Scottish Parliament, 26 May 2005

343 contributions from 77 members. The official report.

Official Report 26 May 2005

Student and Graduate Debt

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is consideration of business motion S2M-2875, in the name of Margaret Curran, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation (Scotland) Bill. However, as no one is available to move the motion, we will have to move on. I will take that motion later.

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2866, in the name of Fiona Hyslop, on student and graduate debt.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

We are approaching graduation season, so it is fitting that we should begin the debate by acknowledging the academic talent and hard work exhibited by this year's graduands in earning their degrees. We congratulate them and wish them well for the future. They leave university determined to be all they can be and to achieve. They are Scotland's indigenous fresh talent and the people who epitomise a smart, successful Scotland. They are also the people most likely to leave Scotland, according to the registrar general for Scotland—Scotland's fresh talent off to make another country smart and successful. I am glad that they have the opportunity to spread their wings and travel the world. I only hope that they are not being forced out in an attempt to pay off mounting debt more quickly.

The Scottish National Party has brought the motion to the chamber today in the hope that, cross party, we can examine the very real problems facing students, graduates and Scotland in general. We want the Executive to acknowledge a problem and be prepared to examine all the options—even the Conservative one, but also the SNP proposal to replace loans with grants. At the very least, we must agree to have research on the table and some options to examine. The Executive amendment mentions research into student poverty and graduate debt. That research was expected in January this year. I understand that it has been delayed at the request of the researchers, but we desperately need it. We should note that the National Assembly for Wales, where the Opposition defeated the Labour Executive only this week on top-up fees for Wales, is ahead of us in having a standing committee and research provided on student and graduate debt. I wonder whether the minister will be kind enough to give us a date for the publication of the research and to confirm that it will contain graduate debt information.

We need some common determination from the Scottish Parliament that the issues need to be addressed, and I hope that we can secure that in the debate. I look forward to hearing contributions from other members. We need to examine the public purse bill of more than £100 million annually for the Scottish Executive simply to service the debt on the loan. The prospects for the sustainability of that burden, should interest rates rise, are grim. Replacing loans with grants of the same value would save the public purse money, because of the perverse but extensive debt servicing and loan subsidy legacy. The Executive has the chance to step off the conveyor belt of debt before it becomes completely unmanageable. The damage to the Scottish economy that is caused by that massive aggregate personal debt needs to be acknowledged and tackled.

This year, around 48,000 Scots will graduate from Scotland's universities. After four years of study, they will be making their way in the world. They may be looking to buy a house and get on the property ladder, they may want to start a family, or they may want to borrow to start up a new business, although such borrowing is becoming increasingly prohibitive. They will do all that with a millstone of debt hanging round their necks from the student loans that they took out when they were studying.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does Fiona Hyslop acknowledge that the problem of student debt is primarily not one of students borrowing from the Student Loans Company but one of students borrowing from other providers, on credit cards and on overdrafts from banks? Does she accept that extending the student loans system would remove some of the problems that she is concerned about?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

This is where I disagree with the Conservatives. I acknowledge that credit card debt is highly significant, but if there is state-sponsored debt to start with, that makes the credit card debt worse. The Conservatives' idea of commercialising all debt would compound the debt problem and make it worse, rather than resolving the situation.

Eighty per cent of students take out the full loan. That means that, this year, if we add in the £2,000 graduate endowment bill, their total debt will be £19,000. Students would have to graduate and earn almost £22,000 in their first year just to pay off the annual interest on that debt. Below that amount, they will just be whistling against the wind of interest on the debt and will not even begin to pay off the debt itself. There are two thresholds in the system: one at which students earn enough to service the debt and one at which the payments that they make will have an impact on their indebtedness. The average salary for a graduate who is recruited by a member of the Association of Graduate Recruiters does not reach either of those thresholds. The Executive's own graduate recruitment programme does not pay enough—not even for fast-stream graduates, who also come in below both thresholds.

Graduates will start having to pay 9 per cent extra tax on all earnings over £15,000. That tax is regressive, not progressive, because the less one earns the longer one has to pay it and the more one will pay in the long run. Some graduates will never clear that debt, which will continue to grow in spite of the payments that they are making. One graduate put it to me rather well. She said, "This is just like the private finance initiative. When I retire, I'll still be paying for the lunch that I had in first year." She was not laughing. There is a growing consensus that the student loans system has failed and cannot be rescued and that it is, in essence, a flawed system.

I note the United Kingdom Conservative position, which admits that the system is costing the UK £1 billion each year in loan subsidy alone. I disagree with the replacement that the Conservatives intend, as it would compound debt on commercial rates, but I believe that we should debate the issue. On selling off the debt, I say to the Conservatives that the Scottish Executive has already shelled out £77.5 million in interest subsidy for the £200 million tranches of debt that Gordon Brown sold off in 1998 and 1999, and we are still paying. Selling off the debt still costs, but I believe that we should debate the matter nevertheless. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives would use the savings from scrapping the current loans system in England to abolish top-up fees. With no top-up fees in Scotland—as yet, although they have been legislated for—the SNP argues that the savings should be used to reintroduce grants.

Just as interesting was the Liberal Democrat commitment in the recent Westminster election to return to student grants, in England only. I am glad to hear both contenders for the Liberal Democrat leadership talking about ending the graduate endowment bill, and I think that there is scope for debate in that area. The current Labour Executive pledge is to keep the system, but I urge ministers to reconsider that pledge in the light of the research that is due and to appraise with an open mind all constructive suggestions—from the SNP, from the Conservatives and even from Mike Rumbles.

This year's Scottish graduates alone will be carrying on their backs a debt bill of £731 million. The current graduate debt for all of Scotland's students is £2 billion. The debt, the interest on it and the repayments are damaging us all. Deferrals are huge and repayment periods are hitting 14 years. It is unsustainable. Loan money goes out faster than payments come in, and the taxpayer picks up the tab. The removal of so much disposable income is a massive drag on the economy. Whether members supported the student loans system or not—and the SNP was agin it—I urge the Parliament to acknowledge the potential problems of that scheme for the future economic prospects of the country. For the sake of our students, present and future, for the sake of our graduates and for the sake of our economy, we have to end the debt. Let us unshackle the debt and liberate the future wealth creators of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with concern growing student and graduate debt in Scotland, which not only hinders opportunities for the individuals concerned, but also damages society and the wider economy generally; further notes the spiralling cost to the taxpayer of the expensive and bureaucratic student loan system and the growing consensus that it is unsustainable, and calls on the Scottish Executive to come forward with a constructive review, incorporating a number of proposals to address this growing problem and encompassing an assessment of replacing student loans, including the graduate endowment repayment, with a universal system of grants.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree with Fiona Hyslop in that I am glad that we are having the debate, as I welcome every opportunity to debate Executive policy in the chamber. I would argue that we have a record on student support and funding for higher education that is beyond comparison with other parts of the world. The debate gives me an opportunity to remind members of the significant steps that the Executive has taken to establish student support arrangements here in Scotland that are both fair and affordable.

The Executive is doing a great deal to tackle student debt. We want to ensure that young people have equal access to higher education, regardless of their background. We are acutely aware that debt or, perhaps more accurately, the fear of debt, can be an inhibiting factor when prospective students are deciding whether to undertake higher education study. Of course, before devolution we were faced with a system that included the payment of annual fees. It was argued that that was a major barrier to access for many potential students from underrepresented backgrounds—even with concessions to those from lower-earning families. It was by agreement between the Labour and Liberal parties—the first and second parties in Scotland—that we undertook to abolish the contributions to fees for Scots studying in Scotland.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I listened with great interest to what the minister said about the removal of fees. Was it not the Labour Party that brought in fees in the first place?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

It was indeed the Labour Government. I seem to recall that I stood on precisely that platform in 1999 and was elected to the Parliament. We established the Cubie committee as part of the partnership agreement between the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, which are, I repeat, the first and second parties in Scotland. We then abolished the contribution to fees for Scots who study here in Scotland. We recognised what I think everybody—perhaps even Murdo Fraser—would agree is the powerful principle of free tuition. As a result of that, our higher education system now has open access for students from all backgrounds and is the envy of many countries. Last week I spoke to Jane Davidson, the Welsh Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, on this subject. She was very complimentary about the system of student support and higher education funding that we enjoy here in Scotland.

Devolution has given us the opportunity to introduce changes to the student support system for Scotland. It allows us to remove barriers to higher education by targeting resources where they are needed most. I will remind members how we do that. We introduced the young students bursary to encourage young students from less well-off backgrounds into higher education. The bursary is non-repayable. It replaces part of the student loan and therefore reduces the amount of debt that graduates will have.

The Deputy First Minister announced that from 2005-06 we will increase the maximum bursary that is available to these students to £2,395. That means that the overall number of students who are eligible to receive the maximum bursary will increase by no less than 63 per cent. We also increased the family income ceiling, which allowed the number of students who are eligible for some sort of bursary to increase by more than 10 per cent.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

According to the latest statistics, the number of students from working-class backgrounds throughout Scotland is now 17 per cent. That is a 3 per cent drop in the past two years. Does the minister accept that the Executive is failing to encourage youngsters from working-class backgrounds into higher education?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I do not accept the basic charge that Mr Sheridan makes. As I said, we have introduced a number of important initiatives to broaden access for people from underrepresented groups. We have a good record in broadening access more generally and are increasing the total number of students who study in Scottish higher education institutions to record levels. Although much has been done, I accept that there is more to do.

One of our priorities is to take steps to broaden access to higher education for students from underrepresented backgrounds. Part of the process of policy development, to which I will refer again in the wake of the publication of the information on student income and expenditure, will be designed to do precisely that.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister give way?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I would like to make progress.

We provide hardship funds to every publicly funded institution to help students who, as a result of undertaking a course, face particular financial difficulties that may prevent them from starting or continuing their studies. As I said in response to Mr Sheridan, we are continually looking at ways to improve the system to ensure, given that there are limits on the amount of money that is available, that we target financial support where it is needed most.

We have not stopped there. Since we first started paying loans, many colleges and universities have changed the lengths of their terms or moved to semesters. Most students now appear to need to have more of their money available to them in their first term or semester. We have just finished an extensive consultation process to consider changing the payment pattern of living-cost student support. We recognise that the current system of paying three equal instalments may not be appropriate. We will make it easier for students to budget by changing the payment pattern of the student loan and bursary. We will make a further announcement on that later in the summer.

We will establish, from 2005-06, the higher education child care fund. In doing that, we will simplify the package of support that is available to higher education students who have child care needs.

Fairness and affordability are the key criteria for any system of student support. I argue that the Executive is delivering on both counts.

I move amendment S2M-2866.2, to leave out from "notes with concern" to end and insert:

"agrees that the support arrangements for students ordinarily resident in Scotland should continue to be based on fairness and affordability; agrees that such a system should include free tuition, regardless of family income, and bursary support for those from less well-off backgrounds; welcomes the increased level of the Young Students' Bursary and its extended eligibility; notes that liable graduates pay the graduate endowment in respect of the higher education benefits that they have received with the payments adding to the fund to pay support bursaries for students from poorer backgrounds, and recognises that the publication of the survey of Scottish students' income and expenditure, later this year, will allow for a better understanding of the situation facing students and the continued development of policy to meet their needs."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of student debt. At the outset I commend Fiona Hyslop for the constructive and consensual way in which she moved the motion. I am sure that in these exciting post-election times we are all interested in new ideas and we should encourage debates on such subjects.

Fiona Hyslop is entirely right to raise the issue and point out the concern about the growing levels of debt among graduates. The figures show that there is a serious concern. In 2004, 1,541 graduates declared themselves bankrupt—that is almost 50 times as many as did so in 1997. Sadly, some students see bankruptcy as a way of getting out of the high levels of debt that they have accumulated. Those stark figures do not necessarily reflect the difficulty that many other students have in repaying the loans that they have accumulated.

The British Medical Association's briefing for the debate points out some facts about debt for medical students. The average debt for medical students in Scotland was more than £11,000. One in five Scottish medical students has more than £20,000-worth of debt. It is not surprising that the BMA is concerned about the impact that those figures have on recruitment to medicine as a profession, particularly given that students of medicine study for longer than students do for the average profession.

We must recognise that there is a difference between borrowing via student loans and borrowing via other means. When I went to university in the 1980s, I was fortunate enough to receive a full grant due to my parental circumstances. Of course, that was under a Conservative Government.

The Conservative Government of the day massively increased the number of university places and, in order to fund that increase, it introduced the student loans scheme. I have no difficulty with that concept. I supported it at the time and I support it today, because I believe that students should be prepared to make a contribution towards their own upkeep during their education. I do not support the idea of students paying towards the provision of that education, but I support the idea that they should contribute towards their upkeep. The student loans scheme allowed a whole new generation of youngsters, whose parents would never have had such an opportunity, to access higher education.

I listened with interest to what the minister said on fees and specifically about fees deterring those from underrepresented groups accessing higher education. Of course, it was the Labour Government—to be fair to him, he was gracious enough to acknowledge this—that introduced those fees in 1997. I accept that they have now been removed and replaced with a graduate endowment, but I will not take any lessons from the Labour Party on the cost of higher education.

I will return to the SNP motion. The problem with student debt is not primarily to do with the debt of student loans. Contrary to the assertions that Fiona Hyslop made in her saltire paper on student finance, the percentage of those who defer student loan repayments has fallen from more than 24 per cent in 1997 to 13 per cent in 2004. The figures do not indicate that students are struggling to repay their student loans. As we know, students start to repay their loans when their salaries reach the threshold of £15,000, so there is no evidence that student loan repayments represent a huge burden on most graduates.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Is the member aware that of the people who graduated in 1997, the year that Labour came to power, 34 per cent have yet to start repaying their loans. Some 34 per cent of graduates are deferring payment, which is a significant number.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I accept that there are graduates in that position. There are problems in the economy. Many graduates have not been able to find jobs that pay the salaries that they expected to earn, and their salaries have not reached the threshold for repayment. That is a difficulty.

The borrowing that students take on above and beyond their student loans, through bank overdrafts or even credit cards, is of far greater concern than is borrowing through student loans, because it incurs higher interest rates. We must consider ways of expanding the student loans scheme, to allow more students to access student loans rather than borrow at more expensive rates. I disagree with Fiona Hyslop on the matter; the expansion rather than the replacement of the student loans scheme offers the way out of the problem.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Conservative amendment calls for a change in the student loans system and proposes that loans would be repaid at a

"low, but commercial, rate of interest".

Will the member be more specific about what is meant by "commercial"?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We envisage a system in which a market rate of interest, instead of a subsidised rate, would be paid. We accept that the market rate would be higher than the rate that is currently paid by students and I will expand on that.

Because the Student Loans Company is an efficient provider of loans, the cost of administering student loans as a percentage of the total loans bill of £15 billion is negligible. Given the low running costs of the company, the SNP's claim that it would be cheaper to remove loans entirely and replace them with grants is dubious. I would be interested in seeing the SNP's figures in detail.

The Conservatives would, first, scrap the graduate endowment, which is no more than a tuition fee by the back door. Despite the trumpeting of the Liberal Democrats, tuition fees have not been abolished but exist by another name. We should remove that burden from students. Secondly, we should increase the repayment threshold for student loans to £20,000 and we should make available greater sums in loans by increasing the amount that can be borrowed to £5,000 or more per annum. Eligibility for a loan should not be subject to a means test. To pay for that approach, student loans could be transferred to independent providers and, instead of paying a discounted rate of interest, students would pay a commercial rate. However, in a scheme that was backed by a Government guarantee there would be no need for excessive rates of interest.

As a result of those measures, the average student would be better off, because they would receive money from student loans schemes and no longer have to build up bank overdrafts or credit card debts. Extra sums would be available to fund higher education, but there would be no additional burdens on the taxpayer. Our proposals are mature and sensible and would go a long way towards addressing the problem of student debt. Our plans are costed and can be afforded.

I welcome the debate and take pleasure in moving amendment S2M-2866.1, to leave out from "further" to end and insert:

"calls on the Scottish Executive to end the graduate endowment which places an increased debt burden on students; recommends that the student loan repayment threshold be raised to £20,000 and that the loan value be increased to £5,000 per annum at a low, but commercial, rate of interest, which will remove the necessity for students to resort to expensive overdraft and credit card borrowing, and calls on the Executive to transfer all or part of the loan book to independent providers so that higher education can expand without extra and undue burden being placed on the taxpayer."

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

I start by formally apologising to members for being late. That was unlike me and I am sorry to have missed Fiona Hyslop's speech. However, I read her saltire paper with great interest.

I am delighted to have rejoined the Enterprise and Culture Committee, as my colleagues on the committee know—it is a joy to be back.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Hear, hear.

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

Despite Murdo Fraser's comments about the Liberal Democrats, it is a pleasure to join him on the committee.

