30/01/2013 Politics Scotland

Welcome to Politics Scotland. Coming up on the programme:

The Scottish Government accept the Electoral Commission's

recommendation to alter the referendum question and higher

campaign spending limits. Here at Westminster, MPs pass their

verdict on the electoral watchdog's handiwork and student leaders

demand that cuts to the college budget are reinstated by the

Scottish government. That is our Welcome to the programme.

The elections watchdog, Electoral Commission, has recommended a

change to the wording of the Scottish Government's proposed

question in the independence referendum to ensure its neutrality.

The original proposal was, "Do you agree that Scotland should be an

independent country?" but the Electoral Commission has

recommended that it be changed to, "Should Scotland be an independent

country?" It has also proposed higher campaign spending limits

than SNP ministers wanted. The Deputy First Minister confirmed the

Scottish Government accepts the proposed changes but calls on UK

ministers to enter talks now on what will follow a Yes vote.

I also been in recommendation of the commission to the UK and

Scottish governments to sit down now and reach a shared

understanding of the process that will follow a yes vote is very

important. I had been making that suggestion for some time now to the

UK Government. I hope both governments will accept all these

proposals in full. Prime Minister responded by saying

he will work with the Scottish Government in providing information

but that was as far as he was willing to go.

We will not renegotiate Scotland's exit from the United Kingdom. It is

his party that wants to break up the United Kingdom and it is as far

his party to make the case. -- for his party.

I am joined by our political commentator, Alf Young, who it is

here with me this afternoon. A bit of a? Over the negotiations.

It is not entirely Clear are what the commission were saying about

needing greater clarity about what happens after the vote. It is

saying to both governments, get together and tell people what will

happen next. It is more next in terms of procedure, not next in

terms of are we going to keep the pound, the Queen and all of that?

As you can see from that clip with the prime minister, he is very much

of the view that that is a case the SNP has to make an team may share

information that he will not say to them that the Bank of England will

negotiate now about what might happen about the pound after a

referendum. He is not prepared to go that far.

Just on the question itself, no surprises there to the Electoral

Commission came out with this one? All the polling experts said that

adding the do you agree statement that in effect have made it a

leading question, and urging people in that direction. That it has gone.

It is interesting but it has gone so easily and both sides have just

agreed that is it and we will go with the question that is now there.

They also agreed very easily on campaign finances which was a

little bit surprising? It is higher than the SNP wants it

but when you look at the numbers that are split, the umbrella Kames

get �1.5 million each. There are other registered campaigning for a

organisations who could put up extra money. Those organisations

are able to spend �150,000. It means there will be parity in terms

of the money there will be spent. Making now joined John McCormick,

the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland. Good afternoon and thank

you for joining me. We were hearing from Alf there that the two sides

have agreed on the question. What was your concern about the wording

of the question? We are an evidence-based

organisations so we conducted a intense research exercise over the

last 10 to 12 weeks. The core of that was a research organisation

talking to groups up and down the country in focus groups and one-to-

one interviews. We also received nearly 500 submissions from

campaigners and groups who are interested in the referendum. We

put it all together and came out with these recommendations. We put

particular weight of what was said by people in focus groups and one-

to-one interviews. They took place across Scotland.

His relation to spending limits, are you surprised that the Yes

campaign also accepts that higher spending limit?

I am pleased they accepted it. We had a well worked out argument

about why we needed to increase the spending limits. Our key principle

is that we do not think there should be a constraint on people

campaigning. This is a historic referendum. We have looked at the

funding limits for parliamentary elections and related it to that.

There is broad parity with the elections. We want a level playing

field. This is a level ceiling. These levels are set so people

cannot go be on them. It is important for this referendum that

there is no constraint on campaigning. We do not want there

to be excessive spending but we do not want a constraints in putting

the arguments to people. We outlined why we think both sides

can campaign effectively within that limit.

You have urged for clarity in the political process for after the

referendum. The UK Government have said they will provide information

but the commission recognises independence cannot BP negotiated.

What is your interpretation of this club up -- interpretation of this

clarification? This issue came to us from voters

and citizens the we talked to. There was a clear demand from them

in the research that they want to know what would happen the day

after the referendum whatever people vote. What are the next

steps? Some others may guess what the next steps might be but there

is a clear demand for people to know what they are. We have passed

those on to both governments and so said that the voters have asked for

clarity on the timetable and what would happen next. We hope the

Government will agree a joint statement to define what the next

steps will be so people are clear round that. The voters want to know

the next steps from the two governments and it is up to them to

respond to that. We are articulating the request on behalf

of the voters. One to identify those steps as

process steps of substantive points about Scottish independence?

