Baillieston By-election

Spent a bit of time yesterday in the late summer (or early autumn) sunshine helping the SNP campaign to elect David Turner as the new councillor for the Baillieston ward in Glasgow. The vacancy arose, of course, following the sensational victory of the former incumbent, John Mason, in the Glasgow East Westminster by-election.

There's an enthusastic team of activists working hard to make sure this ward continues to have two SNP councillors - the only one, so far, in the city. Polling day is this Thursday.

Is that seat taken?

Was I the only one slightly perplexed by the Liberal Democrats choice of Murrayfield to unveil Tavish Scott as their new leader? Given that the BBC reports all three Lib-Dem leadership candidates polled a grand total of 2,457 votes between them, surely the irony of holding an event at a stadium designed to hold over 67,000 spectators isn't lost on others too?

This seems to have escaped the notice of the press generally, but I shall enjoy pointing out this lovely irony to those Lib-Dems I know!

Post Office Closure Programme Hypocrisy

Good on Edinburgh city council for voting to admonish the Labour government for their post offic closure programme.

I am presently fighting a number of closures in the area I represent, and each and every time have come up against Labour politician strutting about saying that they are campaigning to do likewise. The hypocrisy of these individuals is galling.

These are the self same individuals who actually voted for the programme of 2,500 closures of local post office branches across the UK, and then have the brazen audacity to speak out against them. You have to admire them if nothing else for their sheer brass neck.

One such Labour politician was addressing a public meeting organised by a local community council last week that I was also attending to state that they had voted for the continued UK government subsidy to the Post Office. Aye, well that may be true up to a point, but the same individual failed to mention that they also simultaneously supported the government's closure programme that now threatens the particular local branch in question being discussed at the public meeting.

Thankfully people don't - much as New Labour likes to think they do at times - zip up the back of their heid. People weren't buying any of it and that particular individual Labour MP got a hard time of it at the meeting.

What is striking though is that this level of "subsidy" (or what we could equally term public investment in a public service) is some 175million pounds annually. This pales into insignificance by comparison with the billions lavished on the war in Iraq by Blair then Brown, or the 100billion pounds that a new generation of nuclear weapons may cost the taxpayer.

It seems that the UK government can find all the money it wants to maintain nuclear arms, but heaven forfend that they might have to contribute to the maintenance of a Post Office, that they still own on our behalf.

That leads me on to the other galling part of the presentation of this closure programme. That the Post Office is somehow being presented as a failing business. It is of course nonsense to define it as such. It is a government owned public service, just the way the NHS is. Do we talk about the failure of the NHS because it isn't an income generator? No, and it would be nonsense to do so.

I believe the same is true of the Post Office network as well. It is more than just a business. It is a public service that all people are able to use.

Even if one was to accept that it is a business and should make money like any other, then it is also galling to remember that it was in the black when New Labour came to power. However a deliberate campaign of willful neglect and running it down has been employed by them in government, stripping service after service away from the so called "People's Post Office". Is it any wonder that it fails to make the profit it once did?

One final thought...if the Post Office is a business, then why, when it is apparently failing, does their Chief Executive reportedly earn 1million pounds annually through his wage, pension and bonuses? And why is it their customers who are being punished through this closure programme? They are the last people who bear the blame for the "failure" of this "business".

Questions Over Olympic Saltire Ban

Will athletes and supporters from Scotland be banned from flying the Saltire at this year's Olympics?

The ‘House Rules’ for visitors on the Official Website of the Beijing Olympics state:
“2. To avoid delays at security and to maintain an orderly flow, please DO NOT bring the following articles to any venue:… flags of non-members of the Olympics or Paralympics; flags or banners larger than 2 m x 1 m; flagpoles; any banners, slogans, fliers, brochures or samples.”

As the United Kingdom, rather than its constituent nations, is a member country of the Olympics, the rule would appear to ban the Saltire, as well as the flags of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, from being brought into Olympic venues. The rule would also have the effect of preventing the Tibetan flag from being displayed at events.

Athletes from across Scotland and the rest of the UK will be taking part in the Beijing Olympics, and fans should be allowed to show their support by waving the national flag of their choice.

With participants like Andy Murray often wearing Saltires on their kit as a symbol of national pride it will be a shame if fans are not able to echo that by waving Saltires from the stands.

I will be writing to the British Olympic Association and the International Olympic Committee and urging them to challenge this ruling.

I will also be calling on them to clarify the implications for athletes. On previous occasions Scottish athletes have been prevented from sporting a saltire – it would be unfortunate where any athlete to find themselves in that position again.

The Olympics should be a global celebration of different cultures and nationalities with this meeting in Beijing offering an opportunity for dialogue over the future of Tibet.

China’s crack-down on any show of support for Tibet – including the flying of flags – is out of keeping with the Olympic spirit and will raise many ongoing concerns as to China’s commitment to improve free speech and expression in the run up to the Games.

That it will have this unfortunate side-effect for anyone wanting to fly a Saltire or the English, Welsh or Northern Irish flag may focus people’s minds on the need for further dialogue between China and Tibet.

The Earthquake has Arrived

Much has been written across the blogs about yesterday's (or technically this morning's I suppose) SNP victory in Glasgow East. Not a lot to add other than to say how delighted I am for John Mason, who is a thoroughly decent man, and how delighted I am for all those of us who worked to get him elected. The ramifications of this victory will be felt for a long time.

Anyway, just wanted to post a few photos from yesterday, which are all below. You can also see a lot of pics from the SNP campaign here.

Julie and Gareth

The Cumbernauld and Kilsyth crew, Julie, myself and Stuart McDonald

Outside the SNP campaign rooms on Baillieston Road as the campaign begins to wind down at close of poll

Myself and Patrick at the after poll party hospitably hosted by the Barrachnie Inn

Julie and Patrick fly the flag
Willie, Kenny and Gordon watch the by-election coverage

Mark, Grant and Malcolm

Elaine is excited!

Willie with Ian and Lily Hudghton

John Mason MP arrives back at the Barrachnie Inn to speak to the team

Adventures in Glasgow East

Nominations are now closed for the Glasgow East by-election and apparently there are nine candidates in all. I'm not going to list them all, after all why would I offer publicity to anyone other than the excellent SNP candidate John Mason (pictured), but it is pretty clear that this contest is all about the SNP and the Labour Party which has represented the area since the 1920s. None of the others have a look in.

This by-election has generated much comment in the blogosphere, some of which has suggested that we shouldn't write off the other parties, the Liberal Democrats in particular. However, having been in Glasgow East quite a bit since the by-election was announced, I am able to say fairly confidently that the Liberals shouldn't be expending too much effort on this contest. I have found little evidence to suggest that they are going to attract very much support, and to be frank have identified more Tories in my canvassing efforts than I have Liberal Democrat supporters. I don't imagine I need to state the obvious about Tories themselves being thin on the ground in Glasgow East, so this tells a story in itself about what the Lib-Dem vote is likely to be on 24th July.

It has been a pleasure to campaign for John Mason in this campaign. I have known John for many years and he is a thoroughly decent individual. This has been often remarked upon by many people in the constituency, particularly in that part that John has represented for a decade on Glasgow City Council. That speaks for itself as to John's character.

I have found plenty of people who are going to come out and support the SNP for the first time in this by-election. The reasons have been a combination of three things. Firstly, they like John Mason for the reasons I outlined above, combined with the fact that he has a track record of standing up for people in the east end. Secondly, they are thoroughly scunnered with Labour, with many people having invested their political hopes in that party for their lifetimes, to see this loyalty rewarded with nothing in return. Thirdly, and most crucially, they have been impressed by the SNP in government. They have seen that the worst predictions of the unionists and their standard bearers in certain segments of the media that the sky would fall in if the SNP should ever come to power are utter nonsense. And more than that, they have seen an SNP government freeze the council tax and move to replace it with a fairer form of local taxation; lower prescription charges and move to abolish them; retain the accident and emergency department at Monklands Hospital; and move to get 1000 more police officers on the streets of Scotland.

