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.