22/11/2012 Newsnight Scotland

It is a useful lesson that Tony Hall brings from Covent Garden to

the upper reaches of the BBC. We'll speak to the Education

Secretary Mike Russell about their college funding row that has

dominated Holyrood debate for a fortnight. Did he make an honest

estate undefeated why did he not tell Parliament earlier?

And a new prescription for Scotland's appalling health record

for. Mike Russell is not given to humble

this or contrition. He has had to show a lot will both over the last

week. There have been calls for his resignation and for an apology. The

first the Mr Assad to say sorry also.

-- the First Minister has had to apologise also.

The future of colleges has been in the news since last week. Their

education secretary asked this manner to consider his position

after he recorded the minister in a private meeting. He left his job

saying he believed there was a danger that any difficulty that a

rose for him could be transferred to the college and to the wider

interests of colleges. It is that issue, the product issue

of college funding, that will not go away. Last week at First

Minister's Questions Alex Salmond told the chamber that this year

colleges had received an increase in funding. But the figures were

wrong. 545 million to 546 million is an increase. The Scottish

government stood by the figures. Did you mislead Parliament? I did

not. A 5:00pm an apology. A I take full responsibility for what I say

in this chamber. I have taken this opportunity to correct the figure.

The figure should had been 556. I apologise to the chamber for this

error. Less than one week later after being pressed by Labour

another apology. My apology is full and unReserve. It is to the whole

chamber. It should not have happened. By First Minister's

Questions this lunchtime the issue still have not gone away. Win in

the last 18 months did John Swinney inform the First Minister that

college funding was to be reduced this year and how often did he

update him? The mistake for which I apologise last week was my mistake

in terms of our briefing which I read out from which suggests that

that college funding was increasing compared to last year. The table

had forgotten to include 11 million additional funding. At this

afternoon's debate on college funding came this. I'd do not claim

to be a shrinking violet. I am committed to getting the best for

students in all sectors. I am passionate about education, about

working for others to share the same passion. Education changes

light. It transforms prospects. It creates new world. Once again it is

the wider issue at stake. There are concerns in the college sector

about funding for the future, whether courses will survive,

mergers, and what is best for the students. The resignation of the

Education Secretary has been called for. Sorry has been said. Now will

the real debate begin? A short while ago I spoke to Mike

Russell. I asked him if back in 20th June said they would be no

reduction in funding did he know the real figures? The it is not a

question of knowing the real figures. The question is we

understated the image we had spent by �11 million. I discovered that

that was understated at the same time as the First Minister. I did

as the First Minister a but. It was the right thing to do. We apologise.

It was a genuine mistake. I apologise for that mistake. The

figure be quoted was and �11 million less than we had spent.

What we have been trying to do again and again is to increase that

not know the true figure in June? The figure that I was working from

a was �11 million less than we had spent. It is to do with any

revisions. Because of be tried to add money into the Budget. We are

engaged in a big programme of college reform. But needs to be

done in the interests of Scotland's own people. It is difficult to do

that when there is pressure on the Budget. Although the pressures are

there, again and again I say to my officials and colleagues, can we

find additional resources? We understated Africa by �11 million.

-- we understated a figure. As I said when I apologise, we realised

last Thursday that the figure had been understated by �11 million.

The letter you wrote to their education committee was accurate

letter. You yes it was. That was written in October. 18th October. I

did but realised what I had said in June, and I do not read everything

I say, I did not realise what I said in June was based on the

uncorrected figure. These figures are perfectly clear. They are clear.

The education committee had those figures. The questions me for more

than one hour on those. Then Alex Salmond got them wrong again.

said as I said there was a chart that at the wrong figure on it.

This story is, you got the figures wrong because you were not aware

extra had been added in. Alex Salmond got it wrong because he got

a wrong briefing. You did not know these figures until when? Those

figures I knew in October. I have been to this in the last week. I

have made an apology for the figure I got wrong. The figure is wrong by

�11 million. The important thing in this is that we are working very

hard on a vision of what we want to do for the young people of Scotland.