In short they see an SNP government doing the types of things that they thought the Labour Party might, were they not a pale imitation of the force for social justice that they were founded to be.

This all adds up to making this the most interesting and exciting by-election I have ever campaigned in, and I am increasingly confident that John Mason and the SNP activists working for him and our party can deliver a historic victory on 24th July.

By the way, for those who are interested I am pictured with my pal Anne McLaughlin outside John's campaign headquarters on Baillieston Road after a shift campaigning in Glasgow East!

By-election(s) and Resignations

Hmm...my promise that I would be back blogging soon in April didn't really come true. Anyway, I feel inspired to do so today by having been awakened this morning by a text from David Linden and an e-mail to my Blackberry from Anne McLaughlin to inform me that David Marshall is resigning as the Labour MP for Glasgow East.

Most unexpected and quite exciting news. Of course, this has still to be definitely confirmed but if and when it is, we can look forward to a summer of campaiging in Glasgow's east end. The result in the constituency last time was a fairly overwhelming Labour victory, but in the current climate I am confident that the SNP can poll very well in any by-election there.

However, expect there to be two by-elections on the same day should this contest in Glasgow East come to pass. I would imagine that the Labour Party will take advantage of this to sort a by-election for Motherwell and Wishaw to run concurrently with any Glasgow East poll and to allow Jack McConnell to head off for his new job in Malawi.

Anyway, as exciting as this all is, if the news being reported on the BBC this morning that Wendy is for the off, then expect the Glasgow East by-election to not quite dominate tomorrow's headlines as it might otherwise.

Sorry for the Unintended Interlude

Well, my New Years resolution to blog more regularly was going so well until I noticed that it had been over a month since I last posted anything here.

In between times I have launched a new website at http://www.jamiehepburn.org

I have been busy trying to upload a huge backlog of my activites in Parliament so it has meant the blog here has been a tad neglected.

I have also written an article for an exciting new web project that Julie has organised. Have a look at http://www.destination.sco.eu/

Anyway, I will undertake to get back blogging a bit more regularly soon. Just wanted to post here today to prove I hadn't forgot all about the blog site.

Marine Environment

Debate on Marine Environment - 20th March 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Members will need to forgive me if my voice crackles a little today. It comes from urging Partick Thistle on to its well-deserved draw at Ibrox last night. That is nothing to do with the debate, but it is well worth mentioning. I am sure that Karen Gillon, especially, will agree.

The Central Scotland region, which I represent, is not known for its rugged coastline or the views of the ocean that are afforded by its islands and peninsulas, although I heartily recommend to all members a visit to Broadwood loch in Cumbernauld. I leave the more poetic descriptions of our maritime heritage and coastal environments to my colleagues who have the privilege of representing such areas in the Parliament. However, being a member for a land-locked region does not mean that I have no interest in Scotland's marine environment, nor is it the case that the careful management of our maritime resources does not concern my constituents. The motion talks of our "stewardship of the seas", and that responsibility is shared by us all, no matter where in the country we are from.

In last week's debate about national parks, I spoke of the importance of preserving our natural environments for the benefit of future generations. That is clearly as true of our marine environment as it is of our environments on land, and our decisions in the Parliament today will leave a legacy for all those who depend on the seas in years to come. I was interested to hear members touch on the idea of a marine national park. I agree that the concept needs continued and careful consideration.

A well-managed marine environment benefits not only coastal communities and those who work at sea, but others as well. The ripples of successful maritime policy can be felt well inland and around the world—from the manufacturing company that supplies renewable energy technology to the seafood restaurant in a city centre; and from tourists building a coastal stop into their itinerary to parents on a school run filling up the car with petrol from the North Sea. The Scottish coastal forum estimated that, in 2000, the annual income from marine activities in the area between 1km offshore and 1km inland was £4.5 billion. Scotland's oil provides at least £23 billion annually to the UK economy.

It is worth dwelling for a moment on the significance of the North Sea oil resource. Scotland's oil was described in 1975 as being the "future of Britain" by the then Secretary of State for Energy, one Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who was being fêted by some MSPs yesterday. Scotland's oil now regularly comes in at more than $100 a barrel, despite predictions in 1999 by the late Donald Dewar that the price would remain at $10 to $12 for the foreseeable future.
We now know that Professor Gavin McCrone, in his secret report to the UK Government in 1974, argued that an independent Scotland with control of its own oil resource would produce a "chronic surplus to a quite embarrassing degree".

Of course, the Government of the day, including Tony Benn, suppressed that report and argued the contrary—that the oil revenue was insignificant for Scotland's future.

However, over the past 30 years, some $200 billion-worth of oil has been extracted from the North Sea, yet Scotland—and indeed the whole of the UK—is yet to match the prosperity and quality of life of our Scandinavian neighbours, who have managed their maritime and natural resources so effectively. The debate on Scotland's oil will continue, no doubt, as part of the national conversation on Scotland's constitutional future, so I will leave my contribution on the subject at that—for now.

That leads me to the wider substantive issue of the debate: the appropriate place for decisions about and implementation of maritime policy in Scotland. I welcome the Government's commitment to engagement with the communities and interests that depend on the seas, and its determination to ensure that the policy framework for managing the marine environment is fit for purpose in the 21st century.

The Scotland Act 1998 bequeathed to the Scottish Government and its predecessors a complex and conflicting range of jurisdictions and responsibilities over the marine environment. As was mentioned earlier, Scotland is defined in the 1998 act as the land and territorial waters to a distance of 12 nautical miles, but Scottish ministers have responsibility for regulating fisheries and renewable energy beyond those limits to 200 miles. Even within the 12-mile limit, activities including shipping and navigation and issues such as safety at sea are reserved to the UK Government. I fully support the Scottish Government's call for powers over maritime policy to be fully devolved—along, of course, with all the matters that are reserved in schedule 5 to the 1998 act. Until that day comes, however, I am happy to continue to support the Government's initiatives to make the most of the powers that it has to ensure the best possible approach to marine policy.

The impact of climate change brings a particular urgency to the debate. The coastal environment will change, and sea levels are predicted to rise. As a member of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee, which is undertaking an inquiry into flooding, I have heard that Scotland could be better placed to avoid some of the effects of that phenomenon, but we must still consider the impact that flooding will have on our coastal communities. I am sure that that will form part of the Government's thinking on the flooding bill that it will introduce in due course.

Our seas have the potential to contribute so much to life, even in the land-locked parts of Central Scotland, and in a way that meets the Government's ambitious aims for our country. For example, the seas can help us to become greener—Scotland has been left too far behind in marine renewable energy. We can become healthier—careful use of our fish stocks should contribute to improving Scotland's diet. Our country can become richer, smarter and fairer as we invest in new technologies for and new understandings of our marine environment.

Today's debate has allowed us to reflect on those matters, and I know that the Scottish Government will consider them as it prepares its forthcoming legislation. I commend the Government motion.

No End In Sight to the War in Iraq

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank my friend and colleague Aileen Campbell for securing this debate, which, as she said, is timely. It is important and right that the Parliament should have a chance to discuss what is happening in Iraq today and how we arrived at this position over the past five years. My only concern is that tonight's debate may not be long enough to do those matters justice.

Although the debate is timely, I imagine that many are surprised that we are in a situation that makes it necessary. The fact that there has been a US and UK military presence in Iraq for five years and that there is no sign that that presence will end any time soon is testament to the lack of forward planning and thinking through of the consequences by those who took us into conflict during the headlong rush to war in 2003.

The consequences of the decision have been severe. According to CNN, there have been 4,279 coalition deaths in Iraq since 2003, and approaching 30,000 American troops have been wounded in action. Those deaths and woundings have scarred a generation of young servicemen and women, mostly of my generation, for no considerable good. Nor must we forget the tens of thousands of violent deaths of innocent Iraqi men, women and children since the invasion in 2003. I offer no more specific number because it is impossible to do so, as no official count of the Iraqi dead is made. That is significant, because it sends out the dangerous message that their dead—the dead men, women and children of Iraq—are worth less than our dead. Estimates of Iraqi casualties vary from the fairly conservative 50,000 to more than 1 million, but what are 900,000 or so dead individuals when no one is really counting?

