Scottish Parliament, 12 March 2009

465 contributions from 84 members. The official report.

Official Report 12 March 2009

Aberdeen Crossrail

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

I was so overtaken by the atmosphere of mirth in the chamber this morning that I missed my footing.

The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3674, in the name of Alison McInnes, on Aberdeen crossrail.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

I was going to say that it is nice to come to the chamber in anticipation of some cross-party backing for my motion, but that was before I saw Alex Johnstone's amendment, which attempts to misrepresent my views.

Aberdeen crossrail should be supported by all members and, if prior form is anything to go by, it will be. I know that the Labour Party supports the scheme, as do the Greens. Indeed, even the Conservatives previously professed their support, although I confess that I am puzzled by Alex Johnstone's amendment, which seems more concerned with attempting to falsely attribute to me the position of the north east of Scotland transport partnership, under the chairmanship of Scottish National Party councillor Kevin Stewart, than with securing a positive outcome for the crossrail project. Under my chairmanship, Nestrans was ambitious. Sadly, the new chairman has allowed himself to be browbeaten by his political masters into accepting a consolation prize.

In addition to the support of those parties, I cannot help but hope that I will get at least two votes from the SNP benches. After all, Brian Adam was on the record throughout the previous parliamentary session as supporting Aberdeen crossrail, and rightly so, given the huge benefits that it will bring his constituents. If Mr Adam has recognised those benefits, one can only suppose that the First Minister has as well. If that is the case, the people of Gordon can surely rest safe in the knowledge that their local MSP is fully behind the crossrail scheme—or is that, perhaps, an assumption too far?

Since the SNP took office, its attitude towards crossrail has been that ignorance is bliss, but however much the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change is hoping to divert attention with bluster, I tell him that, although he might have fooled the Conservatives, we, at least, are not going to overlook his inaction.

I think that my favourite line on the topic from the minister so far—to be honest, it is difficult to pick just one—came during a committee meeting last year, when he said:

"We have not been asked to support Aberdeen crossrail, as yet."—[Official Report, Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee, 6 May 2008; c 637.]

I must admit that I have struggled to find a context in which the Government—I assume that the minister is not using the royal we just yet—has not been asked to support crossrail. I have asked it to support it. Mike Rumbles has asked. Richard Baker has asked. Nannette Milne has asked. Nestrans has asked. The people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire have asked. I am not sure exactly who the minister is waiting to hear from.

To be honest, I fail to see why he needs the question to be asked in the first place. Are we to believe that a Scottish Government minister is unable to act on his own initiative? Can the Government only take action when someone else—a very specific someone, apparently—asks it to do so?

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Civil servants, for example.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The case for Aberdeen crossrail is well documented and well supported, yet it was still omitted from the much-heralded strategic transport projects review with barely an explanation. Fuzzy plans for national timetable improvements are no substitute for a properly implemented, dedicated local service, nor are vague statements about exploring the possibility of new stations an adequate alternative for a truly improved local service.

The recently finalised Aberdeen city and shire structure plan serves as a vivid demonstration of the short-sightedness of excluding crossrail from the STPR. The plan identifies the region's key strategic growth areas, in which it is anticipated that 75 to 80 per cent of growth will be focused over the next 20 years and which are centred on the region's main public transport routes, including the proposed crossrail corridor. That means that, on the one hand, we have a 20-year period of focused growth and, on the other hand, a 20-year plan that contains no major local rail improvements. Even current projected passenger numbers more than support the case for crossrail. If we act now, we can ensure that properly implemented sustainable transport options are integrated with the anticipated growth. If the Government continues to ignore the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, they will be left to deal with a mess of cars, congestion and an outdated public transport network. I know which option I prefer.

I have almost lost track of the amount of my correspondence on crossrail with the minister and Transport Scotland. Getting an answer from Mr Stevenson in writing is no easier than getting one in the chamber. It seems, on occasion, that he has delegated so much of his portfolio to Transport Scotland that all that is left for him to do is give us bad news and occasionally unveil new paint schemes for the trains.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

He has delegated everything. He just tells us what the civil servants want.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Bollocks.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Pardon?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Members should be careful about the language that they use in the chamber.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

For several months last year, my letters on crossrail to the minister were redirected down the M8 to Transport Scotland's headquarters. From there, I received a number of substantive answers that discussed predicted passenger numbers and outlined feasibility studies. Although I did not agree with some of the figures or some of the reasoning, I could not argue that Transport Scotland did not uphold its part of the bargain. It did the work, but did the minister do his share? I think not.

For a regional project such as crossrail to progress, hard work, vision and political leadership are needed. The minister has given us none of those.

When, last summer, I finally managed to get a response from the minister, I was told:

"It is not appropriate for me to give an 'in principle' decision at this stage."

Again, I struggle to understand the minister. It is not appropriate to give an in-principle decision? Surely an in-principle decision is just that—either the minister thinks that crossrail is a good idea or he does not. At this point, I am not asking him whether he thinks that the specifics of any detailed plans are the best business option; I just want to know whether he thinks that crossrail is a good idea. Either the minister thinks that crossrail would have no discernible benefits for commuters in North East Scotland or he thinks that it could play an important role in promoting the use of public transport. Maybe the minister will enlighten us on that point this morning.

The view of Transport Scotland is clear. Unfortunately, it does not believe that there is a case for crossrail. I respectfully disagree with that view, and I suggest that the concerns that Nestrans has raised about Transport Scotland's report on the project point to faults in Transport Scotland's position.

However, even with that in mind, I believe that strong leadership from the minister could still create the impetus to move crossrail forward. By declaring his support for crossrail, the minister would be asking Transport Scotland and Nestrans to ensure that the project was taken forward in the most effective manner possible and would be showing the people of North East Scotland that he is up to the challenge of delivering an ambitious, integrated public transport scheme. However, by hiding behind Transport Scotland's first report, he is showing that he is not up to that challenge. He is letting himself and the Government be dictated to, and he is letting down the people of North East Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament affirms its support for the Aberdeen Crossrail project, a vital infrastructure link for the region, which would provide a frequent cross-city rail service with commuter trains leaving Inverurie and Stonehaven for Aberdeen every 15 minutes and the opening of new stations north and south of Aberdeen including at Kintore, Newtonhill and Altens; notes that the project previously enjoyed cross-party support and was hailed as a key transport priority for the north east with the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits; deeply regrets that the project has been omitted from the Strategic Transport Projects Review, and calls on the Scottish Government to make a firm commitment to work with Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City councils through NESTRANS and its rail industry partners to restart the active development of the Aberdeen Crossrail project immediately.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I will start by apologising to Mr Rumbles for the intemperate word that I used when, in a sedentary comment, he grossly misrepresented the relationship between the minister and Transport Scotland.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

What an apology that is.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

It was intemperate, and I apologise.

The Government rejects the motion in the name of Alison McInnes. The Aberdeen crossrail project has a long history. I am well aware of the support that has been shown for the project, and that, in part, is why we are progressing the development of cross-Aberdeen services. Our approach is incremental and involves building patronage to strengthen the case for later investment, delivering value for money and protecting other projects across Scotland. Indeed, our amendment does not seek to delete Aberdeen crossrail from any motion that might be passed at 5 o'clock.

The STPR supports the delivery of sustainable economic growth and concluded that interventions between Aberdeen and Inverness and from Aberdeen to the central belt would contribute to achieving our purpose. Our proposed enhancements will deliver reduced journey times north and south of Aberdeen of up to 20 minutes; create new journey opportunities; improve accessibility to the Dyce area and beyond, to Inverurie; increase frequency by providing express services between Aberdeen and the central belt; and provide two trains every hour between Nairn and Inverness. Those interventions will make rail a genuine and attractive alternative to the car. In addition to improving passenger services, the enhancements will improve freight services by improving infrastructure to allow the operation of longer freight trains.

Together, the delivery of those outcomes will help the Government to achieve its purpose of sustainable economic growth for the whole of Scotland. Indeed, at a meeting that I attended earlier this year, Nestrans expressed its support for the proposed interventions, particularly because the proposals will deliver early many of the benefits of the Aberdeen crossrail proposal and will do so at better value to the taxpayer.

I have said previously that the Aberdeen and Inverness intervention will include work to evaluate a new station at Kintore and support the development of a new station at Dalcross, with interchange facilities to link with Inverness airport. I will shortly meet Nanette Milne to discuss the Kintore issue, and I hope that other members will be able to attend.

We are working with Network Rail to develop those interventions as part of the periodic settlement. Transport Scotland, under my instructions, will ask Network Rail to carry out a feasibility study later this year on developing the Aberdeen and Inverness intervention. The study, which will also examine the case for Kintore, must balance the desire to attract new passengers against the impact on network capacity and the needs of existing passengers, while taking account of value for money and affordability.

We have explained clearly our national priorities and we will continue to engage with local authorities and regional transport partnerships on the delivery of those priorities, in addition to discussing how best to deliver regional priorities. For example, we are working in partnership with Strathclyde partnership for transport and Glasgow City Council to establish and deliver common objectives for the west of Scotland rail enhancements. Good government is about leadership, which is what we are demonstrating. The construction of a new station at Laurencekirk, which was started by the previous Administration and will be delivered by the present one, will shortly link commuters to key economic centres.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister give way?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I do not have time.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister take an intervention on Laurencekirk station?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Very briefly.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The minister really must not mislead Parliament. Laurencekirk station is 14 miles south of Stonehaven. It has never been part of the Aberdeen crossrail project, so the minister must not pretend that it is.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

That was not appropriate. I congratulated the previous Administration on progressing the project and said that we are delivering it.

The 2008 timetable takes account of a package of improvements that were announced last year on the Edinburgh-Fife-Aberdeen line, which has provided hourly services between Aberdeen and Inverurie, with more frequent services at commuting times; half-hourly services between Dundee and Aberdeen; a reduction of about 10 minutes in journey times between Edinburgh and Aberdeen; and an additional 1,200 seats throughout the Scottish network.

On our roads, we are committed to getting the best return for investment. We are considering infrastructure improvements on nationally significant routes, including the A96. Again, we are working with RTPs on that.

As I have said before, the STPR is not the only way in which to deliver transport infrastructure. We will work with local government and RTPs on local and regional benefits. Of course, we will continue to engage with members and the Parliament on transport issues. I say once again that the Forth crossing remains our strategic priority on roads and it will dominate our spending until it is opened. It is an economic link that must be maintained, therefore it is right that the immediate focus should be on it. I am pleased that we will make significant rail interventions in parallel and that Aberdeen and the north will benefit. The Government has identified an investment hierarchy that prioritises interventions. Crossrail services in Aberdeen are important for the north-east and wider Scotland, which is why we are making investments in the north and will continue to do so. I will take pleasure in moving the amendment in my name.

I move amendment S3M-3674.3, to leave out from "which would" to end and insert:

"which is being tackled incrementally by the introduction of new services from Inverurie, the opening of Laurencekirk station, the re-timetabling of other services and the bringing forward of work on Kintore station; believes that this incremental approach delivers early and cost-effective benefits to rail services across Aberdeen; recognises that the introduction of additional stops increases journey times and can, in certain circumstances, reduce the viability of services overall; welcomes the real progress being made by the Scottish Government after years of inaction, and looks forward to further rail investment in the north as announced in the Strategic Transport Projects Review."

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

The remaining speeches should be of about four minutes' duration, but I have enough flexibility to allow members to take interventions—I will be able to add on a little time should they choose to do so.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

Labour will support the Liberal Democrat motion, but I confess to a wee bit of irritation with how it is framed. It is very tight and specific, which makes it difficult to talk about crossrail in general and the Aberdeen transport network in broader terms. Given the motion's formulation, it might have been more appropriate for a members' business debate. I hope that, in future, motions are framed slightly more widely. Our amendment is intended to open out the motion, because there are general issues that need to be discussed. My colleagues Lewis Macdonald and Richard Baker will speak in detail about specific stations in the Aberdeen area and other issues.

One problem with the STPR is that it treats projects that are outside the cities as national ones, but treats projects that are in or near the cities as local or regional ones. The crossrail projects in Aberdeen and Glasgow are excluded from the list of national projects, whereas projects that are cheaper or to do with trunk roads are national projects. That is really because of where they are. In Scotland's transport policy, a strategy for conurbations is essential. There is no point in talking about one project in Aberdeen, Glasgow or Edinburgh in isolation from other projects. That approach has bedevilled the consideration of transport in Scotland.

I remember raising that point in relation to Edinburgh with the then transport minister, Nicol Stephen. At one time, we had four major transport projects in Edinburgh—the Edinburgh airport rail link, the trams, the Waverley station upgrade and the Borders rail project—all of which were considered entirely separately, with no interfacing or integration between them, despite the fact that, inevitably, each of the projects would have an impact on the others. In practical terms, it was inappropriate to treat them as entirely separate projects, bearing in mind the central interconnection between them.

In future, I hope that the minister will consider Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire as a single transport area and that he will consider how schemes can be brought together to maximise benefit. For example, I am convinced that we will not get the full benefit from the Aberdeen western peripheral route without the crossrail project, because there are interfaces between the two schemes. The projects should be seen from the perspective of the individuals who will make transport choices. We must focus on the projects not as construction engineering approaches to transport, but from the point of view of the individual transport user and the economy of the area. In that sense, the exclusion of Aberdeen crossrail from the STPR is unreasonable.

The Government might be making choices about which bits of crossrail or which other schemes could be introduced, but that should emerge through dialogue with Nestrans and the local authorities about the priorities in the Aberdeen conurbation. From what the minister said, and from what he has said previously in response to my colleague Richard Baker, it does not seem as though that approach is being taken. Each project is a discrete element, whereas we need an integrated and interfaced approach.

I move amendment S3M-3674.1, to insert after "region":

"and for the wider national transport network in Scotland".

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I make it clear that, regardless of what the Liberal Democrats say about the Conservatives, we remain wholly committed to developing the elements that will move towards the creation of the Aberdeen crossrail project. In fact, the Conservatives have long had a reputation for supporting the project. In particular, my colleague Nanette Milne, who will speak about the issue in detail later, has a good reputation for being an active member at the centre of the campaign.

My amendment is clear that I will not tolerate the year-zero approach. We have had two Liberal Democrat transport ministers in Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott; one Liberal Democrat chair of Nestrans, who is now a member of the Parliament; and Liberal Democrats in government for eight years. During that time, the Liberal Democrats saw the campaign for the Aberdeen crossrail project as a cross-party one. However, now that they have a more Opposition-based perspective, if people do not agree with them, the campaign is obviously no longer cross-party.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No. Unfortunately, I have only four minutes.

