Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, February 2, 2012

Official Report 1114KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth

---

Central Unallocated Provision 2006-07

1. To ask the Scottish Executive how much Scottish Government funding was held by the Treasury in the central unallocated provision at the end of the financial year 2006-07. (S4O-00639)

The Scottish Government held £1,528.6 million in balances in Her Majesty’s Treasury at the end of the financial year 2006-07.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his information, which is indeed what I recollect. He may recall that, in his statement on the budget outturn in 2007-08, he said that he was using £600 million up that year and that he intended to access the remainder over the next two to three years.

Can the cabinet secretary advise members whether that happened? What was the sum of almost £1 billion used for? Does he now regret not having held on to that funding, as it could have come in quite useful now?

I confirm to Elaine Murray that, in 2007-08, the Scottish Government drew down £655 million from Her Majesty’s Treasury. That was in the plans that I inherited from my predecessors, and it represents the largest drawdown in any financial year since 2007-08. I subsequently drew down £313 million in 2008-09, £400 million in 2009-10, and £174 million in 2010-11, which was supplemented by £129 million in relation to the health capital baseline in that financial year.

In response to Dr Murray’s question, the money was used to support public services and investment in Scotland. I delicately observe that I do not remember the Labour Party ever asking me in the previous session of Parliament to spend less money than I actually spent.

On Dr Murray’s question about whether I regret not holding on to that money, I am absolutely delighted that I did not do so. When the Liberal and Conservative Government came to office in 2010, it abolished end-year flexibility balances. The Scottish Government lost balances of £64 million, £23 million of which was fiscal departmental expenditure limits, which is cash spending power, while the remainder was non-cash. My counterparts in Northern Ireland lost £315 million, and my counterparts in Wales lost £385 million. It is therefore a good job that I managed to deploy that money effectively and efficiently to support public services in Scotland before it was pilfered by—

Pilfered?

Pilfered, by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats—sorry, by the Liberal Democrats, who I see have not managed to pilfer their way into Parliament today.

I am grateful that the cabinet secretary has outlined the implications for Scotland of not drawing down that end-year flexibility. Does he agree that, if he had not drawn down that money before the abolition of end-year flexibility, it would have been quite catastrophic for the Scottish economy? Does the fact that he is being asked such questions by Labour Party members not demonstrate that they still do not get it?

I think that Dr Murray was asking the question because she wanted to take me back to the day when she and I discovered the centrally unallocated provision while at—if my memory serves me right—the Finance Committee meeting in Elgin. It was a very happy day.

Mr McDonald’s point is absolutely correct. We deployed those resources when they were able to make a decisive difference in our efforts to support economic recovery in Scotland at the height of the recession. If we had not spent the money in that fashion on behalf of the people of Scotland, we would not have made an impact in encouraging the economy at a difficult time.

---

Supported Employment

2. To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the disparity in rates of employment for disabled and non-disabled workers, what action it is taking in support of supported employment. (S4O-00640)

The Scottish Government remains fully committed to supported employment. In February 2010, the Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, working with a number of key partners, published a supported employment framework for disabled people. During the past year, significant progress has been made on implementing the recommendations in the framework.

It is encouraging that, while the gap in employment rates between disabled and non-disabled workers remains too high, the employment rate for disabled people rose by 3.6 per cent in the year to September 2011, at a time when employment rates have generally been falling.

Fewer than half of disabled people gain employment compared with 80 per cent of able-bodied workers. Given that supported factories have demonstrated that they can deliver value for money, and in the light of the closure of Blindcraft and the threat hanging over Remploy workplaces, will the cabinet secretary detail the progress that is being made on the objective set out in “The Scottish Sustainable Procurement Action Plan” that every public body should have at least one contract using article 19 provisions in public procurement? How many staff are employed by such contracts?

I do not have the precise information to hand on the number of employees, but I will write to Sarah Boyack to confirm the details if they are available.

Sarah Boyack raises a serious point. The closure of Blindcraft is a significant issue, and Fergus Ewing has been actively involved in working with City of Edinburgh Council and other agencies to support all the individuals who have been affected and to assist them in finding alternative employment.

Remploy is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions, so it is outwith the responsibilities of this Government. However, we make a particular point of ensuring that we take all the practical steps that we can on supported employment. Mr Ewing met Helen Eadie and representatives from Unite, the GMB and the Community union to discuss concerns about the Remploy proposals, and ministers stand ready to support activity in any way that we can.

I thank the cabinet secretary for his full supplementary answer to Sarah Boyack’s question. Does he believe that the proposed UK welfare reforms will have an impact on supported employment? What plans does he have to work with organisations that are providing supported employment to help to address the challenges that arise, not only with Blindcraft but with other employment opportunities, in the current economic climate?

