Views
Praise due for taking bypass project forward - for the Inverness Courier
LAST week's publication by the Highland Council of options for building an Inverness bypass was a recognition of the unfortunate reality caused by the Scottish government's point-blank refusal to consider providing funding for this vitally important project for our city.
The council is to be commended for taking the project forward, even when support from Holyrood is so absent.
The options being considered will at least create a link that crosses the river and the canal, enabling access and, potentially, development.
Even in these difficult economic times it is very welcome that the council is willing to set aside resources for this much-needed connection, even if the Scottish government is not.
Despite the obvious disappointment for many, like me, who have campaigned for a full crossing, I hope local people will engage positively with the council's proposals.
It is ironic, though, that these plans came forward in the same week that the coalition government set out new powers for the Scottish Parliament.
The devolution of taxation and borrowing powers is the greatest change to the financial arrangements within the UK since 1707.
Among the new powers unveiled is a substantial new ability for the Scottish government to borrow for capital investment.
This will enable the cost of major projects such as the Forth Road Bridge to be spread over a number of years.
It is to be hoped that this new flexibility will make it even harder for future Scottish governments to avoid making the essential transport investment that the Highlands needs.
TUITION FEES
On Thursday the House of Commons will vote on our proposed reforms of higher education, which will enable universities in England to increase tuition fees.
An increase in fees was the objective of the previous Labour government - it established the Browne review to work out the details, with the support of the Conservatives.
In the coalition agreement, we agreed to assess the Browne review according to a number of tests, including the impact on universities and the fairness of the overall proposals.
Given the truly appalling state of the nation's finances that Labour left us, shifting the balance of funding for these universities from the general taxpayer to the graduate - but doing so in a way that is fair - is the best way to meet these objectives.
How have we made the system fairer? First, it is important to stress that no student pays a penny up front.
They are only asked to repay the debt if their income rises above a certain level.
At present, under Labour's system, the figure is £15,000. We will increase that threshold to £21,000 a year.
That means every single graduate will pay less per month than now. It also means about a quarter will pay less overall than they do under the current system - those who choose low income jobs or have broken careers.
By increasing the interest rate paid by those who repay in full, we are also ensuring those who do best out of their university education pay most.
The big downside of a graduate tax is that those on the lowest incomes would pay a great deal more.
For most students of course, the big financial problem is the cost of being at university.
That is why we are significantly increasing student grants for living costs, to help those on low incomes.
For those who value fairness, the real scandal is the way educational disadvantage emerges and becomes entrenched a very young age.
It is a very odd way to promote fairness to support a system that abjectly fails the most disadvantaged from the earliest years but fully subsidises those who can go to university.
By choosing to invest more in early years education and additional money to schools for disadvantaged pupils, while reforming higher education funding, I believe the government has got the balance right to build a fairer and more socially mobile society.
Posted on: 07/12/2010