My attitude towards Liberal Democrat cross-party campaigns wears a bit thin when I participate in many of them for various transport projects, or to save local hospitals or ambulance services, only to discover in the latest edition of the Lib Dems' Focus newsletter that it was entirely the Liberal Democrats who achieved the aims.

I will move on from the situation in which I have unfortunately put us to one in which we talk positively about the development of transport projects in Aberdeen. We must look forward and ensure that we develop the projects. Work still needs to be done to develop the case for some of the proposed stations that would form part of the crossrail project, which are mentioned in my extensive amendment. However, we must realise that there is an understanding, even within Nestrans, that an incremental approach will deliver some elements of the crossrail project.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No.

We must take an incremental approach and take opportunities when they arise. However, there are things that can be done in the short term to provide some of the services that the crossrail project would deliver. In particular, I draw the minister's attention to issues relating to the new timetable for the area that the project would cover. There has been much praise for the additional trains and stops north of Aberdeen, but there has been a problem in the area south of Aberdeen. This afternoon, First ScotRail will conduct a consultation exercise at Stonehaven station, where it will hear from local people about the problems that have arisen for commuters in the area as a result of timetable changes. The new timetable seems to have caused fewer problems for commuters going north in the morning, but there seems to be a serious problem for those going south in the evening. By and large, the Glasgow trains do not stop at Stonehaven; consequently, only half of the trains that leave Aberdeen provide the necessary service.

We are working hard, especially through my colleague Nanette Milne, to seek development of a station at Kintore. We must ensure that services are improved and that the viability of further station developments along the line between Stonehaven and Inverurie is considered. We have opportunities to move the crossrail project forward and we must retain cross-party support for it. The Conservatives remain committed to the principles behind the project.

I move amendment S3M-3674.2, to leave out from "with commuter" to end and insert:

"; notes the comments of NESTRANS, previously chaired by Alison McInnes MSP, in its regional transport strategy,

that "it is clear that improved rail services can only realistically be delivered on an incremental basis and in a way that capitalises on existing planned investment"; welcomes the recent improvements to the timetable, meaning that there is now a significantly better service north of Aberdeen than was the case when Nicol Stephen MSP and Tavish Scott MSP were ministers for transport; considers that proposals contained in the Strategic Transport Projects Review to improve services north and south of Aberdeen must be progressed as a priority as a key means of securing better crossrail services; welcomes the forthcoming opening of Laurencekirk station and considers that plans to open Kintore station should now be taken forward; further considers that local agencies should work together to build strong cases for the opening of stations at Newtonhill and Altens; notes with regret the very poor stewardship of rail projects under successive Liberal Democrat transport ministers, notably the significant cost overruns and delays that blighted the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line and the managerial paralysis at the heart of the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, and regrets the additional investment for projects such as Aberdeen Crossrail that has been lost as a result of this mismanagement."

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It seems that war has broken out where peace should reign. I will try to draw together what I understand the crossrail project to be about. We are arguing about trains that carry passengers from the north-west of Aberdeen, through Aberdeen, to the south of Aberdeen and back again. The only issue is how many stations they should stop at and how frequently they should run.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Hear, hear.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I thank the member—I am delighted that there is some consensus on the issue.

We could go down to the toy shop, take out a new railway, put it down where we want it to go, clear all the furniture out of the way and say that we have done it. The trouble is that the furniture is buildings, hills, valleys and rivers, so we cannot do that. What should we do? As you and other members are aware, Presiding Officer, we must start where we are and see where we can get to. We cannot get a new railway from the toy shop. We cannot even get one from the train shop—we must start with what we have.

As I understand it, the Government's policy is to start with what we have and to add a station every time that seems to make sense. Laurencekirk has already been mentioned, but I recognise that it is probably beyond the area that members want to talk about today. A station at Kintore is certainly a possibility: I understand that there is a large amount of political momentum behind that. A station at Newtonhill might be viable, but I doubt it. The same applies to the proposal for a station in Altens, as I do not think that it would ever be viable. However, if it can be proved to be viable, why not build it? Alex Johnstone has already answered that question. He made the point that the more stations trains stop at, the longer journey times will be. If we insist on putting in more stops, journeys will take longer and the service will become less attractive.

I point members to Transport Scotland's detailed appraisal of the crossrail project, which suggests that there would be some modal shift from car to rail but that the majority of the additional passengers would come from buses rather than cars. There would be no benefit to road safety, and journey times would be slower as a result of additional stops. I suggest to members that Transport Scotland's findings are entirely consistent with what we would expect for this kind of transport project. It is therefore no surprise that the best way forward is an incremental approach. There is no point in our spending significant amounts of money on putting in more stations and changing the timetable until there is some evidence that people will use the service and make it cost effective. That is why I support the Government's line on crossrail. Change must be incremental and must take place as fast as we can sensibly make it work. It does not matter what we call it, the point is that we should make progress. Surely we can agree on that.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

As Des McNulty said when opening for Labour, we want rail links to be strengthened within as well as between Scotland's city regions. Aberdeen crossrail is firmly part of that approach.

The SNP's approach is less clear. On the one hand, the minister wants us to welcome

"the opening of Laurencekirk station ... and the bringing forward of work on Kintore station".

On the other hand, he wants us to agree that

"the introduction of additional stops increases journey times and can, in certain circumstances, reduce the viability of services overall".

That seems to be a confused way of setting out a direction of travel. However, when ministers talk of the Aberdeen crossrail project being tackled incrementally, the inference must be that the increments will not be additional stops and that there will be no new stations besides those that have been mentioned. That would certainly explain why Aberdeen crossrail, like the Haudagain roundabout, failed to win ministerial support for inclusion in the strategic transport projects review. From the minister's description of his plans this morning, it seems that he sees Aberdeen simply as the junction of two main railway lines, rather than the centre of a city-focused crossrail project to serve the needs of people who live and work in Aberdeen.

Recently, Stewart Stevenson received the finalised Aberdeen city and shire structure plan, which I am sure he will already have cast his eye over. Paragraph 3.9 on page 10 of the plan explicitly promotes the crossrail proposals

"to provide more regular journeys and extra stations".

SNP councillors voted for the plan, which makes no mention of an incremental approach. I hope that that aspect of the plan will attract the minister's approval and that he will rethink his approach to the proposals.

Instead of cutting back our ambitions for crossrail, we should be looking at what more can be done. In my constituency of Aberdeen Central, a new station at Kittybrewster could help to cut back on car commuting, congestion and parking problems at key locations. In recent months, Aberdeen royal infirmary has been overwhelmed by a parking crisis, since SNP ministers decreed an end to hospital parking charges without first working out how to manage parking demand. The University of Aberdeen is developing an iconic new library in Old Aberdeen, which will attract users from across the region and beyond. Parking zones are already being planned for neighbouring areas as a result.

Both Foresterhill and Old Aberdeen would benefit from new access by rail via a new Kittybrewster station. Because Aberdeen crossrail, as originally conceived, is designed as an integral scheme for the whole city and region, it has the potential to deliver that, although there is no guarantee that it would do so. However, a Government that has set its face against additional stops and insists on taking what it describes as an incremental approach that does not recognise the wholeness of the city will not deliver that.

The parts of the city that I represent do not need a new road and bridge increasing traffic by way of the proposed third Don crossing. I hope that the minister will reject that part of the finalised structure plan when he forms a view on it and that he will support more rail, not more roads, into the city. It is to the credit of Alison McInnes that, when she was chair of Nestrans, she did not endorse the enthusiasm of her party colleagues on Aberdeen City Council for directing thousands of car commuters every day through Tillydrone and Old Aberdeen. Sadly, those councillors have now done Aberdeen city and shire a major disservice by including that contentious local project in strategic transport and structure plans for the region.

The minister could put the matter right by refusing to endorse the third Don crossing proposal in the structure plan. Instead, he should encourage local partners to work with the Scottish Government on sorting out the Haudagain roundabout and exploring how Aberdeen crossrail can be delivered. Those projects, along with the completion of the western peripheral route, are the city's real transport priorities, and ministers should support them.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I find it astonishing that, in the face of the deepening economic crisis, the Liberal Democrats have chosen such a subject for their allotted debating time. That is the kind of cry that we have heard from the Liberal Democrats in recent weeks when they have complained about Government business but, as usual, there is one rule for the Liberal Democrats and another for everyone else.

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

Will the member give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No thank you.

I read somewhere over the past few days that the Liberal Democrat leader, Tavish Scott, thinks that a coalition deal with the SNP is likely after the next election. Of course, we are delighted that the Liberal Democrats recognise that the SNP is likely to be the largest party and that they will need to do business with us, but we will not have a coalition on the basis that we park an independence referendum for two parliamentary sessions.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats claim that the SNP Government has failed to deliver on transport projects in the north-east. Let us look at the facts. As Alex Johnstone pointed out, despite the Liberal Democrats having had two transport ministers during their eight years in government and despite the fact that their current transport spokesman, Alison McInnes, was chair of Nestrans, there was no tangible progress on crossrail. Their legacy was review upon review, plenty of hot air and nae action. In her new role, perhaps Alison McInnes is trying to purge her previous inaction by trying to shift attention away from her party's failures.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No thank you.

Members, who is in charge of another suburban transport project? Oh dear, it is the Liberal Democrats. They are in charge of the Edinburgh trams project, which has ground to a halt before a rail has been laid or a tram is in sight. In contrast, we will open Laurencekirk station in the spring and timetabling changes—

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

The point about crossrail—

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Yes, Mike Rumbles, a station in the north-east is being opened under the SNP.

The timetable changes that were introduced in December mean that there are now more trains than ever between Inverurie and Aberdeen. For peak morning services, where there were two trains under the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition, there are now five under the SNP, as well as an additional evening service. Under the SNP, those services are up and running.

Phase 2 of the improvements on the Inverness to Aberdeen line will include consideration of a station at Kintore, on which the minister has said he is in discussion with other members. The STPR contains those improvements among its 29 national priorities, including an at least hourly service and a 20-minute reduction in journey times on the line. Such a service will greatly assist those who commute from Inverurie and Dyce.

The STPR also includes improvements between Aberdeen and the central belt. The increased number of express services and stopping services will benefit commuters from Stonehaven, Laurencekirk and Portlethen as well as those who travel longer distances between Aberdeen and Glasgow or Edinburgh. Such benefits for commuters and longer-journey passengers, which were talked about by the Liberals, are happening under an SNP Government.

The Liberal Democrats know that their reputation and credibility on transport in the north-east is dire. I can sum it up in four words: Aberdeen western peripheral route. The AWPR shambles has unnecessarily cost millions of pounds because of the Liberal Democrats' lack of decision taking. Trying to turn the spotlight on the SNP and crossrail winna wash with the sensible folk of the north-east.

I support the amendment in the name of Stewart Stevenson.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate Aberdeen crossrail, which is a vital transport project for the north-east. We have suffered many disappointments under an SNP Government that promised our area so much, but the failure to give Aberdeen crossrail the necessary backing—it is omitted entirely from the strategic transport projects review—is a particular blow to hopes for the public transport options that our area needs. I say to Maureen Watt that that "winna wash" with people in the north-east.

In my members' business debate on crossrail in 2006, members from all parties supported my call to move from the feasibility study that the previous Executive had funded to a firm commitment to construction with a clear timetable for delivery. I very much regret that that consensus has not survived into the current parliamentary session. Frankly, I think that the minister's uncharacteristically intemperate comment to Mike Rumbles would have been rather better applied to his own strategy.

I note that both the SNP and Tory amendments refer to "incremental" improvements. That is all very well; of course I welcome the additional services from Aberdeen to the south and the modest improvements in journey times, but a step change from that is required if we are to realise the Aberdeen crossrail project. Given the Conservatives' previous support for crossrail, it is regrettable that we could not get a consensus, at least among the opposition parties, by agreeing to the much clearer statement of support for the project that Alison McInnes's motion represents. The Aberdeen crossrail project needs that kind of clear support if we are to create the necessary political momentum.

Like Mike Rumbles, I am surprised that both amendments refer to Laurencekirk station. The new station is a welcome development indeed, but no one has ever understood Laurencekirk station to be part of the crossrail project. As Lewis Macdonald said in his excellent speech, the reference in the Government amendment to the impact that additional stops will have on journey times misses the point in what strikes me as a worrying way. With full realisation of crossrail, that would not be relevant.

Congestion in Aberdeen is a very real problem. The eventual completion—the project has been delayed by the minister—of the Aberdeen western peripheral route and the improvements at Haudagain that will now only follow the AWPR's construction will also require the development of Aberdeen crossrail if we really want to tackle congestion.

People travelling into the city from the shire need to have a realistic alternative to the car. For too many people, no such alternative exists at the moment. A frequent through service every 15 minutes from Inverurie to Stonehaven—with the potential for new city destinations and even for the eventual extension of the line north into the minister's constituency—would give commuters a real alternative. The increments should involve starting with a half-hourly service and moving to a service every 15 minutes. The Scottish Government's approach seems to be far more "incremental" than that.

The crossrail plans were put in place to address the fact that Aberdeen as a city, and the north-east as a region, are not as well served by rail links as other parts of the country are. Both the First Minister and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change know that well, so it is very surprising that the crossrail project has not been given greater priority. We know that there is no shortage of demand for increased rail services. When a similar facility was put in place in Edinburgh, there was a 72 per cent increase in passengers. I am sure that the Aberdeen crossrail project would be equally successful.

Congestion takes a heavy toll on business in Aberdeen. Even with the necessary road improvements—which are now further away than was originally envisioned—only progress on crossrail can provide us with the hope that we can tackle the increased congestion that is being predicted. It is self-evident that crossrail is crucial if we are to aspire to a sustainable transport policy for our part of Scotland, but it is also vital to the economy of the city and the shire. I was surprised by Maureen Watt's comments on the economic impact of the project, given that it would increase tourism in the area. Given the Administration's emphasis on the importance of oil and gas, surely it should agree that the oil and gas capital of Europe should have the necessary transport infrastructure.

I hope that Parliament will support the motion in the name of Alison McInnes. The Scottish Government should reconsider its approach by pledging its full support to the Aberdeen crossrail project, which it knows the north-east needs.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

We come now to closing speeches.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am not sure whether to regard the Liberal Democrats as brave or foolhardy in their choice of subject matter for this morning's debate, given their record on transport in recent years. From the first major transport announcement of the Lib Dem-Labour Administration—in which Nicol Stephen was a minister—which cancelled the previous Conservative Government's north-east transport infrastructure programme, which had included a bypass for Keith and improvements to the rail network, to Tavish Scott's handling of the Aberdeen western peripheral route, the Liberal Democrats have not exactly won the acclaim of the resident north-east population for their approach to infrastructure provision.