We do well to remind ourselves that many of those who have died in Iraq have died as a result of terrorism that was unleashed in the internecine chaos that followed the invasion. One of the great ironies of the invasion is that its main protagonist, the United States Government, invaded on the dubious basis that Iraq was involved in the promotion of fundamentalist, Islamic-sponsored terrorism. The fact that Osama bin Laden was no friend of the Baathist regime and called Saddam Hussein an infidel was conveniently overlooked by, or unknown to, George Bush.

As repressive as the Saddam regime was, terrorism was not a domestic problem in Iraq before the invasion of 2003. The lack of forward planning and the dismantling of the state infrastructure of Iraq following the Pyrrhic victory of the coalition of the willing contributed directly to the unleashing of terrorism on the Iraqi people.

I have mentioned that the war on terror formed part of the rationale for going to war, but the basis for the war was formed above all by the idea that Iraq was attempting to build a weapons capacity that could strike at our shores within 45 minutes.

The fact that Iraq has been laid waste to for five years and not one scrap of evidence for the existence of such weapons has turned up gives the lie to the idea that they ever existed.

We all now know that the war in Iraq was about regime change and the desire to control that country's resources. I had no desire to support the maintenance of the Saddam regime, which was undeniably a barbaric form of government, but Saddam was equally barbaric when he was an ally of the United States and Britain against Iran; he perpetrated some of his worst crimes against the Iraqi people at that time. Where was the moral outrage from the American and British Governments then? There was none—Saddam Hussein was feted as an ally and Donald Rumsfeld was sent to meet and greet him. The old maxim "my enemy's enemy is my friend" held true in relation to Saddam Hussein—until such time as it did not suit.

I agree with the sentiments that Aileen Campbell has expressed in her motion. I hope that the legality of the war will, one day, be tested in the courts and that, when it is, those war criminals who are responsible—including George Bush and Tony Blair—are made to pay for their crimes.

National Parks - 13th March 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I welcome today's debate. Scotland's two national parks are one of the Parliament's most significant achievements. The legislation that created them could only have been passed under some form of home rule. The Westminster Parliament would never have found the time, let alone had the will, for such reform. Of course, perhaps an independent Parliament would have allowed us to go further and faster in the establishment of our national parks—I mention that as a mere aside.

As David Stewart said, the existence of the national park concept is a tribute to John Muir, a Scot from Dunbar who emigrated to the United States of America. His campaigns led to the protection first of the Yosemite valley and then of other great wildernesses in the US. It is a testament to the Scottish Parliament that the ideas of John Muir in establishing national parks have been enshrined in his country of birth.

We have two national parks in comparison with the 12—soon to be 13—parks across England and Wales and the many areas of outstanding natural beauty that have been designated south of the border and which are afforded the same protection. It is perhaps ironic that Scotland, which has some of the oldest, wildest and most impressive landscapes in Europe, has had to wait so long for a protection regime that matches European and global standards.

When we appreciate those landscapes, we cannot express our feelings more clearly than with the old maxim that we do no inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from our children. That is why protecting the land within our national parks is so important. Our landscapes and wildernesses have a value in their own right. Even if nobody ever visited them, our national parks would still be important as our country's lungs, filtering our water and purifying our air. That they act in that manner as well as being visited by so many people hammers home their importance to our country. It is right therefore that we should bestow on them a level of protection and management. Doing so will ensure that short-term gain does not mean long-term overexploitation.

As the motion before us correctly states, we should commend the contribution of national parks

"to the greener Scotland agenda."

However, the contribution of the parks is much wider than that. They make a valuable contribution to the Government's aims for a fairer and healthier Scotland.

Our national parks can make Scotland fairer, because land is protected for future generations and is understood as being held for the common good. That is in keeping with the traditional understanding of land use and ownership in Scotland. The elected element of the national park boards is a commendable example of participatory democracy. It is a way of ensuring that the voice of ordinary people is heard at the heart of decision making. I am glad that there seems to be such uniform agreement on the issue across the chamber.

Our national parks can also make Scotland healthier, because of the opportunities that they afford for recreation, especially walking, which is one of the cheapest, easiest and most effective forms of exercise. There also provide a wide range of outdoor pursuits from skiing and snowboarding on the Cairngorms to windsurfing on Loch Lomond, in which I am sure Jackie Baillie affords herself the opportunity to participate at every chance.

Jackie Baillie: Absolutely.

Jamie Hepburn: I assure members that I do not engage in those activities very regularly. However, for those who do, national park status means that the potentials can be maximised at the same time as the activities' impact on the landscape and environment is carefully managed.

Our national parks contribute

"to the greener Scotland agenda."

because they act as exemplars of the changes that we need to introduce in wider society if we are to tackle the causes and mitigate the effects of climate change.

National park authorities should be ambitious in promoting the Government's green targets. They should make their parks as accessible as possible to public transport; they should demand the highest standards of energy efficiency in their buildings; and they should minimise and manage waste. In that context, I welcome the Government's commitment to a strategic review of the operation of and future for our national parks. I hope that some of the points that I have made will be considered in the review.

After five years of designation, the time is right to ensure that our national parks serve the purposes for which they were established. Discussions have taken place on the effectiveness of the national park boards. It is right that all aspects of their operation should be considered in the review, but the elected element of those structures is of the utmost importance. In that regard, I welcome the minister's conformation that he shares those principles. Given the questions to the minister on the subject, some members appear to have missed that confirmation. As I said, I welcome it.

Five years after establishing the national parks, the time is also right to consider their size. I welcome Mike Russell's announcement that the Cairngorms national park will include highland Perthshire. The people of highland Perthshire should be congratulated, not only on voting for the SNP, which won with 60 per cent of the vote in a recent by-election, but on the campaign that they have run to be included in the Cairngorms national park. I also pay tribute to John Swinney for the campaign that he has run.

I welcome the fact that the Government review will consider other areas that may be included in the existing national parks. I hope that the review will also consider other areas throughout Scotland that may be endowed with national park status. For instance, the regional parks that were established long ago could be considered for promotion to full national park status. I ask the cabinet secretary to consider that possibility in summing up the debate.

Scotland's national parks are part of a European and worldwide family of designated and protected landscapes. The European Landscape Convention of 2000, which the United Kingdom finally ratified in 2006, reinforces the global dimension. That means that we have a duty not only to Scotland's future generations, but to people throughout the world who benefit from our national parks as tourists, consumers of produce and suppliers of the technology and tools that are used in the parks.

We have a duty to preserve and enhance the natural beauty and resources of our national parks and all Scotland's designated scenic areas. Scotland's national parks are a major achievement of devolution and a major responsibility of the Parliament. I hope that the debate takes us some way towards exercising that responsibility. We must realise that, through the careful and strategic management of our finest resources, we are building a legacy that will outlast us all.

A Bad ID-ea

On Wednesday night I had the pleasure of speaking at the Edinburgh branch of the NO2ID organisation who are campaigning against the introduction of identity cards by the UK government. I am sure it is entirely coincidental, but the very next day we saw Jacqui Smith make an announcement about how the government intends to step up its bid to introduce these cards.


We are told that they will offer us greater protection against terrorism and identity fraud.

In what way will a little bit of paper with our names on it act as a shield against these threats?

Let's not forget that Spain operates an ID card scheme, yet this did not stop bombs going off on Madrid trains.

People who are so determined to put lives at jeopardy, including their own for whatever extreme ends they wish to pursue will hardly be put off at the prospect of ID cards in the UK. Anyone who believes they will is delusional.

The case for ID cards is extremely weak, and I don't buy for a second the talk from the UK government that they will make life easier for us all. Nor do I buy the talk that there will be no compulsion upon us to carry these cards. Certainly that may be the case in the short term, but surely that would be liable to change. After all, what would be the point of introducing a card that we would be compelled to have if we are not to be compelled to carry it?

