the industry has been denied the time and space at sea to catch that quota. The opposite is the case on the west coast of Scotland, where the fishermen have enough time at sea but have been denied the quota to catch. The deal also imposes new restrictions on Scottish vessels in Scotland's traditional fishing grounds that other fleets fishing the same waters for the same stocks have escaped. At least the minister and the European Commission have moved from a position of outright denial to accepting that there are "unintended consequences" that require "technical adjustment".

Parts of the deal require urgent renegotiation. Does the minister accept that the industry cannot live on 15 days a month at sea? Ross Finnie told Parliament that at the council in Brussels last month he argued for more days for the Scottish fleet. He understood the importance of getting more days, but he did not get them because, apparently, he lost the arguments. Perhaps when Allan Wilson is on his feet he will confirm that the fleet cannot survive on 15 days a month.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The agreement last year was for 15 days. Can Richard Lochhead explain how the fleet managed to cope last year?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

My next paragraph will answer exactly that question. The two pillars that allowed the fleet to survive throughout 2003 have been removed. The first pillar was the areas of the sea in which the fishing fleet faced no restrictions—the fleet could go to those areas and fish over and above their 15 days in the restricted areas. The second pillar was the aid package delivered by the Scottish Executive. There is no new aid package. Those two pillars have been removed, which is why, if nothing is changed, the fishing fleet faces bankruptcy.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does Richard Lochhead acknowledge that many fishing-based businesses survived because they borrowed more and cut deeper into the flesh, thereby coming closer to bankruptcy?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I am happy to agree with that point.

The size of the cod protection zone must be renegotiated. It includes Scotland's key haddock grounds and represents about 40 per cent of the northern North sea. It is obscene to prevent the Scots from catching more than 20 per cent of their haddock quota in their key fishery while allowing other fleets to catch their whole quota in that fishery. The result negotiated by ministers means that other fleets can catch up to three times the amount of haddock that Scotland's fleet can catch in Scotland's traditional fishery.

Many members may think that fishermen in the prawn sector have got off scot free, but I ask them to bear in mind the fact that those fishermen also catch haddock and that, no matter where they catch it in the North sea, it will count as if it was caught in the restricted area, which means that the haddock quota in the cod recovery zone will be exhausted in a matter of months. At that point, the prawn boats will have to dump any haddock that they catch—good-quality, mature haddock will be dumped overboard. That is the first reason why the deal is bad for fisheries conservation.

Another reason is that, because vessels are being forced to catch 80 per cent of their haddock quota outside their main fishery, they will have no choice but to target the valuable cod quota. The whole regime was designed to protect cod but, as vessels will not be allowed to catch haddock, they will be forced to catch cod.

The deal delivers a hammer blow to fisheries conservation, but it gets worse. The permit system has to be scrapped. When we heard that a permit system had been created, we all assumed that it would be for the cod stocks, which were apparently in trouble. However, the permit system is not for cod; it is for haddock, which is at record levels. The permit has many conditions attached to it—17 at the last count—and is unworkable. To call it draconian would be an understatement. According to fishermen in Shetland, the permit system will kill their fishery. If fishermen take a permit, they will have to throw away cod, even though they have a cod quota, because they are allowed only a 5 per cent bycatch. If they do not take a permit, they will end up throwing haddock overboard, because they are not allowed to catch it. That is a catch-22 situation, which will kill the Shetland fleet.

The minister must agree to pursue the following objectives. He must remove the haddock fishery from the cod zone, allow the fleet access to the full haddock quota, give our much-reduced fleet more days at sea outside the cod zones and scrap the unworkable permit system. He must also ensure that, as long as we are signed up to the disastrous common fisheries policy, there is a level playing field for all the fleets in the North sea and that any new restrictions apply across the board.

The minister must deliver an aid package for all the communities and all the sectors concerned. There is a cast-iron case for that. The deal this year is worse than last year's deal and there was an aid package last year. This year, so far, there has been no aid package. The minister must reward the fishing fleet, which has been decommissioned to only half the size that it was two years ago. It was promised better times if it decommissioned. There are only 120 white-fish boats left. There are no better times ahead; there is perhaps bankruptcy ahead, which is why the minister must wake up to the situation.

If the minister wants to save the fishing industry and keep it afloat this year and beyond, he must start fighting for Scotland's fishing communities. If he does not deliver, we will have plenty of fish in the North sea, but we will not have a fishing industry in Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises that the fisheries agreement signed in December 2003 discriminates against Scotland and as a result is unworkable and unjust and therefore calls upon the Scottish and UK governments to seek an urgent renegotiation of the agreement to ensure the survival of our fishing communities.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

We have just heard some strong words from Richard Lochhead, as we have from the official Opposition over the past week, when it has proposed that the Executive should tear up the deal agreed in December. I want to explain why, as the Executive amendment says, the agreement is a balanced outcome and why it is a good deal for Scotland's fishermen and for Scotland. I also want to explain in some detail the scope for further technical adjustments, to which Richard Lochhead referred.

Why does the Executive think that the agreement is a good deal? Let us consider the alternatives. First, we could hand back the quotas that we secured, which would mean fewer mackerel, fewer herring, fewer prawns and fewer haddock. Secondly, we could abandon our commitment to sustainable development and give up on the short-term measures that will secure longer-term benefits for our fishermen and their communities. Thirdly, we could tell the Commission that we no longer care about an equitable approach to fisheries management throughout the EU, which is more or less what Richard Lochhead said. Fourthly, we could give up the credit for the decommissioning that we undertook in 2002-03. We could let the Commission take back the five extra days a month that were granted to our white-fish fishermen. They could have the 10 days that are stipulated in the regulation instead.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister talks about a credit for decommissioning. Will he explain how the outcome of 15 days for the Scottish fleet was calculated, because the fishermen have not yet been told? Will he also explain to the chamber and to our fishing communities why, when there are more fish in the sea and fewer Scottish boats to catch them, we get less time at sea?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As I have just explained, the 10 days that are available to other member states were added to by the five extra days that took into account the decommissioning since 2002-03. If that explanation is not simple enough for Richard Lochhead, perhaps we can meet on the margins of the Parliament to go into it in more detail.