However, I welcome the opportunity to debate the future of Aberdeen crossrail in what has been a useful discussion this morning. I absolutely agree with Alison McInnes that crossrail services are a key transport priority for the north-east, with the potential to bring significant economic and environmental benefits. I was concerned that the project did not appear as such in the STPR when that review was finally published in December last year.

Realistically, as Nestrans has made clear in its regional transport strategy, improved rail services can be delivered only incrementally and in a manner that capitalises on existing planned investment, so we have highlighted that fact in our amendment. In my opinion, the Lib Dem motion fails to acknowledge that point and it fails to refer to the recent timetable improvements that are already providing better services to people who live to the north of the city.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No. I do not have time to take an intervention.

The motion also fails to acknowledge the proposals in the STPR to improve services north and south of the city, which are a key part of securing better crossrail services—improvements that include the re-opening of the station at Laurencekirk.

Like the Lib-Dems, we too would like to see new train stops at Altens and Newtonhill—and perhaps also at Kittybrewster, although it is quite some way from Foresterhill—but, to be realistic, the case for those new stops has not yet been made. Local people need to work together to build a strong case for opening stations at those locations. I hope that that will happen. On the other hand, a convincing case has already been made for re-opening the station at Kintore. Its rapidly growing commuting population is increasingly looking to use the train to avoid congestion at peak times on the A96. Indeed, for a number of years, there has been cross-party support for re-opening the station at Kintore. The actions that the Nestrans board approved in December, which could help to move forward rail matters, included on-going feasibility work on re-opening the station at Kintore, which we welcome.

We also welcome actions such as the commitment to maximise any opportunities that arise from the December 2008 timetable changes, the launch of a shuttle bus between Dyce and the airport, and a line-speed enhancement study on the Aberdeen to Inverness line. Things are moving forward locally, despite the omission of Aberdeen crossrail from the STPR.

Let there be no doubt that the Scottish Conservatives support the Aberdeen crossrail project. However, we also accept that it is a project of components, each of which is deliverable in stages that have their own benefits. I believe that the re-opening of Kintore station can—and should—be the next component in the development of the Aberdeen crossrail. The Scottish Conservatives have been at the forefront of the campaign for that improvement, which has significant support from the local community.

I welcome the minister's words this morning and I acknowledge the Government's commitment to progress improvements to rail services in the north and north-east. I am pleased that the minister has agreed to my request for a meeting with cross-party and community representatives. Although some of my MSP colleagues from the north-east, including the Liberal Democrats, have been a little slow in responding to my invitation to attend the meeting, I hope that it will be helpful in moving things forward and in getting Aberdeen crossrail back on track

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Back in December, I predicted that the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change, Mr Stevenson, would be in the chamber regularly to debate the developments that are in the strategic transport projects review, and those that are not. The review is broad in scope but lacks the detail that members wanted. Parliamentarians expect to see greater detail emerging in the coming months and years.

I understand the feelings of those whose projects were not included in the review. They feel left out, and still believe that their projects should have been included. Across the country, the people who we represent in our constituencies have been left feeling disappointed. It is therefore completely understandable that Parliament should debate issues such as Aberdeen crossrail over the coming period. It is 10 years since the Scottish Parliament was established—10 years since members of the Scottish Parliament were given the opportunity to debate issues of this nature. I am happy therefore to speak in the debate this morning.

I turn to Alex Johnstone's speech. I was surprised to hear him talk of his support for Aberdeen crossrail. When I first read the amendment in his name, I thought that he had done a good job of hiding support for the project.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

We demonstrated our obvious support for the Aberdeen crossrail project by framing our amendment within the Liberal Democrat motion. Our amendment follows on from the opening line of the motion, which declares support for the project.

John Park (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the member agrees that his language in wording the amendment could have been much more consensual. Had he done so, he could have achieved wider support. Anyone reading the amendment would think that the Conservatives are not supportive of the project. As Alison McInnes said, she hoped for a consensual debate, but her hopes were shattered on reading the Conservative amendment. It is not the first time that Mr Johnstone has done that to Ms McInnes: I know and share her pain.

Stewart Stevenson took time to explain the rail enhancements north and south of Aberdeen. I have no doubt that those interventions will improve services to a degree. However, my colleague Lewis Macdonald was absolutely spot on when he said that the Government should not be cutting back on its ambitions for crossrail, but looking at what more it could do. He gave examples of how crossrail could be used to improve the situation in Aberdeen in terms of hospital and university car parking, in addition to providing direct services into the city centre for workers who live in the surrounding area. Richard Baker touched on the subject when he spoke about the important role that crossrail would play in ensuring that people travel safely and quickly into the city centre and across the city to outlying areas.

I turn to Maureen Watt's speech. In terms of the economic crisis, it is the parties in opposition that are setting the agenda. We have brought Government ministers to the chamber and put serious questions to them on the action that the Government is taking. Of course, some of the focus has been on short-term measures, but I am sure that Maureen Watt agrees that Parliament needs also to debate longer-term measures. A number of infrastructure projects, including Aberdeen crossrail, would benefit not only the north-east but the rest of Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, too.

The number 1 priority for the strategic transport projects review is the new Forth crossing, over which doubts still remain. Concern continues to be expressed on costs, how future-proofed the new crossing will be, and where sections of the bridge will be manufactured. On 11 February, I wrote to the minister on that and asked whether some sections of the bridge will be manufactured in China. I look forward to his reply.

Given the current economic crisis, we have to be careful in what we say about infrastructure projects such as Aberdeen crossrail. In looking ahead to where we want to be in the future, issues such as procurement methods, job opportunities for the people of Scotland and skills must be at the front of our minds. We should be doing everything as a Parliament and Government to ensure that that is the case.

As my colleague Des McNulty said, the Labour Party will support the Liberal Democrat motion at decision time, but he was also right to highlight some of our concerns on the wording of the motion, which has constrained its support across the chamber. If the Opposition wants to bring Mr Stevenson to Parliament regularly, perhaps the motions that we lodge should be framed in the widest possible terms.

As Mr McNulty rightly said, the Labour Party's focus is on raising the importance of the need to integrate our transport network not only in our cities but across the country. That is the basis on which we will seek to hold the Scottish Government to account over the coming period. I am pleased to support the amendment in the name of my colleague, Des McNulty.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I welcome John Park's concluding remarks, in which he looked forward to my continuing to come to the chamber. I intend to do that.

The strategic transport projects review is the thread that has run through the debate. Indeed, it is the first objective-led, nationwide, multimodal and evidence-based appraisal process to be undertaken in Scotland. Other jurisdictions are now looking into it—we are at the leading edge of international approaches to transport planning.

The STPR sets out the next 20 years of investment priorities. It will help ministers and Administrations to make informed decisions on future transport spending, subject to the current programme.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Can the minister confirm that capital for rail is rather more possible because Network Rail has borrowing powers, and that there is therefore less potential financial impact on rail than there is on road from the Forth road bridge project?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

That is absolutely correct. Indeed, the proposed rail interventions for the north-east are budgeted at some £1.1 billion. If that does not highlight the Government's commitment to improving the rail infrastructure in Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire, I do not know what will.

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

I am interested in what the minister said in response to Brian Adam. If Network Rail's regulated asset base is the most effective way of delivering rail infrastructure in Scotland, why has he ruled out using that method for the Borders railway? Why does he prefer to borrow £300 million from the private sector for that project?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We invited Network Rail to compete, which would be the most effective way of reaching a cost-effective solution. In fact, a substantial number of people are interested in building the Borders rail link. It is important that we support the Office of Rail Regulation, which says that we can achieve 30 per cent savings by using different models and approaches, compared with how Network Rail does things. The Office of Rail Regulation has managed to get 19 per cent efficiency savings for the next control period. It is proper that we always consider the most effective ways of doing things on the rail network.

I will now turn to a few of the remarks that members have made. I will deal with as many as I can in the time that is available. Des McNulty criticised the Liberal Democrat motion—I accept that he did so in a mild way—for its parochialism. I am not sure that I agree with him on that. It is proper that the Parliament should debate that in plenary session, if it is asserted that such matters in Aberdeen are important for the whole country.

Des McNulty says that we need a strategy for conurbations. Should local stations be national or local? That is a perfectly good and proper question for him to ask. We need to consider the cross-cut across a range of projects in different transport modes and we must seek to integrate them, which is precisely what we have sought to do in the strategic transport projects review. Will strategic transport projects review 2, when it comes along, do things better than STPR 1? Yes, of course it will, because one can always learn lessons.

On the proposal to consider Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire as a single transport area, that is largely happening already through increased collaboration between the councils. Des McNulty emphasised the need for dialogue. Basically, I agreed with a great deal of what Des McNulty had to say. I do not always do so, but I think that he spoke a great deal of sense today.

Alex Johnstone spoke about timetable issues south of Aberdeen. Of course, we do not control the timetables on the network in Great Britain. We can control what we ask of First ScotRail, but the timetables depend on Network Rail's willingness to co-operate, and indeed that of the other operators that have to access the track, which are controlled by Westminster. We are making good progress; we will try to do more.

Nigel Don pointed out that it is north-east to south-west trains that are important. We are not ruling out more stations. One of the benefits of the incremental approach is that we will build up the case for further stations. Various locations have been mentioned.

Lewis Macdonald once again introduced the issue of the Haudagain roundabout. The work will be done by this Government and people will welcome it, as I have said before. That is not a national project; it is about fixing the local road. The traffic has been transferred off what is currently a trunk road; it is being made a local road. However, we are supporting that project, as we believe we should.

Richard Baker welcomed incremental improvements. I think that he is absolutely right.

I hope that I can borrow John Park's crystal ball, which has clearly been working for him. I would make a little point about the new Forth bridge. We are seeking to ensure that local civil engineering contractors are fully engaged at an early stage so that they understand what opportunities are available for them. Under international law, we cannot mandate who, internationally, is involved, but we are going to give our local people the best possible shot.

This has been a good debate, although not entirely free from rancour. We will see how we vote at 5 o'clock. The commitment by this minister and this Government to improving rail services in the north-east is absolute. No minister before me has used the railway as much as I have. I look forward to continuing to do so, and I support the amendment in my name.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

We had hoped that the debate would move the Aberdeen crossrail project on, but thanks to the SNP and the Conservatives, it is clear that the project will be dead in the water if they have their way. I am continually astonished by the excuses for inaction from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. His amendment, if it is passed, will reaffirm support for Aberdeen crossrail. The problem, however, is that his definition of the Aberdeen crossrail project is flawed—he is redefining crossrail. No longer are we to have, even as a vision—vision from the transport minister?—a 15-minute commuter service running between Inverurie, Aberdeen and Stonehaven.

As for Alex Johnstone, he pretends to support Aberdeen's crossrail project just like the SNP, but he has no vision, either. He is attempting to remove from Alison McInnes's motion any reference to a 15-minute commuter service. The people of the north-east will not forgive Alex Johnstone for failing to support the vision that is necessary to deliver that 15-minute commuter service that we so need.

When the then Minister for Transport, Nicol Stephen, originally allocated £400,000 to a detailed feasibility study for Aberdeen, Nestrans was unequivocal in its desire to deliver a project at the earliest opportunity. Councillor Kate Dean, leader of Aberdeen City Council and then chair of Nestrans, said:

"I am delighted that the Minister has today announced two of the steps which progress towards the delivery of an Aberdeen crossrail",

which, she said,

"remains one of our key objectives in our Modern Transport Strategy ... we will be looking to deliver at the earliest opportunity."

However, at a briefing for MSPs in November, which Alex Johnstone certainly did not bother to attend, Derick Murray, the director of Nestrans, revealed that the Scottish Government's transport wing, Transport Scotland, had indicated that it was not interested in developing local rail services for the north-east, but was instead focusing on improving services between Aberdeen and Glasgow. Nestrans now seems not to be supporting the original concept of the Aberdeen crossrail. Indeed, it is supporting the SNP Government's so-called incremental approach. It is forgetting all about a commuter service every 15 minutes. Perhaps it is not too much of a surprise to find that the new chair of Nestrans is Councillor Kevin Stewart of the SNP. To quote the Conservative amendment:

"improved rail services can only realistically be delivered on an incremental basis".

So, Alex Johnstone has joined the SNP, flying the white flag early. How pathetic.

Last week, or near enough, the transport minister admitted that he did not take anything out of the strategic transport projects review. That is great, isn't it? He did not put anything into it either.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I never said that.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

He said that to me in this Parliament very recently.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Would the member please quote my words? I said no such thing.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

You did say such a thing. Please check the Official Report . I am getting a little bit fed up with ministers coming to the Parliament and redefining what they have been saying. The minister certainly failed to include Aberdeen's crossrail. He needs to re-examine his whole approach to the job and he needs, for goodness' sake, to take charge of his department, rather than simply take what is put in front of him by his civil servants.

Whatever happens at the vote tonight, I and the Liberal Democrats are concerned that SNP and Conservative MSPs will be conning the people of the north-east. Yes—conning them. Their amendments certainly pretend to confirm support for Aberdeen's crossrail, but Stewart Stevenson and, more inexplicably, Alex Johnstone—I cannot understand the Conservative position—redefine what they mean by Aberdeen's crossrail project.

I am personally disappointed that we did not hear from Brian Adam in a speech. He had the courage to make an intervention on his own minister, but not the courage to actually participate in the debate.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

What nonsense.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I hope that Brian Adam at least asked to speak; perhaps he was prevented from doing so through the choice of SNP speakers. Let us be generous to him.

The SNP and the Tories can fool some of the people some of the time, but I am convinced that they are now both being found out for their inaction and, more important, for their lack of vision.

Student Minimum Income Guarantee

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-3675, in the name of Margaret Smith, on a minimum income guarantee for students.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The recession is hitting everyone: it is hitting pensioners, families and many of Scotland's students, who already live on tight budgets. Some of them are losing part-time jobs or are suffering as a result of a downturn in their families' incomes, and others are struggling against rising costs.

This debate gives us the chance to focus on the financial hardship that many students feel, and to argue for a fair living income for students. It is also a chance to remember the importance of the higher and further education sectors to Scotland's economy and, therefore, the importance of retaining students in their courses.

