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.
Friday, 21 March 2008
Friday, 14 March 2008
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.
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.
Friday, 7 March 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
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.
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.
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.
Friday, 22 February 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