We are working hard to deliver that isn't. A I am still confused.

are seeing you did not go you got the figures wrong when you got them

wrong earlier in the year. You are seeing you only realise that

discrepancy last week. Yet the letter you sent on their 18th

October to the education committee has the correct figures. How could

you not have known the correct figures when you send the letter to

the education committee? The letter to the education committee is

correct. You said you did not realise until last week. I did not

say that. We could go on all night. I said that I made a mistake and

the first person made a mistake and we apologise. In every other

parliament in the world people would say that is good we have a

knowledge the mistake. Then the last week I have been tied up in

semantics. I've are not questioning your apology. I still do not

understand your time light. It is important because when you are a

minister and you get something wrong you are so close to go to

Parliament and correct it. A indeed. You must have known as early as

October that you had got the figure wrong in March, yet to make no

attempt to correct it. Sorry on June the 28. I said the figures

were not falling. That did not take account of the fact there was an

additional �11 million at be had spent in the relevant here. When it

was drawn to my attention that I had said that in June, and it was

drawn to my attention masters to, I realise it was a mistake and I'd

immediately apologised. The First Minister immediately apologised. I

apologised again on Tuesday. We can talk about what you want to achieve

in Scotland's economic sector and we can accept mistakes are made or

we can spend an entire week talking about spending �11 million less

than we had spent. I think we should talk about what they want to

achieve and accept that mistakes do happen. Did the First Minister at

any point suggest to you over the past week that you should resign?

He did not. Did you at any point consider resigning if only to

relieve the First Minister from an embarrassing position? Absolute the

not. I am focused on, the First Minister has focused on getting

through the process of college reform which is extremely important.

Did I reckon a state? Desai did. But I apologise? Decided. What was

a mistake? The mistake was I said... You have said that several times.

As I understand the story you make this mistake in June, that you did

know in October... It was drawn to my attention last Thursday. When

you said a letter in October the figures were correct. The a were

indeed. He did not realise the contradicted what you had said in

June. A battle that was wrong to buy it in June. You were not

culpable for not realising that the figure to sit in October

contradicted what you cent in June. I think I understand that. That is

what I did. That is what the First Minister did. This incessant

running started not with their spat with the College of fear. With the

benefit of hindsight I'd do not expect you to say that he was wrong

in taking that meeting. I fully understand. One way of burying us

and getting onto the subject you what to talk about would be if you

see what the benefit of hindsight you over-reacted. I am not going to

say that. This issue has been . I am not going to get involved in

it again. I think be issue is that I am trying to deliver it for the

young people of Scotland, to deliver the right things. We have

been engaged in it for the last year. It is a sector that requires

substantial reform. Although you can't sack him, even though you

said you wanted to, according to him, the point is that you cannot

be a chairman of the college if the Education Secretary has said in

public that he has no confidence with you. Have you got the

graciousness to say, "don't do that again but if you would like to go

back to the college, you can". have no power to do that. If they

choose to have him back, when you drop your insistence that you have

no confidence? I regard that matter as closed. The issue that is not

closed is making sure that we did have a college reforms. We have a

very important sector which has a great deal for young people. We are

working very hard to make sure it delivers employability and courses

for employment. I and my colleagues have a strong vision of how that

should be done and we have been working very productively in the

sector. If you look at where we are now as opposed to a year ago corps

we have moved massively forward and we have to, and will, continue.

allegations have been noticed by Mr Ramsay that you are abrasive and

intolerant of people who disagree with you. Is that a picture you

recognise? No, it is not. You and I have known each other for over 20

years. We have had many interesting discussions but I think those

discussions, as all my can skeletons, -- discussions, are

taken as good exchanges. Far be it for me to challenge your

quintessential courtliness, but you know perfectly well but the way

people present themselves in a television interview like this is

not necessarily the way... I regard you as quickly, too. The reality of

the situation is that, as I said in the chamber, I don't claim to be a

shrinking violet or perfect. What I claim is to have a passion for

delivering education. I have a passion for working on that with my

colleagues and with everybody in the sector and I want to do that

effectively. You will at least concede that you regret this whole

thing has happened? I am really sorry this has happened. It has

been a deflection from the really important issues. But I have to say

that in the last week, the defection has come particularly

from the Labour Party, who will not accept an apology. That is

immensely regrettable because we should move forward with college

reform. We have to leave it there. Thank you.