In the teeth of the worst economic recession in living memory, we must ensure not only that we are able to weather the economic storm but that we come out the other side of it equipped, skilled and ready to meet the challenges of a different world. If we do not invest in and plan for higher and further education, we will not be able to compete in an increasingly competitive world economy, so Universities Scotland is right to challenge the Government to

"progress towards Scotland being in the top quartile of OECD countries for the percentage of GDP invested in its universities and for national investment in research, development and innovation".

I am proud of the Liberal Democrats' record in government on tertiary education funding. We reversed the pattern of most of the 1980s and 1990s, when increases in student numbers meant that funding per head was being reduced. In our eight years in government, universities and colleges received an average increase of more than 5 per cent every year and funding reached a record £1 billion a year.

However, funding student support is just as important as proper funding for education institutions, which is why we abolished tuition fees. Because of that, nearly 200,000 Scottish students entering Scottish institutions have not paid fees, which represents a total of £4 billion less debt for Scottish graduates. We also helped the Scottish National Party Government to scrap the graduate endowment. That has also reduced the amount of debt for Scotland's students. I give the SNP credit for that but, in other ways, it has let down students. Many students voted for the SNP because it promised to drop student debt, but no sooner was it in government than that undeliverable pledge was dumped. The SNP did not even try to bring plans to Parliament, claiming that it knew that they had no support. It is a pity that it does not feel the same way about many other things, including the referendum on independence.

Getting student support right is crucial not only so that potential students are not put off higher education because of the cost, but so that students are not forced to suffer financial hardship or to jeopardise their educational performance by working excessive hours to support themselves. That is why we have supported the NUS Scotland's call for a minimum income guarantee for Scottish students for the past few years. Such a guarantee would make a real difference to students who suffer hardship during their studies.

Thanks to the Liberal Democrat amendment on the motion to pass the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill, the SNP has included a proposal for a minimum income guarantee in its student support consultation. However, we know that it is not the Government's preferred option. Instead of dumping all Scotland's student debt, which could cost around £2 billion, the SNP has allocated £30 million to assist with the transition from student loans to grants. Given the total cost of a move from loans to grants, it would clearly be many years before the shift was complete.

The SNP Government is resistant to any suggestion that includes increased access to student loans. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning will say that it is wrong to encourage students to get into more debt, but it is also morally wrong to leave students living in poverty—and members should make no mistake that that is where many of them are. Currently, the maximum support that a student in Scotland can get is £4,510 per year. That is £2,000 less than their English counterparts get for maintenance but, more important, it is also nearly £2,500 below the United Kingdom poverty line. Students are the only group of people that Government policy leaves in that position.

NUS research shows that more than half of students have considered dropping out due to hardship and that those who are from poorer backgrounds are twice as likely to drop out due to poverty. That is why, along with Scottish students, the Liberal Democrats call for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per year to bring students up to the income levels that reflect their cost of living.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I am spoilt for choice. I will give way to the minister.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

What would be the Liberal Democrats' policy for the minimum income guarantee? How much could be loans? Could it be £6,000 out of £7,000? More important, how much would it cost and how would they pay for it?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The cost would depend on the ratio. We do not rule out the possibility of an increase in loans. That must be part of the minimum income guarantee because we cannot afford to pay for £7,000 in grants. Neither we nor NUS Scotland says that we can afford that. Widening access is not only about getting more people into education; it is also about supporting them to stay there. The guarantee would be fulfilled through varying combinations of bursaries, loans and parental contributions. It would also mean that fewer students were compelled to take out expensive commercial, credit-card type loans. There is no such thing as "good debt", but the student loan—which is payable when the individual starts earning £15,000—is probably preferable to commercial loans.

Students should be given the choice about what they need to get them through their studies. We know, and the NUS knows, that no Government or Parliament would be able to deliver the minimum income guarantee at a single bound. We will not be able to bring all Scotland's full-time HE students up to a minimum income of £7,000 with the £30 million that the Government has set aside, but we should set that minimum income as our target. We could make a start with a hybrid of increased grants for poorer students and access to greater loans. That would be a step in the right direction towards a fair minimum income for Scottish students.

By contrast, the SNP's plans to shift from loans to grants would need Treasury approval to work and would not put a single penny more into the pockets of hard-pressed students when they need it most.

No one can be in any doubt that students are struggling. The costs of the sorts of things on which they spend their money—rent, food and heating—have all risen faster than general inflation. I will resist the obvious comment about minimum pricing for alcohol, and I speak as the mother of two students. Many students have turned to their institutions' hardship funds for help. Although we welcome the fact that universities and colleges were able to get access to emergency in-year redistribution funds in November, it remains the case that only six of the 32 colleges that asked for more FE funding at that point got the funds that they needed to help students. We also know of students who do not even bother to ask for help because they think that the answer will be no, and we have already highlighted our concerns about problems with discretionary child care funding that mean that student parents can be discouraged from starting courses because institutions have run out of discretionary funds.

We call on the Government to conduct more research into hardship so that we can get a better understanding about the widening access picture and, crucially, a clearer national measurement of drop-out rates, which would help to drive a new approach to student retention.

It is impossible to solve all the student support issues right away, but we must do what we can to simplify the support system and we must take the first step towards providing a £7,000 minimum income guarantee by helping Scotland's poorest young students as soon as we can.

I move,

That the Parliament recognises the importance of the higher and further education sector; notes the outcome of the New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century report and the need to involve key stakeholders in discussions about the funding of the university sector; believes that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP government's failure to deliver on its manifesto pledge to dump student debt; notes the Supporting a Smarter Scotland consultation on student support and rejects its proposals for not adequately addressing student hardship, and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver a simplified support system, which includes a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per annum for full-time higher education students made up from a combination of grants, loans and parental contributions.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Government believes that access to higher education should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. During the parliamentary process to abolish the unfair graduate endowment fee, we agreed that we would consult on the minimum income guarantee. We are doing that through our consultation on supporting learners in higher education, which runs until 30 April 2009.

The consultation paper "Supporting a Smarter Scotland: A consultation on supporting learners in higher education" focuses on the mainstream support that is available for students who undertake full-time undergraduate study in higher education at college or university. It seeks views on replacing the current system of student loans with a fair and affordable system of means-tested grants and other means of student support.

I feel very strongly that it is disrespectful to ignore the views of the many people who have already responded, or who are still to respond, to the consultation. The Liberal Democrats asked for a consultation in the first place in an amendment to the motion to pass the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill. They got one, but now they want to ignore and bypass it.

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

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No.

I warn the Liberal Democrats that, if the Labour amendment is agreed to, they will have made a tactical blunder that would allow the Parliament to reject the minimum income guarantee, because targeted support for the poorest students is contradictory to a guaranteed minimum income for all.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that the consultation proposes a minimum income guarantee of only £5,500—an increase of a mere £500—and does nothing to address the serious issue of student hardship?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The Labour Party has confirmed in its amendment that it does not support the minimum income guarantee but wants targeted support for the poorest students. I know what is in the consultation paper, which makes the minimum income guarantee clear. If Claire Baker had listened to Margaret Smith, she would know that she said that the initial increase would not be to the full minimum income guarantee of £7,000.

The paper sets out a number of options to improve student support by using the £30 million that has been made available with a view to either increasing the amount of support or reducing levels of debt on graduation. We believe that the suggestion from the Association of Scotland's Colleges is worth further consideration, so we have included it in the consultation paper. It could be argued that that option may become increasingly attractive as the recession gathers pace.

The Liberal Democrats' motion has the effect of dismissing the college option completely out of hand. The Liberal Democrats are not giving college students a fair hearing, which flies in the face of Hugh O'Donnell's previous statements in which he asserted that his party supports college students who face hardship. Is it the case that the Liberal Democrats do not really want to hear college students' views?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

What we are suggesting is help for full-time higher education students, many thousands of whom are learning in Scotland's colleges.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On the basis that the Liberal Democrats have yet to outline the content and costing of their policy, I do not think that Margaret Smith's answer gives college students any confidence whatsoever.

The financial restrictions facing us are real. We have had the tightest spending settlement since devolution. We had to meet the unpaid bills of £60 million a year for the previous Government's promises on public-private partnership school buildings and—yes—we had to make hard choices. Despite all those real and difficult pressures, we have still managed to find £30 million that will make a real difference for students in the future.

In comparison with the lack of action in the previous eight years, in less than two years in this session of Parliament, we have already made a number of real improvements for students. We abolished the graduate endowment fee, which is benefiting up to 50,000 students and graduates, saving them £2,300 each. We have removed the burden of debt: two thirds of students who were due to pay £2,300 for the fee did not pay it back directly but simply added it to their student loan. Student debt doubled in Scotland between 1999 and 2005, but under the SNP Government, it fell in 2007, for the first time since devolution. We have replaced loans with grants, with a £38 million package for part-time learners in higher education, benefiting up to 20,000 students a year. We have increased the threshold for students with disabilities and are providing institutions with £16 million a year to alleviate student hardship, which is a rise of 14.6 per cent on 2006-07 levels.

Although demand for hardship support is increasing, so have the resources to fund it, and requests for top-up funds for hardship went down this year, in comparison with last year. Only three out of the 11 universities that Labour surveyed have asked for more funds, and only one out of the four universities that The Scotsman quoted this week has asked for funds.

The Labour Party amendment does not support a minimum income guarantee. It notes the NUS position, but rejects it in favour of a policy request: that the Government look at supporting the poorest students. Has Claire Baker read the consultation? Options 1a, 1b and 3 all set out the case for supporting the poorest students. She should do her homework, but that is not Labour's strong point.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

No, thank you.

The Westminster Government miscalculated its grant policy by £200 million and now has to claw back £100 million from students and universities, threatening courses and student numbers.

I return to the Liberal Democrats. They asked for a consultation and they got one. They should have the patience to listen to the consultation.

Rhona Brankin (Labour, Midlothian)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I am closing.

The debate is premature. I respect the Liberal Democrats' right to argue the case for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000. However, in moving the Government's amendment, I ask the Parliament to respect the many people, from students in colleges and universities to parents and others, who have the right to respond to the consultation on student support and to be heard, without being pre-judged by the vote at decision time.

I move amendment S3M-3675.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:

"notes the Scottish Government's consultation on student support, Supporting a Smarter Scotland, which closes on 30 April 2009, and the proposals it outlines, including a minimum income guarantee; further notes that under the previous administration student debt doubled between 1999 and 2006; welcomes the falls in average student debt achieved as a result of the enhanced support on offer from the Scottish Government; further welcomes the restoration of the principle of free education with the abolition of the graduate endowment fee; commends the Scottish Government on the introduction of a £38 million package of grants for part-time learners, replacing loans with grants for up to 20,000 students per year; congratulates the Scottish Government on the 14.6% increase in student hardships funds over the last two years; further welcomes the additional support that has been made available for students with disabilities, and calls on the Scottish Government to respond positively to the outcome of the consultation."

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to open the debate for Labour. It is fair to say that the SNP has avoided holding debates on students, and it is not difficult to see why. The SNP has a list of overpromised and underdelivered policies on students. The Scottish Government was elected on several headline-grabbing promises to students that it never intended to keep. It promised full grants for every student and no more loans; it also promised, on seemingly every leaflet that it produced, to dump the debt. However, instead of writing off the debt, it has written off Scotland's poorest students.

The SNP amendment trumpets the £38 million for part-time students, but the fact is that the SNP's efforts to replace loans with grants fall incredibly far short of its manifesto commitment. The £30 million that it has made available for student support next year is wholly inadequate to address the hardships that students face.

Without apology and without shame, the SNP has reneged on almost every promise that it made to Scottish students and graduates at the most recent election. It made a series of multibillion-pound pledges that, in a typically cynical and short-term move, was simply designed to get the student vote. Not content with breaking promises, the SNP in Government has made changes that contribute to student hardship.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

On breaking manifesto promises, can Claire Baker outline how Labour fulfilled its manifesto promise not to introduce loans and top-up fees?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was obviously in a different election. The point is irrelevant to this debate. Labour's record shows that we abolished top-up fees and reduced student hardship by introducing the young person's bursary. Labour's commitment is to address student hardship issues.

We now get to the SNP's record. It has made a £12.5 million cut in the student support budget that will result in fewer students receiving any support and, crucially, fewer students receiving full support. It has made a change to the means test, which has cut funding for some of our most vulnerable students midway through their course. That change will affect up to 33,000 students—thousands of mature students, and students from single-parent families who until now were exempt from means testing.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

On means testing, is Claire Baker aware of the letter that I wrote to the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee in which I outlined the fact that only 45 students had applied for hardship funds because of the change to means testing, and that their requests had been met?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am aware of that letter, but I think that the cabinet secretary will share my disappointment that only five universities responded to her request for information. Current pressure on hardship funds does not mean that there are no issues with the changes to the means test.

The Government's 16-plus proposals include cuts in education maintenance allowances for our college students and cuts in the income threshold, which would reduce further the number of college students who would qualify. Those are all policies that take money from poor students to give to even poorer students. In addition, the SNP was set to introduce a local income tax that would have hit more than 50,000 of our poorest students who work long hours.

We are now starting to see the consequences of the SNP's actions. In just two years, the SNP has managed, through its actions and inaction, to create intolerable pressure on student hardship funds. Government support for students is inadequate. In prioritising graduate debt, it has ignored student hardship. Too many students on limited budgets have to make choices between heating, food, books and bus fares. That will do nothing to address Scotland's drop-out rate, which is the highest in the UK. All of that is taking place in the context of difficult economic times, which puts additional pressures on students' budgets.

If the SNP Government was a responsible and responsive Government, it would take action. It would drop its inadequate student support proposals. It would help students through the current economic difficulties and prevent them from falling into hardship and having to rely on a dwindling supply of hardship funds. It would help students who lose their part-time job. It would help students to meet their child care needs. It would help students who see contributions drying up from parents who can no longer afford to help. However, the SNP has not taken those actions.

The situation that the Government has created has stretched hardship funds to breaking point. The University of Abertay Dundee, for example, has exhausted its supplies of hardship funds twice, which means that it can no longer help students with serious money worries. Student support here is now so far behind that in the rest of the UK that a Scottish student studying at the University of Stirling, which is in my region, will get more than a third less money to live on than their English, Welsh or Northern Irish counterparts studying at the same university.

The fact is that there is almost £2,000 less for the poorest Scottish student. An English student with a family income of £50,000 gets more support from their Government than the very poorest Scottish student gets. The poorest student studying in England receives more in grant support from their Government than the poorest student in Scotland receives from their Government.

The student support system in Scotland is no longer fit for purpose. The overriding priority for students in Scotland is student hardship, because they need money in their pockets to help them complete their studies. NUS Scotland president Gurjit Singh said this morning that abolishing the graduate endowment had

"little impact on the day to day life of students and does nothing to tackle the issue of financial hardship students face while studying."