This is to say nothing of the outrage that we are expected to have to pay for the 'privilege' of these cards, possibly as much as £90 or more.

Anyway, I am delighted that the Scottish Government is resolute in opposition to these cards and they shall certainly have my support in that opposition.

Bye Bye the Iniquitous Tuition Fee

I was delighted that today the Scottish Parliament voted in favour of abolishing the graduate endowment and finally removed the nonsense of tuition fees for university students. The SNP Government move was supported by 67 votes to 61, with the Labour Party (with one exception, well done Elaine Smith) and the Tories voting against.

There are some who would have it that tuition fees were abolished some time ago, but the graduate endowment was tuition fees by any other name. After all, a tuition fee could be defined as a mandatory charge, contingent upon a person having undertaken a period of education at one of our higher education institutions. The graduate endowment was just that, a mandatory charge, contingent upon a person having undertaken a period of education at one of our higher education institutions. So that will be a tuition fee then in my book, and I think in the eyes of most students in Scotland.

So the principle of free education has returned to Scotland. This is something that I have long been involved in campaigning for.

I happened to have been amongst the last generation of students not to have paid either the former tuition fee or the neo-tuition fee in the guise of the graduate endowment. I campaigned against the introduction of both, so naturally I consider it a privilege to have been able to actually vote for the death of university tuition fees today.

The graduate endowment was supposed to be a form of generating income to fund student bursaries on a self financing basis. It never managed to become that, and instead served as a millstone around graduates necks. In 1999, the average level of graduate debt was £2,500. By 2007 this had grown to an average of £11,000. That is an inordinate amount of debt to lumber mainly young graduates with as they seek to begin their working lives, and in my opinion, acted as a huge disincentive to entering higher education.

The old maxim, neither a borrower nor a lender be runs strong amongst many of our communities, particularly amongst many of our most alienated and impoverished. The threat of graduate debt acted as a bar for entry to university amongst many people from these communities, and that is just one reason I am glad that the fees are gone.

But I am also glad because it reinforces the idea that where society benefits, we pay together as a society. The more educated a society, the more productive it can become. And where do people imagine we get our teachers, nurses, doctors and so many vital public servants from? They have to be educated, and as we all benefit by them, I think it is right that we all contribute to that education.

I agree that where a person benefits financially through higher education they should pay more - and the statistics do indeed indicate that those who go to university do indeed on average earn more than those who didn't.

However, what I can't accept is that this should take the form of a graduate tax, which was essentially what the graduate endowment was. If a person earns more they pay more in income taxation, a far more progressive and fair form of taxation than a flat rate form of fee that people became liable for even when they earn far less than the median earnings in our country.

So today is a good day for all those who adhere to the ideal of not just free education, but the idea that we all benefit by having an educated population.

Abolishing fees is not all we have to do for Scotland's students and graduates. So too do we have to tackle the problem of indebtedness, but as Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Education said today, this move today is the SNP Government's "down payment" towards that aim. I am sure that the number of students who came to Parliament today to call for the Graduate Endowment Abolition (Scotland) Bill to be voted through Parliament, and all those who care about free education will concur.

Accident and Emergency Units Statement - 27th February 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Will the cabinet secretary inform members how health board consultations on proposed changes to A and E and other services that boards provide will be improved in the future, and how the improvements will avoid any sham consultations, such as the one in Lanarkshire that led to the initial proposal to close Monklands A and E?

Nicola Sturgeon: My answer will be simlar to the one that I have just given to Jim Hume. I cannot overstate the point that the independent scrutiny process greatly enhances decision making. I repeat my thanks to Andrew Walker and his team, who have done an absolutely outstanding job in the cases of Ayr and Monklands.

Independent scrutiny builds confidence in the decision-making process. It is not for an independent scrutiny panel to take the decisions; rather, its job is to help to build confidence in the evidence base that underpins them. That, coupled with the other reforms that we detail in "Better Health, Better Care: Action Plan" to strengthen existing public consultation mechanisms, plus the possibility of elected health board members, will radically reform and improve the process of consultation and public engagement. The NHS will be stronger and better for it.

Debate on Rail Improvements (Central Scotland) - 21st February 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank those members who have supported my motion, enabling it to be debated tonight. I would also like to thank the various transport authorities and rail companies that have met me or written to me before the debate. I also thank TRANSform Scotland for its interest tonight and for preparing a briefing for members.

I put on record my thanks to the members who have stayed behind to contribute to the debate. In particular, I look forward to any contribution from my colleague Chris Harvie. I always feel as if I should be taking study notes whenever he speaks.

My motion has two purposes. They are clear from the text, but I am happy to be up front and clear about them. This is an opportunity to welcome and discuss the improvements to the central Scotland rail network that are being funded by the Government, but it is also an opportunity to open for discussion the idea of a national rail card for Scotland.

The rail network has played a significant role in Scotland's history and it has an even more important role to play in our country's future. Rail travel contributes positively to a range of economic, social and environmental ambitions that the Government and the Parliament have for Scotland. The Government's stated purpose of sustainable economic growth will absolutely depend on our having an efficient and environmentally friendly transport infrastructure for moving people and goods around the country. Above all, a modal shift from private car to public transport is a necessity if targets in the economic strategy and in our efforts to tackle climate change are to be met. Accessible public transport is also important for improving social interaction, which links to the Government's targets on inequality. Indeed, the motion notes that 32 per cent of Scottish households do not have access to a car. For those people, travel of any kind means dependence on public transport.

Those challenges and targets help to explain why the Government's plans for improving rail services across central Scotland are vital. I was recently informed by a Scottish National Party councillor from Cumbernauld that the SNP was campaigning for the electrification of the Glasgow to Edinburgh main line in the 1930s. It appears that the SNP's persistence on the matter will finally pay off.

I welcome the Government's ambition to achieve a 35-minute journey time between Edinburgh and Glasgow. The electrification of the route will benefit the population in both cities and in the towns of central Scotland, many of which are in the area that I represent. The eventual electrification of lines to Cumbernauld will also be extremely welcome. Users of those services need and deserve a speedy, reliable service that links to other key routes. That our rail network is largely unelectrified—which is remarkable in the 21st century—works against any ambition for a speedy, reliable service.

I am sure that members agree that Scotland must not be left behind with regard to developments in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. Another motion that I recently lodged noted the launch of France's latest, all-new super-high-speed train, at a time when the UK has only just completed a small stretch of high speed 1 from St Pancras. Scotland lags even further behind the network serving much of the rest of the UK.

That is why I warmly welcome the Scottish Government's commitments to rail improvements in central Scotland. The Government recognises that that investment is a priority for the people of the region and knows the impact that it will have.

Once the infrastructure is in place, the challenge will be to ensure that it is well used. Many of the improvements will benefit and encourage the commuter market, which will help to attain the economic targets that I mentioned. I am keen, however, to find ways to ensure that Scotland's people get the most from investments in central Scotland's rail network. One major disincentive to rail travel is the fares that are charged—both the cost and the structure of the prices. There are savers, super-savers, apex, super-apex, cheap day returns, weekend upgrades—the list of options and alternatives seems to go on and on and presents a cluttered and confusing landscape. At present, some groups benefit from the simplifying effect of a rail card discount. There is a young person's rail card, which I remember from my recent past, a senior rail card, which other members might be able to comment on, and a rail card for young family groups. However, people who do not fall into those groups are left out and might be put off making a train journey by the cost and by the complicated ticket restrictions.

Only three respondents to the previous Scottish Executive's 2006 consultation on the rail strategy believed that the fare structure should not be changed. Research on behalf of the Strategic Rail Authority into a national rail card proposal found that, for seven in 10 potential rail trips—that is, those journeys that a person considers making by rail—the main barrier to choosing rail as the mode of transport was price. That is why the motion suggests that we should consider making a discount rail card more widely available in Scotland. If we make train travel more affordable, more people will be encouraged to take advantage of the rail improvements that the Government is bringing about. In turn, that would help to meet the various goals that a modern, efficient rail network can contribute to. It would be a social leveller and an environmentally friendly way of improving rail travel across the country.