Fifthly, we could abandon the hard-won concept of spatial management and the principle of decoupling, which enabled us to secure an increase in the haddock and nephrops total allowable catches to which the member referred. We could give up on all those concepts, which were specifically advocated by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish fishing industry—and supported by the Scottish National Party before the fisheries council in Brussels. I have negotiated throughout my working life; whenever someone enters into negotiations, they have to understand that they must give up something in order to secure something else. The same applies if they want to renegotiate.

Finally, we could abandon our attempts to improve and strengthen control and enforcement. We could treat with disdain the Commission pre-infraction letter and risk the Commission intervening directly to close down certain fisheries or ports.

I do not say that to try to be facetious. I am trying to illustrate what was achieved at the December council. We achieved significant quota increases, linked to longer-term management initiatives, spatial management initiatives and improved control and enforcement. Those hang together as a package and we cannot cherry pick from them.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

If the minister has achieved so many great things in the fisheries council, why is every fisheries organisation saying that the deal is disastrous for the future of the fishing industry? Why are the people whom I met in Tavish Scott's constituency on Friday in such despair about the future and about the appalling nature of the deal?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I share the concern about the sustainable future of our fishing communities. I will return in more detail to the technical adjustments. As John Swinney knows, negotiations are continuing as we speak and we await the outcome of the negotiations between the EU and Norway. I am conscious of the concern, but not all fisheries organisations take the position that John Swinney describes. Mr Scott is perfectly able to speak about his own area.

The special arrangements, which will ensure cod protection, are proportionate and reasonable. First, we have 78 per cent of the EU quota for haddock. Secondly, the other member states tend, in practice, not to fish much of their haddock quota. Thirdly, the other member states tend to catch their haddock elsewhere. Overall, we have perhaps 90 per cent of the haddock catches.

There is a separate issue about whether additional haddock can be caught within the new constraints. Ross Finnie has spoken about that in the chamber and elsewhere.

The other key concern is the number of days at sea. I appreciate that the regime will be difficult for some white-fish vessels. As long as the scientific advice is that cod conservation is required, there will be difficulties. We cannot avoid that, but the Executive has monitored, and will continue to monitor, the socioeconomic impact and will act accordingly. This year, the scope for additional haddock will reduce those difficulties. The scientific advice is that abundant haddock can be caught this year in the same time as for last year's catch.

Looking to the future, I appreciate the need for greater flexibility in our effort management arrangements. I agree with Richard Lochhead that a flat-rate allocation of days to all vessels is not the most sensible approach. The Commission has made a declaration in support of a more flexible approach. I am sure that Richard Lochhead will agree that that is welcome.

We are still negotiating on some specific details that must be agreed with Norway tomorrow. Norway's position will be crucial, but our aim is to ensure that our fishermen can genuinely access their increased quotas and the increased value that goes with them. We consider the package to be balanced and to promote a genuinely sustainable agenda without compromising the immediate needs of the fishing industry.

I move amendment S2M-798.4, to leave out from "recognises" to end and insert:

"supports the more balanced outcome negotiated by ministers at the December Fisheries Council; welcomes the fact that this will benefit many sections of the Scottish fishing industry while ensuring conservation of key stocks on which the long-term viability of the industry depends; deplores the calls by the SNP leader for fishermen to break the law; recognises that there are elements of the detailed agreement which are the subject of further technical discussion with the European Commission; supports the efforts made by the Scottish Executive to address these, and further supports the willingness of Scottish Ministers to monitor the socio-economic impact on fishermen, ports and communities following the conclusions of the technical discussions and EU negotiations with Norway with a view to taking appropriate action if necessary."

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When Mr Finnie returned with his brave new Brussels deal in December, he claimed that it would boost the Scottish fishing industry by £20 million a year. As we have heard, the minister has since admitted that the deal will have unintended consequences. However, irrespective of whether the consequences were intended or unintended, the outcome is that Ross Finnie's vaunted agreement looks like sending another 50 Scottish white-fish boats to the breaker's yard. That is in addition to the 170 vessels that accepted decommissioning last year. In effect, it will mean that the 300-strong white-fish fleet of just over a year ago could be reduced to less than a third of that size by the end of 2004.

The restricted boxes to the east and west of Scotland and the 15 days a month sea time made a nonsense of the minister's trumpeted 53 per cent increase in haddock quotas. There are neither the days nor the available fishing grounds to catch the extra haddock. Pandora's box contained fewer horrors than the restricted haddock boxes to which Mr Finnie signed up. Although we are told that there might be some relaxation on the size of the box, the 15 days at sea are said to be non-negotiable. Much as Richard Lochhead may plead for an urgent renegotiation of the December deal, the fact is that, under the Commission's rules, it is possible only to tidy up the existing agreement. A legal challenge to the agreement is the appropriate action. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the Fishermen's Association Ltd are to be commended for uniting to challenge the deal through the courts.

Our fishermen should challenge the agreement not only on the days at sea and the restricted boxes. Lost in the small print of the deal were a number of anomalies that are only now coming to the surface. Yesterday, I had a call from skipper Bill Watt of Macduff. He wanted to express his bafflement at yet another example of the Executive's forelock tugging at the Commission's nonsensical regulations. Faced with the 15-day rule, Skipper Watt planned to fish in the unrestricted area west of 4˚ west—the so-called French saithe line—off the Scottish west coast. He was informed that that would be legal only if his vessel, the Fertile, was fitted with a tamper-proof satellite monitoring system. The only problem is that no such system exists. A company is currently designing one, but it is unlikely to be in production until July. Talk about catch-22.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am afraid that, with only four minutes for my speech, I cannot give way. If I have time later, I will do.

Elsewhere, 14 Pittenweem prawn vessels should have been able to fish without days-at-sea restrictions under the cod recovery plan, provided that they applied for a permit. However, local manager Billy Hughes told me this morning that he was staggered to discover that, under item IV of the permit, the Pittenweem fleet will not be allowed to take haddock as a bycatch, because they all use gear of less than 100mm mesh size. Will they be given a derogation to carry on fishing? Apparently, nobody in the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department could give him the answer. Is that another unintended consequence of the brave new Brussels deal?