As a result of the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, we have made strides in supporting Scottish students. Scottish students do not pay fees or top-up fees; they can access grants if they need them; they can receive extra help with child care; and they can get additional support if they are disabled or in extreme hardship. The fact is that students who are domiciled in Scotland save around £5,000 by not paying fees and £9,000 by not paying top-up fees and they can receive up to almost £10,000 in grants. They also benefit from the guarantee that in real terms the amount that they repay on their student loans will not be more than the amount that they borrowed. I ask my friends and colleagues in the SNP to reflect on those figures, because facts are chiels that winna ding.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

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

I will give way in a minute or two.

It is a mistake to talk down those achievements and members should beware of doing so. That seems to have been accepted in the consensual spirit of the debate so far. The Scottish Executive's policies have brought more people into higher education. Our participation rate is better than that of the rest of the UK and it is better than the average rates in the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. There is record funding for Scottish universities, to ensure that they can compete effectively in the UK following the introduction of top-up fees—Fiona Hyslop assured us that that would not happen.

Entry to higher education from state schools has increased at a faster rate in Scotland than it has elsewhere in the UK. Our intake of people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds far outstrips that of England and Wales. We cannot deny that our higher education system brings huge benefits to the Scottish economy, by creating a highly skilled population and attracting high-skill employment.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The member said that individual students should never have to pay back more than they borrow in student loans, but is he aware that graduates who earn less than £22,000 are paying more in interest than they are in debt repayment? Many such graduates are paying nothing towards the repayment of their debt and unless their earnings increase significantly over the piece they will end up paying more in interest than on debt repayment.

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

There is some validity in Fiona Hyslop's comment and the matter will probably be considered by the Enterprise and Culture Committee in due course. I have done the sums for my three children, two of whom are at university—one will graduate in a few days' time. The situation can be considered from a different perspective and it is not as clear as it might be, but I suggest to Alex Neil that the Enterprise and Culture Committee might consider the matter. It might be worth approaching the Executive in a constructive and consensual way, with a view to tweaking the arrangements—we will find out in due course.

About half of all adults but only a third of young people are financially literate, which is a worrying statistic that we should remember—I engage with my children on that front. Student accounts offer competitive incentives such as music vouchers, mobile phones and train tickets. More often than not, the banks also offer automatic overdraft facilities and credit cards, which encourage students to get into debt. Murdo Fraser correctly highlighted that point—I have witnessed the dreaded mobile phone bills at first hand.

A quarter of young clients of citizens advice bureaux cite easy access to credit and the high interest rates and charges attached to such credit as significant factors in their debt problems. Student debt must be considered and work must be undertaken on money advice for students—that recalls my previous work on the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I have met advice officers from a selection of universities, but there are not enough such officers and they are overstretched. Perhaps the Enterprise and Culture Committee should consider the possibility of establishing a Scotland-wide student money advice service, in a co-ordinated approach across all universities. I accept that that might be difficult to agree with vice-chancellors and principals.

I am running out of time. I welcome the minister's commitment to consider alternatives to the three-instalment pattern of student payments, to help students to budget. That is vital if students are to avoid debt.

Around 40 per cent of Scottish students work while they study, but over the border in England the figure is 58 per cent. Again, facts are chiels that winna ding. The figures are surely indicative of what is happening on our side of the border; they demonstrate that our system is better. Those of us who have children at university, or who have friends and neighbours with children at university, know that students are voting with their feet. The enthusiasm for our approach in Scotland is manifest in the student population.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

This is a short debate, so we will have four-minute speeches.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will widen the context of the debate by considering not just the narrow issue of student debt but the broader policy objectives that we are trying to set. A major objective of the Executive's lifelong learning and education policy is, quite rightly, to increase the proportion of people from working-class backgrounds who go to university. Despite the fact that the percentage of 16 to 19-year-olds who enter higher education has increased from 1 per cent in 1950 to about 50 per cent in 2005, the proportion of students who come from working-class areas has remained static, by and large. Some years it goes up a bit and other years it goes down a bit, but the 55-year graph shows that the percentage of students from manual-working family backgrounds is more or less the same as it was 55 years ago.

I am the first to admit that the problem is not just financial; there are other reasons why people from poorer backgrounds do not go to university. One of the major demotivating factors is that people know that they will not get the financial support that they require. The minister was quite right to say that fear of debt is as important as debt itself. Rightly or wrongly, the fear of debt among people from poorer backgrounds is a major contributor to why they do not go to university.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I agree that financial issues are key to participation rates. Alex Neil is quite right to point out that the participation rates from the 1950s until now are not good enough. Grants were introduced in 1962 and they seem to have been neutral in respect of participation in higher education. Do we need to consider issues other than financial support, which affect participation rates?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I have already said that I do not believe that financial support is the only factor and that there are other, more complex factors. Nevertheless, it is important.

I have two points to make on participation rates. First, there is a lot of criticism of our having such a high participation rate in Scotland. However, some countries have participation rates as high as 70 per cent and there is a clear link between the level of economic growth in a country and the percentage of its people who participate in higher education.

Secondly, this year we have seen a 3 per cent drop in the participation rate from 51 per cent to about 48 per cent. One of the reasons for that is funding, but another is job prospects for graduates. According to one survey, only 36 per cent of all graduates end up in a job that is relevant to their degree and many of them end up being paid nothing like £15,000 a year until they have been in the workforce for 10 or even 15 years, which makes a significant contribution to post-university poverty.

I say to the Executive, do not take a narrow party-political approach to our proposal, but examine carefully whether grants would be a far better investment than loans for society as a whole. Perhaps then we could achieve the other objectives of our wider education policy.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

It is always a pleasure to attend Opposition debates on a Thursday morning. We rush into the chamber full of enthusiasm, listen to the opening speech and get the same old story. My God, but we have had the violins out this morning. SNP members have wailed about debts that never seem to be paid off despite generous incomes. With tears in their eyes they have pleaded for us to do more for the lucky individuals whose wallets and prospects are enhanced by their time at prestigious Scottish institutions. At one point I thought that they were talking about Scottish football, which has its own problems. However, there are enough problems with the SNP motion to be getting on with. For a start, the basis of its argument is false. The motion states that the system of student finance

"hinders opportunities for the individuals concerned."

Are they sure? More than 50 per cent of young Scots are at university—a higher proportion than anywhere else in the UK. Graduate endowments do not deter entry to university. If a person is unable to grasp the concept that going to university is good for their financial prospects, they are probably not cut out for the world of higher education.

The real problem with the motion is not that it is inaccurate—I expect nothing less from what passes for the Opposition in this place. What I find offensive is the hypocrisy and the dressing up—yet again—of self-interest as concern for the poor.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No. Sorry.

Today's topic is poor students. With the heart-rending sentimentality of a television movie, SNP members tell us stories about gifted urchins starving to death as they struggle to put themselves through university. They say that we must bring back universal grants, but the reality is that the poorest students get the most state help and end up with the least to repay. Grants would not be much use to them, but would be of use to the comfortable better-off families which—by pure coincidence I am sure—are a bit like the SNP's own and already take disproportionate advantage of higher education. There is nothing new in that.

SNP members try the same con trick with pensioners. They shed crocodile tears and wail about poor pensioners being forced to sell war medals, grandchildren and kidneys to pay their bills. They say that we must let all pensioners off paying their council tax. The reality is that the poorest pensioners do not pay council tax; they receive council tax benefit, so scrapping the tax would not be much use to them. Wealthier pensioners—a bit like SNP members' relatives—would find the extra cash very handy indeed. That is not social justice; it is feathering their own nests.

Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with acting from one's self-interest; the human race would not have evolved if we had not learned how to do that. However, it is unforgivable to dress up self-interest as concern for the poorest people in our society. Poverty is an evil to be stamped out, not an opportunity to be used for one's own ends or electoral advantage.

The right thing to do is to give the poorest students the most help; giving more disadvantaged young people the chance to go to university is the right thing to do and focusing on the poorest pensioners is the right thing to do. I accept that that will involve some redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots, but anyone who calls themselves a socialist should be comfortable with that. That might not be politically expedient, but it is right and I am happy to debate the issue honestly. Sadly, the same cannot be said about the SNP and others until they stop hiding behind the poor.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It just occurred to me that I should have declared an interest at the start of the debate but omitted to do so, for which I apologise. I am a member of the board of management of the University of Dundee's students association.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Thank you. That is helpful.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Duncan McNeil spoke about self-interest. I sometimes wonder in debates like this whether self-delusion is a worse sin than self-interest. He also spoke about honest debate, but he should sometimes allow facts to interfere with his rhetoric: for example, the fact that poorer students—working-class students—owe 15 per cent more on graduation than do students from higher-income backgrounds; the fact that three quarters of working-class young people who decide not to pursue higher education cite lack of money and fear of debt as the main reasons for that; the fact that more than half of lower-income background students have to work an average of 15 hours a week while they are studying, which puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to essays, exams and dissertations, because they are trying to grapple with the debt that they are in; and the fact that 57 per cent of students who work do so to cover basic essentials and 11 per cent do so to cover tuition fees. Those are the facts. Debt is a barrier to education for people from working-class or lower-income backgrounds, because we do not have a generous enough student finance scheme. That is the fact. If Duncan McNeil wants to speak on behalf of the working class, I wish that he would take up that clarion call.

When I was at university, we used to boycott Barclays Bank because of its links with South Africa. Today, I have to refer to Barclays Bank's recent study, which says that average student debt, which is currently £16,000, is on track to double by 2010. In five years, the average debt for graduates will be £33,000. If a graduate starts on £20,000 and can secure a 4 per cent increase in their salary over a 20-year period, it would still take them 21 years to pay off their student debt. People who graduate at 20 or 21 will be in their early 40s before they pay off their student debts. I am in my early 40s, as are many people here. We all had an opportunity to access education without taking on the burden that we now impose on working-class kids. People who were at university at the same time as me, including Jack McConnell, Susan Deacon, Frank McAveety and others who are not in the chamber, managed to get grants, housing benefit and supplementary benefit, which we call income support today, and did not have to pay any tuition fees upon graduation.

Of course, we are told that the fact that we now have such a great number of students means that we cannot afford to give them housing benefit, social security benefits and universal grants. However, the people who make that argument are also the people who come to this chamber to tell us how wonderful and miraculous our economy is and how wonderful it is that we have low unemployment rates, interest rates and inflation. They cannot have it both ways. If what they say about the economy is true, why cannot we afford the same educational support package that we were given even by the Tories in the 1980s? We used to march against cuts in the grant, but now we have to march for grants. That is the situation that we are in under the new Labour—Tory—Administration.

Education should not be paid for by the people who specifically benefit from it because society as a whole benefits from an educated workforce and, therefore, society as a whole should pay. General taxation should be increased so that the high earners about whom Duncan McNeil was talking pay more tax in order to give us a system of universal grants and proper support for education. At the end of the day, people who think that education is expensive should try ignorance.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

In law, the ending of debt results in the legal status of "satisfaction". Would that things were so simple beyond the reach of the law in real life. Debt is the most powerful of slaveries. It is little wonder that the money lenders were the first people to be thrown out of the temple.

However, without debt, the modern world would not exist. The folding green stuff in our pockets represents a debt—the nice kind, which is the kind that the bank owes us. The notes tell us that the banks

"promise to pay the bearer".

Further, does not the slang phrase, "money in the bank" bring a warm glow to the heart of the beneficiary?

This Government, however, views provision of education not as a societal duty but as a commercial transaction. Because the individual benefits from education, the Government believes that the individual should buy that benefit. That attacks the roots of our society. Implementation of the Government's policy has had what I hope are unintended consequences.

The issue that we are discussing is a women's issue. I take this opportunity to congratulate two of the members who have so far spoken in this debate on the fact that they are not wearing dark suits. Every one of us, apart from Fiona Hyslop and Tommy Sheridan, represent a small and privileged minority and, with one exception, are men. To further illustrate the ways in which this issue is a women's issue, I will give some examples. By the time she retires, the debt of a female dentist—more than half the dentists who graduate are women—who works half-time for 25 years of her working life will have risen from the £18,000 that she started with to £40,000. The interest keeps racking up and, at 9 per cent under £22,000, the debt increases rather than decreases. Similarly, the debt of a female part-time primary teacher who works for 22 hours a week for 25 years will have risen to £40,000 by the time she retires. However, a person who gets elected to the Scottish Parliament at the age of 30 after having been a political researcher will have paid off their debt by the age of 40.

I must also encourage Duncan McNeil to be more accurate. Only one third of school leavers go to university; half of school leavers go into further and higher education combined. We must use language carefully.

We like to believe that, when we pass on our knowledge and skills to the next generation, we benefit society as a whole, not just the individuals who we have entrusted with our futures. Are we to become the only mammals on the planet who transmit our inheritance to our offspring conditionally, who refuse to equip our children with the skills that they need to forage, hunt and survive in the modern world unless they pay us, post hoc, for the privilege? I prefer morality to utility and a moral duty to educate over a commercial transaction. I choose liberation from want, freedom from ignorance and the avoidance of state debt for our next generation.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I should declare an interest as a life member of Edinburgh University Union.

I was going to start in the consensual manner in which Fiona Hyslop spoke and say that we all agree that a highly educated society is a good thing and that as many people as possible, young and old, should be encouraged to enter higher and further education. However, Duncan McNeil rather ruined that consensual spirit. In Duncan McNeil's world, education is purely about the individual maximising his or her future income. That attitude is what has led to everybody going to university to study accountancy and business studies, while nobody studies art, philosophy or social policy. However, people go to university to be educated, not simply to improve their economic status, and society benefits from the fact that universities function as places of learning rather than career enhancement.

Putting aside Duncan McNeil's comments, there are serious questions to be asked. Does the loan system work? Does it provide socially beneficial outcomes? Is it right that students end up with £33,000 of debt? What is the impact on students of the requirement to start paying back state debt as soon as they start earning £15,000? What is the impact of the further threshold of £22,000, which Fiona Hyslop talked about? What do we do about the problems of non-state debt, such as credit-card debt and overdrafts, which the Tories talked about? Is the system that we have created the right way to finance students' participation in higher and further education?

I agree with the Tories' that we must reform the system to make it more like the one that Cubie proposed. We need higher levels of loans and a higher repayment level. I believe that the Cubie report suggested that that level should be £25,000. However, I cannot agree with the Tories' belief that the private sector would be better than the public sector at holding the debt.

I agree that tuition fees should be abolished, whether they are payable in advance, as is the case in England and Wales, or in retrospect, as is the case in the system that the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive imposed on Scotland.

Ultimately, the SNP motion is correct. We need a system of universal grants to reflect the fact that further and higher education is a good thing for society.

Like Murdo Fraser, I went to university on a full grant and was part of the generation that was studying when the Tories abolished the full grant. The parents of many of my friends at school were in better circumstances than my parents and had higher incomes, but did not think that their children should go to university. Their children were denied the chance to get the university education that they wanted because they were means tested not on their income but on their parents' income. It makes no sense to have a system in which we means test people based on their parents' income.

If we believe that further and higher education are good, we should support them for everybody. We should remove the disincentives for people from working-class backgrounds and disadvantaged backgrounds, but we should do so as part of the process of removing barriers for all students. It is nonsense that we still means test adults based on their parents' income.

It is important for us to have this debate. We must take forward our vision of a Scotland that maximises its potential by relying on the creativity that tertiary education helps to foster. Parliament's responsibility is to break down the barriers in order to allow all who want to benefit from education to do so. That is why I support the SNP motion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Government's highest priority should be to increase participation of young Scots in further and higher education—I agree with Alex Neil about that. The Government's key priority should be to tackle the reasons why the poorest people in our communities are underrepresented. However, if members want to criticise the Government, they should do so for the right reasons. We are failing in some areas, such as medicine, law and dentistry. It is in such professions, in which graduates have the potential to earn the most, that some of our poorest communities are underrepresented. In a recent debate, we discussed some of the things that we need to do about that.

There has been Government financial support for students since the 1950s, but it seems to have been a fairly neutral factor in determining whether people from working-class backgrounds aspire to further and higher education. We need to be clear about the reasons for that; they might be financial, but they are probably about aspirations and expectations. Many working-class people do not see themselves earning at the top of the tree. They do not aspire to that and they do not have the qualifications. We must take the right approach to secondary education because a person's school qualifications are fundamental to their chances. If they do not have the qualifications and we do not have the right entry systems, working-class people will not get into further and higher education in the first place.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member stresses the importance of secondary education, but all the research shows that the vital element is early-years education in primary schools. The fact that we spend only about 80 per cent of the OECD average in the early years is one of the reasons why we are failing.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

I cannot deny that early-years education, particularly from the ages of 3 to 5, is crucial. We know that, and I am not trying to detract from it. However, I point out another key factor. A person who does not have the appropriate qualifications will not get to university in the first place, which explains some of the figures that we are talking about today. There are children whose parents do nothing to encourage them. We must address parenting, which is fundamental to a child's life. My point is that there are so many factors that we have to get our heads around.