I do not want to put flesh on these bones of collar them in because we

did not go through that with the people we spoke to. They said

towards that they would like to know what happened after the

referendum, so we are spelling that out to the governments. People want

to know. They do not want uncertainty the day after or six

months after. I would expect that to be largely process, so they have

a clear idea of timetabling and time frame. Everything we do in our

report is based on research and evidence. We did not go back and

question them in detail about that but the voice was very loudly

expressed, and the request was loudly expressed, and we have

plenty of time, all others who are involved in this, too response to

that and tested further. Some might construe this as

wandering into political territory because there is an argument going

on about negotiations before independence?

We do not go into political territory. There is uncertainty

among voters as to what will happen and we hope that campaign groups

and governments will clarify what will happen in their own way. That

is up to them. Can you tell us how the our

Electoral Commission will operate until 2014? What else will you be

keeping an eye on? We will keep an eye on the

legislation going through the Scottish Parliament. A Bill should

be completed by the end of June to allow registration offices to

recruit 16 and 17 year-olds in the electoral registers. We will

monitor the progress of the referendum Bill through the

parliament and by the ends of the year we will publish a report on

the state of readiness for the referendum. It is a regular process

where we will say where we are were so many moons ago, this has been

done and this has not been. We will to a state of readiness report

before Christmas. We have the European elections in June and the

European a referent -- and the referendums sometime in the autumn.

Thank you very much for speaking to us. Let me speak once again to Alf

Young. Interesting to hear what was said there about the process after

the referendum. He said it would largely be process

issues, so it is about the timing of what happens. It is clear from

the written statements today that it is about both outcomes. It could

then take us into territory like, if it is a no vote, what are the

plans of the Westminster government in terms of further devolution off

further changes to the relationship with a devolved Scotland? What I do

not think it will actually get to, but it will be interesting to see,

because it will be quite political, it will not get to the point that I

think a lot of people were coming from, which is to say if I say yes,

what does it mean for my life in terms of the currency I amusing and

the security of my job, all my ability to move freely about the

country? These kinds of issues are not going to be resolved this time

of the outcome of the vote. Some are these people may even think of

that that would be the better time to have a referendum, once you know

what the package is. It takes us back to an argument there was

buried a long time ago about whether this referendum should be a

two-stage referendum they could be a talk for a man day it --. When

they could be a top for a mandate and then a discussion about the

package. What it will be about is the two sides are providing

information about what is at stake and the Westminster government is

already lining up a whole series of papers about its case for the union,

in terms of information. It says it will share information, as the Bank

of England has said to the Scottish government that it would share

information about the process of currency union. It will take you

some way down the road but I think for some of the voters who are

asking the commission for more clarity about what an independent

Scotland would look like, or what a Scotland have voted No would look

like after the referendum, I do not think it will take us much further

forward. Thank-you for that. Let us get the

political reaction for -- political reaction from Holyrood. We have

representatives of what the three main parties in the Garden Lobby at

Holyrood. First to Annabelle Ewing as the SNP, we have heard from the

an Electoral Commission there. Is this a climbdown from the Scottish

governments that this new question has been accepted because the

ritual question was loaded? Good afternoon. We are delighted

with the question. It is clear and straightforward. Should Scotland be

an independent country? Yes or No. The question we initially put

forward they have described as being fair and easy to understand

and they did not find any evidence of deliberate partiality but they

have put forward in the recommendation a refinement of that

original suggestion and we are very happy with the wording may have

recommended. See you not accept that the

original do you agree was a little bit Loaded and the commission was

likely to change that? You put forward the question and

the Electoral Commission does its important work and that is what has

happened in this case. It said it could not find any evidence of

deliberate partiality in the framing of the question but have

refined it. I think that is a very straightforward, clear question and

one it -- one we are very happy to support.

The Scottish Government appeared to have accepted a high amount for

campaign funding. This SNP wanted to have a lower amount. I you

trying to spend your way to victory?

Are not at all. It is important appropriate spending limits are set.