Sandra White identifies a potential danger in the welfare reform proposals of the United Kingdom Government. In trying to fulfil the objectives of that programme, less attention is paid than it should be to the complex and comprehensive work that must be done in some circumstances to support individuals with disabilities into employment. I appeal to the UK Government that, as part of the welfare reform agenda, due account is taken of the need to support such individuals properly.

I am confident that different elements of the work done by the Scottish Government and agencies that act on our behalf provide that assistance to people with disabilities. Nevertheless, as I said in my answer to Sarah Boyack, ministers will be only too happy to engage in further dialogue about how we might support more disabled people into employment, particularly given the challenges raised by the welfare reform programme.

Question 3 from Helen Eadie has been withdrawn for understandable reasons.

---

Scottish Retail Consortium (Meetings)

4. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with the Scottish Retail Consortium. (S4O-00642)

Ministers regularly meet and correspond with retailers and business organisations such as the Scottish Retail Consortium as part of our on-going engagement with business sectors. My colleagues and I have recently had several meetings to discuss issues such as business rates, town centre regeneration and the economy. In addition, last month I had the pleasure of attending the Scottish Retail Consortium’s annual parliamentary reception, where I had the opportunity to listen to and discuss many of the points directly.

I thank the minister for that answer and draw his attention to an area in Hamilton that has suffered the loss of a number of independent retailers who had been there for decades. Those retailers were too big for support from the small business bonus scheme but not big enough to have the protection that a big corporation has through economies of scale. What work can the minister and the Government do with local authorities to reverse the loss of long-standing independent businesses on our high streets?

Christina McKelvie has identified a significant group of businesses that are finding things difficult. We can help them through town centre regeneration, and £60 million was made available in 2009-10 to support the regeneration and growth of town centres across Scotland. Many towns in Scotland, such as Falkirk, have also undertaken a business improvement district. I visited Falkirk, and terrific improvements have been made to the town centre there.

It is germane to point out that, thanks to the small business bonus scheme, the rates burden for 85,200 premises in Scotland has been either removed or reduced. That is a huge advantage for small businesses in this country.

As part of his discussions with the SRC, did the minister discuss the impact of the public health levy? If so, does he agree with the assessment that has been made of the impact of such a levy by Asda and other organisations?

Yes, I have engaged with members of the Scottish Retail Consortium on the issue, and I am aware that Asda commissioned a report that concluded that supermarkets including Asda would face financial costs as a result of the levy. I am advised by the body concerned, the Centre for Economics and Business Research, that the public health supplement will reduce the profit margin of 240 stores by 0.5 per cent, from 5 to 4.5 per cent. That contrasts with the 10 per cent extra that businesses paid when the business rate was fixed by the Labour-Liberal Administrations for the first seven years of the reconvened Scottish Parliament. We propose an increase of 0.5 per cent for the biggest supermarkets in Scotland compared with up to 10 per cent extra for all businesses in Scotland under the previous Administration.

Is it the Scottish Government’s position that zero jobs would be lost through the retail levy?

I am delighted that supermarkets are investing in Scotland. We value the contribution that they make to the economy and I am sure that all members do so at an individual level. I am pleased to welcome the announcement, on 23 January, that Asda is investing £500 million in new stores across the United Kingdom, including a replacement depot and three new stores in Tain, Inverness and Larkhall. I am delighted that there will be more jobs in those locations in Scotland.

---

Employment Initiatives

5. To ask the Scottish Government what initiatives it is pursuing to get people into employment. (S4O-00643)

We are focusing significant effort on stimulating economic growth and increasing the number of good-quality employment opportunities across Scotland. Following last year’s publication of the Government’s economic strategy, which gave clear priority to the acceleration of economic growth, I recently announced the creation of four new enterprise areas across Scotland. Those areas will place an emphasis on some of our most dynamic industries with the greatest potential to create new employment opportunities, stimulate private investment and boost economic growth.

Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating Renfrewshire Council on investing £2.5 million in helping young people into work, including 250 subsidised jobs, 1,300 training places and 800 young people being given the chance to develop their work skills?

Renfrewshire Council has brought forward a commendable package of proposals. It is an indication—as will be the case in a range of local authority budgets that will be published in the next few weeks—that local authorities are investing in the creation of training and employment opportunities at a local level. I warmly welcome that, as it is exactly why the Government encouraged local authorities to become more actively involved in the process of economic development. If there are more cases such as that in Renfrewshire, which Mr Adam has cited and which we warmly welcome, the Government will recognise them as making a substantial contribution to tackling the challenge of unemployment that exists in a number of localities in our country.