I do not accept the idea that the smart, successful Scotland policy is all about graduates. If I thought that that was the case, I would not support it. A smart, successful Scotland is also about people who are not graduates. The entrepreneurial spirit in our society has never been greater, but we need to do more for children who see themselves as having great earning potential but not necessarily through higher education.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

One minute.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

Goodness me. I wanted to talk about student debt and student hardship, but I will try to summarise what I wanted to say.

Student debt is a serious issue that should not be ignored by any member of Parliament. To that extent, I am happy to step into a cross-party consensus. I ask the Government for some scientific research and analysis on the effect of student debt on life chances. Perhaps Allan Wilson could comment on that when he sums up. I want to know the answers; I do not want to be held to ransom with sporadic figures. I want the Government to take the matter seriously. If student debt is causing student hardship, the Government must address that and reform the system.

I support the young students bursary scheme, although its value is not high enough and I would like it to be increased. I seek reform for mature students and people who have child-care needs. The problem with the SNP's position is that the system that it proposes would be costly, so something in the Scottish system would have to give. I want the SNP to say where the money would come from.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

This has been a good debate. It started off constructively, although there have been one or two blips on the way. There is general consensus that it is worth our while to debate student and graduate debt and to feed in some constructive views on how we can build on the student support system in Scotland.

The production of more graduates and upskilling of our workforce lie at the heart of the Executive's policy of building a smart, successful Scotland. The abolishment of tuition fees and reintroduction of grants was one of the first actions of the Liberal and Labour coalition Government in the first year of devolution and I argue that the policy has been a success. Scottish participation rates have doubled in the past 10 years; some 52 per cent of Scots between 18 and 30 have obtained a higher education qualification or are studying for one, a figure that is 7 per cent higher than the OECD average and 5 per cent higher than the figure for the rest of the UK.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

George Lyon says that the smart, successful Scotland policy is a success, but can he tell me what percentage of Scottish students we have retained in Scotland since the policy's inception? How is that monitored?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I disagree with the policy that Mr Mather supports. He would handcuff students in Scotland and prevent them from leaving.

Scotland now has one of the most skilled working populations, with more people in graduate-level jobs than in the rest of the UK. We are widening access faster than the rest of the UK although, as many members have pointed out, we need to make quicker progress on that.

We have built on our successful policies. This year, the young students bursary has been increased by 11 per cent to £2,395 and the student loan repayment threshold has been increased from £10,000 to £15,000. As a result of the spending review, funding for our universities and colleges has increased by 30 per cent. Of course, student debt is important, which is why the Executive is surveying student debt so that it can feed into the spending review in 2006. We will make decisions in the light of the information that is generated by that review.

The important point that I am trying to make is that the coalition Government's track record is one of record investment in our students, our universities and our colleges. I believe that our track record is second to none and that the coalition should be proud of it. However, that is not to say that more cannot be done; the survey of student debt will facilitate a debate on what needs to be done.

I compare the coalition's track record with that of the SNP—the recently relegated Opposition party. The SNP has had seven different policies in the past seven years. It has flip-flopped around from one policy to another, but its latest position, which we heard this morning from Fiona Hyslop, is that grants would replace loans. It claims, rather bizarrely, that that would have no financial implications for the Executive. The reality is that every £1 of student loan costs the Executive 31p, but every £1 of student grant would cost the Executive £1. If Fiona Hyslop wanted a constructive debate, she should have had the good grace to admit that significant costs would be associated with the SNP's plans.

In conclusion, the subject on which the SNP has secured a debate is important, but the debate is premature. If we had the Scottish student income and expenditure survey before us, we could have debated the information that it revealed to us. I look forward to a future debate when that information is available to us. And when we can properly discuss the actions that the Executive might need to take to build on the successful policies that have been pursued in the past six years.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I am glad to have the opportunity to close on behalf of the Conservative group. The debate has been vigorous and has encompassed a large number of views on issues relating to student and graduate debt. I attended two universities and have four sons who attended university, so the subject is of more than mere academic interest to me, as it no doubt is to many members—I accept what Duncan McNeil said about that.

My colleague Murdo Fraser set out our proposals for addressing the challenge of funding the welcome increase in the uptake of further and higher education. The Conservatives and the SNP would abolish the graduate endowment tax, but we would replace it with saltire scholarships, which would not be means tested and would be available to all students who met their chosen course's entrance requirements. We would ensure that the scholarship was valid for Scotland-domiciled students at any British university and that it would cover the full cost of tuition. As funds would follow the student, the choices exercised by students would shape the provision of higher education.

On student loans, the Conservatives would allow students to borrow a higher amount—up to £5,000 a year—on a low but commercial rate of interest and we would raise the repayment threshold to £20,000. Such a package would be more attractive than the current package and would relieve students of having to resort to expensive credit card and overdraft borrowing. We encourage the Executive to transfer all or part of the loan book to independent providers so that higher education can expand without extra or undue burdens on the taxpayer. We have held discussions with the Student Loans Company, which has assured us of the feasibility of our proposals.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The fact that the member is calling for an expansion of higher education is interesting. Previously, the Conservative spokesman, Murdo Fraser, said that the Conservatives would abolish tuition fees and save money by aiming to have fewer university students. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Murdo Fraser seem to contradict each other.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

No. We must be realistic. The enormous expansion of higher and further education must be paid for, but an expensive grants system might reduce access. We believe that the overall package that we offer is a great deal more generous than the package offered by the Executive, which is still standing by the graduate endowment tax. We are whole-heartedly opposed to that tax.

There is no doubt that our policy would be far more attractive to students. I accept the point that Duncan McNeil made—if a student can stick things out at university and gain qualifications, they will be in a stronger position to earn a higher salary. However, we propose a more attractive loans system and the abolition of the graduate endowment tax.

There have been undertones to the debate suggesting that students are either enormously privileged or have an extremely harsh, difficult and troublesome life. However, circumstances vary from case to case. We must provide the most attractive overall package that is possible in the circumstances and we believe that the abolition of the graduate endowment tax would be a major step in the right direction.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

This has been a good debate. I value the constructive contributions that my colleagues Duncan McNeil and Pauline McNeill made. They put the issue in perspective, as James Douglas-Hamilton also attempted to do. I agree with what my colleague George Lyon said about our joint approach. In the partnership agreement, we made it clear that we would review bursaries, which we have done, and that we would increase the student loan repayment threshold, which we have also done. We will continue to deliver.

Pauline McNeill made an important point, which I would like to address. The Scottish student income and expenditure survey, which will be published shortly, will give us an accurate picture of students' financial position and will allow us to gain a better understanding of the difficulties, which members have mentioned, that students in Scottish institutions face. We will use that information in continuing to develop policy in the area.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the minister confirm that graduate debt and its impact on the wider economy will also be considered, as Jim Wallace promised?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I will deal with the point that the member's colleague made about the wider economy, as I was interested in what he said, unclear as it was.

The point of the survey is to develop a more coherent and structured system that tailors help towards those who need it most.

Two principles underpin our approach: fairness and affordability. I repeat that those principles are key criteria for any student support system. Duncan McNeil was right to shoot a number of foxes that were running around the chamber—I refer in particular to what Tommy Sheridan said about halcyon days of student support in the 1960s and 1970s, when working-class kids flocked through university portals and their education was paid for through taxation. Those days did not exist. The proportion of young people, especially working-class kids, who entered higher education institutions in that era was much lower than it currently is. The working class paid for the higher education of people from the middle classes and the upper classes, many of whom came from the private education system. The facts should be repeated.

As I said, through the introduction of the young students bursary in 2001-02, we have taken substantial steps to help to ensure that young students from low-income backgrounds—who are more likely to be discouraged from applying to university because of the fear of debt—will have less debt than they would have had under the previous support arrangements. In January 2005, we announced that, from 2005-06, the young students bursary will increase by 11 per cent to a maximum of £2,395. The parental income threshold has also been increased, with the maximum bursary being available at £17,500 and the minimum being available at £31,000. That means that approximately 3,000 additional students will be able to receive the bursary and approximately 20,000 students will receive the maximum bursary. Those are significant statistics and bear out our overall approach, which is based on fairness, affordability, expanding access to higher education and ensuring that higher education is more available to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Under the student loans income-contingent repayment scheme, which Fiona Hyslop mentioned, borrowers repay at an affordable rate only after their earnings have reached £15,000. That, too, is an improvement on previous arrangements, under which borrowers repaid over a fixed period. The period over which a loan is repaid and the amount of the monthly payment will be longer or shorter depending on the borrower's earnings, but the amount that is repaid will be no more in real terms than the amount that is borrowed.

Alex Neil talked about the economy. The fact is that cost sharing is becoming the rule rather than the exception and students' overall contributions towards tuition fees and maintenance are comparatively less in the UK than they are in other countries. Total spending on tertiary education tends to be higher in countries that do not rely solely on taxes and that pull in additional resources from other sources—I refer to countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands.

It is entirely legitimate to argue, as the SNP has, for grants and not loans, but we must be honest. The SNP's saltire paper is not honest because, as George Lyon said, the policy that it proposes would cost money—£231 million, which includes a £70 million subsidy. It would therefore cost the Executive approximately £180 million to provide grants for living costs support, if we assume that loans would be repaid at the same rate as they currently are. Unless taxes were increased in order to raise that £180 million, there would have to be cuts in health services or in other parts of the education budget. We must be honest about that.

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Our basic proposition this morning is that the current student support system is in need of urgent reform because it is creating a mountain of debt, which is placing excessive burdens on individual graduates and on the public purse. We offer a radical, back-to-the-future solution: abolish student loans and replace them with student maintenance grants. That system provided lasting benefits for most members who are in the chamber this morning.

As Fiona Hyslop detailed, all the published research shows that the loans system is unsustainable. The introduction of the graduate endowment scheme is merely exacerbating the situation, adding £2,000 to the average student loan debt, which currently stands at £18,764. To service the interest on that debt, graduate salaries need to be in the order of £22,000 a year, although, as we know, salaries as high as that for graduates are the exception rather than the rule.

A third of students who graduated in 1997, when Labour came to power, are still not earning enough to start paying off their student loans. On average, it is taking people 13 years to pay off their debt, rather than the five years that was envisaged when the Tories introduced the current system. There is no doubt—for Duncan McNeil's information—that that debt burden is blighting lives, affecting career choices and delaying young people getting on to the property ladder and starting families. Graduate bankruptcy figures are truly shocking and surely signal that enough is enough for a system that is acting as such a drag on our young people, who are the driving force of our economy and society.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I would appreciate it if Adam Ingram would explain how the SNP would fund the cost of reintroducing grants and abolishing loans. As the minister made clear, the cost would be £180 million. Will Mr Ingram tell us where that money would come from?

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Yes. The system would be self-funding. The Executive is currently paying out around £270 million a year on the loans scheme. Part of that goes on loans, but part of it is spent on servicing the interest of the debts. If we transferred most of what we are paying out in loans to grants, we could abolish the debt interest burden, the cost of the Student Loans Company and all the rest of it. We would end up paying less for grants than we do for the current loans system.

The current system is building in powerful disincentives for young people to choose higher education and it is restricting access for students from less-affluent backgrounds. Pauline McNeill accepted that and Alex Neil and Tommy Sheridan articulated the point well. What we are doing is akin to cutting off our nose to spite our face. The cost should be met from the public purse. Switching from loans to grants would save the Executive around £65 million a year, according to the latest figures.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Adam Ingram (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Let me finish this point.

In 2002-03, the cost of the student loans system was £292 million for the delivery of £227 million in loans. The question is surely a no-brainer, although not to our esteemed Executive or the Tory architects of the scheme, as we have heard this morning.

The Tories—or the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, or whatever they prefer to call themselves—provide some analysis with which we can agree about the problem of individual debt, if not its make-up, and the cost to the public purse that the loans scheme represents. Nevertheless, we cannot agree with their prescription to expand the student loans system through what would effectively be privatisation. I understand how the public purse would benefit, but I fear that the individual debt problem would expand along with such a loans system.

Jamie Stone, who has left the chamber, made a rather shame-faced contribution for the Liberal Democrats. He looked to the Enterprise and Culture Committee to bail him out of the obvious difficulties that he had in arguing for the Executive's policies rather than for the mainstream Liberal thinking that Mike Rumbles articulated well. Jamie Stone argued that a measure of the Executive's generosity was the fact that more students south of the border work through college, but that completely ignores the point that it is harder to find work here than it is south of the border. That is a fact that winna ding.

For Labour, the minister acknowledged that fear of debt is a barrier to access and accepted that the Executive could do more to support students. However, all that he is offering is an extension of means testing for bursaries and tinkering with payment patterns. Frankly, that is not good enough. The Executive is letting down our young people. I commend the motion.

National Health Service (Age Discrimination)

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We move, rather behind the clock, to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S2M-2861, in the name of Shona Robison, on age discrimination in the national health service.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I thank the many families throughout Scotland who have written to me about the experience of their elderly relatives. It is because of their concerns that the SNP has secured this debate. Age discrimination in the NHS can affect health care in many ways, from explicit age limits for health services to hidden discrimination by professionals with regard to a policy that disproportionately affects older people. However, although those are important matters, I will focus on the needs of vulnerable elderly people in our acute hospitals.

I have heard so many similar stories that it sometimes seems to me that there is hardly a family in Scotland—including my own—that has not had the experience of worrying that the personal needs of an elderly relative in hospital are not being properly met and that their dignity is not being maintained. Over the years, many members will have dealt with cases involving the lack of care of vulnerable elderly people in our hospitals. The question that the Parliament must ask is whether those are isolated cases, involving a breakdown in care and communication that is outwith the norm, or whether there is a more widespread system failure in the care of our most vulnerable elderly people in our hospitals. I believe that the evidence suggests the latter.

The cases of Anne Irons and Prudence Dick, who were both patients in the orthopaedic ward of the Edinburgh royal infirmary, were highlighted by the Edinburgh Evening News. That led to a barrage of similar concerns being raised in the newspaper by relatives. The deaths of those two previously healthy elderly ladies must be a wake-up call to us all. Although I welcome the independent inquiry that NHS Lothian has set up into the standards of care, I recognise that the problem is not confined to Lothian, as was demonstrated by the hard-hitting "Frontline Scotland" programme that highlighted cases of neglect throughout Scotland.

"Frontline Scotland" carried out a survey of 130 care home managers throughout Scotland, asking about the experience of their residents while in hospital. Although the survey was not scientific, its results were startling, showing that 69 per cent of care home residents had experienced serious clinical problems, which were, in essence, the result of a failure to provide food and drink and adequate hygiene. The survey also showed that 74 per cent of care home residents expressed concern that their care needs had not been met and their dignity had not been maintained while they were in hospital. Those care tasks are crucial; they are not a luxury add-on for elderly people. If someone is not fed, their chances of recovery and their ability to fight infection are severely reduced; if someone becomes dehydrated, that can make their dementia worse and lead to bed sores; and if someone's dignity is not maintained, they can lose the will to live. Meeting those care needs is an essential part of the care and treatment that elderly people must receive while they are in hospital.

Most staff in our hospitals do the best that they can. Nevertheless, as in any profession, some health professionals are better than others. We must be honest about that, as James Kennedy of the Royal College of Nursing was on "Frontline Scotland", when he stated that

"in some parts of Scotland, nurses are failing the elderly. Standards of fundamental human care are not being met".

That is a strong statement from someone who represents nurses' interests.

However, I do not believe that the problem lies with individual members of staff, albeit that they can make a difference with individual acts of kindness. The problem is that the system is failing to provide the necessary personal care and dignity to older people within busy acute wards. That is partly a staffing issue—nurses in particular are run off their feet because they have little time and may have had inadequate training to be able to cater for those crucial personal needs. With the radical changes that have taken place in the nursing profession, some nurses might question whether dealing with those needs is a task for them to perform. It might not be, but it is clear that someone must carry out those tasks.

Much can be done to avoid admission in the first place if vulnerable elderly people are treated within the community. I am heartened that Professor David Kerr's report deals with that matter in some detail. However, when bones are broken, some form of hospital care will be required, although we need to consider whether that care should be given in a busy hospital ward. I do not believe that such a ward is the best place for a frail elderly person with a broken bone. Once the bone is fixed, perhaps the patient should be transferred immediately to a rehabilitation ward specifically for elderly people, where the staff have the necessary skills, experience and time to meet the elderly person's needs. Indeed, many of those staff could be care assistants rather than nursing staff.