The SNP wanted to cap those spending limits which were in real

terms much alone were then for the 1997 referendum. This is a big

decision for Scotland and campaigns need appropriate amounts in order

to inform the voters and get the message across. We look forward to

that campaign ahead. Turning to another issue the

Electoral Commission has raised, seeking clarification of what will

happen after a yes or No vote, how do you interpret that? The Prime

Minister was very clear that this meant independence would not be

negotiated before the referendum. This is not something we are

advocating. It would be like saying to someone who has been happily

marrieds that they have no plans to divorce but we should work out what

our divorce settlement should be in the event we would like to. It is

for those who advocate the tearing up of the union to explain what it

will need for the people of What the Conservative Party want,

what the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats want, is we believe in

the United Kingdom and want that to continue. We want people in

Scotland to choose, to make the big decision, do they want to be part

of the most successful political union in history? Or do they want

to separate from it? On the other side of that decision are liberated

and empowered Scotland will be able to negotiate for its future in a

more successful way as part of the United Kingdom which is how I

believe the people of Scotland will decide. It's for those who

flippantly will say that everything is very easy and that access to

everything, currency, the European Union, our own security services

even, it just has to be asserted. It's for them to explain to the

people of Scotland exactly what the detail of that is, to determine

whether it's credible. I think it's found short at each turn. Well

clearly putting there the Conservative point of view, there

will be no negotiation before the referendum. How do you interpret

what the Electoral Commission said about this clarification? Well, I

think it was very interesting that one of the key recommendations of

the Electoral Commission was to have both governments provide

information as to the position in the event of a yes vote in terms of

the how. The transition process. It has to be recalled that Nicola

Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister recently sought these kind of

discussions with the UK Government and was rebuffed. So I would hope

that today the UK Government will abg seed to this recommendation of

the Electoral Commission because, after all, they have been saying

right up until today that all the recommendations of the Electoral

Commission should be 100% respected. Presumably, they will also acseed

to this recommendation, perhaps Jackson could clarify that for us.

I want to pick up with you on that, because we were speaking to John

McCormick there and he was saying it was more of a look at the

process of what would happen on each side after the referendum and

perhaps not more the substantive points, almost the pre-negotiation

points that you want to see. As you say, it's an Electoral Commission

recommendation, perhaps it isn't that? Well, it is a recommendation.

The Electoral Commission - what I think they're saying is there

should be talks on the how, how would you proceed in the event of a

yes vote. That's entirely sensible and that's indeed what the Deputy

First Minister has been calling on the UK Government to embark upon.

That's what the Electoral Commission has recommended today.

We are 100% behind the recommendations of the Electoral

Commission and I hope that the anti-independence parties are as

well because they certainly talk the talk, until today that they

would sign up 100% to the recommendations of the Electoral

Commission. James Kelly, will you talk the talk, do you think it

might be helpful to have these kind of discussions between the Scottish

and UK governments, maybe to help people out there understand what

exactly is meant by Scottish independence and what is meant to -

for staying in the union? I think it's important not to get bogged

down on negotiations and the SNP have misconstrued what was in the

Electoral Commission report. There's no talk about negotiations.

I think the clear thing is that we must lay out the implications of

the decisions before us and what people are interested in is how is

it going to impact on their life, what's going to be the impact of

independence on Scotland's financial institutions? What is the

impact on the two thirds of exports that leave this country currently

and that will impact on the economy, it will have detrimental effect on

the amount of money in people's pockets, the money in the Scottish

budget, and and therefore, independence would be bad for the

Scottish people. We will be putting that across and also the positive

case for devolution as we enter the campaign trail. I want to briefly

turn to one other point that we will be covering today, the

Scottish budget. A debate is going on in the chamber this afternoon

about college funding. On that point, Labour are calling for a

reversal of the �35 million cut to colleges, do you think the

Education Secretary might accept that? Well, I am not privy to the

debate because I am here with you, but what is clear is that the

Scottish Government is committed to our further education secretary are

to and there has been record investment over the last years and

we have maintained against a difficult backdrop of very harsh

cuts from Westminster, we have maintained full-time equivalent

student numbers over the last years and in the year to come, I think

that's tremendous credit to the Government's determination to

ensure that all our young people have the opportunity to have an

education and to get training that they need to skill themselves for

their careers ahead. I would pay tribute in this respect to the

campaign being run by the NUS in Scotland. I have just - received

another e-mail from a student who was very anxious to engage in the

political process and certainly the case that we have been seeing

record investment in our colleges and, rightly so. James Kelly,

Labour have called this debate, but how can you balance the budget if

you want to reinstate that �35 million, where is it going to come

from? You can easily find the money from underspends, there are always

underspends in the Scottish budget. The clear issue this afternoon is

Mike Russell misled parliament in October when he said there were no

college waiting lists. He must apologise to parliament and we must

clearly get on to the issue of tackling waiting lists and as part

of that we need to reinstate the �34.6 million which has been taken

from college budgets by the SNP. Your colleague Liz Smith will be

speaking in this debate, but it's rather difficult to try to

reinstate that �34 million when the Scottish Government are quite clear

they're under tight financial constraints because of Westminster.