Research that was carried out in 2003 and 2004 for Railfuture and the Strategic Rail Authority showed that a number of different combinations of up-front price and percentage discounts could be profitable. It is important to state that that proposal could be profitable for rail companies. Railfuture found that a UK-wide scheme could attract 2.7 million users of such a card and achieve an 11 per cent increase in passenger miles, with industry profits of £50 million.

Another possible model, featuring a card that would be priced at £30 and offer a 50 per cent discount, forecast a 25 per cent increase in passenger miles. We need look no further than the south-east of England to see a positive example of a rail card in action. The network rail card that is in use there turns a profit for the rail industry while encouraging greater use of the network that connects with central London.

In the course of preparing for the debate, I met various transport operators and rail companies. They indicated a certain amount of interest in the scheme and there was certainly no outright opposition. They all agree that we need to simplify fare structures and encourage more use of the rail network. I have talked about a rail card scheme in the context of possible profitability for the rail operators but, to be clear, I do not believe that that is in itself an argument for introducing such a scheme. The social and environmental purposes of a railway are the most important factors for us to consider in encouraging greater use of the network. Indeed, the treatment of the railway as a profit-oriented business rather than a national public service has in many ways led to years of underinvestment and decline. That decline is only now beginning to be addressed by the kind of improvements to which the title of the motion refers.

I have run out of time, so I conclude by saying that we should aspire to excellence for our rail network. The improvements that the Government is making play a huge part in realising that aspiration to excellence and a national rail card has a huge role to play in that regard.

America Admits Rendition Flights Used British Territory

Today saw a parliamentary statement at Westminster by David Miliband the UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where it was admitted that US government agencies did use UK territory to render individuals to a foreign location for interrogation. It was announced that contrary to previous announcements and all prior assurances which stated that there was no evidence of flights undertaking extraordinary rendition procedures, the United States government admitted on 15th February that in 2002 two such flights landed on Diego Garcia.

I have previously written to Kenny MacAskill, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Lord Advocate to indicate my concerns about the ongoing allegations that Scottish airports have been used to facilitate extraordinary rendition, and I was informed that the Lord Advocate has passed on details of allegations given to the government to Strathclyde Police. The admission today by David Miliband undermines any assurances previously given by the UK government that Scottish airports have not been used for extraordinary rendition, and I believe it is incumbent upon all relevant authorities to reinvestigate these matters.

Extraordinary rendition is a piece of jargon that has passed into the modern lexicon, and I have used it throughout this blog. However it is as well to remind ourselves that when we use that term we are actually talking about the abduction and torture of individual human beings. These are of course crimes under Scots law and there are many international articles prohibiting the use of torture.

David Miliband has given an assurance that previous flights that were suspected of involvement in this practice will be looked at again, but it seems that this process will involve asking the United States to say whether or not they too were involved in rendition flights. It is clear to me that we cannot just rely on asking America confirming or denying whether these flights were involved in extraordinary rendition.

That is why we need the most thorough and proper investigation of these allegations. That has not happened yet, but today’s announcement necessitates such an investigation.

Fifty Years of CND

So, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is fifty years old. That is fifty too many years in my opinion, but sadly the madness of stockpiling weapons of mass destruction continues to this day, so CND are to be congratulated for their tenacity and continuing to fight against nuclear weapons.



It is bizarre to me that in a day and age where we are told that supranational terrorist networks are the gravest threat that we face as a society today, that the UK government is prepared to splash out some £75billion-£100billion on a new generation of nukes, which could of course never be deployed against a terrorist.

Wouldn't it make more sense spending this money on the great battles we face in the world today? First up, there is the terrorist threat, which I accept is all too sadly a very real danger. But there is more. We have to try and turn round the damage that human activity has made to our planet's environment, just as we have to try and tackle the problem of poverty, with too many human beings living on less than a dollar a day and struggling to feed themselves and their children.

We have so many problems facing us at home and abroad that it is obscene that the UK government is even considering for an instant that such largesse can be wasted on futile nuclear weapons.

An American President was heard to remark in his inaugural address some 47 years ago that "man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life". These words are as true today as they were when JFK spoke them on 20th January 1961, yet we are still waiting for our leaders to realise that they would be better off investing resources to abolishing all forms of human poverty rather than in technology which may abolish all forms of human life.

That is why I am so proud that the SNP government has stood up against the notion that nuclear weapons are necessary to be harboured in Scotland's waters and are actively campaigning against them. It is also why I am glad that we have organisations such as CND and other anti-nuclear groupings working to the same end.

Kosovo to Declare Independence

It looks like Kosovo stands on the brink of declaring independence. Reports suggest that Kosovar Prime Minister Hashim Tachi was set to make the declaration on Friday but was persuaded to delay any announcement by the United States authorities. This follows Tachi agreeing to delay the independence process till after the Serbian Presidential elections, so as to not allow Tomislav Nikolic of the Radical Party a big stick with which to beat Boris Tadic. Those elections are now of course out of the way, with Tadic having been successfully reelected.

Whilst Tadic does not want to see Kosovo leave Serbia and he and the Serbian authorities will seek to stop the moves to Kosovar independence, nor will they really be in a position to prevent the country from doing so. Sure, Russia and a few other states will make noises about this, but if the people and government of Kosovo are determined to move to independence how can this practically be stopped?

This leaves the way clear for Kosovo to move forwards to independence. We all of course hope that this will be a smooth process, and there are signs that it will be. An interesting article in today's Sunday Herald suggests that it has every chance of being just such a smooth process, and it looks likely that we are now seeing the remaining parts of the old Yugoslavian state falling apart.

So, the world will have its newest nation state in Kosovo this week. This will be a nation state of 2.2million less than 15% the size of Scotland. They are moving forward to independence with confidence. I look forward to our own country joining them soon.

Bounding into the Future with New Boundaries

A few fellow bloggers (step forward Marco at "Adam Smith Was a Socialist") have been getting excited by the review of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies that is being undertaken at the moment. The Boundary Commission for Scotland today published their initial proposals.

This gets those of us involved in politics quite exercised as we pour over the potential new boundaries and imagine how they might affect the political landscape.

Many of the new proposed constituencies strike me as a little bizarre. Many straddle local authority boundaries with little regard to historic community links, and surely when the final boundaries are settled upon the suggested Clydebank and North Renfrewshire seat which is bisected by the Clyde will be reshuffled off the map. However, the difficulty facing the Boundary Commission is trying to ensure a degree of equal apportioning of electorate to the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament (Orkney and Shetland excepted by statute, and the Western Isles by practical necessity) and I suppose we will just have to get our heads round the newly named seats and say goodbye to some long established names (although again, I am sure that come the final recommendations they will be more imaginative in Glasgow rather than just using compass points to name the seats).

The effect of the redrawn boundaries on the political landscape has drawn much comment, as I have mentioned. Less commented upon though has been the impact of the years between now and 2011, when the new boundaries come into effect.

Regardless of the boundaries we face it is what we do on the ground and how we try to affect change that truly matters. In that regard I have to say it is with some confidence that the SNP will be able to go into the 2011 election - no matter the boundaries presented.

David Cairns, the McChattering Buffoon

Just on Sunday I posted a blog on this site about Gordon Brown further undermining the unionist devolution commission. The following day articles appeared in the press with Brown stressing how he didn't want to take charge of the whole process and he was quite comfortable with the approach Wendy Alexander was taking.

Then today, in the Herald newspaper David Cairns firmly ruled out any suggestion that taxation powers might be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This follows the same person previously ruling out devolution of broadcasting and Des Browne stating that control over their own elections was just not on for the Parliament either.



As I wrote back in January with so many powers being ruled out for devolution before the commission has even met, it is increasingly clear that there is little point to it.

What has particularly irked me has been the way that Cairns has dismissed demands for constitutional change as the preserve of the "McChattering classes". Firstly, the idea that demand for constitutional change is confined to just a section of the population is a nonsense. The drive for change comes from the Scottish people as a whole.