I wish the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and FAL every good fortune in their legal attempts to overturn what has turned out to be a dud deal. Legal action takes time, however, and will not compensate anxious fishermen in the short term. I call on the deputy minister as a matter of urgency to roll over the special funding that was introduced last year so as to enable fishermen who have been forced to tie up because of a lack of days at sea to pay their bills and to take care of their families and crews in the short term. They should not have to suffer because of the unintended consequences of the December agreement.

I move amendment S2M-798.1, to leave out from "discriminates" to end and insert:

"is unjust and discriminates against Scottish fishermen and has produced, in the words of Ross Finnie, 'unintended consequences' which further reduce the catching powers of the white fish fleet; commends the efforts of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and Fishermen's Association Ltd to mount legal challenges to the agreement, and seeks urgent clarification from the European Commission on the technical adjustments to no-go areas."

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I very much welcome the contribution of the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development to the debate, because there is a need to bring some balance to the discussion about the outcome of the deal that was secured in Brussels. We should look at the totality of the package, rather than focus only on the white-fish sector, in relation to which, as the minister said, there is a real recognition of the problems with the deal as it was negotiated.

The industry called for a new management approach: spatial management. It also called for the decoupling of cod from other species. Both those key objectives have been met. According to the list of objectives that my friend Richard Lochhead published, he, too, backed those objectives. I think, therefore, that that part of the deal was a success.

The industry also called for increased quotas, which were justified by the scientific evidence that was presented by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. That increase has been achieved: the status quo has been maintained for cod in the face of scientific advice calling for a complete closure of the cod fisheries; there has been a 66 per cent increase in the haddock quota; the pelagic fleet has secured a 15 per cent increase in North sea herring quotas; there has been a 95 per cent increase in blue whiting quotas; and the North sea prawn fleet has secured a 30 per cent increase in its quota. In the west of Scotland, a roll-over reflected the fact that landings last year were below the level of last year's TAC. I understand that SEERAD will be progressing that matter through the coming year.

As has been recognised in the debate, the real pain has been brought about through the changes relating to effort control and the new spatial management arrangements. However, the deal is estimated to be worth a total of £20 million to the Scottish fleet in the coming year. That, too, must be recognised.

The new rules that have been introduced to clamp down on black-fish landings—which, according to some in the fishing industry, were widespread last year—taken with the new spatial management arrangements, are causing significant difficulties. There are a number of factors that I would like the minister to consider. I would like him to try to secure changes at a technical level to take away some of the unintended consequences and mitigate the sheer folly of one or two of the details of the deal.

I fully accept that there must be changes. There needs to be a redrawing of the line for the cod-sensitive box in the North sea to below 59°30'. The box must either be taken out or shifted to another part of the North sea, so as to allow access to one of the most prolific areas in which haddock might be fished for. There need to be adjustments to the percentage of allowable catches, both inside and outside the boxes. I hope that the minister will closely consider that and that officials will take the matter up at a technical level.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You have one minute left, Mr Lyon.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Although the 15-day limit is supposedly non-negotiable, I think that, if we are to encourage the fleet to fish further afield, outside the cod-sensitive boxes, there must be an allowance, in the form of extra steaming days, for them to get to and return from those areas. That must be coupled with proper enforcement. We should be able to support that kind of change.

As Ted Brocklebank mentioned, fishermen who wish to take advantage of the extended number of days available in the deepwater fishing grounds off the west of Scotland are being told that the gear that they need to allow them to gain that access is not available until July. That must be sorted out as quickly as possible. There is an argument for giving further help to sustain the white-fish industry through the difficult times ahead and I would certainly support that.

In winding up, I would like to deal with the official Opposition party's response to the fishing industry's concerns.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I have to hurry you, Mr Lyon. Time is very short.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I was disappointed to see that the leader of the official Opposition party, Mr Swinney, has been quoted by many newspapers as having said, in response to fishermen's threats to break the law, that it does not strike him as wrong to break the law.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

You really must close now.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Mr Swinney should either withdraw that remark or step down as leader of the official Opposition party.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Members really should not introduce new material after their time has expired. The remaining time for debate is very short and the remaining speakers must stick to their four-minute allocations.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Although I accept some of the detailed points that the Conservatives and the SNP have made, I remind them that the real fight is not for more fishing, but for resources and support for our fishing communities in the recovery of their livelihoods: the fish stocks. On those grounds, the Greens reject the SNP motion. Implicit in it is a challenge to the findings of ICES. Fish stocks are in crisis. Cod stocks have not recovered; any recovery is embryonic. The stocks were at an all-time low and the increase has been only very small. The stocks are still way below safe biological limits.

Haddock may be more numerous, but we must recall that people have been depending on a single year class: the 1999 year class. The stocks in the classes on either side of that are perilously low.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Is the member aware that there are numerous conditions in the deal that mean that cod and haddock stocks, especially juvenile haddock stocks, will be damaged, because boats will be forced to fish where the juvenile stocks rather than the mature haddock are?

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

I am still totally perplexed by such insistence on the part of the fishing industry: that sounds more like a threat than a promise. ICES repeatedly warns of the dangers of overfishing haddock and my party would not like the Executive to go any further in negotiating further increases in the amount of haddock that may be harvested. We should recognise the importance of regenerating the haddock stocks outside the 1999 year class. I believe that arguing for more pressure to be put on stocks is irresponsible.

The big political question that we face is how to support the communities and the fragile economies concerned. Of the €3.7 billion available from the EU to support fish recovery plans, only 3 per cent has so far been taken up by member states for socioeconomic aid. Even worse, according to my figures, Scotland is not drawing down any of that money. That is entirely unacceptable. We need to put pressure on the Executive and the Treasury, not on the fish. The EU has called on member states to review their use of fisheries money and I want to know what the Executive's response to that call has been. Figures that I have just received suggest that the Executive still has £30 million that has been drawn down but remains uncommitted. In the future, the required investment in communities will be offset by tax revenues from a healthy industry. If the fish stocks are allowed to recover, we will have a healthier fishing industry. That is the prize that we should be reaching for.