We know Alex Salmond's Prom thaeus the rock would melt - it meant the

opportunity for thousands of young Scots who were at college have

melted in the sun in the wake of that promise. Because thousands of

young people who were otherwise have been in Scotland's college

sector have found their places cut. It's a disgrace and I I think Mike

Russell really has, as James Kelly said, misled parliament. I think

throughout Liz Smith has been on his case. This really is the last

chance saloon for the Scottish Government to actually restore in

the name of the economy of Scotland the job prospects of the future

college places for many thousands of young people in further

education. Thank you all very much for joining me.

Now Prime Ministers questions. There was claim and counterclaim

about the Government's progress on the economy. Ed Miliband, the

Labour leader, claimed not enough was being done to boost economic

recovery. But the Prime Minister defended the Government's austerity

programme and responded to an SNP question on the Electoral

Commission. Now, growth was not not 5% but 0.4%.

A flatlining economy means people's living standards are falling. Now

his excuse is that other countries have done worse than us. Can he

confirm that since the Chancellor's spending review more than two years

ago, out of 20 major G20 economies Britain has been 18th out of 20 for

growth? First of all, let me say on high speed rail, which goes right

through the middle of the Chancellor's constituency, we are

proud of the fact that it's this Government that's taken the

decision to invest. Just as it's this Government that's building

Crossrail which is the biggest construction plan anywhere in

Europe. Now he asks about other European economies. The fact is if

you listen to the European Union, the OECD or the IMF, they all point

out that Britain will have the fastest growth of any major economy

in Europe this year. I have to ask him, what is his plan? We all know

it, it's a three-point plan, more spending, more borrowing, more debt.

Exactly the things that got us into the mess in the first place. I have

to say, we have used to that kind of answer from the Prime Minister.

He promises a better tomorrow and tomorrow never comes. That is the

reality. He couldn't deny the fact that we are 18th out of 20

countries. We have done worse than the USA, worse than Canada, than

Germany, worse than France, because of his decisions. Now last week the

chief economist of the IMF said this - if things look bad at the

beginning of 2013, which they do, and he was talking about the UK,

there should be a reassessment of fiscal policy. Mr Speaker, after

two years of no growth, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he

thinks he should do anything differently in the next two years?

First of all, I would say that he should listen to the managing

director of the IMF who said this, when I think back myself of May

2010 when the UK deficit was at a 11%, when you were in office, right,

and I tried to imagine what the situation would be like today if no

such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided, I shiver. That is

what the IMF said about the plans of the last Labour Government.

Scottish Government has today accepted the welcome proposals of

the Electoral Commission in relation to the independence

referendum in full. Amongst those recommendations is that the UK

Government and the Scottish Government should joinly agree to

clarify what process will follow the referendum for either outcome.

Given that the UK Government and indeed the Labour Party have called

for the full acceptance of the Electoral Commission

recommendations, will the Prime Minister today give a commitment

that he will work with the Scottish Government in advance of the

referendum to come up with this joint position? Well, first of all,

can I welcome the fact that the SNP have accepted what the Electoral

Commission found because the Electoral Commission were worried

that, frankly, it was a biased question. So I think it's good

they've accepted that. Of course we will work with the Scottish

Government in providing information, but let me be clear about what we

won't do. We will not pre-negotiate Scotland's exit from the United

Kingdom. It is, frankly, it is his party that wants to break up the

United Kingdom. It's for his party to make the case.