We also have to ask whether the closure of so many beds for the care of the elderly is wise. The number of geriatric beds has been reduced by more than 31 per cent since 1998. Too often, that means that a more appropriate bed cannot be found for the older person to recover and be rehabilitated in. Moreover, the number of vacancies in nursing care for the elderly has risen. There are no nurse consultants for older people in Scotland, when there should be one in every health board area to provide important clinical leadership in care for the elderly.

Staffing is one factor, but age discrimination is as much about attitudes. Too often, elderly people in busy acute wards are seen to be a problem; they are almost regarded as faceless bedblockers whose presence is to the detriment of more needy cases. Attitudes need to change. That is why we require an independent inquiry. These problems are sensitive and older people and their relatives are often reluctant to complain. An independent inquiry is more likely to elicit responses from elderly patients and their relatives, who are more likely to talk to someone who is not seen to be part of the health service.

I do not want to dictate the terms of that inquiry but I suggest that, as well as assessing the true extent of age discrimination in the NHS, it should consider the real experience of older people in acute wards, how older people can avoid coming into hospital in the first place, what other options are available for older people and whether we have enough beds to care for the elderly in Scotland. It should also examine whether the regulatory powers of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care should be extended to cover care of the elderly in acute hospital beds.

The Executive's amendment welcomes the independent inquiry that was established by NHS Lothian. Does the minister really believe that the problems experienced by older people in Lothian are not being experienced elsewhere in Scotland? She would be most unwise to do so and I hope that she will reflect on that point. We have an opportunity today to send out a message to all those concerned that we acknowledge the problem of age discrimination in the NHS and that we are prepared to do something about it. I urge members to support the motion in my name.

I move,

That the Parliament is concerned about the lack of personal care and attention given to older people in some acute hospitals in Scotland and believes that the Scottish Executive should establish, as a matter of urgency, an independent inquiry into direct and indirect age discrimination within the NHS.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I welcome today's debate on the standards of care for older people in the NHS. We have published standards that are both high and equitable and we all expect them to be applied in practice.

Let me be absolutely clear: discrimination on the ground of age is unacceptable. Care for older people is at the heart of Executive thinking. Whether through flagship policies such as free personal care and free bus travel, or housing and central heating initiatives, we are pursuing a coherent policy to promote a better quality of life, healthy and independent living, active aging, positive attitudes towards aging and active participation by older people in society.

Ever since the chief medical officer produced his "Adding Life to Years" report in 2002, the care of older people has been at the centre of NHS thinking, too. Yesterday's report from Professor Kerr strongly reinforces that message. We have just held an experts symposium to review progress and identify the next steps and, next year, we will develop an overarching framework for the health and community care of older people.

As far as health services are concerned, older people have a central position in our policy development. People's circumstances—age, disability, faith, gender, race or sexual orientation—do not affect the care that is given. Clinical decisions are based on the benefit to the patient as an individual. Indeed, this year, we launched a diversity awareness initiative to remind people of that key principle. None of that suggests that there is a bias against older people in our thinking.

How do we ensure that the highest quality of care is in place in the NHS? That is the challenge that we face. First, we already have clear standards in place for the care of older people in the acute sector and we are about to roll those out for all sectors. All NHS boards must apply those standards. Secondly, NHS Quality Improvement Scotland has reviewed services for older people in relation to acute care, health-care-associated infection, stroke services and food, fluid and nutritional care. It has also published best practice statements on the nutritional care, foot care, ear care and oral care of older people. We are also about to conduct a general review of nursing in the community, which will have a bearing on the effective development of community health partnerships.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I accept, as I am sure the minister does, that there are lots of documents that say what should be done. However, does she agree that the problem is that what should be done is not necessarily what is being done in many wards in too many of our hospitals? What will she do to make sure that it is done?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Clearly, there is no point in having standards if we do not ensure that those standards are met. That is the challenge that we face. NHS QIS was established in 2003 to ensure that those standards are rolled out. Where the NHS QIS inspection process suggests that standards are found wanting, health boards will be required to do something about it.

In the particular cases to which Shona Robison referred, it seems that standards were not adhered to. It is important that an independent review is carried out as speedily as possible. Any lessons that can be learned from that review will be disseminated throughout Scotland. I will also write to health boards to ask them to review their arrangements and reassure me that the standards that have been set for care of the elderly are being applied. I have asked the chief nursing officer to raise the issue with directors of nursing in NHS boards at their next meeting. I welcome what is being done in Lothian—no one is denying that we have lessons to learn.

People rightly have high hopes for their loved ones. Health care professionals have a high sense of personal vocation. We have put older people at the heart of our policy development and we expect the NHS to deliver against those standards of care and support. There will always be lessons to learn and we must be, and are, willing to learn them. However, I absolutely reject the idea of systemic discrimination and failure of care in the NHS. I am acting to ensure that all NHS boards deliver in practice the standards that we have set.

I move amendment S2M-2861.3, to leave out from "is concerned" to end and insert:

"welcomes the work of NHS Quality Improvement Scotland on its 2004 review of older people in acute care and its recommendations on how to improve services; welcomes the independent inquiry set up by NHS Lothian in response to recent criticisms of its standards of care, and welcomes the fact that the Scottish Executive has commenced work on an overarching framework for healthcare and community care for older people in Scotland, having due regard to David Kerr's report on the future of the NHS."

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Today's debate comes at an appropriate time in the wake of yesterday's publication of the Kerr report, which indicates a way forward for the NHS for the next 20 years. The NHS of the future is going to have to cope with a greatly increased number of elderly people, many of whom will be very elderly and frail. From 17.9 per cent in 1998, the elderly are expected to make up 24 per cent of the population by 2036. Several of us here, myself included, will be in that group. People are now living longer than at any other time in history. Many are healthy and active well into their eighth or ninth decade and many more are looked after with varying amounts of support in their local communities. By the time that they reach hospital, they tend to be very frail, with the complications of longevity, such as thin bones and dementia.

The people in that section of society, more than in any other, rely on appropriate and accessible health care. However, we know that older people have encountered significant problems with hospital care that range from delays in admission, poorly planned discharge and poor nutrition and hygiene care to the negative attitudes of or poor communication from hospital staff. We have also heard of incidents of abuse of the elderly, which can be physical or verbal or simply a case of failing to treat older people with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Although the situation in some hospital wards is excellent, that is unfortunately not always the case. Various recent press stories have highlighted examples of the bad situations. I realise that the quality of care for older people in hospital is variable and that problems can occur in almost every aspect of a hospital stay, but patients and their relatives have highlighted several problems again and again. There is often a lack of assistance with eating and drinking. Young and even older members of staff can be abrupt or rude and, in the worst cases, patients' needs are ignored. Particularly vulnerable people such as those with dementia or those from ethnic minorities sometimes receive scant understanding of their needs. Older people often feel that, when decisions are taken about their care or treatment, their opinions are ignored or are not sought. It is all too easy for busy hospital staff to talk over or talk down to a frail elderly patient who might be visually impaired or hard of hearing.

Indeed, I have personal family experience of those problems. My elderly uncle was admitted to hospital for the flimsiest of reasons and was then moved from ward to ward as his bed was required for other patients. He became immobile and picked up MRSA and his discharge was delayed for more than a year. During that time, his wife, who fell and broke her hip when she was visiting the hospital, also had a prolonged hospital stay and, sadly, died very suddenly of an unrelated problem on the day that she was due to be discharged. My uncle eventually settled into a nursing home for a short time; however, he fell there and broke his hip. Because of a delay in treating the fracture, he died of pneumonia. It is a fairly classic tale of inappropriate admission, hospital-acquired infection, bed blocking and postponement of treatment for a hip fracture.

There is no excuse for the incidents of neglect by hospital staff of basic care needs such as eating and bathing that were reported recently in the Edinburgh Evening News. However, as long as we have a situation in which inadequate numbers of hard-pressed staff are being rushed off their feet to chase targets that have been set by central Government, I cannot see how matters can be resolved easily. That said, the hospitals and health boards that are involved should investigate such cases very carefully and take what steps they can to protect patients in future. We welcome the review in Lothian and hope that any lessons that are learned from it will be rolled out across Scotland.

We need to examine the issue of abuse of the elderly, which my colleague David Davidson has suggested to the Health Committee should be considered as part of the forthcoming post-legislative scrutiny of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002.

At any one time, two thirds of hospital beds are occupied by patients over the age of 65. A number of them do not need to be there and would be far more appropriately treated in the community. However, wherever they are, they should be treated with respect and dignity at all times. There is no excuse for doing otherwise.

I move amendment S2M-2861.1, to leave out from "and believes" to end and insert:

"believes that the Health Committee should consider the issue of elderly abuse in its post-legislative scrutiny of community care legislation; further believes that any neglect of the elderly reflects the current problems and workforce pressures that the NHS suffers from, and recognises that the NHS needs real reform to alleviate these fundamental problems."

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Coming a day after the publication of Professor David Kerr's report, this debate is opportune. After all, Professor Kerr's very first proposal is for

"All NHS Boards to put in place a systematic approach to caring for the most vulnerable (especially older people)"

and those

"with long term conditions with a view to managing their conditions at home or in the community and reducing the chance of hospitalisation"

in the first place.

The Liberal Democrats have already shown their commitment to improving services for older people. The Parliament's introduction of free personal and nursing care for older people implemented a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy; indeed, it is significant that the policy has not been implemented—and in fact has been opposed—by the Labour Government in England and Wales. That successful and popular measure is already benefiting many thousands of senior citizens throughout Scotland.

The care of our older people is rightly at the very top of the political agenda. As far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, there can be no room for age discrimination in our NHS. If people require treatment, that treatment must be forthcoming. It cannot be right for individuals to be discriminated against because of their age instead of being assessed on their ability to benefit from treatment, and I was pleased to hear what the minister had to say in that respect.

Care for older people already accounts for 40 per cent of health budgets in Scotland, and that figure is set to increase as the population ages. Nevertheless, it is fundamentally and morally wrong for anyone to be prevented from receiving NHS treatment or to lack necessary care or attention because of their age. Such a situation would not be tolerated on grounds of race, colour or creed, and I believe that age should not be a factor in determining the most appropriate form of medical treatment.

I am pleased that NHS Lothian is taking the situation at the Edinburgh royal infirmary seriously and has ordered a full and independent review of the matters that were brought to light in a recent television documentary. The board has acknowledged that there have been failings in certain aspects of care and has made it clear that, as a result, it is reviewing its procedures. That is only right.

Although it is vital that such matters are fully investigated and that steps are taken to ensure that they are not repeated, we must emphasise that in NHS establishments throughout Scotland, health care professionals in all fields treat older people with dignity, compassion and respect. That is exactly as it should be.

As far as the SNP motion is concerned, we have already heard that NHS Lothian has set up an independent inquiry in response to the recent incidents. I also believe that the Executive should be given time to respond to the Kerr report's proposals on elderly care. I do not think that we will support the SNP's call for a public inquiry, because the timing of such a step is completely wrong. As the minister pointed out, it is the job of NHS QIS to ensure that high standards of care are implemented across Scotland.

I find it somewhat bizarre that the Conservative amendment asks Parliament to instruct the Health Committee on what it should or should not examine in its inquiries. Indeed, it is extraordinary that Nanette Milne, who is a member of the Health Committee, has framed her amendment in that way. Such a move is quite unusual and not very helpful.

As I said earlier, the Kerr report's first recommendation refers specifically to older people. I, for one, will do all that I can to ensure that that theme is addressed as the Executive decides how best to take forward the report's recommendations.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

We now come to the open debate. Time is very tight indeed and I ask members to make speeches of strictly four minutes.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

It is a sad day when, despite the hard work of many decent and caring staff in the service, we have to debate the indignity and lack of care that some older people have suffered and are still suffering in the NHS. Unfortunately, the recent "Frontline Scotland" programme showed that some elderly people in hospital are being denied basic care. We should point out that, in this context, basic does not mean minor; it means something that is fundamental or essential.

Various examples of a lack of respect and a disregard for human dignity have been highlighted. Teeth have not been cleaned; batteries have not been put in people's hearing aids, despite the fact that they have spares in their lockers; and because patients have not been taken to the toilet, they have wet and soiled themselves and have been left in that condition. Such situations are unacceptable and must change.

In recent years, emergency admissions to acute care have increased markedly, particularly in the oldest age groups. In 1981, the annual rate of over 85s who were admitted to hospital as acute care emergency admissions was 200 per 1,000 population. By 1999, that figure had grown to approximately 450 per 1,000 population, and it is continuing to grow.

The rising rate of hospital admissions for elderly people means that age discrimination in the NHS is becoming an increasingly urgent issue that will affect more and more people. However, although it is imperative that the care of the elderly in hospitals is improved, it is also imperative that, instead of simply concentrating on adding years to life, we put in place public health measures now to ensure that the old people of tomorrow have a longer healthy life expectancy.

It is worth mentioning that, according to the "Healthy Life Expectancy in Scotland" report for 2004, poorer people not only die younger than more affluent people but suffer more from ill-health and for longer periods. In 2000, healthy life expectancy at birth for the least deprived women was 72.7 years but was only 61.6 years for the most deprived women. That is a difference of 11 years. For men, healthy life expectancy was 73.3 years for the least deprived and 55.9 years for the most deprived—a difference of 17.4 years.

Inequalities in healthy life expectancy are wider than inequalities in life expectancy. Males in the least deprived quintile have a healthy life expectancy at age 65 that is 50 per cent higher than that of males in the most deprived quintile. For those in deprivation category 1 who are aged 65, healthy life expectancy is 14.5 years; for those in deprivation category 5, it is only 9.7 years.

I turn now to nutrition for older people in hospital. On average, older people lose 5 per cent of their body weight during an acute stay. Nutrition is an important part of care in hospital, because malnutrition is linked to a poorer clinical outcome in surgical and medical hospital patients, has a high patient cost and is linked to significantly higher health care costs.

The report to the Executive on the implementation of clinical standards for food, fluid and nutritional care in hospitals recommended that ward staff should take responsibility for assessing the nutritional status of patients on admission and that patients who need assistance should be given the time and support that they need to eat their meals and snacks. I wonder whether the minister can tell us what action the Executive has taken on those recommendations. I am sure that we would all agree that older people in hospital should be able to take their meals and should not suffer the ill effects that come from malnutrition.

Many members have already spoken of their personal experience of elderly relatives in hospital. I, too, have unfortunately had that experience. My grandmother suffered a level of care that was far from perfect; she suffered many of the indignities that we have heard about in the media. We must do all that we can to ensure that everyone who needs hospital treatment is given the dignity and respect that they deserve. I urge all members to support the SNP motion today, to show that we care about the treatment of older people in the NHS.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

It is absolutely right that we should have a debate about age discrimination in the NHS. It is well known that the NHS is plagued with inequalities and has been for a very long time.

Like me, other members will have received a briefing paper from Help the Aged. It would be better if this debate and subsequent debates could be held in the context of a well-documented problem, rather than in the context of specific allegations. That does not allow due process and it pre-empts the outcome of any internal investigation. People have the right to natural justice before they are judged in this Parliament. I will therefore concentrate my remarks on the general and well-documented problems.

NHS staff provide excellent care despite the system and despite staff shortages. My amendment—which was not selected for debate—calls for urgent action to respond to the well-documented problems that we are all aware of. That urgent action means increasing staff numbers; it means providing better food; it means allowing more time for people to spend with patients; it means moving and handling equipment properly; it means continuing training; and it means back-filling to allow people to be released for training. Trade unions have been talking about all those problems for years and years.

David Kerr's report proposes a further massive shift to community care. However, we have to consider the proposal in the context of today's reality. People wait far too long for adaptations to their homes, for funding packages and for care home placements. I see that everywhere I go. The Kerr report documents the fact that the proportion of people who are elderly is increasing, yet it claims that it is cost neutral. I do not see how we can plan for more care in the community on the basis of the report.

The problem with nutrition in hospitals is also well-documented. The problem is directly related to costs, to the privatisation of catering and to the well-documented lack of dieticians. There are not enough staff on the wards to ensure that meals are taken. Because of the systems used—particularly the privatisation of catering—meals are often too hot, and therefore unpalatable to frail and elderly people, or they are too cold. Frail and elderly people often require special diets, but those meals can be simply unpalatable.

Age discrimination spans several spheres. In my final minute, I want to concentrate on the structural and systemic discrimination that exists. For example, guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence allow certain medicines to be withdrawn from elderly patients specifically on the basis of age. NHS QIS has, I believe, recommended that that particular guideline be removed, and I want to know whether the Executive will enforce that recommendation.

As we know, knee and other orthopaedic operations are rationed in the NHS on the basis of age. What will the Executive do to stop that practice as soon as possible?

It is right that we are discussing such issues, but I would prefer action to be taken and not to hold more inquiries and more discussions. We do not need any more inquiries, because the problems are well-documented. I would like action, and I ask the Executive to respond to the points that I have made.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The provision of a high standard of health care is important to everyone in Scotland but particularly to our older people. The starting point for this debate should be a commitment to an excellent and well-resourced health service that can deliver that quality of care. Labour's track record—not only in this Executive but at United Kingdom level—is of record funding for the health service and of a commitment to a strong and successful NHS.