The idea of discrimination against Scotland has been discussed. Other countries are suffering, too. The Dutch plaice fishery and the southern hake fishery are to suffer closed areas and the Iberian nephrops fishery is also experiencing difficulties. We are not alone. We should remember that, if we had not already made commitments on reducing fishing effort, we would have got only 10 days a month at sea, not 15. The question should not be how many more fish we can catch or for how much longer people can be out fishing; the question should be how much the Executive is prepared to support the industry and the communities that are dependent on it, so that the regeneration of the stocks can get under way. That is where our energies must be directed.

For the sake of the communities, the industry, the fish and the marine environment, let us deal with the real issues and get on with the job with which we are entrusted. Remember the Grand banks. The Canadians put off taking measures time and again. If we look at the history of that time, we see that the arguments that were made then were similar to those that we have heard over the past six to 10 years. The Canadians put off making the inevitable decision to fish less and to think more about investing in the future. Their cod stocks completely disappeared and there was a lasting collapse of what was the richest cod fishery in the world. We do not want that to happen here.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I will return to reality. I commend the speeches that we heard from Richard Lochhead and Ted Brocklebank for spelling out the appalling consequences of the deal and the bleak future that our fishermen face. I will talk about the problems that the west-coast fishermen face.

For the third year running, west-coast fishermen have seen the total failure of the Executive to win back the 10 per cent cut in the nephrops quota. That is despite the fact that over the past five years during which I have represented Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, Ross Finnie has acknowledged repeatedly—

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Will the member give way?

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I have hardly started.

Ross Finnie has acknowledged repeatedly that prawns are in plentiful supply and that the cod bycatch is minimal—some would say negligible. Therefore, the justification for cutting the prawn quota does not exist. He has stated repeatedly his desire to see a fair deal for the west coast, but for the third successive year, he has come back with nothing. This year, when he did not answer a question from Mr Morrison about why he failed to win a proper deal for the prawn fishermen, he came up with a new reason, which is that it was difficult to argue to increase the west-coast nephrops quota by 10 per cent, because the quota was not used up this year. When an intelligent man—which Ross Finnie patently is—uses an argument that is patently absurd, one has to ask what he has to hide.

Mr Finnie knows fine well the argument that Robert Stevenson has made that non-active quota held by people who are not fishing will, by definition, not be taken up. There is a huge amount of non-active quota, so it is obvious that there is no chance whatever that the quota on the west coast could be used up. So, for the third year running, Robert Stevenson, Hugh Allan and every other fishing leader is asking the same questions. Did Mr Finnie, as Mr Bradshaw's junior, ask for an increase? If so, did he press for an increase, or was that just a bargaining chip that was thrown away at some point in the negotiations, about which, incidentally, we hear little or nothing.

I refer to comments that fishing representatives have made. Alex Smith said that the deal is "totally unmanageable." Hamish Morrison said, "It is fundamentally flawed." Mike Park said:

"This is a black day for the industry."

Robert Stevenson said:

"'A good deal', 'A successful outcome'?—nothing could be further from the truth."

John Hermse said:

"This is the final straw."

I have spent much of my life representing people who have been made bankrupt. It destroys people's lives, it destroys their spirit and often they lose their home. Is the Executive going to be responsible for putting some of the most successful, proud and law-abiding people into a situation in which they are forced into the plight of bankruptcy by the law and by the Executive's incompetence and duplicity?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

The minister was absolutely correct to outline in his opening contribution exactly what the deal that was negotiated in December means for Scotland's fishermen. The deal was a balanced one and it will benefit many sectors of the Scottish fishing community, while putting in place important measures that will ensure that stocks are conserved and protected properly. With those measures, we will ensure the viability of fishing communities for many years to come. No one is denying that the next few years will be challenging for our fishing communities, but in my view the position adopted and negotiated by Ross Finnie and Ben Bradshaw was absolutely the correct position to adopt. It is also worth noting, as George Lyon said, that the deal that was secured two months ago realised an additional £20 million for our fisherman—a small detail that many members overlook.

I will focus on the prawn quota. I do not doubt that the prawn fishermen on the east coast will welcome and benefit from the quota increase that was secured and which was fought for on the basis of credible scientific evidence. It is unfortunate that there was no such increase for west-coast fishermen. However, in a few weeks' time, scientists from the marine laboratory in Aberdeen are to meet the Western Isles Fishermen's Association in Stornoway, when they will outline details of the up-to-date scientific analysis of the west-coast prawn stocks, which will be a valuable exercise. If the evidence presented demonstrates clearly that the stocks are in a healthier state than the evidence presented in Brussels suggested last December, that would allow us to go back to Brussels and argue why the current quota should be increased.

That is the way to negotiate sustainable increases in quota, rather than conducting cynical sloganising about withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. I noted with interest that Richard Lochhead failed in his contribution to mention withdrawing from the CFP. Perhaps to Richard Lochhead's credit, he now appreciates that that is a completely unrealistic proposition. I welcome Allan Wilson's commitment to sending senior Scottish Executive officials to the meetings in the Western Isles.

I turn to the posturing of the Scottish nationalist party. Last week, the leader of the Scottish nationalist party, John Swinney, urged fishermen to go to sea and break the law—an absolutely irresponsible and outrageous statement for any party leader to make. Mr Swinney simply does not know where to turn on the issues of fishing and fish stocks, so he debases politics and resorts to low-grade political rhetoric, stupidly ignoring scientific evidence, which is highly irresponsible.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I would give way, but I have only one minute left. Mr Swinney is a reasonable man and I am a charitable individual and I want to save him from himself.

If the SNP was a mature and grown-up political party, there would have been an outcry in Scotland about its leader encouraging citizens to break the law. Under normal circumstances, we would of course ask Mr Swinney to consider his position. However, we do not have to do that; we just have to look to the members sitting behind him. Of course, there is the small detail of Alex Salmond's intention to return to the Scottish Parliament. In effect, Mr Swinney is working his notice.