Let's go to Westminster and speak to our correspondent standing by on

College Green. Thank you very much. As we heard the normal tough and

tumble and arguments over the economy, but as far as we are

concerned in Scotland, one story on the agenda today, and that's the

Electoral Commission with its two reports. One on the referendum

question and the second on party funding. To discuss those issue I

am joined by three Scottish MPs. Generally on that question of the

referendum, do you think the Electoral Commission has got it

about right? I think so. The important thing is we have a clear

question that everybody understands and one that everybody can accept

the result from. That isn't misleading and wouldn't be open to

challenge. I think the analysis behind it, plus their conclusion

and their recommendation seems to be imminently sensible and I hope

we all agree on it. Your party wanted a question of do you agree

Scotland should be an independent country. Was it playing politics

which your party thinking we will shoot for the moon and accept

something less? Not at all. We put forward a question. It went to the

Electoral Commission, we are happy with what they've said. They did

say our question was clear and easy to understand but some people

thought it might be leading, I don't know who that was was but

they've made a recommendation. We accepted immediately that

recommendation. We are happy with what's come forward. Do you believe

that the question is now clear and simple and it is basically the best

form of words we can get for this debate? Yes, I am very happy that

the SNP have eventually come out and - in relationship to the fact

you have been labouring for many months as to whether you would

accept the Electoral Commission's advice, came out today and said

that they would. I am very, very satisfied that the question that is

now going to be on the ballot paper according to the Electoral

Commission is not one that's weighted in any way and it's a

clear and fair question, because we need, as Malcolm said, we need to

be sure that everybody can be contebt with this -- content with

this result. As far as funding is concerned, the Electoral Commission

have perhaps been kinder to the political parties saying no, we

I think the our Electoral Commission have come forward with

something that gives a fair, balanced and realistic level of

funding. There are things that must be done and the previous level of

funding would not have allowed proper communication with the

voters. The voters need answers and information through their doors.

So the air Electoral Commission have untidy the hands that your

government was trying to tie? Not at all. The Electoral

Commission have come up with something different to what we

suggested. We have accepted that. Are the other parties going to

accept what the Electoral Commission has said regarding talks

about what could happen after the independence referendum. It is a

double standard. That is not what was said. That is

the SNP putting their own spin on Let us tackle what was said, then.

The Electoral Commission said there should be a framework developed,

not that negotiations should take place before the referendum. That

is very clear. Go away and clear it, -- go away and read it, my. The

question you must answer is what talks when you have about what will

happen when Scotland votes to know? Will there be another 80 years of

ranting about independence? The SNP has made it clear they are

prepared to enter into negotiations about the process.

The is is not just about the UK. There is an international to

mention about this. There can be no rational discussion about an

independent Scotland it has not been agreed. We can have a process

discussion about what will happen. But you cannot prejudge that until

the people had decided. We should set a framework for that process

but that should not be the same as prix negotiation.

When did discussion about framework start to border on discussions

about what might happen? If you take the example of a

discussion about currency, it is impossible to conclude what kind of

currency arrangements there will be until you have decided whether

Scotland will be independent. It is a waste of time, energy and money

to get into a discussion like that before the event.

So, my, you cannot have detailed conversations until you have

decided the issue. I was talking about the process.

The Electoral Commission has said there should be negotiations

between the UK and Scottish government on these matters. We

have been talking -- calling for that for a long time. The UK

governments have refused to do so. It is a double standard from them.

They demand the we accept all the Electoral Commission says and they

will not accept it. We are very happy to accept what

the Electoral Commission has said. We have said for months we will

accept all of their recommendations. Johann Lamont came out today to say

she was made comfortable with what they put forward today. We in the

Scottish Labour Party will put forward our plans before the autumn

of 2014 for an extension into evolution. That is what we will two.

We do not know what might's party will do when the Scotland votes No.

At the end of the day, while the question be that important? Surely

by 2014 people will know what side of the debate they are on.

If it is a leading question, there was a danger that people will not

accept the result. People will know which side of the arguments they

are on and I think many people have already made up their mind. The

important thing is, whether you are for or against independence, you

accept the argument and work with The same question to you, briefly.

The Electoral Commission said are question was clear and there was a

high level of understanding of the issues. We have accepted their

recommendations and will get on with the campaign and are confident

of a Yes vote. It is hugely important though we

have a level playing field and there is no leading anywhere in the

question. I am very happy we can get on and discuss the real issues

about Scotland's feature within the United Kingdom.

Andrew, they you have it, at three happy politicians down at

Westminster. We must be doing something wrong!

Holyrood's budget is due to be finalised next week and there have

been calls for a �35 million cut in college funding to be reversed. The

NUS have written to the finance secretary and Labour are raising

that with the Education Secretary in the chamber this afternoon.