Of course it is important to highlight examples of age discrimination. Sadly, age discrimination exists in various parts of our society—for example, in employment. The Help the Aged Scotland briefing for this debate highlighted such discrimination; the point was brought home to me when I worked at the charity. Not only Government but society in general should do all that they can to root out age discrimination in all its forms.

This morning we have heard of worrying cases. There have been reports of patients who are not receiving a satisfactory level of care and there have been allegations of age discrimination. Investigations have been launched into those allegations. That is right and proper. Age discrimination must be rooted out. Of course there is no policy to discriminate on the ground of age in our NHS.

Debates such as this must take place in the right and responsible context.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

Older people are the most frequent users of NHS services. Day in and day out, hundreds of thousands of older people receive an excellent standard of care from our national health service. Although we have to highlight cases of bad care, it is not right to highlight only those cases, or to allow them to overshadow the very many excellent experiences that older people have of the NHS. I hear about the good experiences every day, and I am sure that others do too. It is unfortunate that those experiences are not talked about more often in this chamber and in the media.

We have taken action to improve services for older people. We set up the care commission to ensure that we had national standards—the first ever—for care for older people in Scotland; we introduced free personal and nursing care for older people; and, in planning for the future of the NHS, we ensured that older people were involved. I see from the Kerr report that Irene Sweeney of the Scottish Pensioners Forum was a member of the advisory group.

It is important to acknowledge, as Help the Aged Scotland acknowledges, that NHS QIS took a strong stand when it said that it

"does not, and would never, exercise age discrimination."

I welcome that. Access to health care services should be based on clinical need and not on age.

The problem with debates that are couched in terms such as those in the SNP's motion is the perceptions that they create. For example, older people often live in fear of crime because of the way in which the issue is covered in the media. However, they are less likely than other sections of society to be the victims of crime. There is a similar issue to do with perception in relation to the health service, and it is vital that older people have the confidence in the health service that they should have. When they go into hospital, not only should they expect to receive a high standard of care, but they should know that they are likely to receive that high standard thanks to the thousands of hard-working people in our health service.

We should not be complacent; we should continually strive to have not a single incident of unsatisfactory care. However, by couching this debate in the terms used in its motion, the SNP is in danger of misrepresenting the NHS and lending ammunition to those who would break it up—namely the Tories. I firmly believe that the best way to fight discrimination against older people is to ensure that we maintain a national health service that is free for all, whatever their resources or needs. We will fight for and defend such a health service, because that is the way to ensure the best care for older people in Scotland, free from discrimination.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I welcome the debate on Shona Robison's motion. Sadly, it reflects the lack of basic respect for the elderly that exists in our society and which manifests itself in many forms throughout the country in this new 21 st century.

In my opinion, no one should misconstrue the motion as an attempt to criticise any political party. I believe that it is an honest endeavour to gain cross-party consensus in the Parliament on the need to deal with problems that have been sidestepped or ignored for far too long. I must point out that my speech was written before I had the opportunity to read the ministerial statement that Andy Kerr made yesterday, which addresses many of the problems that I highlight in the rest of my speech and to which many other speakers have referred.

The genuine needs of the most vulnerable people in Scotland have been—and are continuing to be—addressed as a result of such welcome measures as the establishment of the care commission, which is led by Mary Hartnoll. Sadly, it is impossible for the care commission to deliver for the Parliament the level of care to which we all aspire. Although it can carry out checks a few times a year, as the relatively recent exposé by Annie Brown in the Daily Record emphasised, the claims of abuses of basic human rights—such as the right to nourishment and life—which were highlighted by the three deaths of elderly patients in Edinburgh recently show that unacceptable standards of treatment are still being inflicted on some of our elderly citizens in some hospitals and care homes. That should result in an outcry from the public and politicians.

I feel very strongly that an independent inquiry should be set up to ascertain the extent of the problem. Its remit should give the inquiry reporters unlimited access to care homes and—sadly—even hospitals, to ensure that the correct acceptable standards are being applied. We read and hear about starvation in some of those establishments, where assistance is not forthcoming to enable elderly people to eat their lunch or dinner.

Help the Aged has reported that, on average, older people lose 5 per cent of their body weight while they are in hospital—Stewart Maxwell mentioned that issue. That means that someone who weighs 10 stone will lose around half a stone, which is a considerable amount. The organisation believes that that indicates that older people's dietary needs are not being met, which may be a sign of a wider lack of appropriate care and attention. Help the Aged welcomes the commitment of ministers and the chief medical officer

"to make older people the core business of the NHS in Scotland."

However, that commitment was made a few years ago and the relevant policies are still not being implemented to a fully acceptable standard. That is why I support the motion's attempt to empower an independent inquiry to report on the true extent of the problem in 2005 and to give Parliament its urgent recommendations. That said, I welcome and give my full endorsement to what the Minister for Health and Community Care said yesterday in his statement, which was forward looking.

Scotland should be proud of the fact that free personal care is provided in the home and in the community. More people who are being treated in our hospitals could benefit from receiving the same standard of care in their own home, but that would require a vast increase in the number of district nurses, health visitors, chiropodists, physiotherapists and home helps. They should be offered more pay to provide a bit more assistance in the home. As well as being a better option for the patient, that would be far more cost effective than hospitalisation.

To sum up, an independent inquiry should be set up to reveal the true extent of the problem of discrimination against the elderly in the health service. Care in the community services for the elderly should be established and properly funded. We should return to the days of the green ladies and give more responsibility to home helps and their colleagues. The problem is urgent; let us have less self-justifying rhetoric and more positive action.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

When we see discrimination against older citizens in the NHS, we often see a reflection of broader, societal discrimination against older people. I make no particular criticism of the Executive's policies on discrimination against older people, but I share with all members a concern about the implementation of those policies and the practices of some people in some parts of the NHS.

One of the most moving examples of the contribution to society that people who are nearing the end of their life can make was the art that Rikki Fulton produced in the final few months of his life, when he was suffering from Alzheimer's, which was auctioned recently. That vividly brings home to us that the fact that someone is decaying in their mental or physical abilities does not mean that the inner person or their ability to continue to contribute to wider society is also decaying.

I was interested to note Mike Rumbles's fervent support for the debate. Of course, he is older than Nicol Stephen, so we can understand why he supports there being no discrimination against older people.

The word "discrimination" has been widely used. Carolyn Leckie's amendment says:

"urgent action needs to be taken to remove all forms of age discrimination within the NHS."

Richard Baker used similar language. Even the SNP motion calls for

"an independent inquiry into direct and indirect age discrimination".

All those references to removing discrimination, including that which is made in the SNP motion, are wrong, in the sense that we want discrimination—we want positive discrimination to support old people's issues. I hope that, as the debate draws to a conclusion, widespread agreement on that will emerge. We are talking about adverse discrimination. We must be careful about the shorthand that we use.

In wider society and in the NHS, we must respect the wishes—both negative and positive—of all our citizens. We should take account both of what they want to happen and what they want to avoid. The NHS is an institution that has power over life and death and over the quality of people's life and the quality of their death. Although I have not yet considered the matter in great depth, I would be most concerned if Mr Purvis's bill were to make health professionals party to anything that would appear to accelerate people's deaths. That issue must be examined.

I have a good story about the care of old people that I will share with members. During her final illness, my late mother-in-law received care in St John's hospital in West Lothian that was exceptionally good, to the extent that she was brought a glass of whisky every night so that she would sleep well. It was indeed the water of life—uisge-beatha.

I am dying; I do not know where, when or how I will die, but I know that I am dying. The old gave us the potential to be what we want to be. We must put service to our elderly before our interests and must ensure that we discriminate in favour of the elderly.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

In 25 years' time, there will be more people of retirement age in Scotland than there will be children. The biggest growth will be in the number of people who are over 80, who I am sure will be assisted by the prescription of a glass of whisky every evening.

I begin with that fact because we know that, generally speaking, the older someone is, the more likely they are to suffer from ill health and to end up in hospital. To allow an elderly person to end up in hospital is often the default response; it is not what older people want, it should not be what we want and it is perhaps not what they need. Whenever they are asked, older people tell us that they want to remain in their own homes and be cared for in their own homes for as long as possible. The challenge for us in this chamber is to find alternatives to unnecessary hospital admissions, so that older people can be cared for in or, at least much nearer to, their own home.

I turn to the issue of care in hospital. Members—not only on the Labour benches but across the chamber—have long believed that older people should be treated with dignity and respect. We should never condone negative age discrimination—direct or indirect—in the NHS.

I want to sound a note of caution, however, and agree with comments that Richard Baker made. We need to set the debate in the context of all the positive work that goes on in the NHS. We must be careful not to convey the impression that the NHS is somehow rife with negative age discrimination. I am sure that the SNP would not want to do that—it is simply not true. As the minister said, there is no systemic failure in the NHS. There are many people in our health service who care—daily and well—for our older people.

That said, we must always respond, and respond robustly, to the genuine concerns of relatives and friends. Those concerns point to a need to raise standards of care, particularly standards that focus on nutrition and personal hygiene. I agree with many in the chamber that those care needs are essential to recovery; they are not an add-on luxury.

It is for that reason that the Executive has moved to put in place a number of different measures. I refer to the clinical standards for our older people in acute care, which have at their core the dignity and rights of older people. I refer also to the NHS QIS 2004 review of older people in acute care and to wider national care standards. Through those measures, we will ensure that the very highest standards of care are delivered to our older people. We need to ensure that the rigorous and professional service standards that are set for our hospitals and care homes are met. I acknowledge that they are being exceeded in many places across Scotland.

I turn to the wider question of care for older people. As the minister said, in 2002, an expert group on health care for older people set out to ensure that they have the health and care services that they need. The group looked beyond hospital care to a much wider set of health care policies that support active aging.

Professor Kerr's report, which was published yesterday, specifically looks at older people and how we can tailor health services in Scotland better to meet their needs. His key conclusion is that the more local the provision, the better it is. Ideally, supporting patients at home will prevent avoidable hospital admissions. In his initial response, the Minister for Health and Community Care committed the Executive to providing just such a service: personal, proactive and co-ordinated care in local communities.

Labour is committed to a better life for older people in Scotland, both now and in the future. We are committed to supporting older people to live healthy, independent lives. A key part of all of that is a recognition that age discrimination is a problem not just in the health service but for wider society. We need to send out a signal that all of us should value older people and that all of us want to support them in continuing to make the substantial contribution to Scottish society that they have made for many years.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Two separate and yet connected issues have been referred to in the debate: age discrimination and neglect of the elderly. As various members have pointed out, there is a bit of a continuum between the two.

I note that NHS QIS says that it will not follow the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's example down south of issuing guidelines that use age as a criterion for whether someone receives therapy. Clearly, some people might not be in a state to benefit from particular treatments, but that is because of their overall clinical condition and not because of their age as such. NICE says:

"where age is an indicator of benefit or risk, age discrimination is appropriate".

I question whether age per se is ever an indicator.

In any case, there is a bit of an issue about what we mean by the word "elderly". After all, some people have to work until they are 70. There is a big variation between older people: some people are quite frail and disabled at 70, whereas other people are perfectly independent and fit and can get on with life by themselves at 90.

The debate was prompted by recent high-profile cases of neglect of the elderly. I do not want to refer to them specifically, but they highlighted the need to give attention to care of the elderly and training. I have a little story to tell in that regard, which shows that the issues are not new and that things have not moved on as they should have done.

About 30 years ago, as a wee medical student, I had a summer job as a nursing auxiliary in a psychogeriatric ward in a hospital in Glasgow. There was nothing particularly bad about the running of the ward—it was fine and the staff were very caring—apart from one part of the day, to which I did not give much thought, having arrived on the ward as a student and accepted the practices that went on. After meal times, we would go round the day room, where the 30 or so patients on the ward were seated, with one washbasin, one bar of soap and one facecloth and wash everybody's hands, one after the other. When one says it now, it sounds disgusting, especially for the person who was the 30th to receive the hand washing, but I did not question it—it was just what we did—until we had an outbreak of scabies. Of course, the infection spread rapidly to all the patients, and the infection control people came down on us like a tonne of bricks. They said that each patient had to be walked to the bathroom and helped to wash their own hands and face, which we saw we should have done, albeit that it was much more time consuming. That was what was done thereafter.

I tell the story because it shows that there have always been issues about the care of the elderly. In that instance, we had not thought about people's dignity. The omission was thoughtless, but no malice was involved. As I said, the ward was very caring.

On the standards of care in the ward, because it was a psychogeriatric ward, many of the patients suffered from advanced dementia. They might have been physically fit—and so, one would have thought, perfectly capable—but they could not sequence their movements to feed themselves. If a patient's food and drink was put down in front of them, they would sit bewildered. One might have come to the conclusion that the patients were not hungry, but staff knew that that was not the case and the patients were fed, even those who appeared to be quite physically fit and able to feed themselves. The staff understood the condition of their patients; they knew what they needed.

From what I hear anecdotally, I think that that is not happening now. Perhaps there is a lack of training for those who do the feeding on the wards, because when I was on that ward, the feeding was done either by trained nurses or by experienced auxiliary nurses. I suspect that that is not the case today.

I think that Stewart Stevenson mentioned the issue of broader societal discrimination against the elderly. We have a society in which many of the changes that have been made have not been elderly proofed. An elderly person who wants to make a complaint about their gas or electricity bill is likely not to be able to write a letter, which is what that generation likes to do. They will probably have to make the complaint by phone—pressing all the buttons and so forth—which is quite stressful and difficult for an elderly person to do, especially one with a hearing impairment.

In a number of ways, we make things unfriendly for the elderly—perhaps inadvertently—and that problem is reflected in the NHS. Training issues are involved and specific training on the needs of the elderly should be made available. I ask the minister to address those issues.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

We move to winding-up speeches. I call Donald Gorrie and advise him that he has a tight four minutes.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I apologise for missing the first part of the debate. The pressure on members in trying to get agreement on amendments to legislation is unrelenting. There are timetables and we just have to go along with them. However, the speeches that I heard made a good contribution to the debate.

The particular cases in Lothian are being investigated. Obviously, they are unfortunate, but any large system fails, just as we all fail at times. The cases are not typical, but a wider issue is involved, which concerns not just the health service: attitudes, which other members have mentioned. In many quarters, a patronising and dismissive attitude is still taken towards older people. There is also a feeling that older people do not count as much as other people do. Like all other prejudice, whether on the ground of gender, race, religion or whatever, we must combat that attitude. Older people need to be accepted as people with a full contribution to make and as people who need full attention, just like anyone else. All of us must fight to improve people's attitudes in that regard.

Keeping older people out of hospital has also been mentioned and is a goal towards which all of us should aim. The partnership Executive has achieved a certain amount: we have introduced free personal care and put more effort into care at home. However, much more thought and effort must go in to support that. As other members said, we need the necessary technical support and qualified nurses, home helps or whoever to help older people to continue to live in their own home and live a decent sort of life. That is essential. In addition, residential care that is outwith hospital has to be adequately paid for. That issue has never been fully grasped.

We should pay more attention to ensuring that older people have more activities to take part in that keep them busy, entertained and active. It is often quite hard for older people to take part in activities, perhaps because they are widowed or live alone. I am sure that at election time we have all experienced calling on somebody who clearly has not spoken to anyone for a long time. We perform a good social deed by having a long chat with such people.

We can make more use of older people with young people; they often have a good rapport. I had a relation who at the age of 80 spent many hours listening to primary pupils doing their reading and telling them stories. As well as having youth cafes we can have older people's cafes. Many churches have them, but we could encourage them by supporting places where people can have a good, cheap meal and social contact. If we develop more social contact and activities for older people, and mix them with people of other generations, we will give them a much happier life and will save ourselves a lot of money in the health service and other services. We will do everyone a great favour if we mobilise communities to support their older people better. I hope that we can attend to that in many different ways through local authorities, voluntary organisations and other bodies, and give older people—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You must finish now, Mr Gorrie.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

That would help to reduce the problem and change people's attitude. They would see how much older people can contribute.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is sad indeed that we are discussing problems relating to the elderly, given the number of debates that we have held in the Parliament and the amount of legislation that we have passed in the past six years. I agree with Eleanor Scott that we are discussing two issues today. Age discrimination occurs when elderly people are bypassed for surgery or care in favour of younger people. In addition, we have been examining the alleged abuse and neglect of elderly people.

I support Nanette Milne's amendment to extend the Health Committee's investigation into community care legislation. As others have said, problems in the provision of community care by councils ultimately cause problems in hospitals. The bedblocking—or delayed discharge—figures are higher now than they were in 1999, although it is important to put on record the fact that the figures also include people with mental health problems and other disabilities.