The way he appended the "Mc" to the terminology shows Cairns as the epitome of self loathing Scot. It illustrates what a London centric politician he is. Of course what you won't hear from Cairns is the level of self interest he has in this whole debate. He is presently a Minister in the Scottish Office.

Already it is clear that the Scottish Office is a fairly toothless entity. Devolve more powers to Scotland and people will really begin to ask what its point is and then Cairns might just be out of a job.

However, Scotland cannot just sit still because of the career interests of a few Scottish Labour politicians.

We have to have the appropriate powers here in Scotland to make the changes needed here in Scotland. That for me will always necessitate independence.

But then I am just part of the "McChattering Classes", aren't I?

Gordon Tears Down the Wendy Hoose

The Sunday Herald reports that Gordon Brown has stamped his authority over matters constitutional for Scotland over that of Wendy Alexander.

The article (which blogger won't let me link to for some annoying reason) perfectly encapsulates the eternal problem for any leader of the Scottish branch of the British Labour Party. Just as John Balliol had to pay homage to Edward I, so too must by necessity Wendy Alexander appear penitent before her superior Gordon Brown.

Any politician who operates in a UK wide party will have a UK leader who will attempt to stamp their authority over their Scottish junior equivalent.



That Brown wants to have the much venerated Constitutional Commission proposed by Labour, Tory and Liberal alike to be reduced in status to a "working party" further undermines the future of this body. Previously I have stated that such has been the number of policy areas that various UK ministers refused to countenance being devolved this Commission would barely be worthwhile meeting in any meaningful fashion. Today's news further reinforces that impression.

What is truly astonishing though is Brown's reported views that Whitehall (i.e. him) should decide on Scotland's future.

No one person has any right to set the boundaries on the onward march of a nation. Whether Broon likes it or not (and he doesn't) it will be the Scottish people that rightly decide the future direction of their country.

Debate on Commercial Forestry - 7th February 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I welcome the chance to debate the position and significance of commercial forestry in Scotland. Many people throughout the country will not realise the significance of the industry, but the minister and others have set out its importance.

Forestry and wood processing provide thousands of jobs and are worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the Scottish economy. The industry currently produces some 6.8 million tonnes of softwood round timber a year, which is forecast to rise to more than 8 million tonnes a year over the coming two decades. We are currently pretty good at sourcing material from indigenous sources: it is important that we maintain that, given the forecast rise in production. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the Government's commitment to increasing forest and woodland cover within 25 years. There are other reasons to welcome that commitment, to which I will return. As the industry grows and production increases, it is vital that we ensure that more raw materials for the forestry industry are secured by way of greater forest cover.

We should also note that more than 70 per cent of the softwood round timber that is sourced in Scotland is processed in Scotland. Although I welcome the fact that the remainder finds ready markets elsewhere, we should take pride in the large degree of self-sufficiency that exists in the Scottish industry. The fact that the vast majority of timber that is sourced in Scotland is processed in Scotland is good news for the Scottish economy and jobs. The fact that most of the timber stays within our borders to be processed here ensures environmental effectiveness by reducing transport emissions.

The environmental angle is important. Our forests and woodlands are important tools in mitigating the effects of climate change. Crucially, the industry itself recognises the importance of that. The Confederation of Forest Industries estimates that tree planting is now offsetting around 8 per cent of Scotland's carbon emissions. I accept that carbon-emissions offset is not in itself going to win the climate change battle, but it has an important part to play, so the Scottish Government's commitment to increasing forest cover within 20 years or so is important in that regard. The more trees that are planted, the greater will be the carbon-emissions offset. Increasing forest cover is good news not just for the industry but for the environment.

Increased forest cover is good for the physical environment and combating climate change, but it is also good for our aesthetic environment. Scottish Environment LINK has recently contacted members to set out the importance of Scotland's landscapes. It states that the value of good landscapes to local economies is shown in tourism surveys, which consistently reveal that scenery and landscape are a key reason for visiting Scotland. Ensuring better forest cover can go some way towards ensuring more attractive landscapes.

According to the Confederation of Forest Industries, Scotland has 17 per cent forest cover, which compares favourably with the UK figure of 11 per cent, but lags significantly behind the EU25 average of 36 per cent. At one stage, Scotland was almost entirely covered by forest. I am not suggesting that we will be able to roll back thousands of years of human activity, but the Government's important commitment to increasing forest cover will help to create more attractive landscapes in our country and therefore to assist tourism, which is an important part of the national economy in which, of course, forestry also plays a part.

I have not yet mentioned forestry's importance to biodiversity. Only two weeks ago in the debate on the biodiversity strategy, Parliament broadly agreed on the need to maintain Scotland's biodiversity. I think that, this morning, we broadly agree that our forests—and our forestry industry—can also play a role in that respect. As a result, I welcome the Labour amendment. My only hope is that, if and when the amendment is successful, Labour members will, unlike yesterday, not go into hiding when it comes to the vote on the substantive motion.

I congratulate the Government on securing this debate. Our forestry industry is pretty strong at the moment, but there is scope for growth. After all, the UK currently imports 90 per cent of its paper and much wood-based produce, and the value and cost of those imports amounts to £6 billion. There is no reason why, with continued growth, the Scottish industry cannot replace some of those imports and provide the necessary materials to make many of those products. I am sure that commercial forestry will continue to flourish in Scotland and that the Government's policy of increasing forest cover, which will bring us closer to the European Union average, will play a huge role.

I commend the motion to Parliament.

Ponderings on Post Super Duper Tuesday Landscape

About a month ago I was making bold predictions about the interesting race for the nomination of both Democratic and Republican Party this American primary season.

http://520votes.blogspot.com/2008/01/electoral-ponderings-on-land-of-brave.html

Well, interesting the race remains but it looks as though my predictions have gone to pot! At that time I was envisioning a fairly competitive but straightforward race for the Democratic nomination, and a hugely complex and anything but straightforward Republican nomination.

Well, since then John Edwards has dropped out of the running for the Democrats and leaves it as a straight two way fight between Clinton and Obama. This one is hugely tight following yesterday's mammoth number of Primary contests (so called Super Tuesday, or Super-duper Tuesday if the fancy takes you). Currently Hillary Clinton has secured 760 of the 2025 required delegates for the Democratic National Convention to win the nomination. Barack Obama is not far behind though with 692.

I would imagine that it will be a bit clearer as to who the nominee will be as we enter the actual convention but it looks very likely that the race will go to the wire.

A month ago, I predicted that the Republican contest would be even more fascinating than that of the Democrats'. My thinking then was that the four main contenders at the time would appeal to such different constituencies (in a geographical; ideological and social context) that none may secure the requisite number of delegates to automatically secure their party's nomination. However, exit stage left (or right I suppose given that this is the Republicans I refer to) Rudolph Giuliani with a big endorsement of John McCain, and McCain has won New York and New Jersey along with California and Illinois. He now has 570 delegates of the 1191 needed to win the nomination.

My predictions of an old style smoke filled room convention for the Grand Old Party have themselves gone up in smoke. Shows what I know.

Anyway, many other bloggers have declared their preference of candidate. At this stage I err towards Barack Obama given what he has said about engagement with the rest of the world, if he stays true to his word and wins the Presidency then I would imagine that we would see a far more progressive foreign policy. His domestic policy seems much of a muchness as far as I can make out, and I do wonder when all his fairly embryonic and vague talk of being for "change" (although no bad thing in the context of the current incumbent's track record) might start to provoke a more rigorous analysis of what he is all about, but he just about gets my endorsement out of the likely front runners. It must be said though that I am not really convinced of the progressive nature of any of the likely candidates, and do feel that the American two party system is a bit of a Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee situation.

Shame that there isn't a latter day RFK in the running. That might just have secured a bit more fulsome praise from these quarters.

Labour Duck Out of Budget Vote

Today saw an important milestone successfully passed for the SNP. We have managed to get our first budget in government through the Stage Three process, meaning that it has been fully steered through and sanctioned by the Scottish Parliament.