I wish Allan Wilson the very best as he continues his discussions on matters relating to technical issues. As long as I represent the fishing communities of the Western Isles, I will never tell fishermen to go to sea and break the law. We will argue cogently and maturely. We know that sloganising does nothing for the communities that we serve. The fishermen whom I represent understand clearly the process of negotiation and we will engage positively in that process.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I can give Iain Smith only two minutes.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am increasingly saddened by debates in the chamber and I am particularly saddened by those who think that it is right to come to the chamber and accuse those who are doing their best to fight for the interests of the Scottish fishing industry of somehow trying to stab the industry in the back. It is simply not true that Ross Finnie has done anything to stab the Scottish fishing industry in the back. He has fought tooth and nail to try to ensure that there is a Scottish fishing industry and he continues to do so.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have only two minutes, so Richard Lochhead can forget it.

Ross Finnie goes to Brussels to try to get the best deal available on the basis of reality, not on the basis of making up slogans and claims that we can withdraw from the common fisheries policy and achieve things that are unachievable. He does not just do that at the fisheries council in December; throughout the past year, he and his officials have been trying to get fundamental changes in how Europe considers fisheries issues in Scotland. Those changes mean getting into spatial management, which the fishing industry wanted, and getting into decoupling the stocks of cod and haddock from prawns, which he has achieved. The prawn issue is important for my community in Pittenweem. It was absolutely essential that we got that decoupling and we now have the increased quota for prawns.

As Ross Finnie said right from the start, there might be unintended consequences of the deal, which the Scottish Executive will continue to investigate and which it will negotiate with the European Commission to address. I want any unintended consequences that make it difficult for my fishermen in Pittenweem to go out and fish the extra quota to be dealt with, and I am confident that Ross Finnie will do that. I do not think that our fishermen in Pittenweem need to threaten to break the law to do that and they certainly do not need support from politicians to break the law.

I support legal methods of campaigning. I am confident that, even in the absence of Ross Finnie, who is in hospital, the Scottish Executive will continue to negotiate to ensure that my fishermen can fish for the extra prawn quota that was successfully achieved in December.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Members of the Executive parties realise that we have to strike a balance between the sustainability of fish stocks and the aspirations of fishermen. We realise that it would be impossible to satisfy the fishermen's aspiration to be allowed to fish on their own terms. I am well aware of the considerable anxieties of fishing communities whose livelihoods depend on the fishing industry, directly or indirectly—from the crews to the suppliers and the processors. Along with other members, I recognise that they need support in these difficult times. They need better support than the Tories gave to the mining communities or to Easter Ross when the smelter was closed. We have done a lot more to help the fishing communities to get over this difficult time in their existence than the Tories ever bothered to do for those other communities.

We acknowledge the fact that the common fisheries policy was deeply flawed from the start, and we know which party signed up to it. We recognise that, as a result, many fishermen have sought to circumvent it by landing black fish.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Given the fact that the member is closing the debate for the Labour party, I ask her please to address the substance of the debate, which is the new restrictions that apply only to Scotland and which mean that the Scottish fleet will not be able to catch the quota that has been given to us. Will the member please address the substance of the debate?

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I will address that later on.

The problem of black fish being landed has led to infraction procedures. It did not help the fishermen's cause to have a double-page spread in a Scottish newspaper in which the fishermen boasted about their black-fish exploits. It was totally irresponsible of the fishermen and the newspaper to publish that. How do they think that the negotiations were influenced when that information landed on Franz Fischler's desk?

What I find most frustrating is the fact that the scientists and the fishermen put forward totally opposing analyses of the state of the fish stocks. Fishermen have said to me that they do not think that the cod is endangered, and Richard Lochhead says that cod is only in trouble, apparently. Either there is a difficulty with the fish stocks or there is not, and I do not think that anyone should slide over the sustainability of the stocks. The fishermen think that the ecosystem has changed and that the fish have moved inshore, but the scientists do not agree with them. Our fishing policy must be based on scientific advice. We cannot negotiate on the basis of anecdote or gut feeling; we must negotiate on the basis of what the scientists tell us and get the best possible deal in the light of the scientific evidence of the state of the fish stocks.

It is noteworthy that we hear the Tories and the SNP competing again for the fishermen's votes by trying to outdo each other with their anti-European credentials, safe in the knowledge that they will never be in a position to put their money where their mouths are. They raise false hopes for fishermen by calling for renegotiations that cannot happen; they confuse technical adjustments with renegotiation; and they encourage the fishermen to defy European Community law by ignoring the cap on the number of permitted days at sea. The number of permitted days at sea is tightly drawn because the Commission wants to minimise our opportunity for irresponsibility in the interest of cod-stock protection. The Commission has warned us specifically about breaking the rules because we have a reputation for breaking the rules. The action that the fishermen propose to take, egged on by John Swinney, will not further the fishermen's cause but will confirm to the Commission the fact that we care nothing for conservation and will tell against us in the next round of negotiations.

We all want to preserve the fish stocks and to have a fishing industry. The fishermen and the scientists must build bridges with each other, and we must show that we are serious about protecting the fish stocks.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Since Mr Finnie's statement of 7 January, we have heard a lot about unintended consequences that have been damaging to Scottish fishermen, but what is the intended consequence—the consequence that Mr Franz Fischler and his pals intended? I think that the intended consequence is that the Scottish white-fish fleet will be reduced to a mere 50 vessels—a fraction of its proud, former self—in order to fit neatly into a European fishing fleet that is dominated numerically by Spain and other EU countries. The EU is saying that the UK and Scotland are too advanced, in socioeconomic terms, to be hunter-gatherers any more. A Labour MEP said recently that the fishermen should come ashore and work with computers instead.

The evidence is quite clear that the fleet—which has bent over backwards to adopt more conservation measures than any other fleet in Europe—is still having to bear the brunt of the pain. I am talking about the Scottish fleet, which has been fatally let down by its political representatives once again.

On 7 January, I asked Mr Finnie several questions concerning west-coast fish stocks and the particular problems that are faced by the fishermen on the north-west coast, west of 4° west. His only reply was that cod stocks had shown less recovery on the west coast than on the east coast, which was why there had been quota cuts rather than increases. However, he did not explain why, despite a surplus of monkfish, there has been a savage cut of 73 per cent over the past three years in the monkfish TAC in area VIa—an area that is vital to Scottish fishermen—whereas next door, in area VII, where the Spanish fish, the TAC is up by 32 per cent. He did not explain why, despite the fact that the fattest, bonniest haddocks ever are now being seen around Rockall, there has been a 17 per cent drop in the haddock quota for area VIa whereas, in area VII, where the Spanish fish, the TAC has risen by 156 per cent.