The SNP has failed on student hardship.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Sorry, but I need to finish.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

You can take the intervention, if you wish.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

It will probably be quite short. Does the member accept that Gurjit Singh also said that we should support a minimum income guarantee for students?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes, but does Margaret Smith accept that Gurjit Singh said that that should be achieved through grants and loans, not grants, loans and parental contributions?

The SNP has failed on student hardship. It has spent £18 million on abolishing the graduate endowment and is moving £38 million from loans for part-time students to grants for tuition, but students get not one penny in their pockets while they are studying. Further, at a time of increasing student hardship levels, the SNP has flatlined general discretionary funds.

Scottish universities have the highest drop-out rates, the lowest participation of students from low-income backgrounds and the most underfunded students in the UK. That is unacceptable, and it is why Labour will work for a £7,000 minimum income for our poorest students, which represents the Joseph Rowntree Foundation poverty line and is the level called for by student representatives across Scotland.

That proposal is deliverable within available resources, and it would tackle student hardship for our most vulnerable students and support those whose financial position might discourage them from pursuing higher education. It is fair, affordable and achievable.

We have sought to amend Margaret Smith's motion, as we believe that students in Scotland have had enough of false hope and hollow promises. Although we agree with the direction taken in the Lib Dems' motion, students have had enough broken promises without more being added to the list. Margaret Smith's press comments this morning and her comments in the debate suggest that she agrees with the proposal that to start by providing £7,000 for the poorest students is the way to go. In light of that, I hope that the Lib Dems can support our amendment.

Rather than promise the unachievable, I urge Parliament to support our amendment, which calls on the Government to focus the resources that are available in the present spending review period on the poorest students, to tackle student hardship, to invest in the long term and to help students through economic difficulties in the short term.

I move amendment S3M-3675.1, to leave out from "its proposals" to end and insert:

"all of its proposals for not adequately addressing student hardship; expresses serious concern at reports of childcare and hardship funds being stretched to breaking point across colleges and universities in Scotland; recognises the calls of the NUS and other student representatives for a £7,000 minimum income guarantee but believes that a £7,000 minimum income for all students in Scotland is unachievable with the funds allocated for student support by the Scottish Government in this spending review period, and calls on the Scottish Government to come forward with new proposals that focus the available resources at the poorest students to genuinely address student hardship in Scotland."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I draw members' attention to my entry in the register of members' interests and, specifically, to my membership of the board of Dundee University Students Association.

I am sure that all of us can remember the energetic dump the debt campaign that the Scottish National Party ran on campuses across Scotland before the last election. Students were told that an SNP Government would write off their student debts and replace loans with grants. I know of many students and, for that matter, parents who voted SNP as a result. What a cruel delusion that pledge turned out to be. Like so many SNP promises, it has been broken. It is not the debt that has been dumped, but the SNP's manifesto pledge.

We are dealing with a serious situation for Scottish students. As we have heard, many students are reporting real hardship. Across Scotland, universities are reporting that their hardship funds are running out of money. As Claire Baker said, the University of Abertay Dundee's hardship fund has run out of money twice in the current academic year, with the result that support has had to be rationed to better-performing students.

Although student debt is a real issue, student hardship is a greater one. Many students are having to borrow over and above their student loans, from banks and other commercial lenders. Worse still, some are having to borrow on credit cards. We believe that we should be looking to expand the current student loan scheme, which at least provides a way of borrowing money that is secure and has a low interest rate, rather than leaving students to pay punitive rates of interest for bank overdrafts and credit card debt.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

When I was at university, we did not have loans—we had grants. What happened to those grants? Who brought in the loans?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Like Mr Gibson, I went to university at the time of a Conservative Government, which provided grants. We must accept that given the massive expansion in the number of young people who go to university, it is right that students make a contribution to their upkeep during their time there. I make no apology for the introduction of student loans. What most students today want is greater access to student loans, which is far better than having to borrow money on a commercial basis.

The Liberal Democrat motion refers to the minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per student. I am aware of the campaign by student representatives for a guaranteed minimum income of that amount, made up of a mixture of grants, loans and parental contributions, and it is difficult to fault the logic of that.

However, we must deal with the significant issue of the affordability of any proposal in the current spending review period. I note that the Liberal Democrats have provided us with no information about how much their policy will cost, despite the cabinet secretary's intervention on Margaret Smith, or how it might be afforded. For the past few months, we have heard from the Liberal Democrats only about their new policy priority of a 2p income tax cut, which could be afforded only by finding £800 million-worth of savings from the Scottish budget. We read in yesterday's papers that that policy has now been ditched. Overnight, the Liberal Democrats have reverted to type. What a relief it must be for all Liberal Democrat members finally to shrug off the unaccustomed financial rigour that their now abandoned tax-cutting policy imposed on them. They can now return to their traditional and much more comfortable position of throwing around spending commitments like confetti.

The Conservatives have compiled a dossier of spending commitments that the Liberal Democrats have made in opposition. By the time of the budget, they had made a grand total of £8.5 billion-worth of commitments. In the few weeks since then, the figure has grown to £10.5 billion—at least, that was the figure as of 9 o'clock this morning. Even as I speak, I am sure that my colleague Derek Brownlee is sitting down with his calculator to add to that total the sums that the Liberal Democrats have pledged in this morning's two debates. We cannot agree to an uncosted pledge from the Liberal Democrats when they have given us no indication of where the money will come from.

We think that the Scottish Government has got its approach on student support entirely wrong. It has failed to acknowledge that student loans have a vital part to play and that they are infinitely preferable to students having to borrow at commercial rates from the banks and on credit cards.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I hear what Murdo Fraser says about the cost of our proposal. I hope that he heard me say that there has to be a balance in how we go about implementing it, which means that it is difficult to come up with a definitive figure. Does he accept that the number of students who fail to complete their courses because they experience financial hardship represents an opportunity loss?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have already said that I recognise that student hardship is a genuine issue, but I have to say to Margaret Smith and her colleagues in the Liberal Democrats that if they are to ask for other parties' support for a motion that includes a specific policy commitment, it is incumbent on them to tells us how much the policy will cost and from where in the Scottish budget, which is a finite sum, they will find the cash in question. It is not good enough for the Liberal Democrats to ask us to sign a blank cheque, which, in effect, is what they are asking us to do in the motion.

The Conservatives feel that the Labour amendment strikes the right balance, and we will support it. Scotland's students have been badly let down by the SNP Government, and they will not forget it when next they have the chance to vote.

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

It is always a pleasure to follow a member of the SNP's unpaid research department. The Conservatives spend more time studying the Liberal Democrats' work for their dodgy dossier than they do in holding the Government of Scotland to account.

With regard to the direction of travel, the Liberal Democrats know that the budget that the SNP has established means that there is a window in the spending review period. We also know that we are going through a budget review process, of which Mr Fraser's colleague is a part. Students in higher and further education in Scotland will not look favourably on parties that take the view that we should pack our bags and not engage fully in the upcoming budget process and the discussions on the spending review in an effort to offset student hardship and move in the direction of travel of a minimum income guarantee.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

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

I will in a moment, if I have time.

In the cabinet secretary's speech, I detected a tone that was as intemperate as the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change's choice of language in the previous debate. The cabinet secretary said that it was disrespectful for Parliament to debate the issue while the Government was holding a consultation on it. She said that it was disrespectful for the Liberal Democrats not to take part in the consultation but instead to hold a parliamentary debate on the issue.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

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

I will if I have time; I want to finish my point.

The cabinet secretary also said that we were being disrespectful to students, but I suspect that it is more disrespectful to students to issue a consultation that said that funding was available to convert student loans to grants when there was no agreement with the Treasury to make such funding available. As became evident at a recent meeting of the Finance Committee, the money for servicing student loans in Scotland comes from annually managed expenditure rather than departmental expenditure limits money, so it is not necessarily at her disposal. Perhaps this is another Forth bridge situation, in that the Government has made a statement without knowing that the funding is secure.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Is it respectful to put before Parliament a policy that is not costed, and for which the Liberal Democrats cannot identify the source of the money?

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

Elizabeth Smith must not have heard me say that we have a funding window in the spending review period. As the Government has stated, we are seeking a realignment. We are now engaged in the budget process for 2010-11. That is the direction of travel in which the Liberal Democrats wish to go.

I turn to the situation that part-time higher education students face. Their difficulties are not being addressed. In my constituency, Borders College has had to ask for an increase of nearly 30 per cent over its original allocations for crisis funds for 2008-09.

On the further education student support fund, the Government says that, because colleges reported unusual pressure on their bursary funds in 2008-09, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council held an additional, early in-year reallocation process in November. With the emergency November reallocation and the January requests this year, colleges have asked for an additional emergency allocation of £11.2 million, plus £9.12 million for student support.

The insultingly complacent letter that the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee received from the Scottish Government will infuriate constituents of mine, to whom I shall send it. Over the past year, those constituents have come to me in real financial difficulty. It is not just the changes to the eligibility criteria that were made last year—a "big bang" approach, as the Government said—but the way in which things were carried out. Only as a result of a freedom of information request from the Liberal Democrats did we learn that the Government was advised that three cohorts of students would be likely to be adversely affected: students in single-parent families; students who cohabit; and lone-parent students. The Government saying in its letter that there was no problem, because only a small number of universities and institutions had responded, is akin to the Conservatives saying in the 1980s, after an election with a low turnout, that everybody was happy with the Government of the day. We have seen the same type of academic rigour in other Government promises to students.

With a gap of £10 million between what colleges asked for and what they received, and with a catalogue of broken promises from the SNP, students will look to this debate to signal a minimum income guarantee. Students are hoping that the Parliament will speak with a single voice at 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I remind members that they are limited to four minutes. We do not have much extra time to allocate.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

It is desperate stuff from the Liberal Democrats this morning. They morph daily into the Scottish Socialist Party, demanding funds without any inkling of how much money would be required or where it would come from.

I well recall that when the now ermine-clad Jim Wallace, a former leader of the Lib Dems, was questioned as to why his party broke its 1999 election pledge to abolish tuition fees, he replied that it was "just election rhetoric". The same party is now sanctimoniously lecturing us on student hardship, barely a month after abandoning its barking-mad plans to cut £800 million annually from the Scottish budget. That is frankly shameful.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On that point, why not?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Back at you!

When is Kenneth Gibson's party actually going to dump the debt? All around Scotland, in campus after campus, he and his colleagues said that they would dump student debt. They have not done so. Have they no intention of doing so?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

We are already making progress. We have abolished the graduate endowment tax, which Margaret Smith voted to bring in. I dare say that she has had a conversion on the road to Damascus in this session of Parliament, but it was her party, along with the Labour Party, that helped to bring in that tax.

It is somewhat rich for the Tories to talk about hardship; they were the ones who brought in the loans that have caused so much hardship among many students. As we recall, the Tories fought three Scottish Parliament elections pledging to abolish tuition fees, before abandoning that pledge as soon as they had the opportunity.

Labour, as so often, also has a brass neck. We have heard no apology whatsoever for the fact that Labour brought in the graduate endowment tax and tuition fees in the first place.

I should focus my attention on Labour and the Conservatives, because I understand that the Liberals are going to offer us the possibility of a coalition in a couple of years. Perhaps we should be a lot nicer to them.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

No.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

No, I do not think so either.

The Lib Dems surrendered to Labour on the graduate endowment tax in exchange for a measly four of the 22 ministerial portfolios on offer at the time. They obviously forgot that it is normal for the smaller party in coalitions to have disproportionate weight, not the larger party.

We have heard a lot about whether there is a shortage of discretionary funds, but the point that members must accept is that the SNP substantially increased the funding—to £16.1 million, which is an increase of 14.6 per cent, over two years.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

rose—

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I will be happy to take an intervention from Claire Baker in a second, but she and her colleagues should accept that one of the reasons for increased hardship in society is the mind-numbing incompetence of the United Kingdom Labour Government. It has caused many problems through its mismanagement of the economy and through the abolition of the 10p tax rate, which benefited students who worked part time.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On the issue of hardship funds, does the member accept that, once the £1 million ring fenced for part-time students is removed, the general discretionary funds are increased only to £15 million? That increase is no higher than inflation.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Per capita, it is three times more than south of the border. In England, where the Labour Party has an overall majority, up-front student funding for new students is being cut in 2010, because of £200 million overspends. If Claire Baker's party had a majority in this Parliament, I do not doubt for a single second that we would see exactly the same policies being enacted in Scotland. Of course, her party will never get an overall majority here. A headline on the front of Holyrood magazine says "Growing in Opposition"—shrinking, I would say.

The Scottish Government has already abolished the graduate endowment tax, replaced loans for part-time students with grants, increased helper support for disabled students by 60 per cent, and trebled career development loans—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should conclude.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

—from £1,200 to £3,600 per year.

Presiding Officer, the previous speaker got five full minutes. I took two interventions, and got four minutes and two seconds.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member should sit down.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Aye, thanks. With friends like you—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I did not quite catch that remark, but the member was verging on being disrespectful to the chair.

I say to members that we are oversubscribed for this debate, and there is already one member whom I will not be able to call.

I call Frank McAveety, to be followed by Christina McKelvie, and it is four minutes dead.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yesterday afternoon, I had the great benefit of receiving a telephone call from that august journal, The Scotsman . The caller asked me for a comment on what inscription would be best for the Canongate wall of the Parliament. I think, understandably, that we need a bit more humour here, so I suggested Bud Neill's wonderful poem "Winter". If members have a chance to read it, they will find its four or five lines among the most effective in Scottish poetry.

I mention the poem because we really do have to laugh at the contributions of the SNP minister and back benchers to this debate. The fundamental issue is how best we can deal with student hardship. Labour and Conservative spokespersons have tried to address that issue. I do not agree with the Liberal Democrat proposal; it is uncosted, so it will have great difficulty in attracting broad support from around the chamber. I acknowledge the honourable intentions behind the Liberal Democrat proposal, but I am not convinced that it would be effective. I laughed, however, when I heard the cabinet secretary criticising the Liberal Democrats for a proposal that was not fully thought-through or properly costed. I thought that she was talking about the SNP proposal in 2007, when the party made commitments to students throughout Scotland.

The SNP manifesto started with a general comment:

"We will remove the burden of debt repayments".

On the campuses—where we understand that Fiona Hyslop stomped around occasionally—it became:

"We will dump the debt."

And then it became Mr Swinney's actuarial words:

"I am therefore not allocating funding for student debt servicing".—[Official Report, 14 November 2007; c 3325.]