More power to John Swinney's elbow for managing this triumph, but the events of today have proven more than a little bit bizarre.

The final vote for the budget saw 64 in favour with a paltry 1 against. 60 other members abstained. The Liberal Democrats abstained on every vote tabled today in the process. There were six amendments presented to the budget early afternoon, and one amendment to the motion that saw the budget successfully through, all of which the Liberal Democrats saw fit to abstain on, as well as the final vote on the budget motion itself. This strikes me as a fairly stunning example of political cowardice, but at least it was consistent.

What really gets me though is that the Labour Party presented the amendment to the motion, which sought to secure a commitment from the government to invest more in training and apprenticeships as resources allowed. The SNP supported this amendment. Indeed, it attracted support from all across the chamber (minus the abstaining Lib Dems of course) and was resoundingly passed by 110 votes to just one against (14 abstained). Nothing in that that should have "got to me" I hear you say.

What got to me though was that after securing this massive success, the Labour Party, when push came to shove, joined their former coalition colleagues in a fit of political cowardice and abstained on the final vote. Why, if they could only find fault with 1% of the value of the allocated budget did they do this? Why, when they secured cross-party consensus for investment in training did they do this?

I wish I had the answer to that one, because I genuinely fail to see the logic or the political worth of taking such a position. It will be interesting reading in tomorrow's papers.

The Conway Case

So the talk of the steamie seems to be Derek Conway employing (or under employing as the case may be) his two student sons on his allocated parliamentary allowances.

Many of my colleagues employ members of their family at the Scottish Parliament. Let me state for clarity that I do not. However I am not going to criticise those who do.

Some segments of the press, egged on by the seemingly ever more quoted Taxpayers' Alliance (who are these guys anyway, they seem to be a bunch of discontented neoliberals as far as I can make out) are calling for an end to Parliamentarians being able to employ family members.

This misses the point somewhat. I don't think there is any problem with such a practice provided the person employed is actually doing a days work for the money they receive. The nub of the case with Mr Conway is not that he chose to take on relatives as members of staff. Rather it seems that he assigned them to his payroll at the public expense but they undertook no actual work in return for payment.

That is clearly wrong and is what Mr Conway should rightly brought to task for.

Debate on Passenger Transport - 31st January 2008

Debate on Passenger Transport - 31st January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): The Labour motion suggests that ministers should review the national concessionary travel scheme with a view to extending eligibility to people who are in receipt of the lower rate of disability living allowance, and that they should do so as a matter of urgency.

Like Shirley-Anne Somerville, I find it amazing that the issue is a matter of urgency for Labour only now that it is in opposition—despite what Jackie Baillie said. After all, it was when the national scheme was introduced by the Labour Party, when it was in a coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats, that many disabled people lost the entitlement to concessionary fares that they had enjoyed under local authority-run schemes. When those schemes were replaced by the national scheme, people on the low rate of mobility disability living allowance were excluded. That happened under a Labour Government, but it is only now that Labour is in opposition that it considers the issue to be a matter of urgency.

Jackie Baillie suggests that the issue is not a budget matter, but surely it is, given that it seems to be about money. Where were the Labour amendments to the budget that sought to provide additional funds for the concessionary fares budget? It is only now that we are in the middle of the budget process that Labour's concern about additional revenue for this area has emerged. Some people who are less charitable than I am might suggest that that is more an exercise in grandstanding than an expression of genuine concern.

No regard seems to have been paid to the fact that the SNP Government has already moved funds from the underutilised younger persons scheme to fund parts of the concessionary fares scheme that have a high uptake. Is that not to be welcomed? Does the Labour Party prefer baseline figures that bear no relation to need or demand on the ground? Would it prefer moneys to be transferred to end-year flexibility, instead of being utilised to help many of the people for whom its motion expresses concern?

That is to say nothing of the increased funding that the SNP Government will provide in the coming year for the smart card programme to allow the delivery of improved ticketing machinery, which will enable efficiency savings to be made in future as a result of improved validation of bus operator claims. Those areas of investment are welcome and show that the SNP Government wants to improve disabled people's access to public transport. It is right that it demonstrates such concern.

Inclusion Scotland suggests that a "lack of accessible and affordable transport is a major barrier preventing disabled people living independent lives with access to all the opportunities most non-disabled people take for granted."

Help the Aged says that a lack of access to public transport for older people can lead to "isolation, social exclusion and a lower quality of life."

It is clear that much has been achieved. Let us remember that a million Scots — a fifth of our population — qualify for free travel. I congratulate the previous Executive on the role that it played in that achievement.

However, much remains to be done. The minister mentioned that the SNP Government is to review the national concessionary scheme in due course, when proper consideration can be given to including those people who became disqualified when the national scheme was first introduced. I welcome Stewart Stevenson's announcement that additional support will be provided to bus operators. Those measures, combined with the transfer of moneys to deal with the areas of highest demand for concessionary fares and the investment in our rail and roads infrastructure, show that transport is safe in the hands of the SNP Government.

Devolution Commission Damp Squib

After David Cairns recently setting his face against the devolution of broadcasting to Scotland, we now have Des Browne refusing to accept the notion of the Scottish Parliament having legislative competence over its own elections.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1993120.0.Ministers_set_to_clash_over_running_elections.php

It seems to me that this whole unionist commission to discuss the devolution of extra powers may turn out to be a bit of a damp squib.

Looks like the UK cabinet will rule out every conceivable area that might be devolved before it even has its first meeting!

Debate on Organ Donation - 24th January 2008

Debate on Organ Donation - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank the Presiding Officer for accepting the motion without notice to extend the debate so that more members could participate in the debate. I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful for that.

Like others, I congratulate George Foulkes on tonight's motion. There is much on which George Foulkes and I will disagree, but on this issue we find ourselves agreeing. I feel strongly about this issue. I have a friend who suffers from cystic fibrosis. He is presently in pretty good health and in pretty good shape, but it is quite conceivable that, some day, he will need a lung transplant. At my friend's prompting, I was happy to host an event in Parliament last year on behalf of the live life then give life campaign. Many members attended that event, and some of them are here tonight. Just as we have heard moving testimony from members in this debate, people at the event were able to hear moving testimony from a young woman whose life has been absolutely transformed by a lung transplant. Perhaps even more moving was what we heard from a young woman who was desperately ill and needed a lung transplant. No one at the event could have failed to have the need for change to our organ donation system impressed upon them. I hope that we are all agreed on at least that much.

I appreciate that this is an emotive subject. In the debate, and in the run-up to it, I heard the views of those opposed to a system of presumed consent, including members of my party. As sincerely held as those views are, none sway my opinion that the time is right to move to a system of presumed consent. Mary Scanlon and Mike Rumbles suggested that we cannot presume consent. I understand where they are coming from and I accept that, in the short term, presumed consent offers some problems, primarily in the confusion that would arise in the move from the present system to the new one. However, in the long term, a system of presumed consent will be accepted and readily understood.

Christine Grahame and Malcolm Chisholm suggested that a system should be adopted that allows for people to opt in and opt out. That is an interesting idea, but I am not sure that it would work. Members of a certain vintage, including George Foulkes, will recall the 1979 devolution referendum, in which those who did not vote effectively voted no. The statistics show that even though the vast majority of people are happy to donate their organs, they never add their name to the register. In an opt-in and opt-out system, those who do neither effectively opt out. That would be little or no improvement on the current situation.

In the run-up to the debate, I heard concerns expressed that doctors would allow certain patients to die in order to use their organs for a patient waiting for transplant. I cannot conceive of a situation in which a doctor would do that; it runs counter to the Hippocratic oath. Why would a doctor, concerned to save the life of one patient, not be concerned to save the life of another?

I understand Roseanna Cunningham's point about the incentive to publicise the opt-out. However, it is not beyond our collective wit, as legislators, to devise a system that necessitates such publicity. Indeed, it is the only way in which presumed consent will work with legitimacy. Equally, it is not beyond us to design a system sensitively, taking the interests of the donor family into account. When it is all thrown up in the air, I do not see the strength of the argument against presumed consent. All I see are hundreds of patients slowly dying on the transplant waiting list. We have it in our hands to help save their lives. I hope that when the time comes we will move towards a system of presumed consent and help those people.