The figures for bycatch for Scottish vessels that fish both in the North sea and off the west coast are misleading. For example, one boat, the Adventurer 2, caught a total of 6.1 per cent cod bycatch in 2002, but the west-coast component of that was only 3.8 per cent. There are separate TACs for the east and west coasts; nevertheless, the vessel was judged to have taken a 6.1 per cent cod bycatch from its fishing activity off the west coast. That is utterly unfair. What makes it worse is the fact that, because the Adventurer 2 was classified as having a cod bycatch of more than 5 per cent in 2002, she will be limited to 15 days' fishing in the waters off the west coast and will have to go into the deep-sea waters beyond the French saithe line.

I ask the minister to do something about the tamper-proof box issue that Ted Brocklebank spoke about. It is vital that the Scottish fleet should continue to fish the deep-sea waters outside the French saithe line according to the same rules as the French fleet—as an open area with no days' restriction—otherwise big, new boats will become bankrupt and communities such as Kinlochbervie will be wiped out.

The present west-coast TACs are so small that they could be taken within five months. What are the fishermen to do for the rest of the year to maintain their boats and the people who depend on them? Despite my previous entreaty to Mr Finnie, I am told that the 100 square miles south of Sule skerry are to be closed for the whole year. That is a massive blow to the Scottish fishermen. Previously, the area was closed for only eight weeks, as it was seen as a cod spawning area, but this year there will be a long closure even though the scientists have said that those eight weeks were a waste of time.

As I have said before, all these disadvantages to the Scottish fleet are aimed at making it small enough to squeeze into the European sardine tin. The only way for us to save our proud fleet is to regain control and management of our waters.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

It is important to identify what some would regard as a cynical exercise by Opposition members, who suggest that achieving technical change and looking closely at the technical regulations are the same as achieving a renegotiation of the entire package. Mr Lochhead should think carefully about the language that he uses, but I suspect that he does not do that. To suggest that the entire package should be renegotiated, rather than concentrate on the specific issues of the white-fish industry is to do a disservice to the business and economic prosperity of the entire fishing industry in Scotland.

This devolved Government is determined to fight for both the short-term and the long-term future of fishing. It is in Scotland's economic interests to have a financially viable fishing industry. As Allan Wilson said, Parliament should not accept the contention that the entire Scottish fishing industry wants the outcome of the December fisheries council to be completely renegotiated. I would not want to tell the pelagic and prawn sectors that we have no agreement on quotas for 2004. I suspect that if Mr Swinney listened to Mr Stevenson's constituents, who are pelagic skippers, they would tell him the same thing.

Ministers understand that the technical regulations as they stand create difficulties in some areas and will cause some white-fish boats financial problems, and that the increase in the haddock quota will be difficult for some parts of the fleet to access, but the devolved Government is addressing those issues in the current talks between the EU and Norway, as Mr Wilson said. Those talks continue as we speak.

Members made some technical points. Ted Brocklebank, Jamie McGrigor and George Lyon talked about the area west of 4° west and the tamper-proof satellite system. Allan Wilson is happy to examine closely those issues, in particular George Lyon's point about the availability of gear.

Richard Lochhead intervened on Robin Harper to talk about juvenile haddock and the fishing of areas of the sea that have been known traditionally as spawning areas. That argument is being used in relation to the geographical boundaries of the cod-sensitive area and the point is significant.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

rose—

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I want to make progress on the technical points.

In discussions and before and during the council, Ross Finnie pressed for an increase for west-coast prawns, and Allan Wilson was part of those discussions. I do not accept Mr Ewing's attack on Ross Finnie's integrity on that point. Mr Ewing should raise his game when talking about how hard Ross Finnie fights for west-coast fishermen and others. Alasdair Morrison was right about that. Alasdair Morrison was also right to say that it is important for science to underpin decisions about that fishery. The Executive will seek to ensure that.

Ted Brocklebank (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Tavish Scott think that Alasdair Morrison was right to say that there is no alternative to the common fisheries policy?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Brocklebank can go on and on about that matter, but I will deal with the issues that I was asked in the debate to address. I am happy to debate those other issues with him any time.

Some problems that relate to the technical measures are likely to remain and ministers will address those issues in the assessment of the socioeconomic impact on ports, fishing communities and fishermen. I give that assurance to George Lyon, Maureen Macmillan, Robin Harper and other members.

I say to Mr Swinney that fishermen do not want to break the law. They want the unintended consequences—those were Iain Smith's words—to be dealt with. From speaking regularly—not just on one Friday, but every week—to fishermen in my constituency, I know that their arguments are based not on politics, but on finance and business viability. The Administration understands those arguments, which apply as much to the processing and shore-side sectors as they do to fishermen and the fish-catching sector.

All fishermen and fishing communities—not just those in Shetland—understand the difference between political posturing and the reality of business decision making. They want to have a viable fishing business, not to be used as a political football.

Last Saturday in Lerwick, I was asked whether the Government wants a fishing industry. Yes was my answer, and yes is the answer of the entire Administration. We will fight for a healthy, financially viable white-fish sector in every port from Shetland to Ayrshire on the west and Eyemouth on the east. As Allan Wilson said, we want an industry in which Scotland's fishermen can genuinely access the increased quota. That is our commitment, on which we will not back down.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I listened with interest to the debate that preceded this fisheries debate, during which Mike Watson was spot on when he said:

"the SNP has lots of ideas".

We have lots of ideas to support our fishermen and to ensure that there is a fishing industry in years to come.

In a year when haddock stocks are increasing dramatically and an initial recovery has been seen in cod stocks, whose biomass is 30 per cent up from last year, the restrictions on our industry's ability to catch its life-blood in the North sea—fish—are baffling. Even more baffling is the complexity of the fisheries council's decisions.