That reminded me of another piece of poetry. In his poem "Open the doors!", written for the opening of this Parliament building, Edwin Muir said that, above all, what the people do not want is

"the droopy mantra of 'it wizny me'".

That is the problem that we have with the cabinet secretary and many of the other ministers: they wish to blame other people for the fact that they are not bringing forward proposals that they argued for on campuses throughout Scotland.

I accept that there is a legitimate debate to be had on how we fund students, for their courses now, and for the benefits that they can have in future. Honourable differences of opinion exist. I acknowledge Kenny Gibson's view—although it was perhaps not put as eloquently as I would have hoped. We are all in favour of further and higher education, but the fundamental issue is that we must acknowledge the benefits of education and accept that some people should be making a contribution towards their education. The poorest students should not be, however, which is why the Labour amendment is the most appropriate.

We acknowledge that hardship has been a feature of students' experiences in recent years.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Has the member had a chance to read the consultation document? Which of the options for expanding the young students bursary—1a or 1b—would he support if he wanted to support the poorest students?

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I welcome the consultation. I do not think that the debate is exclusive, and the consultation will enable party spokespersons and back benchers to make their submissions. I want to stress, however, the fundamental issue of student hardship.

We are short of time, and the Presiding Officer is guiding me in that respect.

I have a major college in my constituency—John Wheatley College—which has energised the east end of Glasgow with two new campuses. We can ensure that it continues to do that by supporting students who are starting on the very bottom rung in terms of income. That is why I support the Labour amendment, and I hope that other members will support it later today.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It is interesting to hear that Margaret Smith feels that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP Government. What breathtaking duplicity from the party that imposed the graduate endowment tuition fee on Scotland's students. It took an SNP Government to get rid of that Lib Dem tax on learning and I welcome Margaret Smith's congratulations on that. Then again, what did Margaret Smith say during the debates on the introduction and the abolition of that Lib Dem learning tax? Absolutely nothing. She is obviously a long-standing champion of our students.

Picking up Jeremy Purvis's point, I find it shameful that the Treasury refused to allow the resources that are currently processed as student loans to come within the departmental expenditure limit and be paid as grants. It is incredible that the chancellor should treat his own constituents in such a manner. That decision has deprived the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament of the ability to deliver what would have been a massive improvement in the lives and life chances of Scotland's students. That opportunity has been lost for the meantime, but it is not lost forever. The SNP will continue to press for fairness for all Scotland's students.

People should be under no illusion about student loans. They burden today's students with massive debts that restrict their life chances, and remove from the economy money that would otherwise have helped to drive it. Student loans make the recession worse. Anyone would have thought that politicians would be eager to change that system for something far more sensible, but they would be wrong—only one party has put forward a proposal to change it. The SNP believes in access to education based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, and we will continue to drive Scottish education in that direction. That is why, when part-time students—who are often the least well-off—had their loans turned into grants, the SNP Government delivered the first part of its programme to provide grants, not loans, thereby improving the lives of 20,000 students.

Important research has been published by the Association of Scotland's Colleges. Entitled "Supporting Scotland's Future: A Research Report by Scotland's Colleges", the report is based on feedback from 1,000 students and the Opposition would do well to read it. A couple of points leap out of that study. First, 74 per cent of students at college are concerned about the debt that is being built up under their student loan. Secondly, 71 per cent of students would rather suffer hardship than incur debt. I congratulate Scotland's colleges on taking the time to talk to students to find out what their position is.

There is evidence in that report that potential students are deterred from studying by the debt that is incurred under student loans. People who have taken steps to improve their lives, who have taken the decision to get themselves on to the learning ladder and who have been through the hardest part of the process arrive at the doorstep only to find themselves turned away by the dementor of student loans and graduate debt. We must change that situation, and the SNP intends to change it. Judging by the ignorance and intransigence of the Treasury, we might need independence to deliver that. Nevertheless, I can guarantee that the SNP will continue to press for proper access to that money for Scotland's students.

The Liberal Democrat motion calls for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 from grants, loans and parental contributions, but with no indication of how those proportions would be decided. Margaret Smith would happily—perhaps even jauntily—increase the burden of debt under student loans to £7,000 a year. What a tuition fee that would be—£7,000 plus interest for a higher national certificate; £14,000 plus interest for a higher national diploma; £28,000 plus interest for most Scottish degrees; and £35,000 plus interest to qualify as a doctor or a dentist. That shocking proposal would make the graduate endowment tuition fee a minor insult by comparison. Such education policies are a poisonous recipe for Scotland and should be rejected.

I would have thought that even the Lib Dems could recognise the disasters that have been wrought around the world by unsustainable debt. It would be far better for all concerned if we followed the SNP's lead and continued to drive the student support system—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that the member's time is up.

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate, which comes at an important time for Scotland's students, who face the problem of trying to get through their courses in a time of financial hardship and economic recession.

As students embark on their courses, they are looking for appropriate support from Government, and it is important that we link that to economic growth. To try to grow the economy we need people who are trained up and properly skilled. In order for that to happen, we must widen access to education and tap into talent throughout Scotland. From that point of view, I welcome Scottish Labour's proposals to tackle student hardship and to seek to provide minimum income guarantees of £7,000 for the poorest students. That would be welcomed across student campuses.

The issue of child care support for students, which has been raised with me by students in my constituency, must also be addressed. If we are trying to get as many people as possible into the student population in order that we can get them qualified to help Scotland's economy, we must help those who are parents and who have child care responsibilities. There is no doubt that, in recent times, child care funds have been under pressure. We must consider measures that will reverse that trend.

Although I am sympathetic towards the general principles of the Liberal Democrat motion, I think that it falls down in its failure to provide a cost for the policy. Margaret Smith was unable to be specific about the cost, which, to an extent, is the story of the Liberal Democrats over the past six months.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I agree with the member about the uncosted nature of the Liberal Democrat proposals. Can he put a cost to the proposals in the Labour amendment? How will he reconcile those proposals with the £500 million in cuts that are coming down the line?

James Kelly (Labour, Glasgow Rutherglen)

The £30 million that is being set aside for additional student support could go a long way towards funding Labour's proposals.

In the autumn, Tavish Scott announced a proposal for a tax cut of 2p. As Murdo Fraser said, the Liberal Democrats then embarked on a programme of spending commitments totalling £8.3 billion between September and the start of the budget. Today, an uncosted proposal has been brought before us. That is not good enough. The Liberal Democrats must be honest with the voters.

That is also where the SNP falls down on the issue. Kenny Gibson chided the Liberal Democrats for their election ploy in 1999. However, the SNP pledge to dump the debt was an election ploy that has melted in the full glare of Government responsibility. Voters in my constituency told me that they were supporting the SNP only because of that pledge, and they will remember the SNP's cynicism when they return to the polls next time around.

We must support students now. We must deliver for Scotland's students and dump the SNP.

11: 04

Bill Wilson (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The first part of the motion states:

"That the Parliament recognises the importance of the higher and further education sector; notes the outcome of the New Horizons: responding to the challenges of the 21st century report and the need to involve key stakeholders in discussions".

Who could possibly disagree with that? The "New Horizons" report praises the reputation and quality of Scotland's universities and highlights how they contribute to the wellbeing of Scotland. Furthermore, who could disagree with the inclusion of stakeholders in discussions? Perhaps one day—oh happy day!—the Lib Dems will allow stakeholders their say on the constitution.

Next, we come to:

"believes that Scotland's students have been let down by the SNP government's failure to deliver on its manifesto pledge".

I ask members to note the tone of that phrase and compare it with that of the following statement:

"We welcome the opportunity of working with the minority government to end the graduate endowment as a move towards reducing student indebtedness."

There is something of a contrast there. The latter—a statement by Jeremy Purvis—reflects the kind of constructive attitude needed to solve the debt problems that our students face. What has changed since Mr Purvis made that welcome and mature statement? Far be it from me to waste valuable parliamentary time by accusing the Liberal Democrats of hypocrisy and inconsistency. I merely ask the party that would deny Scots the democratic right to decide their own future to adopt a constructive attitude to the Scottish Government's open-minded approach to student income, and to its genuine attempts to alleviate student debt and remove deterrents to those thinking of entering higher education.

I remind the Liberal Democrats that, apart from abolishing their graduate endowment, thereby removing the spectre of a £2,300 fee and benefiting about 50,000 students, the Scottish Government has replaced loans to part-time students with grants, benefiting 20,000 students; extended an existing postgraduate funding scheme to part-time students; boosted discretionary hardship funds; increased helper support for disabled students; and announced a trebling of career development loans for postgraduate and vocational study. It has not stopped there. The Scottish Government is adding an extra £30 million to the student support budget—further commitment to tackling student hardship. By contrast, thanks to the Lib-Lab loans system, 370,000 students and graduates owed more than £2 billion by the end of the 2007-08 financial year.

The closing words of the motion are:

"and calls on the Scottish Government to deliver a simplified support system, which includes a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 per annum for full-time higher education students made up from a combination of grants, loans and parental contributions."

I fully support the aim of a decent minimum income, but how do the Lib Dems expect to create a simplified support system? Why does a system become complex? It becomes complex because there are many contingencies to cover. An overly simplified system will result in individuals falling through the gaps. Personally, I prefer complexity and genuine help to simplicity and abandoning those who need help.

The Lib Dems singularly failed to increase the student support package during their seven years in power. They did not propose any amendments to the most recent Scottish budget. The present Government has already improved the situation, and will continue to do so in every practical and effective way.

Speaking of effective, I take issue with the loans element of the Liberal Democrat proposal. Can the Liberal Democrats refute the evidence that loans—which are future debts—deter the least privileged from accessing education? I challenge them to do so. The Liberal Democrats attack the Scottish National Party for failing to abolish completely student debt, and then suggest that we increase it through loans. I am proud to be a member of a party that supports grants rather than loans, and that has the interests of the poorest members of society at its heart.

There may be a way of simplifying things, but the Liberal Democrats' call for a simplified system that would cover the needs of every student is puerile grandstanding from the luxury of opposition, where, if the motion is any evidence, they are clearly set to remain.

The Liberal Democrats attacked the Scottish Government for not abolishing student debt, but clearly stated their opposition to Scottish Government proposals to abolish said debt. Moreover, they insist that loans—in other words debt—are part of their proposed minimum income. If that is not muddled thinking, what is?

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

The debate could not be taking place at a more opportune time, as funding for our poorest students is reaching crisis point. During economic difficulties, resources should be focused on those in greatest need and that must be done as a matter of urgency. The SNP Government is letting down Scotland's students, who are already at a major disadvantage compared to students in other parts of the United Kingdom. As other members have said, only this week we heard about the problems at the University of Abertay Dundee, which are having an impact on students in my constituency.

I will focus on those in most need, and draw the cabinet secretary's attention to a funding crisis looming within the college sector that I hope will receive her immediate attention. Today's debate is about all Scotland's students.

The Scottish funding council method of allocation for bursary funding is on an historical basis, which means that funding coming into the sector is based on data that are two years out of date. However, the Government must take on board and react to the different issues that face students and colleges this year.

It is now apparent that the composition of the student body is very different from what it was two years ago, as are students' requirements. An example of that is the greater number of mature students entering post-school education. Their bursary payments are considerably higher than those of students without family commitments. Many students come from families accessing education for the first time. Those include mature students, lone parents and students with dependent families. Colleges also support students from those areas of Scotland with the highest levels of deprivation.

This year, the college sector has experienced a significant shortfall in bursary funding. As Jeremy Purvis said, the sector highlighted that potential shortfall to the Scottish funding council in autumn 2008. By February 2009, the sector shortfall was £9.5 million, and the SFC responded by saying that it anticipated being able to allocate a further £5 million, although that has not been confirmed.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I do not doubt that there is increased demand, but I would like the member to acknowledge that increased resources are going in. Does she acknowledge that the colleges congratulated the funding council on moving quickly to help address some of the problems that she is talking about?

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

I will come back to that point.

Even with the further £5 million, there will still be a shortfall of £4.5 million. What I want to emphasise is the hardship that that will cause.

My local college is Adam Smith College, which serves the whole of central Fife. As things stand, the college anticipates a shortfall in excess of £500,000 in meeting bursary commitments to its existing body of full-time students. The college is, rightly, committed to addressing access, inclusion and diversity by targeting those in some of the poorest areas in my constituency. It has been very successful in improving student retention rates—the Parliament should support that.

My concern is that if the Scottish funding council does not fully meet its obligation and colleges have to make up the shortfall from their already stretched budgets, cuts are inevitable. Those cuts are coming at a time when we need the sector to grow and to contribute fully to our ambition to have a highly skilled workforce, which has never been more crucial. I have used my local college as an example, but the £4.5 million shortfall throughout the sector shows that it is an issue affecting the whole of Scotland.

For the reasons that I have highlighted, I believe that we must concentrate our efforts, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will act now—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am afraid that the member's time is up.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I welcome this debate on student income, secured by the Liberal Democrats. I may not agree that this is the appropriate time to hold such a debate—certainly not with a consultation on student support, "Supporting a Smarter Scotland", on-going—and I may not necessarily agree with the solutions proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but it is an important topic. Given that under the previous Executive there was at best a stand-still position on tackling student debt—I am trying to be polite—and that student debt doubled, it is welcome that the Liberal Democrats and the SNP Government are perhaps moving in the same direction in relation to student support and student debt.

The Scottish Government has abolished the graduate endowment, lifting £2,300-worth of debt off each student and benefiting about 50,000 students and graduates, and has reintroduced student grants to part-time students with a £38 million investment that will benefit 20,000 students. There is also a 14.6 per cent increase in funds available to tackle student hardship. Those catalysts surely set the agenda for the debate.

The SNP Government has moved to tackle student hardship and debt, and the Liberal Democrats have joined us. Although I welcome that, I am sure that members will understand that I cannot support the Lib Dem motion. The Scottish Government has moved to deliver the SNP's pledges where possible. With the on-going consultation, we are keen to go further. For many students, their debt is far smaller than it was.

While not all of it has been dumped—not as much as we would like—we have gone far beyond what any other party promised the electorate at the previous election.

I have an open mind on the £7,000 minimum income guarantee but, like everything else in life, funding must be identified and allocated and a delivery mechanism must be put in place. I am delighted that a further £30 million has been identified and that the Scottish Government is consulting on how to allocate those funds, but basic arithmetic shows that a £7,000 minimum income guarantee cannot be delivered using £30 million. It also pre-empts the on-going consultation. That is not right, which is why I cannot support the Lib Dem motion.