The Kerr report appears to acknowledge and address the needs of elderly people. We have debated care of the elderly and passed legislation to set up the care commission, yet the problems that have been outlined today have not improved as expected or intended. The Parliament does not hold local authorities to account on implementing legislation. When did any of us last hear our local councillors take responsibility for bedblocking?

The Kerr report recommends that more care be provided in the local community, and I make no apology for saying, "Why not start with podiatry checks and, if appropriate, a care plan?" Healthy feet keep elderly people mobile and independent, improve their circulation and aid social inclusion. By continuing to cut back and neglect podiatry or chiropody care and treatment, more elderly people will continue to end up in hospital following a fall, spend months in hospital waiting for care in the community, and become more frail and dependent on care and support.

On the vulnerability of our elderly folk, only last week, a middle-aged professional person attended my surgery to make awful complaints about her mother's care in hospital, including about a lack of food and hygiene—we have heard such complaints today. She felt not just upset but guilty that she was letting down her mother after all that she had done for the family. Once I listed all the complaints, the constituent said, "Now you won't use my name, will you? My mother is scared she'll get picked on." After discussion, she asked me to do nothing, as she had already raised the issues in the ward and, if I wrote in, they would know who had complained. Once again, alleged abuse and neglect passed off without investigation and, sadly, are more likely to continue in future.

If we are serious about ensuring that elderly people get appropriate care and treatment in accordance with their needs, we must ensure that all care homes cater for residential and nursing care, in line with the intent of legislation; we must not have elderly people languishing in residential care when they need nursing care following the likely and predictable deterioration of their condition. Given that the remit of the care commission—which I commend; it is doing a good job—covers care homes for the elderly, should not it be tasked with ensuring that high-quality care is provided while people are waiting for care in the community?

I support the amendment in the name of Nanette Milne.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

We have all listened carefully to the debate. The issue is emotive and hugely important and, as I said in my opening speech, there is absolutely no room for complacency. I do not think that anybody in the chamber is complacent.

The caring professions must care. It is our job to ensure that they have the support that they need to do that. I believe that we offer that support, and that our NHS staff are an enormous pool of talent and are committed to the care of their patients, whether young or old. If there are shortcomings to address, that is the positive context in which we must view them.

We offer wide-ranging support. The core business of the NHS is heavily geared towards the care of older people. I accept Stewart Stevenson's comment that that must be so. I mentioned some of the key performance targets, such as hip surgery within 24 hours. Conditions that require that surgery mainly affect the elderly, so that is hugely important. Targets matter because they drive the behaviour of health boards and deliver real results for older people as a consequence.

There are many initiatives that I did not mention earlier, perhaps because they are not the core business of the NHS, but which have been referred to by many as contributing to the health of older people. That is true of community care, where there is a range of initiatives to deliver better outcomes for older people. I take issue with Mary Scanlon. Since the action plan on delayed discharge was implemented, the number of older people who are retained in hospital has reduced drastically.

Put that all together and it makes for behaviours and initiatives that are specifically designed to give older people the best possible treatment and care as close to their own home as possible; it is not a sign of discrimination or a lack of care.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

Let me respond to some specific points that were raised in the debate. Shona Robison referred to "Frontline Scotland" and care homes that are unhappy with NHS standards of care. We need to ensure that we have standards of care across the NHS and into community care. The care commission, NHS QIS and the social work services inspectorate are co-operating to develop uniform standards and inspection arrangements for all care settings in the NHS, homes and the community.

Shona Robison also referred to the reduction in the number of geriatric beds. That does not mean that there is less care; it means that there is a different balance of care. That is quite right, and is referred to by Professor Kerr in his report. However, we need to ensure that we get the balance of care absolutely right.

Several members referred to nutrition in hospitals. Let us be clear: nutrition is an integral part of care. NHS QIS standards are in place and are being reviewed in 2005-06. All health boards should be implementing them.

Carolyn Leckie referred to the number of nurses in Scotland. Out of the four UK countries, we have the highest number of nurses per head. We will have 12,000 nursing students by 2007, and we are on course to meet our nurse recruitment target. She also referred to the NICE consultation, and claimed that NICE is in favour of age discrimination. NHS QIS has said that any such statement is not relevant to Scotland and that it will not exercise any age discrimination here in Scotland.

I am obviously not able to refer to every point that has been raised in the debate. As I have said, we will be developing an overarching framework for the health care and community care of older people over the next year. I very much welcome any lessons that we can learn from the debate. I particularly welcome the ideas and positive suggestions that many members have advanced this morning. We must always improve and seek to improve.

The range of activity that we already have in place, the independent review that was initiated by NHS Lothian and our own plans for developing an overarching framework mean that there is no place for the SNP's suggestion of an independent national inquiry. That would simply be a distraction from the huge task that is in hand.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

First, I make it clear that Ms Robison has given her excuses to the Presiding Officer for not being here for the conclusion of the debate.

I preface my main remarks with a recognition that the vast majority of staff in our hospitals are decent, caring people, who frequently work under pressure and in understaffed conditions. That hits home most when older people are involved. They require that most precious commodity of all: time—time to help them with their meals; time for staff to toilet them; and time to stop and talk. That has been recognised by many members, including Stewart Maxwell.

I acknowledge what Carolyn Leckie said. The debate is not an attack on staff in hospitals; however, it is about what is happening to some—to many—of our people. This is where I take issue with some of what the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care said, although I acknowledge and welcome the comments that she has made and the steps that she is taking following the two tragic cases that we have been discussing. I cannot agree that the problems are not systemic. I simply do not know whether what happened to Mrs Dick and Mrs Irons is or is not part of something systemic. There are too many such examples. I will not go through the case of my own mother, which I covered in a members' business debate, but just about everybody sitting in the chamber has an example to give. It is when a tragedy takes place that we focus on the issues. People are being neglected: they are unable to feed themselves and they are not being looked after. Their cases might not become tragedies, but they are being treated in that way because they are elderly, and people do not have time to look after them.

I will put the matter into context. I say to Richard Baker that there are, indeed, instances of direct discrimination. He said that there is no such policy, but there is. Historically, clinical trials and medical research tend to exclude older patients, yet they can be given medication that has not been tested on them. Screening programmes for breast cancer apply to women aged between 50 and 70, who are called regularly, but after the age of 70, women are not called and must apply, despite the fact that the chances of developing breast cancer increase as women get older. Help the Aged's very helpful briefing paper states:

"One estimate has suggested that 1500 lives could be saved annually if the programme was extended to older women".

Therefore, there are policies that directly affect older people.

I want to concentrate on the indirect discrimination that has been described in some speeches. The use of the term "bed blocker" stigmatises older people. They are talked about as if they are a category, like furniture. In fact, older people are individuals. They are as quirky as Mike Rumbles.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Surely not.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

They are as quirky as Andy Kerr and they are as different as Stewart Stevenson. By the way, he has now delivered his 200 th speech. I do not know whether to weep or laugh at that. I have not been here for them all, thank goodness.

Stereotypes are being made. That is a cultural issue, which is why I am summing up for the Scottish National Party today. This is not just a health issue; it is a cultural issue that applies to all manner of services.

The list of issues goes on. One is mixed accommodation. I understand that the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care has put money towards getting rid of mixed-sex accommodation. I do not know what has happened in that regard—perhaps the minister will tell us. If she cannot do so today, she might be able to write to us another time and explain what has been done. What could be more humiliating for older men and women than having to share wards? It is appalling.

Sometimes, a nurse will come along and immediately call somebody by their first name—it can be a simple thing like that. Some older people like to be called by their full name and might not have asked to be called by their first name, yet a nurse will come along and say, "How are you, Jeannie?" and the person will get upset. There is a discourtesy in that. That can be even more the case among older people from ethnic minorities, who might not have the best command of English. They can find themselves more isolated, and their age will make that even more difficult.

Jackie Baillie said that hospital can be the default response. Admissions can often follow a fall in the home, for example a fall from a stepladder, because no home help comes in who can change the light bulb or reach up to the high cupboard, or a fall in the bath, which would not have taken place if a walk-in shower had been fitted. If we made some progress on the provision of aids and adaptations through social work services, fewer older people would be admitted to hospital.

The best medicine for us all in hospital, whether we are young or old, cannot be found in a bottle. It is not medication. It is called TLC—tender, loving care. That is what our older people require.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — General Questions

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive how climate change is being addressed through public-private partnership school projects, for example by enabling the installation of biomass heating systems in circumstances where wood fuel represents the best local option for sustainable development and long-term value for money. (S2O-6861)

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Sustainable development, including energy use, is a key component of the school estate strategy in Scotland. Last December, we launched a new publication focusing specifically on how to achieve sustainable schools, irrespective of the means of procurement. Local authorities are responsible for decisions about their own school estates.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the minister both for that response and for the letter that I received this morning on the need to change the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative and the various options that require to be assessed. Does the minister acknowledge that there is considerable frustration in many communities, for example among those who are connected to the new Breadalbane Academy, who will miss the boat if the review of the SCHRI and the implementation of any new rules or schemes are delayed until the autumn? Can the minister assure me that the review and any changes that arise as a result of it will be in place by August this year?

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We aim to conclude the review by the summer, although I have not put a specific date on that. I share Mr Ruskell's concern that we should arrive at our conclusions sooner rather than later.

The Scottish community and householder renewables initiative originally aimed to support small-scale renewable energy projects by non-profit-making organisations. We must be careful in the review to retain that element, as I am sure Mark Ruskell would agree. There might be broader issues than biomass plants. There was some suggestion of that at the infrastructure investment conference last week, and we need to take those other issues on board.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In a letter to me dated 30 April 2005, the Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning wrote that he appreciated my frustration that the rules on the Scottish community and householder renewables initiative ruled out the use of a biomass system at Breadalbane Academy, in my constituency. Let me reinforce the point that was made by Mr Ruskell: it is essential that any reform of the system is put in place so that the frustration of members of this Parliament, including ministers, is addressed and so that we can make a constructive contribution to tackling climate change by ensuring that we build new schools on a sustainable basis.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I agree with what Mr Swinney is saying. As I have said before in the chamber, we believe that it is important to ensure that sustainable development, equipment and projects are part of this major opportunity. Mr Swinney has referred regularly to the case of Breadalbane Academy. I appreciate the importance, urgency and timing of the matter. We will do our best to pull together the conclusions of the review as quickly as possible.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied that all town centre developers have equitable access to information from its officials regarding development proposals. (S2O-6887)

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Requests for information that the Scottish Executive receives are handled in line with the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Is the minister aware that none of the existing town centre developers in Lanarkshire was invited to the Scottish Executive's retail forum in November 2004, which provided the opportunity to discuss emerging Government retail policy? They had to request invitations from the Executive. Is the minister also aware that those companies did not receive copies of the Glasgow and the Clyde valley structure plan consultation document when it was published earlier this month, so they had to request copies?

Will the minister investigate why Scottish Executive officials—I can provide her with the names of those who are involved—told those companies that it was inappropriate for them to meet officials who deal with emerging retail policy, whereas more favoured town centre developers in Lanarkshire have no such difficulty in obtaining assistance from the Executive? Given that—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Briefly, please.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Given that I am referring to major investors and developers that have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the Scottish retail sector, does the minister find the situation surprising?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I was not aware of the situation that Michael McMahon describes. This is the first time that I have heard such details. I am more than happy to speak directly to him about the matter and to go into detail about the issues that have been raised.

When developing policy and approaches, the Executive is always keen to harness the energies of people throughout Scotland who have expertise. Such information should be harnessed equitably. I cannot comment on the specific matter that Michael McMahon raises, but I am more than happy to discuss it with him in the near future.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

To ask the Scottish Executive what improvements it has made in preventing renal disease in those with diabetes. (S2O-6876)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The link between diabetes and renal disease is well recognised in several initiatives, which include the Scottish diabetes framework, the diabetes managed clinical networks and the clinical standards for diabetes and for renal services that were produced by NHS Quality Improvement Scotland. The quality and outcomes framework of the new general medical services contract also includes 18 indicators that relate to the management of diabetes.

Janis Hughes (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The minister may be aware that one of the easiest and most efficient ways in which to measure renal function in diabetic people is to use the glomerular filtration rate. Will the Executive consider including that method in the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines network guidelines that cover diabetes?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

We should acknowledge that we have had, and expect to have, significant improvements in the monitoring and treatment of renal disease as a result of some of our initiatives. One main question for the SIGN guidelines group that has been established on chronic renal failure will be what the most accurate and practical method is of assessing GFR. It is expected that, once published, the guidelines will be implemented at national health service board level through the use of protocols.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the Scottish Executive rise to the challenge that is set by Diabetes UK Scotland in its action today, health tomorrow campaign to establish equitable access to an effective retinal screening programme for all people with diabetes?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Of course, we always want to rise to meet our communities' expectations. We need to consider requests that relate to the effectiveness of the delivery of such schemes. We are working with many groups—including patients' groups and Diabetes UK—on long-term conditions, enabling self-care and preventive medicine, so I am happy to consider such matters further. I will correspond with the member in due course about a formal response.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action is being taken to improve the care and treatment of older people in acute hospitals. (S2O-6838)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

The central message of "Adding Life to Years"—the report of the chief medical officer's expert group, which was published in January 2002—was that older people's health is a priority for NHS Scotland and is fully part of its mainstream business. The national framework for service change, which was given to ministers yesterday, has a section on the provision of services for older people.

NHS Quality Improvement Scotland standards of care for older people are in place. All NHS boards must implement those standards and monitor adherence through their clinical governance structures. NHS Scotland will be held to account through the assessment visits that NHS QIS undertakes.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

In this morning's debate on age discrimination, the deputy minister said that the Executive would learn the lessons of the independent inquiry into the care and treatment of patients by NHS Lothian. Will she say in more detail how she will do that and apply those lessons throughout Scotland, to acknowledge that older people's care and treatment are a concern not only in Lothian, but elsewhere?

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

As the member knows, NHS Lothian has established an independent care review group to examine in detail the arrangements for older people's care. That group will be chaired by Anne Jarvie, who is a former chief nursing officer and a champion of older people's rights. I cannot anticipate what the lessons that we can learn will be, but it is clear that we will need to be able to learn lessons from that review. Any lessons will be disseminated to other health boards.

As I said this morning, I am inviting boards throughout Scotland to review their arrangements and to reassure ministers that they are applying high and equitable standards to care for older people. I have invited the chief nursing officer to raise the issue with NHS boards' directors of nursing at their next meeting.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

To ask the Scottish Executive what indicators it has used to assess the performance of NHS 24. (S2O-6824)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Health Department officials receive weekly performance reports from NHS 24 that cover the average and maximum times taken to answer calls, call abandonment rates, call-back rates and the average and maximum times taken to call back. All those are important measures of NHS 24's performance and of whether the service's quality and responsiveness match the service that the people of Scotland expect to receive from the organisation.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I thank the minister for his answer, although I did not hear the first part because of the acoustics.

We cannot anticipate the findings of Owen Clarke's report, which will be published next week. I hope that the report will be brought directly to Parliament and not drip-fed through the media in the days preceding publication. Does the minister accept that concern is widespread in our communities about NHS 24's efficiency? Even at this stage, can he say how many vacancies NHS 24 has? How many of its employees have medical training? Does a facility exist to ensure that the requests of carers and neighbours who are unrelated to an individual but who may call NHS 24 on that person's behalf are not dismissed because those people happen not to be relatives?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I apologise that the member did not hear the first part of my previous answer. I said that we receive an enormous amount of information about NHS 24's performance. The responsibility to deal with performance issues is primarily that of NHS 24's board.

The member referred to the independent review team, which will report by the end of May. As soon as the report is received, I intend an inspired parliamentary question to be lodged, the answer to which will give the information to Parliament.

As for the points that the member raised, it is best to await the report. The review team has a strong remit, particularly on service provision in remote and rural areas. I am concerned about staffing issues. I do not have the exact number of staff vacancies, but staff turnover runs at about 30 per cent. That is not good enough and is an issue for us. We must reduce that figure, retain staff and continue to provide a good service, albeit one that occasionally causes concern in our communities, as we are all well aware. More than 1 million calls have been handled effectively. We need to deal with big issues, but the organisation is successfully delivering a patient-centred service.