Debate on Biodiversity Strategy - 24th January 2008

Debate on Biodiversity Strategy - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Mike Russell said at the beginning of the debate that he was concerned that he might hear a lot of scientific terms and complicated words. I suspect that his comments were directed at colleagues such as Dr Bill Wilson, given his expertise and understanding of those matters, rather than at me, but I give Mike Russell an undertaking that I will keep such references to a bare minimum — for my sake, if not for his.

Biodiversity is important, and our Government has certain obligations to meet in respect of it. Those obligations, as set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as well as domestic initiatives, are reflected in Scottish policy and legislation.

It is important that the Parliament has a chance to scrutinise how well we are doing in ensuring that biodiversity in Scotland is maintained, so I welcome today's debate. It is clear from the minister's opening speech that much has been achieved in the past three years, since the adoption of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Those involved in that work deserve our thanks.

The Scottish biodiversity forum is a clever approach to the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity, combining as it does the Government and its agencies, representatives of those who work our land and seas, local government and, vitally, the well-established bodies in the third sector that have an interest in biodiversity. Those who invest their efforts in ensuring the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity are to be congratulated.

However, while congratulations on the work thus far undertaken are due, much remains to be done. Members will have received the briefing for the debate from Scottish Environment LINK, which rightly points out that

"The loss of wildlife is not just of importance to scientists and enthusiasts. The loss of genetic diversity, species, and damage to habitats and ecosystems affects us all, in many ways we are only beginning to understand".

The first thing that must be done is to build on the good work that the minister has mentioned and ensure the continued rich diversity of our land and waters. I understand that the Scottish biodiversity forum is due to consult on the next three years of the biodiversity strategy. I look forward to seeing what emerges from the consultation, and trust that it will seek to build on what has gone before.

The minister set out some of the many challenges that exist for the future. He rightly pointed out that climate change is prime among them. Earlier today, I spoke in Patrick Harvie's members' business debate on the subject. I welcome the Scottish Government's hugely ambitious aim to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by midway through the century.

I look forward to any marine bill that emerges from the Government. I am interested in how it may play a part in protecting biodiversity.

It is clear to me that the task of maintaining biodiversity is taken seriously by our Government, and that, as the minister mentioned, it is building on the work that began under the previous Administration, which also deserves congratulations.

I commend the activities that are being undertaken in Scotland to protect biodiversity and I commend the Government motion and the two amendments.

Waste Announcement - 24th January 2008

Waste Announcement - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the cabinet secretary agree that taxation can be about more than just the economy and that, if it is used properly, it can boost environmental initiatives? He spoke about landfill. Does he believe that control over the landfill tax should be the preserve of the Scottish Government and this Parliament? Does he believe that the unionist parties should consider that issue as part of their tripartite commission that is investigating the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament?

Richard Lochhead: Of course I believe that if this Parliament had greater options to work up eco-taxes—if we had the fiscal powers to do so—that would greatly help our environmental and waste strategies. Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not have those powers. Perhaps that is something that the other parties in this chamber can reflect on. The environment is far more important than the unionist parties' obsession with the constitution.

Control of the landfill tax should be devolved to this Parliament. It is estimated that, of the roughly £1 billion that the United Kingdom raises from landfill tax, perhaps—I say "perhaps" because Scottish figures are not published—up to £100 million is generated in Scotland. That will not be reflected in our Barnett consequentials, so we are paying a net fund to the UK Treasury under the landfill tax. Of course, we should be able to retain that resource in Scotland in order to invest it in the future of Scotland's environment.

Debate on Educational Institutions (Environmental Performance) - 24th January 2008

Debate on Educational Institutions (Environmental Performance) - 24th January 2008

Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I congratulate Patrick Harvie on bringing the motion to the chamber and facilitating the debate. I was happy to lend my support to the motion.
People & Planet has been active since my time at university, although my experience is rather more recent than that of many members in the chamber. That said, one notable exception is Richard Baker, who was the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland when I was the senior vice-president of the University of Glasgow student representative council.

Those involved in People & Planet are to be congratulated on their activism. In a day and age when cynicism seems to run rampant, those involved in People & Planet scotch the myth that the young, including students, lack the social concerns of their forebears. I challenge anyone to turn up at an event that it has organised and go on to assert that student activism is dead.

The young may identify less with traditional party politics, but the big issues of our time—whether the drive for environmental change or the anti-war movement—continue to attract support. It is important for those of us who went down the traditional party-political route to engage with and support such extra-parliamentary activity. Today's debate is an important part of that process.

This Government and previous Administrations have stated their desire to use universities as a driving force for economic development. I have no problem with that—indeed, I support it. However, as much as being drivers for economic growth, our universities must be exemplars when it comes to environmental management. They must make the best use of the resources that are available to them.

Therefore, it is with some disappointment that I note the relatively poor performance of Scottish higher education institutions in the People & Planet green league for environmental performance, which is the league table to which Patrick Harvie referred. The league table is a clever idea: it ranks the performance of universities by traditional university grade.

Congratulations are due to the two Scottish universities that achieved a first: the University of Edinburgh and the University of St Andrews. Given the commonplace suggestion that almost all students come away from university with a 2:1—and before any member asks the question, I include myself in that category—it was with some surprise that I noted that no Scottish university achieved that grade. It was also with some disappointment that I noted that my alma mater, the University of Glasgow, achieved only a 2:2, although I take solace from the fact that we finished just ahead of the University of Strathclyde. That should just about see us through.

Joking aside, we have to think about why Scotland ranks so badly among United Kingdom universities. Are our sights as a nation lifted high enough? In the past, did our universities not receive the support that they needed? Would it not be better for our university principals to direct some of the thousands that they awarded themselves in the recent pay increase towards ensuring best environmental practice?

I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say on these matters. Climate change is the great challenge of our time. Nowadays, students may be the ones who rise to meet the challenge. Today, we need to encourage them. I congratulate People & Planet on the positive role that it plays.

A Hain in the Backside for Wendy

The talk of the steamie is the resignation of Peter Hain as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Wales due to the Electoral Commission referring the issue of the undeclared financial contributions to his (unsuccessful) Labour Party deputy leadership campaign.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jR2l2427vLfvIsTaC48dBkIl8LNg

The big question now is will this affect Wendy Alexander and the investigation into the illegal donation she admits receiving during her (successful, but then she was the only candidate) Scottish Labour Party leadership campaign.

Well, I suppose time will provide the answer to that question, and I have no idea whether it has any implications for Wendy. I have successfully managed to avoid personal speculation on this matter on this blog thus far, and you won't hear any bold predictions from me about likely outcomes.

Certainly though, the news of Peter Hain's resignation caused a bit of a media scrum (or a stramash as Arthur Montford might have had it) around Wendy Alexander at the Parliament today, and as you might expect there is much speculation amongst the press on this matter.

I must say though, it would be odd if the Electoral Commission referred only Mr Hain's situation to the police and not any others. But then it is a strange old world we live in.

The Soup Incident

I am not going to make a habit of blogging about this woman, but after having a bit of fun talking about my pal Aileen Campbell's fan club on my blog recently (http://520votes.blogspot.com/2008/01/aileen-campbell-fan-club.html) I should point out that today she had a nasty accident with some soup in the Parliament canteen.

Here I should make some obligatory gag about "Campbell's Soup", but I shall resist (or did that count as me having made it), but I can put her fan's worried minds at rest. After a wee trip to hospital to get her wound bandaged she was back within a couple of hours to play her part in seeing the SNP budget through stage one of its process at Parliament.

She has even managed to get some press coverage out of the whole incident:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7205502.stm

The lengths some people will go to get a bit of publicity, eh? Maybe I should go jam my hand in the nearest door and see if I can get some of this coverage too!

Then again, maybe not.

In all seriousness though, glad the accident wasn't too nasty and Aileen is on the mend.