That said, at least the Lib Dems are clear about what a minimum income guarantee is. I will tell members what it is not. It is not the Labour amendment. A minimum income guarantee for students is just what it says: a minimum income guarantee. It might be a cocktail of parental contribution, student grant and student loan, but, once implemented, it should be available to all students. Helping the poorest students is, of course, a positive act and is why the graduate endowment has been dumped, why parental contribution has been taken into account and why student hardship grants have been increased. However, a minimum income guarantee by definition gives all students a minimum income. If we give some students a minimum income and not others, we will not help the poorest students who will be left. The bar must be put at the same level for a minimum income guarantee.

Labour's proposal is simply an oxymoron. In fact, after nearly two years in the chamber, I am beginning to feel that the Labour Party is an oxymoron. The Liberal Democrats might not agree with the Scottish Government's position this morning, but I genuinely hope that, come decision time, they will not be made a patsy by the Labour Opposition.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I welcome this opportunity to participate in a debate on an important matter for Scotland's students and their families.

We all aspire to a Scotland in which every individual has the opportunity to reach their full potential and in which access to education is based on ability, not on ability to pay. However, in the past few weeks, I have received numerous letters from constituents who are struggling to complete their education courses because of shortfalls in child care funding. Indeed, the same issue was highlighted by my colleague James Kelly. There is no doubt that many more potential students have been deterred from applying to college or university because they have no hope of securing affordable child care.

However, while students in Scotland are struggling to fund child care, students elsewhere in the UK are able to access guaranteed child care support as a result of the Childcare Act 2006. Access to affordable or free child care while studying should be a right for all students; no one should be forced out of college or university or be deterred from applying because they cannot access an affordable child care place. The Government needs to address the issue urgently and ensure that parents who are returning to education and training are supported, not penalised.

On the new horizons task force, I am greatly concerned that important stakeholders, including the trade unions and FE colleges, were asked merely to give evidence to it. Surely a task force that has the responsibility of highlighting important challenges with regard to future funding for the sector should involve all those with a stake in the process, including students.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the member acknowledge that students and various unions involved in higher education gave evidence to the task force?

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

They did indeed give evidence. However, my point is that students, trade unions and further education colleges deserved not just to be consulted after the decisions had been taken, but to be given a seat at the table at which the discussions were taking place. After all, they are key to the future of Scotland's higher education sector.

On the proposal for a minimum income guarantee for all students, there is no doubt that the growing levels of student hardship and debt need to be addressed urgently. Although the SNP Government scrapped the graduate endowment, it has failed to put a single penny into the pockets of any of Scotland's students. That said, although I support the guarantee in principle, I believe strongly that a promise to provide every student in Scotland with a £7,000 minimum income would simply become another broken promise. Funding such a policy would result in sizeable cuts elsewhere in the Scottish budget—and most certainly in the education budget.

As a result, I urge that we target support at the students who need it most. Delivering a £7,000 minimum income guarantee for Scotland's poorest students by the end of the parliamentary session would represent a significant step forward and, more important, would be achievable. That is why the Labour Party believes that it is important to deliver on that policy, which would ensure that Scotland's poorest students received the support and encouragement that they deserve.

I urge members to support the Labour amendment.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

As several members have made clear, the Government in its 2007 manifesto made an unequivocal promise to dump student debt. The campaign cry gained considerable student support at the time, but, along with other key pledges on class sizes and local income tax and in view of the SNP's reputation for failing to deliver, it now looks completely hollow. I have no doubt that, 18 months on, the same students feel disillusioned and betrayed by the same Government.

The cabinet secretary will tell us that an extra £30 million has been put aside for 2010 and 2011. Although she is right about that, it does not solve the fundamental problem of how we can support the more and more people whom we are encouraging to attend university and college. It is a very harsh economic lesson, and I do not think that the Liberal Democrats have quite taken it on board.

As Murdo Fraser said, we fully agree with the motion's references to the incredible importance of the tertiary sector and—as Karen Whitefield made clear—the need to involve all stakeholders in future discussions. However, we reject the call for a minimum income guarantee of £7,000. The idea is attractive in principle, but politicians have to deal with reality, especially during an economic recession, and, as Marilyn Livingstone pointed out, a more effective solution would be to target the money at the most vulnerable students.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Does the member accept that in my speech I made it clear that this could not and should not be done in one fell swoop and that the £7,000 minimum income guarantee for the poorest students would be a step along the way towards a wider target?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Forgive me, but I do not think that the motion actually says that. No matter what party we belong to or what view we take in this debate, we cannot get away from the fundamental—and harsh—economic lesson that needs to be learned. Can the number of people whom we are encouraging to attend courses in the tertiary sector actually be supported, either to look after themselves or in teaching time?

We need to think about what we are saying to students about their approach to the tertiary sector. As my colleague Murdo Fraser has pointed out a number of times, the danger lies in accumulating a commercial debt and the associated—and massive—level of repayments. Credit cards and bank overdrafts have very high interest rates and can leave students mired in bad debt for a very long time.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer—I know that you are short of time—the Scottish Conservatives firmly believe that the best way of addressing the problem is to target the very scarce money that is available in the budget at the most vulnerable students and that the most effective method of doing so is through a system of student loans and grants. There are great benefits in possessing a degree, not least in financial recompense, and if that is to be set alongside the ambition of widening access—which we all support—we must be doubly sure that we are putting resources in the right places. If we ignore the benefits of increasing student loans, we will let down our students very badly, not just today but for many years to come.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I can give Ken Macintosh four and a half minutes.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I welcome this Liberal Democrat debate. Although, as my Labour colleagues have made clear, we wish to amend the motion, we should thank the Lib Dems for bringing the issue to Parliament.

The financial difficulties of students have never been more apparent as they have in recent years. Many of us have heard from young constituents who are struggling to cope—or, more likely, from their parents. Only yesterday, I read a letter from a mother whose son started at college in August but who has yet to receive the bursary to which he should be entitled. Indeed, he has not even received a reply to his application to the hardship fund. His mother says:

"It seems extremely unfair that I am now forced into the position of supporting him when I cannot afford it. I have provided financially for him for 26 weeks since the start of his course. Surely he is entitled to have some independent income? My mortgage arrears are now such that there is a decree allowing repossession of my house to start immediately if I miss another payment. I have council tax arrears, and have just finished paying off gas arrears."

The case would be worrying enough if it was a one-off, but we all know from our constituency case loads that such cases are all too common. I will hear back directly from the institution in question, but it appears that many institutions, such as Edinburgh Napier University, Glasgow Caledonian University and Adam Smith College, which Marilyn Livingstone highlighted, are either struggling to cope or, like the University of Abertay Dundee, have run out of funds altogether and cannot meet their obligations to students.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Edinburgh Napier University did not make more requests for funding. Funding was not allocated as it did not ask for it.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Edinburgh Napier University is struggling. If the minister cannot even recognise and is not even willing to concede that universities' diversionary and hardship funds are running low, we cannot engage in a debate today.

Cases such as the one that I mentioned are dispiriting, but what has been most disheartening this morning and in discussions of student funding over the past two years has been the level of dishonesty involved. I refer not just to the broken dump-the-debt promises, which were bad enough—they have been shown up for the empty election bribes that they were—but to the contrast between SNP ministers' grandiose language and the reality of the student experience. Not one penny of the money from abolishing the graduate endowment has helped a current student to maintain their studies. The SNP promised to move from loans to grants, but as Margaret Smith pointed out, not only has it failed to come close to delivering on that promise, but replacing a £500 loan with a grant does not address the immediate needs of students or provide them with any extra income. Instead, we still hear the SNP's high-falutin' words about abolishing debt without any mention being made of the millions of pounds in commercial debt at credit card rates that our young people at colleges and universities have taken on. Murdo Fraser made that point.

There is a gap, which I believe is widening, between the way in which the SNP talks about higher and further education and the day-to-day financial difficulties that students have to wrestle with. Throughout the country, students are either working longer hours—if they can get work at all—or relying more than ever on their parents, who can often scarcely manage to cope. Yet again, the SNP Government has failed to recognise or rise to the challenge and to invest in our future workforce in the middle of our broader economic difficulties.

We all agree that we need a highly productive and highly skilled graduate-level or postgraduate-level workforce, for example, for a productive economy. Yet again, the SNP is willing to talk about a highly skilled workforce, but unwilling to will the means to make it happen. We have the empty rhetoric of a so-called return to free education, but nothing tangible to offer to address student hardship. If education were free, we would not need to worry about hardship funds; colleges and universities would not need to worry about the impact of the joint future thinking task force; and we would not be having this debate.

If we are to continue to operate with the limited funding that the SNP Government has made available, we must refocus support on those who most need it: Scotland's poorest students. The real targets of the policy should be hardship funds and widening access. Drop-out rates are on the rise, and many thousands more students have considered dropping out because of financial hardship. Although we seek to amend the Lib Dem motion, the debate has been helpful in flagging up the gulf between the current maximum level of support of £4,500 that is available to Scottish students and the £7,000 that it is estimated they need to live on.

I hope that colleagues will accept that I am not cynical about my politics, Parliament or what we can achieve together. However, the doublespeak on student support and the raising of expectations without ever delivering on promises breed the cynicism that undermines everything we do. I urge members to stop the SNP trying to con Scotland's students and to support the Labour amendment.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The debate has been wide ranging. However, it is important in summing up to send a clear message to students and graduates. The Government values the contributions that students and graduates make to society, and it will do all that it can to support them at the most crucial stages of their lives.

Maintaining a world-class education system is essential if we are to create a more successful country with higher levels of sustainable economic growth. A number of members have said that we must ensure that access to that education system is based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay. We made a commitment on that, and it is what we intend to do.

We believe, of course, that student loans are wrong for students and for Scotland. It would be better for students if grants were paid directly to them and better for graduates if they were not forced to leave higher education with thousands of pounds-worth of debt. That is why we have set aside £30 million to support the first phase of the move from loans to grants.

Marilyn Livingstone (Labour, Kirkcaldy)

As a matter of urgency, will the minister speak to the Scottish funding council and ask it to fully fund college bursary programmes throughout Scotland?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

The Scottish funding council is aware of the problems. We are in the middle of a consultation process and further changes should await the completion of that process. I will come back to that.

We appreciate that a number of things have changed since we developed our proposals, not least the economic environment, which has increased financial pressures on everyone. As a result, we are willing to consider the case that students and others have put forward for an increase in the overall amount of support. We welcome views on how the £30 million could best be used overall to help students who are most in need. We have heard views from members, some of which I would like to respond to.

Margaret Smith said that she is proud of the Lib Dem record on student funding, but many members have pointed out that the Lib Dem proposal is uncosted. I understand that a proposal was to be put forward by Jeremy Purvis at this week's Lib Dem conference on increasing tax cuts in the UK. I think that that explains as much as anything why we are having this debate. We have been told that there will no longer be £800 million of tax cuts in Scotland, but tax cuts will now be applied in the UK. I have heard one price tag of £20 billion in that context. If we have to try to achieve £20 billion of cuts in the UK, with Scotland taking its share, we will be back to the Lib Dem dichotomy of increasing tax cuts and therefore reducing the revenue that is available to finance them. A massive number of promises have been made.

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

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. I would like to make some more progress.

With her backing vocalists—Frank McAveety and Hugh O'Donnell—Claire Baker made the point that broken Labour promises of the past are irrelevant to the debate. That is absolute nonsense. Students are still paying loans that the Labour Party and the Conservative party created. That is a fact that the Government simply has to deal with. We cannot wish it away, no matter how much members of previous Administrations might like to forget it.

The claim that hardship funds have flatlined is not borne out by the facts. As Kenny Gibson pointed out, there has been a 14.6 per cent increase in this year's hardship funds.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I will do so when I finish my point.

The reason that the hardship funds are massively increasing has a lot to do with the disastrous economic situation in which we find ourselves as a result of the Labour Party's mismanagement of the economy. I am interested in whether Claire Baker wants to accept responsibility for that.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The member talks about the increasing pressure on hardship funds. According to my calculations, the SNP Government has spent £56 million so far on tackling graduate debt.

How much has been spent on tackling student hardship?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I have just mentioned the 14.6 per cent increase in this year's hardship funds, which takes the figure to more than £16 million. I am glad that Claire Baker acknowledges the resources that we have put into reducing graduate debt. Of course, someone in Scotland has roughly half the student debt that a person in England has, and in the past two years, the average graduate debt has gone down for the first time. Therefore, we are doing our bit to address the debt that students find themselves with.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

No. I have just taken an intervention from the member.

If what has been proposed is accepted, students will face massively increased private debt. They would be asked to do that at the same as they are looking at a societal debt of trillions of pounds. Future generations in this country must face Labour's disastrous debt management process for the whole economy, and they are being asked to take on further private debt, too. That is wrong.

Murdo Fraser said, rightly, that the Lib Dem proposal is uncosted. It seems that, having had the straitjacket of cuts of £800 million taken away, the Lib Dems are back on another spending spree. Their proposal has no credibility whatsoever.

Kenny Gibson mentioned the massive debts that exist, and I have just mentioned the trillions of pounds of future debt that we are accumulating, which consists of public debt for public authorities and private debt for individuals. That is the real problem for students. When they go through their courses and try to learn to create a better future for themselves, they are well aware of the massive debts hanging over them.

In the past, Labour has said that it is not possible for it to say anything coherent about its council tax proposals, for example, because it was the wrong part of the electoral cycle. If Labour is not willing to address the difficult issues, such as what it would do about the council tax, it is incumbent on it to start to create future spending commitments, as it would like to give the impression today of having done. However, that is simply not the case.

Finally, the consultation is an opportunity—

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am sorry, but the minister's time is up.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I almost congratulate the minister on what is, I think, his first ministerial speech from the front bench. I do not necessarily agree with its contents, but such courtesies are nonetheless due. I have damned him with faint praise.

The debate has been interesting, important and in some ways acrimonious, because we have all taken different positions. There is a lesson to learn for us all: parties should be careful what they put in their manifestos, because they might find themselves having to deliver it. That is the reality of what has happened to SNP promises in several areas. To return briefly to the minister's speech, we have heard concerns, perhaps legitimate, about the cost of providing a minimum income guarantee of £7,000 to full-time students. I will be interested to hear from the Government benches at some point—summing up after the minister is a unique experience for me, in that I will not get an immediate reply to my question—how much it will cost to replace the entire loan situation with the grants that the minister just mentioned. Perhaps he will write to me about that with an indication of how things will pan out. As a supplementary to that, I ask whether the minister has Treasury support for his proposal.