If you live in Scotland, especially the west, you are going to die

sooner than if you live elsewhere. Of the countries in the UK work

assessed separately, life expectancy in Scotland would be the

lowest in the EU. Scott and was overtaken in the second half of the

20th century by France and Italy and, in recent years, even by

Eastern Europe. -- Scotland was. We have had of the Glasgow effect but

the new study shows that it may affect the rest of Scotland, too.

There is clear evidence that we die younger than people in comparable

areas. So there is a mystery here. It is not just, for example,

smoking. Liverpool and Manchester have almost identical smoking rates

but 12% more Glaswegians died of lung cancer. Even worse on the

statistical comparisons with suicide, alcohol and drug-related

deaths. For every 10 Citizens in Manchester and Liverpool could take

their own lives, there are 16 in Glasgow. For every 100 Manchester

or Liverpool deaths from alcohol- related illnesses, almost 230

Glaswegians will die. And for drugs-related deaths, the Glasgow

figure is almost 250. These excess deaths are relatively recent

phenomenon. The difference seems to have been emerging over the past 40

years. It is not just related to poverty. People in an affluent area

of Glasgow have mortality statistics 15% worse than the

equivalent neighbourhoods in Liverpool or Manchester.

That comes from a newly published book called After Now with the

subtitle "what next for a healthy Scotland?". I am joined by the

book's author, Professor of Public Health at Glasgow University Phil

Hanlon. You are well known for having identified the Glasgow

affect - the fact that the extent of illnesses in Glasgow cannot be

explained by things like social deprivation. There is an X factor.

You seem to suggest that might now apply to the whole of Scotland.

started by identifying it for the whole of Scotland and my colleague

David Walsh did that three cities analysis that you have just

reported. It is so powerful because these cities are so similar in

terms of deprivation. Anything that Glasgow has in excess has to be

attributed to someone be on deprivation. Understanding of

deprivation is still a key driver of help. One of the interesting

things is that there is a middle- class effect. If you live in an

affluent area of Glasgow, you could die sooner than someone in an

equivalent area of Manchester. In Scotland, we have have toxic

combination of factors associated with late maternity because it is

addictive behaviour. It is obesity, the level of inequality, loss of

well-being. What I did not quite get, reading through the book, is

that none of what you explain, to me, quite put the finger on why

Scotland should be different. would have to concede at this stage

we cannot be absolutely sure why that is but what we can point to is

that the effect is a relatively recent, in the last three or four

decades. What we have to look to is what has been going on in Scotland

over that time. What we are seeing in that time is a rise of

consumerism, greater inequality and other factors. The question we are

asking is, is the combination of fact of... But all of those factors

would be at play not just in England but in America. Yes, so

they are not unique to Scotland but if we have to explain such a wide

selection of causes of death and of ill health, you have to be the king

at something pretty fundamental to the way we live our lives. And our

inner lives, of policy, as well as our outer lives. We are arguing

that there is something quite intrinsic about what has been going

on in Scottish society in recent decades. This is a warning sign.

You are actually dealing with issues bigger than health. Health

is a warning light on the dashboard. You do not worry about a warning

light but you worry about what is going on in the engine underneath

that is causing the warning light a flash. The problem with your

prescriptions is that they carry a lot of baggage. There Romany people

who would say that they agree with you but they would not necessarily

agree with your views on anything from the importance of population

change to climate change, to consumerism. It is a pretty full

political package you are selling. Yes, and I would accept that these

are quite radical ideas. My difficulty is that I have been

working with these problems now for a long time and they're all getting

worse and continued to do so. The kind of approach that has solved

problems in the past - infectious disease or even heart disease and

cancer - clearly, these prescriptions are not working. That

is why the challenge has to come to something more radical. People may

not buy your whole thing but one of the points you are trying to make

is that the powers-that-be delivering homilies to the

population about not smoking and not drinking is just to

misunderstand the problem. It is just not persuasive. The whole of

the Western world lost self-control 30 years ago, causing the publicity

epidemic. We have to the but the kind of society we have created. It

is the whole population, more or less, so you need something quite

profound. I often say that I have no particular prescriptions. Rather,

I am looking to have a debate where we could ask what would work.