Gary Masson of the Northern Producers Organisation Ltd gave members of his organisation guidance from which I will quote. He described several examples that it would be worth while to share with members. He gives the example of a white-fish vessel with a 100mm gear that

"intends to fish round the Fair Isle",

which is outside the cod protection area. He says:

"It may only do so if it carries a permit on board."

Otherwise, any haddocks that are caught in that area will count against the 20 per cent of the quota that is permitted to be caught in the cod protection area.

If that vessel needed to sail east to catch fish, it would have to sail through the CPA. However, a vessel is not permitted in the CPA if it is carrying a permit, so it must return to Orkney or Shetland where the fisherman can offload his permit before he makes his way to the other fishing grounds. If, on his return, he wishes to fish in the vicinity of the Fair Isle, he must once again collect his permit. That would mean a minimum of half a day wasted in steaming time and would be highly dependent on the presence of a fishery officer.

Gary Masson observes that, by default, all vessels that fish in the North sea will be subject to the permit system. A fisherman must not have a permit on board if he plans to fish inside the cod protection area, even if he catches only monkfish or dogfish. If a fisherman fishes outside the cod protection area, he must have a permit on board, even if he keeps a single box of haddocks, because otherwise, those haddocks must be dumped. Members will understand the perplexity of many fishermen at such complex and difficult regulations.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

That was a wonderful exposition of the permit system. Does the member agree that whether the permit is to fish within or without the cod protection zone, the effect is the same, as the effort is limited within the cod protection zone?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The problem is that when many of the vessels that do not require or have a permit to catch haddocks, that counts not against the 80 per cent of the quota that is permitted to be caught outside the CPA, but against the 20 per cent that is allowed to be caught in the CPA. I am sure that the minister understands that.

Such a situation leads to discards. We have—rightly—heard the word "conservation" in the debate from many members across the parties. Fishermen are conservationists par excellence. They know that if they do not conserve stocks, their sons and grandsons will have no fish to catch.

The permits are bafflingly complex and require counterintuitive and counterproductive measures. For example, a vessel may not at any time retain on board cod in excess of a limit of 5 per cent. If a vessel fishing for haddocks in the CPA had a first catch of a decent number of cod, that could not be kept against haddocks that would be caught later in the trip. The cod would have to be discarded. That runs counter to the conservation that we earnestly seek.

I will refer briefly to some members' speeches. George Lyon asked for better enforcement. On 6 December, the European Commission congratulated the UK on its enforcement efforts. In fact, Peterhead has more fishery officers than policemen, such is the measure of our effort.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

Name the officers.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

One is Jim McMurdo.

There is no dispute about stocks, but it is interesting that although the logbook must be used for some legal purposes in connection with the permit, fishermen are not allowed to use the logbook as evidence of what is happening in the catching sector.

Mr Morrison suggested that Mr Swinney was on notice. Mr Morrison had his notice some time ago. He is on the back benches, where he deserves to be. One move more and we will get what we need.

Mr Scott referred to my pelagic fishermen in Fraserburgh and Peterhead. Where was he when they needed a track record to obtain what they needed? He was absolutely nowhere.

I close with an observation on the fishermen's statement that they will break the regulations. If they choose to do so, it is because they have little choice. If we support them in doing so, the reason why is clear. If the choice is between supporting the Executive's shabby deal and supporting fishermen, we will support fishermen every time.

First Minister's Question Time

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

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

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

He also said:

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

Is Mr Galbraith speaking for the First Minister?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

No, he certainly is not.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

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

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

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

Sam Galbraith said:

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

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

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

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

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

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

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

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

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

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

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

George Reid (None, Ochil)

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

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I did. I used it very cautiously.

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Christine May (Labour, Central Fife)

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

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

David Mundell (Conservative, South of Scotland)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

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

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

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

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

John Farquhar Munro (Liberal Democrat, Ross, Skye and Inverness West)

The First Minister's commitment on this issue is very welcome. Will he consider in further detail the opportunities that we would have to save more lives if we followed the example of countries such as Belgium and Spain, where opt-out systems have helped to bridge the gap between organ availability and patient need?

Does he recognise that doctors and the British Medical Association favour that measure and that it could make a real difference to more than 450 people who are currently awaiting transplants in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

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

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

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will write off all outstanding poll tax debts in line with practice in England. (S2O-1141)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The treatment of outstanding community charge debt is a matter for local authorities, in line with their statutory obligations and in consultation with their auditors as necessary. That is similar to the practice in England.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that it is entirely unfair that Scottish local authorities continue to hound people for outstanding poll tax debts, which are now between 10 and 15 years old? He is well aware that the same debts in England were written off some years ago. Will he accept that many of the 150,000 Scots who have not registered to vote are afraid to do so because they cannot afford to pay those outstanding poll tax arrears? Does he agree that it is particularly ironic and unfair that the hated poll tax, which we in Scotland endured first but which has been rightly consigned to the dustbin everywhere else, continues to haunt Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Mr Fox is wrong to state, as Ms Leckie did in my local newspaper, that there was some sort of amnesty down south. I have confirmed with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that there is no general amnesty and that those who are in debt will continue to be pursued. The ODPM made the clear statement, which I support, that such a move would be unfair on the vast majority of people who have paid their local council tax debts. Mr Fox is just plain wrong. Perhaps he was misinformed or perhaps he has misunderstood—I understand how that could happen.

Such an amnesty would be unfair on those who have made an effort to fulfil their responsibility to pay local taxation. We all have a responsibility to continue to do that. The sum of between £1.3 million and £1.6 million of poll tax debt that was paid in the six months up to summer 2003 goes towards our public services and helps to provide nursery places in our communities and the emergency services on which we all rely. It is absolutely wrong that people who have debts to society and to their local council should not pay them. I look forward to seeing councils continue to pursue those who owe them moneys.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Strangely, I agree with most of what the minister has said. Does he agree with me that, if an amnesty were offered for the £554 million in council tax that is currently owed to local authorities, it would be unfair on all those who have been prepared to pay their council tax?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I share that view. As one of my constituents said in a letter to the East Kilbride News :

"It would be nice, too, to consider the struggle suffered by all those who scrimped and did without"

at the time to pay their local taxes. I agree with that point. However, Phil Gallie's comment is a bit rich. When the poll tax was introduced, we all knew that it would be a difficult tax to collect. In one year, only 67 per cent of the poll tax was collected.