We need to realise that we are facing dire economic times, and in that regard I have some sympathy with the Labour Party amendment. In the Central Scotland region, which I represent, a high number of people will need to reskill and retrain as a result of the economic downturn. Most of that will take place in our FE and HE institutions. Notwithstanding the remarks of the cabinet secretary and the minister, there is no doubt that all such institutions are in serious trouble when it comes to meeting the demand on their funds. Additional funding has come from the funding council, particularly for child care. However, given the situation in this country and the hardship that our students face, it is not sufficient for us to sit here and play party-political bip-bap—the issue is far too important for that.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Ochil)

I take the member's point about party politics. However, having made their position clear today, how do the Lib Dems intend to take into account all those replies that are yet to arrive in the remaining consultation period, given that it was the Lib Dems who asked for that consultation?

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Our policy position has been clear since before 2007, if memory serves, and we have reiterated our policy principle on student income. Given that the NUS will debate the subject at its forthcoming conference and, as the minister said, it has been lodged for further debate by the Liberal Democrats, today's airing of the subject is entirely appropriate when the FE colleges and HE institutions will be under such pressure. The figures on demand that they have been working with are two years out of date by dint of the cabinet secretary's letter. It is impossible to see that far into the future.

The value of our kicking around who claimed what and how much in a manifesto or promissory note on Fiona Hyslop's website is irrelevant unless we tackle the situation clearly. The consultation is important but, as the NUS said this morning, the £30 million that is currently available is completely inadequate. There are various ways in which we can combine the expenditure and the means of resourcing to deliver the £7,000—

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am genuinely confused by the Liberal Democrat position. Is it that the Government should spend more money on student support? If so, how much and where will that money come from? Can we please have a straight answer?

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Mr O'Donnell, you have 40 seconds left.

Hugh O'Donnell (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

That is a very good rescue, because I do not have the details that Murdo Fraser asks for.

I thank members for engaging in the debate, which has aired a valuable, useful and important subject, and I encourage them to support our motion at decision time.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

During the debate, Mr Kenneth Gibson, in concluding his remarks—the Deputy Presiding Officer had instructed him so to do—made a complaint about being asked to conclude. In his final remarks, which I heard clearly from where I was sitting, he used the words "With friends like you". The Deputy Presiding Officer said that he had not heard the remark. I regret to say that, in my view, the phrase "With friends like you" is not respectful to the chair. I invite you, Presiding Officer, to rule whether such comments are appropriate in this place.

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Thank you for the point of order. As you are aware, I was not in the chair at the time; it was my deputy. I will reflect on the matter in discussion with my deputy and consider whether any further action is required.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider carrying out an economic impact assessment in relation to the support that it and other public bodies provide for football, in light of petition PE1233, submitted by former Scotland coach Craig Brown, regarding the creation of a Great Britain football team. (S3O-6240)

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Scottish Government has been asked by the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee to respond to Craig Brown's petition, and I advise Parliament that the Government will do so in full.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the Scottish Government share the concerns of the Scottish Football Association, the tartan army and former Scotland managers that the UK Government has indicated this week that, regardless of the consultation that FIFA has undertaken with the four home football associations, it will press ahead with fielding a GB team even if it is made up entirely of English players and regardless of the dangerous precedent that it will set and the threat that it poses to Scottish football? Does the cabinet secretary agree that such direct political interference, which originated from Gordon Brown and 10 Downing Street, is precisely the type of behaviour that will risk Scotland losing its independent footballing status?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

I certainly share the concerns of the individuals and organisations that Christine Grahame mentioned about the notion of a GB football team. Like most people in Scotland, I do not favour the idea of a GB football team. It is an absolutely ridiculous idea that has no public support whatsoever in Scotland, probably made all the more ridiculous by suggestions earlier this week that the team might consist entirely of English football players.

If the notion were just ridiculous, it might not be so serious, but the idea is also dangerous. Notwithstanding Gordon Brown's desperate attempts to show otherwise, a GB team would pose a real threat to Scotland's footballing independence. That is completely unacceptable.

I agree with Christine Grahame that we would not be talking about the issue if Gordon Brown had not started pushing it for his own political reasons. Let us call on him to stop pushing it and allow football to be the politics-free zone that people want it to be.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

In light of the petition's being in front of the Public Petitions Committee, which I convene, does the minister agree that it is appropriate for that committee to address any petition that is put to it? Does she agree that comments such as those from the SFA and Gordon Smith about politicians addressing the issue by raising it directly with all the football authorities to receive clarification are helpful?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Govan)

The Public Petitions Committee is doing the job that it exists to do on this matter, as on so many others, and it is doing that job well—if that is not currying favour too much with the Public Petitions Committee.

It would be preferable if politicians did not have to get involved in such a debate, but let us be under no doubt that the only reason why Scottish politicians are involved is that the debate was kicked off by the Prime Minister for reasons best known to himself. If he stops pushing a GB football team that has no support, the rest of us can stop opposing it.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are currently working on the details of the fund, and we expect to be able to make an announcement by the end of March 2009.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

The minister's colleagues are on a crusade against the irresponsible consumption of alcohol. I am sure that most people support that crusade, but as part of it responsible elements in the licensed trade have been demonised. Pubs in our town centres perform critical economic and social functions. Is the minister prepared to meet Scottish Beer and Pub Association representatives and other representatives of the licensed trade to discuss how it can play its part in transforming Scotland's town centres?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

We are happy to listen to any representations from anyone in developing our proposals, but we must move fairly quickly: as I said, we expect to make a full announcement about the fund by the end of March. I acknowledge the role that responsible landlords play in the communities in our town centres; we do not wish at all to demonise responsible landlords for their role.

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

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth confirmed that the source of the fund is accelerated capital funding as a result of Barnett consequentials on accelerated affordable housing investment in England and Wales. Will the minister confirm that that accelerated capital must be not only identified but spent in this financial year?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

The member is correct: the money must be identified and spent in the incoming financial year.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to improve road safety among young drivers in rural areas. (S3O-6179)

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Through Road Safety Scotland, the Scottish Government is taking action to raise awareness among young people of their vulnerability on the roads and to encourage responsible driving attitudes. The Scottish road safety framework, which is to be published later this year, will include measures to address young driver safety.

Alison McInnes (Liberal Democrat, North East Scotland)

The Government's research in "Rural Road Safety: Drivers and Driving", which was published in December, noted that

"younger respondents reported that there was a gap in the process of learning to drive, with the focus more on manoeuvring the car and learning how to pass the test than on learning the types of skills necessary for driving on rural roads."

It was concluded that a strengthened pass plus scheme would have merit. Will the minister commit to supporting the development and roll-out of a pass plus squared scheme that is targeted at young rural drivers?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

There is much in what the member says. I share concerns about the development of the necessary skills for driving on rural roads, particularly at night. We are working with the United Kingdom Government, through the Driving Standards Agency, on driver training.

The pass plus scheme has been piloted throughout Scotland and has provided modest advantages. We will certainly consider it as part of the future of driver training, particularly once we see what the DSA proposes.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What discussions has the minister had with local authorities to encourage them to use their powers to lower speeds on dangerous single-track roads?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I have not discussed single-track roads, but I agree with Rhoda Grant that many drivers who are unfamiliar with such roads do not realise their particular dangers. When a driver approaches a corner that they cannot see round on a single-track road, it is different from approaching such a corner on a dual-track road.

I discuss road safety regularly with local authorities. Rhoda Grant makes a good point, and I will add the matter to the list of issues that I discuss with appropriate councils.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The minister talked about the pass plus scheme. Has he considered discussing with the police, insurance companies and the Institute of Advanced Motorists the inclusion of advanced driving tests in his proposals? Young drivers in Caithness and other areas in the north have approached me to suggest that, and we think that that well-known means of improving driving would be a great enhancement for them.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I declare an interest as a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. The IAM is one source of additional driver training, and I support all such sources—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, for example, is also keenly engaged in the issue. The Institute of Advanced Motorists is represented on our road safety strategy group, and I am sure that, when we publish the road safety strategy, it will reflect the additional and voluntary training that bodies such as ROSPA and the IAM can provide.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will abandon its proposal to lease out a large proportion of Forestry Commission Scotland land, given that 71 per cent of respondents to its consultation opposed the idea. (S3O-6190)

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

As the member knows, the option of leasing parts of the national forest estate was part of our consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The responses to the consultation are being considered, along with an options review prepared by the Forestry Commission Scotland. An announcement will be made in due course.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

I wonder how long we will have to wait for the Scottish National Party to admit that it got the proposals wrong and to end the uncertainty in the wood-processing industry and the worries of staff about their jobs.

Did the minister read last week's Campbeltown Courier, which reported that

"the ... unions had been told to expect"

an announcement this week? Will she confirm that, if she has something to say on the matter, it is her duty to tell the Parliament her decision first?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

I regret that the Campbeltown Courier is not on my regular reading list; perhaps the member will give me a copy of that press coverage.

The unions have been reassured that the proposed leasing would have no deleterious effects on their situation. As for waiting for a decision, it will be taken far sooner than the time that it will take the Labour Party to produce something constructive on the subject—that has been totally absent.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The minister will accept that the published responses to the Government's consultation were largely hostile and that the evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee provided more questions than answers about the leasing scheme. It is clear that the proposal simply does not command sufficient support throughout the Parliament to progress. On that basis, is it not more sensible for the Government to withdraw the proposal and instead focus on the opportunities that could arise from pursuing joint ventures between the Forestry Commission and other interested parties, which could generate the tens of millions of pounds of investment that are necessary to meet the planting targets?

Roseanna Cunningham (Scottish National Party, Perth)

As I have said, we are considering all options. The Forestry Commission Scotland has prepared an options review, which will be taken into consideration when the decision is made. I will make the decision when I make it, and members will be informed in due course.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support community enterprises. (S3O-6252)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We are committing a record level of investment—£93 million over the 2008 to 2011 spending round, which represents a 37 per cent increase on the previous spending review—to help the sector grow and build capacity, capability and financial sustainability.

The Scottish Government's "Enterprising Third Sector Action Plan 2008-2011" creates the right environment for the third sector to thrive, and our direct investments will allow the sector to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the current economic conditions.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

Does the minister agree that social enterprises offer a valuable source of local employment and training in addition to making a positive difference to their community? Will he join me in congratulating the Leith-based Out of the Blue Arts and Education Trust on its success in securing a grant and loan from the new Scottish investment fund?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Indeed—all that is true. I see examples of that contribution every day in my constituency and elsewhere. I join Shirley-Anne Somerville in congratulating Out of the Blue on its excellent award from the Scottish investment fund, which will enable Out of the Blue to refurbish its facilities, provide more space for artists and give artists the opportunity to develop their careers and artistic competence. The award means that the community in Leith has a centre that will help local people to undertake a variety of new activities that relate to health, waste reduction and other matters. All in all, it is delivering a positive contribution.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, Aberdeen Central)

Does the minister recall his announcement on 16 April regarding the aye can project in Aberdeen, which provided supported employment in recycling for disabled people, and its transfer from the city council to become part of a social enterprise? Does the minister recall that the Scottish Government news release at that time promised that aye can would reopen on 1 August? Is he aware that it still has not reopened? What will he do to deliver on his promises to those disabled people?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The current climate is favourable for the aye can project. The direct investment of £30 million that is available from the Scottish investment fund exists for projects that are investment ready. The aye can project clearly qualifies for that, and I look forward to the project making its case strenuously and moving forward to a new phase.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what concerns it has for the Scottish economy and wider society in relation to Her Majesty's Government's proposals to part-privatise the Royal Mail. (S3O-6242)

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government shares the widespread public concern about the United Kingdom Government's proposals to part-privatise the Royal Mail, particularly concerning the dangers of diluting the universal service obligation and of further reducing the role and presence of Royal Mail and the prospect of job losses in Scotland. The Scottish Government will continue to express our concerns and monitor developments to ensure that service levels, amenity and jobs in Scotland are protected.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer. Does the minister share my view that the fact that more than 130 Labour members of the UK Parliament have indicated their opposition to the UK Government's plans indicates that there is little support in the UK's governing party, as well as no real support in the wider country, for the move? Does the minister agree that the UK Government should swiftly reconsider its proposals?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I fully concur with the member's view, analysis and suggestion about what the UK Government should do. I think that about 170 MPs in total have signed the parliamentary motion opposing the plan. Further, in the House of Lords, Lord Clarke of Hampstead is disputing the claims of Lord Mandelson regarding the viability of Royal Mail Group by pointing out that all of its four sections—Royal Mail, which handles UK letters, General Logistics Systems, Parcelforce Worldwide and Post Office Ltd—are now in profit and that the Post Office is making a profit of £1 million a day.

Clearly, what is needed is transparency in the facts. A message must be sent to the UK Government that it must reconsider the proposal to go down the route of part-privatisation.

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

The Royal Mail's slimming down in anticipation of part-privatisation is probably the reason for its unfortunate decision to axe post bus services in my constituency. Does the minister share my view that that is a backward step for the local economy of a remote and economically fragile part of Scotland? Will he join me in the campaign to persuade the Royal Mail to change its mind? If necessary, will he make appropriate representations to ministers in London who are responsible for the Royal Mail?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I share the member's views to the letter. I deeply regret the withdrawal of that service and the impact on people, the climate and the economy that it will have. It is the antithesis of optimising the local economy and the local environmental and social system. The Royal Mail has a golden opportunity to reverse its decision and grasp some corporate social responsibility. I will meet representatives of the Royal Mail on Monday, and I will convey that message to them.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the potential impact on jobs, what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding the closure of HM Revenue and Customs offices in Scotland. (S3O-6160)

Alex Fergusson (None, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Order. There are far too many conversations taking place in the chamber. I would like to hear what is going on.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I wrote to HM Revenue and Customs on 12 February 2009, and I await its reply. I made it clear in my letter that I expect HM Revenue and Customs to place the needs and expectations of customers in Scotland at the heart of any decision of this nature.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is good to hear that. I recently met staff at the HM Revenue and Customs office in Perth, who have great concerns about the impact of the closures on the local community, particularly pensioners. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what support the Scottish Government can give to help limit the impact on those pensioners?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

As I said, the Government is concerned about the impact that the decisions will have on consumers and the employees of HM Revenue and Customs. If the proposals are given the go-ahead, we will be prepared to enter into discussions about how other public facilities could perhaps deploy services in a way that ensured the convenience of members of the public, but I stress that the Scottish Government expresses its deep concern at the proposals of HM Revenue and Customs and urge that an alternative course be taken.