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

I receive a fairly steady level of complaints about NHS 24 from my constituency, which concerns me, in view of the sparsity of population, inclement weather and geography of the area, in which a doctor is not just a few streets away. However, the answer to a written question some weeks ago showed that the number of formal complaints is negligible. Are many people not following the proper complaints procedure? I would be grateful if the minister were to give the matter his personal attention. Will he meet me to examine the problem in more detail and to get to the truth of the matter?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

The report from Owen Clarke and his team will be useful in guiding that discussion. I am happy to meet the member to start to resolve some of the challenges. NHS 24's new chief executive has said that he wants to build on existing links in the communities that the member talks about and to use NHS partners better and more effectively to provide a better service for those who are concerned about how the service is delivered. I accept the invitation to meet the member. The review team's work stream will focus on some of the issues that concern his constituents. I hope that, as a result of the actions that follow the report, the service will improve and confidence in NHS 24 in those areas will be rebuilt.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has any plans to hold an annual sun awareness week to highlight the dangers of skin cancer to Scots in particular. (S2O-6886)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am pleased to express my support for sun awareness week, which is taking place this week. The campaign is co-ordinated nationally, together with SunSmart—the Cancer Research UK prevention and awareness campaign—and funded by the four United Kingdom health departments. I have also discussed skin cancer prevention messages recently with both the Scottish cancer coalition and the west of Scotland melanoma group, and Rhona Brankin recently met representatives from the Scottish Dermatological Society.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I thank the minister for his comments and for his confirmation that this is indeed sun awareness week. It is a timely reminder to all of us not just to welcome the good weather, but to cover up when we are in the sun. Does the minister accept that fair-skinned Scots are at particular risk of developing skin cancer, that we are in the grip of a skin cancer epidemic and that there is a duty on us here in Scotland, more than in any other part of the UK, to encourage people to be aware of the risks of being out in the sun? Will he look at whether health education messages about sun awareness are going in the right direction? In particular, will he look at projects such as Fife's keep your shirt on campaign, with a view to encouraging such programmes across the whole of Scotland?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Mr Macintosh is right to draw our attention to malignant melanoma, which is the 11 th most common cancer in males and the sixth most common cancer in females, and to the fact that the death rates for malignant melanoma are too high. I fully support SunSmart, the keep your shirt on campaign in Fife and Tayside, and other work that our health boards are doing, including some very good practice in Lanarkshire. We must draw people's attention to the issue and we must work with suppliers of suntan lotions to ensure that they provide the right information to customers.

Mr Macintosh is right to say that skin cancer is a serious issue for Scots. We need to ensure that we educate people better; that fits with the preventive health measures that we are taking throughout Scotland.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on its programme of reform of the crofters building grants and loans scheme. (S2O-6891)

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

The new croft house grant scheme replaced the former grants and loans scheme on 1 January, and priority areas under the scheme were identified earlier this month. The effectiveness of the new scheme in supporting the renewal of crofter housing will be kept under review.

Alasdair Morrison (Labour, Western Isles)

I look forward to helping to inform the review over the next couple of years.

The minister is well aware of the challenges that face crofters in the Uists and Barra following the January hurricanes. Officials from the minister's department have visited the islands, and although they do a good line in sympathy they have yet to demonstrate that the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department will put in place a response to the difficulties that the crofters face. For example, issues relating to fencing and stock-proofing are of fundamental importance and must be addressed. Will the minister personally direct officials to be less obstructionist and to implement much-needed pragmatic responses that will make a difference to crofters' lives?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

I can certainly give Mr Morrison the assurance that we have kept a close eye on the matter and that officials, including the head of the department, have been to Uist to see the challenges for themselves. Measures have already been put in place to allow support for the renewal of fencing, and additional payments have been authorised for those crofters who had previously reached the limit of their usual eligibility under the crofting counties agricultural grants scheme, taking into account the impact of the January storms on those crofters. We shall continue to consider innovative and imaginative ways of ensuring that those needs are met.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What is the total number of crofters who could benefit from the new scheme and is it the case that some people are being put off because the loan element has been removed? Do constraints such as the condition of township roads and the difficulty of getting water supplies prevent more people from applying for the croft house grant scheme?

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

There is no reason why crofters anywhere in the crofting counties of Scotland should not apply for the scheme. Mr Gibson will be encouraged to hear that, in the first three months of this year alone, there were more applications under the new grant scheme than there were for the whole of last year under the former scheme. A total of 124 applications were made for a sum of approximately £2 million in assistance to housing over those three months.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it still considers the remuneration proposed for dentists in its dental action plan to be adequate. (S2O-6866)

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Yes. I consider that the new and additional funding of £150 million demonstrates the Executive's commitment to national health service dental services in Scotland.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I acknowledge the investment that the Executive is putting into our dental services, including the increased remuneration for dentists within the NHS. However, when will those improvements lead to my constituents, and constituents throughout Scotland, being able to access an NHS dentist? They are currently denied such access.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

I am very much aware of some of the problems surrounding access to NHS dentists in Fife. A considerable number of measures are being put in place by NHS Fife to improve access to NHS dentists. I do not have time to go into those measures in detail now, but I am more than happy to have a meeting with the member.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Members will wish to welcome the Swiss Ambassador, His Excellency Alexis Lautenberg. [ Applause. ]

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Questions to the First Minister will be taken by the Deputy First Minister.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome the Deputy First Minister to the hot seat, for what will probably be his last time.

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1661)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am grateful to Nicola Sturgeon for her welcome. I do not want to disappoint her, but it is possible that I might make another appearance before I demit office in four weeks' time—all will be revealed.

At our next meeting of the Scottish Cabinet we will discuss our progress towards building a better Scotland. In addition, I fully expect that the First Minister will brief the Cabinet on his current visit to Malawi.

I know that the Cabinet would want to express its thanks to the hard-working staff of the national health service for the encouraging waiting times figures that were published today. I hope that Ms Sturgeon joins us in that.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The chamber is buzzing with anticipation at the news of the Deputy First Minister's next appearance.

I refer the Deputy First Minister to the latest waiting times figures, which in fact show yet another dramatic increase in median waiting times for in-patients, and an even bigger increase for out-patients. Does he agree that far from being good news, as the Executive tries to claim, the figures are further evidence that Scottish patients are still getting a raw deal?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I appreciate that as the First Minister is a former maths teacher he might be better equipped to give a maths lesson in statistics to Ms Sturgeon, but I have a certificate of sixth-year studies in statistics, so perhaps I can do so.

At a press briefing earlier today, it was shown how the median could go up, stay the same or go down—it could be reduced to zero—depending on how the statistics are presented. The median figure is not one that matters to individual patients. If Nicola Sturgeon understood the figure, she would understand that the more we focus on tackling the length of time for which people who have been on the waiting list longest have been waiting and deal with that issue, the likelier it is that the median will continue to rise. What matters is people: what matters is trying to get the people who have been waiting longest off the waiting list. That is why we have met our guarantee of nine months. We have also met our guarantee of 12 months and we are well on the way to meeting our guarantee of six months for in-patient treatment. One of the figures that struck me most is that 60,000 fewer people are waiting for an out-patient appointment than was the case six months ago. That is a staggering achievement.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I remind the Deputy First Minister that his own statistics department describes the median waiting time as

"the most robust measurement of performance."

I offer the Deputy First Minister a reality check. I remind him that in the previous quarter the median wait for in-patients was 42 days, but it is now 47 days. For out-patients the median wait was 56 days, but it is now 62 days. In the previous quarter, only 16 per cent of out-patients had to wait more than six months for an appointment: the figure is now 20 per cent. One in five of all out-patients have to wait more than six months for an appointment. Is not it the case that to try to paint that record as a success is an insult to the intelligence of thousands of patients all over Scotland, and that it is not the fault of hard-working NHS staff, but the fault of this Scottish Executive?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

When I was preparing for First Minister's Question time, I came across a quote from Jim Mather. He said that the SNP would

"promote Scotland ... in every speech"—[Official Report, 16 September 2004; c 10230.]

All that we ever hear from Nicola Sturgeon are things that try to run Scotland down. The issue of the patients who have been waiting longest is being addressed very effectively: there has been a 72 per cent reduction in in-patient waiting.

Nicola Sturgeon referred to out-patient waiting performance and I have already indicated that there has been a 60,000 reduction overall. The number of people who are waiting more than 26 weeks for a first out-patient appointment in Scotland has reduced by 58 per cent since September 2004—that is a 58 per cent drop in six months. I can give Nicola Sturgeon figures for the different health boards if she wants them, but will she for once acknowledge that the statistics are very encouraging indeed and that they are a tribute to NHS staff?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I suggest that the Deputy First Minister study the figures that the information and statistics division of the NHS produced this morning, rather than the ones that Andy Kerr made up some time after that. The Deputy First Minister says that he wants to talk about the longest waits; let us do that. I draw to his attention detailed figures that were released to me earlier this week. The figures are broken up by specialty and they demonstrate that, for example, the number of people who waited more than six months to see a heart specialist increased from 56 in 1999 to 750 at the most recent count, although heart disease is supposed to be a top priority. I suggest that instead of parroting Labour lines, the Deputy First Minister repeat what he said a month ago in his capacity as leader of the Liberals. He said that we need more

"action ... to reduce the wait and reduce the worry."

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

More action is what we are getting. The figures on in-patient and day-case waiting of more than six months for the period from March 2004 to March 2005 are as follows: waits are down 87 per cent for ear, nose and throat services; down 87 per cent for general surgery; down 80 per cent for gynaecology; down 78 per cent for ophthalmology; down 49 per cent for orthopaedics; down 93 per cent for plastic surgery; down 76 per cent for urology; down 81 per cent for the category "other"; and down 72 per cent for all specialties.

The figures that were published today by the information and statistics division—they are not Andy Kerr's figures—show that we have achieved our guarantee of a wait of no longer than nine months; that we will end waits of more than six months by the end of the year; that the lowest-ever number of in-patients are waiting more than six months for treatment; that the lowest-ever number of patients are waiting more than six months for new out-patient appointments, and that we have achieved a maximum eight-week wait for heart investigation. We are doing everything we said we would do. Will Nicola Sturgeon acknowledge that, for once?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have with me the statistics from the ISD, which show that in the last quarter, 83.8 per cent of out-patients were seen within six months, whereas the figure is now down to just 80.9 per cent. Patients want honesty. They do not want spin or to be told that black is white; they want an admission that much more needs to be done and they want to know when waiting times will come down, not just for some patients but for all patients in Scotland.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Patients who are waiting must have the accurate picture, but they will not get that from Nicola Sturgeon. The figures on out-patients waiting more than 26 weeks show a 58 per cent drop from 53,500 to 22,400 in the period September 2004 to March 2005. For the record, I will give figures for individual NHS boards: the figure for Dumfries and Galloway NHS Board is down 95 per cent; in Forth Valley NHS Board it is down 92 per cent; in Lanarkshire NHS Board it is down 62 per cent; and in Tayside NHS Board it is down 71 per cent. I could go on: the figure for Shetland NHS Board is down 100 per cent. Those are the facts, which ought to be known outside Parliament. Indeed, they are known, because all Nicola Sturgeon's scaremongering on health waiting times over many months and question times did not do her much good when it came to the election.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I will say something nice about Mr Wallace when he finally retires from the despatch box, but in the meantime I ask him when the First Minister will next meet the Prime Minister and what issues will be discussed. (S2F-1662)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I await the member's comments with interest.

The First Minister has no immediate plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister. However, last week I met the Deputy Prime Minister at a meeting of the British-Irish Council.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The bruises do not show.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the assembled ranks, it is important that I address the discussion that the Deputy First Minister has just had with Nicola Sturgeon. It is a fact that today's health figures show that waiting times for both in-patients and out-patients are at an all-time high. Waiting times are much longer than they were in 1997 under the Conservatives—[Interruption.] That is not rubbish. The median wait in 1997 was 34 days; today it is 62 days. For in-patients, the median wait was 34 days under the Conservatives, but it is 47 days under Labour and the Liberal Democrats and there are 22,000 more people languishing on our waiting lists. Those are the facts. I put it to the Deputy First Minister that that is a record of which he can hardly be proud. Does he accept that he and his Liberal Democrat colleagues are as much to blame as Labour for that lamentable state of affairs?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is clear that I am going to have to try to teach Mr McLetchie something about statistics and medians. Of course the median goes up as we crack the longest waiting list. We have made no apology for cracking the longest waiting lists, because on them are the people who have the greatest need. We need to tackle those lists first. No patient with a guarantee is waiting more than nine months; at first no patient with a guarantee waited more than 12 months, but we brought that down to nine months. We are well on target to achieve the six-month guarantee by the end of the year. It is a statistical reality that the median figure tells us about people who have had treatment. If we treat the people who have been waiting the longest, it is inevitable that the figure goes up. If we counted all the people who are treated in our hospitals, not just those who came off the waiting list, the figure would be down to zero, but then Mr McLetchie would probably accuse us of showing a statistical blip.

Perhaps Mr McLetchie's point of view is that we should not be treating the people who have been waiting longest. That is not our view. I am happy, as a Liberal Democrat, along with my party, the Labour Party and the First Minister, to stand by a record that shows today that we have the lowest-ever number of in-patients waiting for more than six months, the lowest-ever number of patients waiting more than six months for a new out-patient appointment and that we have achieved our targets on the maximum eight-week wait for heart investigation and 18-week wait for heart treatment. I, along with Andy Kerr, Jack McConnell and the two partnership parties, am happy to take responsibility for those things.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I am delighted that the Deputy First Minister is taking responsibility for that. He asked what I am in favour of. I am in favour of all patients in Scotland being treated promptly for the conditions from which they are suffering. In 1997, under the Conservatives, 74 per cent of out-patients were seen within nine weeks; the figure is barely 50 per cent under Labour and the Liberal Democrats. In March 1997, 81 per cent of in-patients were seen within three months; the figure has fallen to 68 per cent under Labour and the Liberal Democrats. I am afraid that those are the facts; they are there for all to see.

Let us look to the future. Let us consider how we can tidy up the shambles that has been created by this Administration. Can the Deputy First Minister confirm that the Scottish Executive is now planning to adopt Tory solutions to treat patients faster—such as greater use of independent treatment centres for NHS-funded patients—in a belated attempt to reverse the damaging failures of the past six years? Can he tell me when the contract for the first of those independent treatment centres for Scottish patients will be signed and how many more of them are in the pipeline?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Mr McLetchie will know that since the Golden Jubilee national hospital was brought within the national health service, the throughput of patients in the national health service who are receiving life-saving heart operations and getting their quality of life back through hip or knee-joint replacements has increased markedly. Mr McLetchie seems to think that we have recently introduced something new. Ministers in the past have made it clear that as long as the principle of free care for the patient is maintained within the national health service—which it is—so be it if that treatment is provided by the private sector and if it helps us to reduce waiting times.

Today NHS Tayside is considering proposals for a project that is worth £15 million over three years and which will involve the private sector in a new treatment and diagnostic centre at Stracathro hospital, which will work in partnership with the existing NHS treatment and diagnostic facilities and will help provide additional capacity for patients in Tayside, Grampian and Fife.

In the past, Mr McLetchie has begged us to copy England. However, his United Kingdom leader says that too many patients in England have to wait, so this might be another example of the leader of the Scottish Conservatives not talking to the leader of his party south of the border. It might be that Murdo Fraser's day is coming.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

We are all aware of the fact that the Scottish Executive spent millions on the bricks and mortar of the Golden Jubilee hospital although, for years, it refused to commission operations there, which meant that we were in the absurd situation in which English patients from Liverpool were being treated for heart conditions in Clydebank when Scottish patients in Glasgow were waiting months and months. That is to the shame of the Executive.

The Deputy First Minister should acknowledge that his colleague and would-be successor, Mr Rumbles, has told us that he opposes the use of a pricing system for national health service funded treatments to improve standards of care in Scotland because that is not part of the coalition agreement and it is not supported by the Liberal Democrats. Does Mr Wallace agree with Mr Rumbles? If he does, can we take it that it is the Liberal Democrats who are the major roadblock to the reform of our service?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The position that Andy Kerr set out on that issue in December 2004—although it has only now suddenly come to prominence in the press—was not at odds with the position of any member of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary group. However, I look forward with interest to the arguments that leadership contenders will have about our next manifesto.

Mr McLetchie described us buying bricks and mortar at the Golden Jubilee hospital. In fact, the NHS got the building for pretty much a bargain price. However, we are interested not in bricks and mortar but in people. The number of treatments has risen from 2,500 to 18,000 and is set to rise further to 27,000. That improvement in people's quality of life is being achieved under this Liberal Democrat-Labour Executive.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland and what issues he intends to discuss. (S2F-1665)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The First Minister has no immediate plans to meet formally the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Could the Deputy First Minister explain why the Scottish Pelamis wave energy converter is going to be installed in Portugal but not in Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Ocean Power Delivery has, in Pelamis, a groundbreaking prototype for wave power. One of the reasons why the prototype can be sold in Portugal is that the Scottish Executive has made a multi-million pound investment in the European Marine Energy Centre testing facility, which allowed the Pelamis device to be tested in Orkney. I am surprised to hear comments that seem to suggest that there is something wrong about a Scottish company exporting to Portugal. I want more companies to export to Portugal and other parts of the European Union.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

The question is not about the device's being exported to Portugal. The question is: Why is it not being installed in Scotland?