Hugh Henry. What I will say to Mr Henry is that

the principle of what will be Dean new University of the West of

Scotland College is keen on the plans we have going forward. They

are working with us. Labour have been found once again attempting to

make political gain with scare tactics. There any policies seem to

be those of fear now. Near the average waiting list up on the

Scottish colleges waiting-lists has shown that many and not actually

waiting for a place. The figures quoted by Labour appeared to be

complete fantasy. Labour were told to deal with this issue in a mature

manner. We're dealing with the future of young people. They have

decided to carry on regardless. I have said after enduring debate in

this chamber that out with this bubble there is a real-world out

there with a real people and their allies. They are extremely

disappointed when they hear some of the debates that come from this

chamber, particularly from the Labour Party. They just believe in

dealing with their issues and making personal attacks on

individuals rather than discussing the whole issue we're here to

debate. The audit confirms that duplication of appliqued puts on

the alleged waiting lists was an issue. -- Bob applicants on the

alleged waiting-lists. The majority appear to have found a place on a a

course at another college. Labour went round every college and

probably got similar figures to what we already have. On the whole,

Scotland's colleges, with some of the figures they brought to the

committee, were not particularly good at the best of time. What

would Labour do differently? Last week Ken Mackintosh course --

called for all of the money to be reinstated to the budget and spent

on housing. John Swinney stated last year that �205 million would

be spent including some on capital investment and in education. What

he take money from this budget and spend it on further and higher

education. This is an attempt to get a headline instead of looking

after the students of Scotland. Thank you.

It is unfortunate that we are here once again having to debate further

education in this chamber and to challenge this Government's Stav

which cuts which are having a devastating impact on thousands of

people across Scotland. -- savage cuts. We are, once more, having to

challenge the Education Secretary who continues to deny what is

happening in our colleges. Given that the Education Secretary said

last year that college produced were increasing when in fact they

were decreasing, it is unsurprising he has been caught denying rowers

see it again. He was as a simple question about college waiting

lists. He said it was a false concept. The only false concept

here is his answers. How many people are on College waiting

lists? We still do not know. The Cabinet Secretary does not know.

Their own interim order it has stated that there are people in

Scotland on waiting lists and waiting for college places and if

there was any more doubt, the SNP's own amendment today even admits

there are waiting lists. It should not be a surprise that we have

College waiting lists. It should not be a surprise when so many

staff in posts have been removed from our college system. It should

not be a surprise when you/college teaching projects for when student

numbers have been cut by thousands. It took my Russell six months to

apologise for misleading Parliament last time. How long will we have to

wait for an apology this time? How can anyone have any confidence in

him when he continually misleads this chamber but, more seriously,

he implements policies that continues to damage the life

chances of thousands of Scots. A Labour representative speaking in

the chamber there. Let us pick up on some of those

points with our commentator Alf Young. They were described as a

duplicitous apposition. What is going on in the college sector at

the moment? The college sector is going through

a remarkable restructuring which has brought down from above and put

on the sector. Several colleges are having to combine into bigger

regional units so there is that administrative turmoil. There is a

question of funding and the net impact on that appears to be that

there are fewer students in future are going through the system. There

is talk about full-time equivalents and the rest of it but in terms of

actual students, there will be disappointed people who cannot get

places on courses. The Government is, to a degree, vulnerable in the

sense that it has made a priority in policy terms of not charging

tuition fees at university level and that has to be paid for

somewhere and it appears it is being paid for from the bit iffy

post-school education system that his nearest facing two jobs in the

economy. -- that bit of the post- school education system. The other

parties are making the most of this, as they always do.

Labour calling for that �35 million cut to be reversed. They are

focusing on the so-called waiting list. Apparently 5,000 people are

on them but Mr Russell has called them a false concept.

I am not clear from that debate and to the one in the media that I

understand who is in the right on that.

It is quite difficult to work out! It is unclear whether there are

actual waiting lists on not and there are people who are not

getting on to courses because colleges are, as part of the

rationalising the courses they deliver, reducing the number of

students. The money is smaller. Some people are being disappointed.

Whether it is a waiting list on just a degree of numbers of people

who are not making it into courses, at the end of the day it is damaged

life chances and that is where political action is.

One other key story came out today. The Office of Fair Trading looking

at the UK petrol market. They say it is doing well but a lot of

independent retailers say this is a great disappointment.

They do not like it and motorists do not like it either. There are 7p

in rises in wholesale prices sitting in the pipeline, waiting to

show up on the forecourt. It would push petrol prices up to 140p per