Let me also take the chance to clarify something that appeared in the newspapers last week. I said in a press release that I was encouraged that councils had collected more council tax than ever before, but I also made it clear that I expected them to do better and to collect more council tax. I am encouraged by the fact that local authorities are working hard to collect their moneys. Those moneys go to good use in local communities.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the reported proposals in England and Wales to fine parents who take their children on holiday during term time. (S2O-1137)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Education authorities have had powers since the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Section 38 of that act provides for attendance orders and section 43 provides for the process of prosecuting and fining those who are convicted of an offence under section 35. There are no plans to change that legislation.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Does the minister agree that while it is fine to have principles about tuition, they are often too difficult to adhere to in practice? It is right that students should be at school during term time, but is he aware that, for example, a police officer in my constituency has never been able to obtain a holiday during school holidays throughout the time that his daughter has been at school and so has had to take her out of school to enjoy a family holiday? Does he agree that common sense and flexibility are required in these matters? Will he confirm whether any Scottish parents have been fined for taking children on holiday during term time?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On the latter point, I can confirm that, since the legislation was enacted, I understand that one parent has been fined, although that was not in relation to taking holidays during term time.

Exceptions are recognised for certain circumstances and groups. Such exceptions relate to, for example, police officers, members of the armed forces, members of ethnic communities who have to go on extended visits overseas and people who have religious or cultural reasons for taking holidays during term time. Decisions on those exceptions are best made at a local level, however.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Executive what the estimated cost is of introducing a minimum 80 per cent relief from business rates for community amateur sports clubs. (S2O-1111)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The additional cost of introducing at least 80 per cent rate relief for community amateur sports clubs is estimated to be in the region of £1 million.

Dennis Canavan (Independent, Falkirk West)

I thank the minister for his reply to my question last week in which he announced the minimum 80 per cent relief. That is a great victory for Scottish sport as it will enable clubs to increase their investment in sports facilities and opportunities. When the relevant legislation is being drafted, will he consider including mandatory relief from water charges, which are also a considerable burden for many amateur sports clubs that do not qualify for the water charges exemption scheme?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The Executive sought to put the allowance that we are talking about into the system. It is a victory for sports clubs, although they were pushing at an open door in relation to the Scottish Executive's view of the matter. We wanted to make the announcement early so that clubs could be aware of the substantial assistance that the allowance will bring to them when they are doing their financial planning for next year. The initiative will allow clubs to spend their hard-earned cash on other activities, such as encouraging talent and excellence in sport.

The issue of water rates is one for further discussion with the relevant minister.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the minister accept that the burden falls not only on local community clubs but on national organisations that are trying to develop sport at a grass-roots level? I refer him to the situation that is faced by the Scottish Rugby Union at Murrayfield. While trying to support local sport, the SRU has seen its sports development funding fall by 36 per cent from £700,000 to £450,000 but its rates bill rise by 42 per cent from £494,000 to £710,000—it now finds itself £260,000 worse off. Will the minister recognise the need for rates relief for organisations that are trying to pursue sporting excellence not only at a community level but at a national level?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The relevant minister should get back to Mr MacAskill on that point. We are targeting sports clubs whose ability to function will be greatly assisted by the measure that we are discussing. Community sports clubs fall into that category but I would take some convincing that the larger organisations that Mr MacAskill mentions do.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether Burns night will be used to promote Scotland abroad. (S2O-1120)

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The First Minister, as president of the regions with legislative powers, is hosting a Burns supper in Brussels on 19 February to promote Scotland's place in Europe. On 13 January, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, gave the inaugural Robert Burns memorial lecture in New York in the presence of the Deputy First Minister. That received worldwide media coverage for Scotland.

Burns night also presents a unique opportunity for the promotion of Scotland as a tourist destination. VisitScotland.com is promoting Burns on its home page and VisitScotland's London office is presently running a Burns promotion to attract visitors to come and stay in Scotland.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Does the minister agree that significant opportunities to benefit from the 250 th anniversary, in 2009, of the birth of the bard will be available to Scotland? Does he further agree that Ayrshire, as the birthplace of Burns, should be the centre of the benefits that those opportunities bring?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I recognise the passionate commitment of the member and assure her that we are working towards the celebration of Burns's birth in 2009. That is why we have put together a team of players from VisitScotland, the Scottish Arts Council and a number of other agencies. In partnership with local representatives and local authorities, we will put something together that will genuinely commemorate the important role that Burns plays in the history not just of Ayrshire but of Scotland.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I hope that the First Minister makes a better speech in Brussels this year than he did at the Burns supper that I attended in Glasgow last year.

Will the minister guarantee that the opportunity that will arise in 2009 will be used to promote Ayrshire internationally? In addition, will he consider the possibility of renaming Prestwick airport as the Rabbie Burns airport?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The member has asked two questions rather than one. I have a number of things to say. First, it should be recognised that, out of the poets of 191 member states of the UN, only Scotland's national poet has been chosen as the poet to represent all humanity. Secondly, I assure Alex Neil that the First Minister will represent Scotland positively in an international forum.

We want to work with all players at a local level in Ayrshire to ensure that when, in 2009, we celebrate the birth of Burns, the celebrations are appropriately put together. I reassure the member that we will not have the situation that Burns described in one of his poems when he said:

"The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men Gang aft agley".

We assure the member that the Scottish Executive is on the case.

Margaret Mitchell (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the minister agree that an excellent way in which to promote Scotland is to encourage and support Burns suppers, such as the forthcoming European Union Burns supper in Brussels? MSPs, including my good friend Jamie Stone, have been asked to participate in that supper. Perhaps Jamie Stone will become an ex-good friend once he has delivered the toast to the lassies and I have replied to it.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome the contributions that individual members will make. We are all ambassadors for Scotland wherever we go. I hope that we can use Burns's work to represent what we think Scotland is today and that his work will make a contribution in the future.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Will the Executive consider promoting Scotland in Europe by sending representation to the tartan day celebrations in Paris this year? I would prefer the First Minister, who has an interest in the entente cordiale, to go.