Three years ago, the director of Ocean Power Delivery said that if wave power did not get sufficient renewables obligation certificates payments from the Executive, Pelamis would not be installed in Scotland but would go to Portugal. The Executive was warned but did not provide that support. Consequently, Pelamis has gone. Why did the Executive not double the ROCs payment for wave power?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Pelamis has not gone. The Pelamis device that will be installed in Portugal is being made in Scotland. That is good news for Scotland and for the companies that are involved in making the device. The Executive has invested a considerable amount of money in marine energy. I have already mentioned the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, which can establish itself as a world centre for developments in wave power; only this week, I confirmed that funding is now in place for that centre to take on development of tidal power. No one can gainsay the efforts that the Executive has made to develop marine power. I only wish that, when certain people see a Scottish success story, they could celebrate it and not whinge about it.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Executive's homestake scheme is helping enough people on to the housing ladder or whether Scotland should consider joining the recently announced United Kingdom initiative. (S2F-1667)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We are already involved, along with the United Kingdom Government, in the discussions with mortgage lenders to secure additional private funding for low-cost home ownership that were the subject of media coverage earlier this week. That would enable us to deliver even more low-cost homes in Scotland through the homestake scheme.

Bristow Muldoon (Labour, Livingston)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for his confirmation that the Scottish Executive is working with the UK Government on the initiative. Is he aware that affordability in housing—in both the rented sector and the privately owned sector—is a major issue in my constituency and throughout the Lothians? Will he outline the range of initiatives that are being undertaken to make housing affordable for low and middle-income earners in constituencies such as Livingston?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am delighted to do so. I confirm that the Minister for Communities recently met the Council of Mortgage Lenders to see how much further we can take the homestake scheme. In last year's spending review, we expanded our low-cost home ownership programme by 80 per cent to help thousands of first-time buyers and other people on modest incomes to enter the property market. Our housing policy has a number of elements that provide choice for hard-working families and support for low-cost affordable housing throughout Scotland.

We are investing £1.2 billion during the period of the spending review to provide 21,500 new and improved homes for social rent and low-cost home ownership. That represents a 34 per cent increase. We are also bringing the social rented housing stock up to the new Scottish housing quality standard and we are working with councils to transfer an additional 70,000 homes into community ownership, subject to the views of tenants. There is no shortage of schemes; we recognise the problem that Mr Muldoon identifies and I am sure that he would agree that we are making a concerted effort to address it through a range of measures.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Is there a national home-ownership percentage target? Will the Deputy First Minister ensure that provision of high-quality social rented housing remains paramount so that providers can meet the needs of people on waiting lists, so that householders can have real choice, and so that our communities, urban and rural, can be properly maintained and supported?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is no specific target for home ownership, but I reassure Linda Fabiani that we take seriously the quality of housing stock in the social rented sector. That is why, as I said in my answer to Bristow Muldoon, we are setting out proposals to bring stock up to the new Scottish housing quality standard by 2015. There is a concerted effort to do that, and in addition we are giving people in rented accommodation security of tenure through the Scottish secure tenancy. I endorse the importance of the quality of the housing stock and I underline again the fact that we have a range of measures to improve it.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what impact the proposed staff reductions at BBC Scotland will have on Scottish democracy and cultural identity. (S2F-1672)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The BBC is a unique institution and we recognise its important contribution to our quality of life in Scotland and the United Kingdom through its on-going commitment to producing and broadcasting informative and entertaining regional programming. I am pleased to note that the BBC and the unions are meeting today at the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to discuss their differences. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further until we hear the outcome of those talks.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I, too, am glad that the unions and the BBC are meeting at ACAS, but I am afraid that the Deputy First Minister did not answer my question. Is he aware of the comments that have been made by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and others about the serious implications that the cuts will have in Scotland? In particular, is he aware of one official's comments that

"London determines how much production Scotland gets",

and that,

"The cultural identity of Scotland will suffer, without a doubt"?

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that now is the time for powers over broadcasting to be brought under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

No, I do not agree that that change should be made. Although I would certainly welcome a greater role for BBC Scotland in the BBC's decision-making processes, I do not accept that Scottish viewers would benefit from what Sandra White proposes.

Patricia Ferguson met Ken MacQuarrie earlier this week, and the BBC has indicated that network production in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will increase by 50 per cent, with drama production outside London increasing from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. I certainly hope—we will work to ensure it—that BBC Scotland benefits from those developments. The creative industries in Scotland are important and we are well placed to ensure that we get some of that work.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

The Deputy First Minister is aware of my key concern about the 195 proposed job cuts at BBC Scotland, the effect that those cuts will have on the quality of output and the move to local news at the expense of national news, which would be a retrograde step. Earlier this year, I asked him whether he would raise the issue at Cabinet level. Will he confirm that there has been, or that there will be, a discussion at Cabinet level or with the Department for Media, Culture and Sport on the impact of the cuts on the devolution settlement? Such a discussion would be a more realistic and desirable way forward and should include consideration of the impact on culture and training.

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I agree with Pauline McNeill that that would be a more desirable way forward and I confirm that I recall her question, which was specifically about ensuring that we maintain a good skills base. Following the undertaking that I gave to Pauline McNeill at question time some four or five weeks ago, I took the matter to the Cabinet. I also confirm that I have written to Ken MacQuarrie to emphasise the importance that ministers attach to skills development in Scotland in the context of the proposed redundancies in the BBC.

Carolyn Leckie (SSP, Central Scotland)

I welcome some of what the Deputy First Minister says. However, does he share or regret the First Minister's view that the BBC's draconian job cuts and sell-off programme are

"a great boost for the creative industries in Scotland"?

Will he follow the example of the many members who will join the National Union of Journalists, the Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union and Amicus on the picket lines next week? Will he also encourage the First Minister to join the picket lines if the BBC does not reach an agreement with the unions?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I will not comment on sensitive negotiations that are taking place, which I hope will avoid the need for picket lines or industrial action next week.

What the First Minister said has been grossly misrepresented. He said what I have just said when he talked about the importance of the creative industries in Scotland. The BBC has highlighted opportunities, and we want to ensure that, as part of our strategy for the creative industries, we take the opportunities that will be presented by the relocation of work when production is taken out of London to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Mr Gorbachev was temporarily imprisoned during the Russian peaceful revolution, but he knew exactly what was happening because he was able to listen to the BBC. Will the Deputy First Minister bear it in mind that the BBC has admirers in high places abroad and that the baby must not be thrown out with the bath water?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I pay tribute to the reputation and work of the BBC. However, I recall that, when I was a member of Parliament at Westminster, I had to campaign to help to save the BBC world service mostly when the Conservative party was in power.

Nora Radcliffe (Liberal Democrat, Gordon)

I want to take the argument from the global to the local and highlight the apprehensions of people in the north-east who think that the north-east suffered a disproportionate impact with previous cuts. Will the Deputy First Minister give an assurance that he will continue to recognise the importance of maintaining regional broadcasting throughout as well as in Scotland?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I certainly give that assurance. Those of us who represent places that are even further away from the central belt than the north-east know about the importance of BBC Scotland's being an organisation for the whole of the Scotland.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

To ask the Deputy First Minister what steps the Scottish Executive and the police will be taking to control football-related hooliganism following their recent discussions. (S2F-1675)

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The Executive supports the work of the police in tackling football hooliganism. We have consulted on football banning orders and welcome the strong support that they have received from the police, clubs, associations and others. We will now consider legislating on them in the near future.

I am pleased to note that the police are preparing for an evidence-gathering exercise for next season, which will be essential for effective implementation of banning orders.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

That was an encouraging answer.

In the light of the clear connection between alcohol abuse and football hooliganism, will the Deputy First Minister assure us that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill will help the police to deal with that problem and that it will, for example, speed up the ability of the police and the courts to deal with offences that arise from drunkenness that is related to football matches?

Jim Wallace (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Donald Gorrie is well aware that the approach towards alcohol-fuelled football hooliganism is already covered by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. Ministers decided last May to retain controls on the ground that the current arrangements have worked well and continue to play an essential part in reducing the incidence of drink-related disorder. I can also confirm to Donald Gorrie that the Licensing (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will formalise the police's powers to close immediately a pub where disorder is taking place, and will allow the police to continue to close licensed premises in and around stadiums on match days.

Question Time — SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE — Enterprise, Lifelong Learning and Transport

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the use of public service obligations will be extended to cover additional air routes in the Highlands and Islands. (S2O-6882)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The suitable use of public service obligations is crucial to the delivery of our commitment to improved and more affordable air services in the Highlands and Islands.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to hear the minister's reply, because it seems that he accepts that affordable internal air travel will make a considerable difference to economic prospects in the peripheral areas of the Highlands and Islands. Does he agree that, as models in other countries show, the best method of securing affordable air travel is through PSOs, which give control over the specification and timetables, and that the £12 million that is required would be a sound investment in the economy and social fabric of those fragile areas?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Yes. As Maureen Macmillan knows, a core part of the partnership agreement was to evaluate the Highlands and Islands strategic transport partnership's proposals for air PSOs. That work is being completed, but we have gone much further than that by allocating funding of £12 million a year to improve air services in the Highlands and Islands and to make them more affordable. On 16 May, I met Charlie King and other HITRANS representatives and, because of the importance of the issue, I indicated that I wished to have another meeting by the end of June so that we can get moving on the issue, to which I give high priority.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Given that HITRANS has received a legal opinion that there is no legal barrier to extending the use of public service obligations, and that a STAG—Scottish transport appraisal guidance—appraisal has suggested that PSOs would grow the economy in the Highlands and Islands, will the minister, in deciding on the matter, calculate the full economic impact of the alternatives, particularly the full economic advantage that would accrue from the extension of the use of PSOs?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

As Jim Mather knows, HITRANS has already done a considerable amount of work on that, which shows that there is no doubt that the introduction of PSOs would have significant economic benefit. My priority is to get on and get the new services and the PSO network in place to ensure that fares are more affordable, so that we get tangible benefits, rather than estimated or calculated benefits. That is why I want another meeting as soon as possible with HITRANS. We have funding available; let us get on and put the improvements in place.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that there are economic and environmental benefits to removing the tolls on the Erskine bridge. (S2O-6865)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

The economic and environmental impacts of toll changes on the Erskine bridge, including the removal of the tolls, were considered in phase 1 of the tolled bridges review. Phase 2 of the review is considering the wider impact of tolling and options for the future management and operation of all tolled bridges, including the Erskine bridge. The consultation on phase 2 will run until Friday 8 July.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I look forward to contributing to that consultation. The minister will be aware of research that his department has carried out that points to the clear conclusion that removing the tolls from the Erskine bridge will have a positive environmental benefit throughout the west of Scotland by alleviating congestion on the Kingston bridge and in the Clyde tunnel, which is estimated to cost our economy £19 million each year. I know that the minister wants to improve our economy and our environment, so when will he remove the tolls?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Jackie Baillie is right to say that work has been done on the issue. It shows that, under certain assumptions, the removal of tolls would have benefits for the environment as a result of the effect on congestion as well as clear benefits for the economy in the area that Jackie Baillie represents and in the wider area around Glasgow. We will consider those issues in phase 2 of the review, so it would be wrong to prejudge the outcome of that review.

I encourage Jackie Baillie, all other MSPs and individuals from business and the local community to make their views known loud and clear. A decision on the future of the tolled bridges will be made as soon as possible after 8 July.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

I will allow supplementary questions on the issue after question 4.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether an analysis has been conducted of the potential economic and social benefits arising from the abolition of the tolls on the Erskine bridge. (S2O-6874)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

I refer the member to the answer that I have just given to Jackie Baillie.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

And I refer the minister to the answer that he gave to Jackie Baillie. I, too, will respond to the consultation, although I am having some difficulty with the format and objectivity of the consultation document. It is clear throughout the document that the Erskine bridge will not be de-tolled—that is the whole emphasis of the document.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

Question.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The impact of tolling on the local economies on both sides of the bridge cannot be overstated. Is the minister aware that many of my constituents have to travel to the other side of the river for out-patient clinics? Does he agree that the existence of tolls acts as an additional levy on patients and that low-paid workers are disadvantaged further by the tolling of the bridge when they have to pay more than £6 a week to go back and forth to their work? Will he agree to meet the Clyde valley community planning partnership board to discuss those and other matters pertaining to the Erskine bridge? Like my colleague Jackie Baillie, I ask the minister when he will de-toll the bridge.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

If Trish Godman has interpreted the consultation document as being biased against the case that she makes, I give her a guarantee that that is not how it should be interpreted. The document is intended to be neutral in its treatment of the arguments. It is a genuine and open consultation. My mind is not closed to any of the outcomes that are considered, one of which is and will remain the abolition of tolls on the Erskine bridge. The arguments that Jackie Baillie and Trish Godman have made are important, but we must consider all the toll bridges and whether there are differences between them. The strongest case that can be made for the Erskine bridge should distinguish it from the Tay and Forth bridges. Arguments relating to cost, to communities and to particular individuals will apply to all the bridges, but if we were to reduce tolls on the other bridges there could be significant congestion consequences and greater damage could be done to the economy by Scotland grinding to a halt. We have to be conscious of the different arguments relating to each of the bridges—I would hope that that is reflected in the arguments that members make in their responses. As Trish Godman knows, I am always willing to meet MSPs and community representatives, and I would be pleased to do so on this issue.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I will try to make my speech shorter than the previous two were. Although I am not against the removal of tolls on the Erskine bridge, does the minister agree that the removal of those tolls would increase the sense of discrimination that is already felt by those who use the Tay and Forth bridges? If he decides to remove the tolls on the Erskine bridge, will he reconsider the position of the Tay and Forth bridges? Does he agree that the environmental damage that is caused by a car crossing the Tay or Forth bridges is no more than the environmental damage that is caused by a car entering Dundee or Edinburgh by any of the land routes?

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

It is important to emphasise, particularly in relation to the Forth road bridge, the suggestion in the evidence that has been prepared for the bridges review that if the tolls were removed, there would be significant congestion consequences. The Forth Estuary Transport Authority, which operates the bridge, has emphasised that point. There are also serious issues to do with the cost of the maintenance of the bridge. It is essential that the bridge continues to be maintained to the highest of standards. There are differences between the bridges in terms of the estimates of the social impacts but also in terms of the economic and environmental impacts, which are important. All those issues will be fairly evaluated in the toll bridges review. I do not want there to be any sense of injustice at the end of the review. I want it to be clear why we are taking the approach that we will in due course take on each of the bridges. That approach should be logical and defensible.

Andrew Arbuckle (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister bear in mind that Fife is doubly disadvantaged by having toll bridges to the north and south? Tolls should not be seen as a method of introducing congestion charging. If any city or community requires congestion charging, it should be done around that city or community, not on one of the main arteries.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

On the first point, I realise that there are significant issues with the Tay bridge. One of the concerns is the bridge's condition. This week's announcement of a £16 million investment to upgrade the bridge—for which the Scottish Executive is providing support—emphasises the scale of the challenge with which the maintenance costs for the bridges present us. The original building cost of the Tay bridge was £6 million.

I acknowledge the points that Andrew Arbuckle makes on Fife and I hope that they will be made in the review but, so as not to mislead the Parliament, I repeat that the Forth Estuary Transport Authority is considering for the future a form of road user charging on the Forth road bridge. I support that proposal, because it would allow for charges to be varied according to the time of day at which a road user crosses the bridge and for the imposition of a higher charge on single-occupancy vehicles, which make up 70 per cent of the vehicles that cross the bridge. It is appropriate to consider such variable charging for the future.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does the minister accept that the unique case for the removal of tolls from the Erskine bridge is that it would address congestion, which is his department's top priority. We are supposed to reduce congestion by a significant percentage by 2020, and removing the tolls from the Erskine bridge would rebalance traffic and the environmental consequences between the different Clyde crossings. Faced with the likelihood of 53 weeks of road works in the Clyde tunnel and the temporary closure of the on-ramp from the Clydeside expressway to the motorway—

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You are close to answering your own question, Mr McNulty.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Does that not make a case for an urgent response from the minister on the Erskine bridge? The sooner he responds, the better.

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Des McNulty makes a powerful case. I am sure that he will make that case as part of the review by making a written submission alongside those of Jackie Baillie and Trish Godman. I will give full, fair and objective consideration to their case in due course.

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

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has made any estimate of the impact on the economy of the effect of fuel costs and the European working time directive on the haulage industry and whether this impact will be significant and adverse. (S2O-6823)

Nicol Stephen (Liberal Democrat, Aberdeen South)

Fuel duty and European working time legislation are both reserved to Westminster. However, I am keeping in close contact with the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and the relevant Westminster departments in assessing how those issues are impacting on Scottish business. I regard the issues as vital for Scotland's economy.