---

Public Health Levy

6. To ask the Scottish Executive, further to the Parliament’s agreement to motion S4M-01526 on 8 December 2011, whether it will explain its reasons for not carrying out a business and regulatory impact assessment on the proposed public health levy. (S4O-00644)

The Government supported the motion during the debate on the regulatory framework on 8 December to indicate our agreement to the principle that a business and regulatory impact assessment should be carried out when appropriate. However, I also made it clear that it would have been disproportionate to have carried out a BRIA for the public health supplement, as it impacts on just 0.1 per cent of commercial premises in Scotland.

Let us look at some things that the Scottish Government thought it appropriate to have a business and regulatory impact assessment for: the African Horse Sickness (Scotland) Order 2012 and Seed Potatoes (Fees) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2011. However, it appears that the Scottish National Party’s tax on some of our largest employers does not merit one.

Given the First Minister’s demand that the United Kingdom Government have a year-long statutory consultation ahead of any changes to the oil and gas tax regime, is the fact that, barely weeks before the introduction of the SNP’s new tax on some of our largest employers, the Scottish retail sector is still completely in the dark about the details of it not an astonishing and glaring inconsistency?

Mr McLetchie should be very careful about the contempt he displays towards the seed potatoes of Scotland. Some might say that he has eaten too many seed potato products over the years, although I would never venture into that space.

With regard to the point about the oil and gas sector, I counsel Mr McLetchie to consider the ground that he chooses. In my initial answer, I pointed out that the public health supplement would impact on only 0.1 per cent of commercial premises in Scotland and, in a response a moment ago, Mr Ewing referred to the impact on profitability. With the oil and gas levy, there was quite clearly a discernible negative impact on planning and investment in the sector and the Conservatives themselves took an utterly cavalier attitude to the matter. In fact, the only people to take a more cavalier attitude to business taxation than the Conservative Government in London were our absent friends, the Liberal Democrats.

---

Construction Job Losses

7. To ask the Scottish Executive what the reasons are for the loss of 30,000 construction jobs in the year to September 2011. (S4O-00645)

The Scottish Government’s decisive action to accelerate capital expenditure at the height of the recession led to increased activity and jobs in the construction sector during 2010. However, with most economic levers out of our control, there is a limit to the action that the Scottish Government can take. The construction sector has lost jobs as a result of a prolonged period of low growth due to on-going economic uncertainties and general low confidence.

The 30,000 figure is an extrapolation of Scottish Government figures that show that, in the four quarters to the end of the third quarter in 2011, construction output in Scotland fell by 1.2 per cent, 1.3 per cent, 1.8 per cent and 1.4 per cent. That is all despite the fact that every time we raise the subject in questions, particularly with Keith Brown and Alex Neil, we are simply told about the success of Scottish Government policy.

Why do the Government’s policies appear not to be working and why, on the day when that fact has been exposed, has the cabinet secretary chosen in his budget to slash expenditure on the college sector, which is so vital in training new entrants to the industries?

Mr Johnstone has given me a very interesting selection of opportunities to pursue.

Let me begin with the point about the figures up to the third quarter in 2011. As my earlier response to Dr Murray illustrated, from 2008 to 2010 I was able to be significantly flexible in utilising capital expenditure, first, because of the use of the central unallocated provision and, secondly, because I was able to bring some capital expenditure forward.

By 2011, I was having to face the realities of the public expenditure constraints that have been applied to us by the Conservative Government in London. Is it any wonder that our construction sector is under such pressure when the Conservative Government has reduced capital spending by 32 per cent?

We can add to that the fact that the UK Government does not attach any importance to strengthening economic confidence by investing in a capital programme. It prefers austerity to investment in growth, and as a consequence we face a challenging climate in public sector capital expenditure and the private sector is unable to recover confidence.

I am all for investment in training places and opportunities, and we must also be in a position to invest in capital projects. That is what the Government has done with the Forth replacement crossing, the M80, the M8 and a variety of other capital projects. If Mr Johnstone would like to press his UK counterparts to recognise the merits of further capital investment, we might make more progress on construction employment than we have made to date.

---

Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Meetings)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and what issues were discussed. (S4O-00646)

I meet representatives of COSLA regularly and a wide range of issues are discussed at our meetings.

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the concerns of Western Isles Council and communities throughout the isles about the impact of the removal of the road equivalent tariff from hauliers who travel to and from the islands, and the impact that it will have on local and household budgets? Given the impact on the whole economy of the islands, will he intervene, with the Minister for Housing and Transport, and ensure that the council leader, Angus Campbell, is admitted to the meeting with hauliers next week?

I am glad that that is where Rhoda Grant’s question ended up, because I was going to make the point that the transport minister will meet a group of hauliers shortly.

On the question about Councillor Campbell, I have no knowledge of the attendance list, but I will certainly pass on the comment to Mr Brown. We see Councillor Campbell regularly and he is a welcome visitor to St Andrew’s house. I will pass on the message to Mr Brown.

---

Enterprise Areas

9. To ask the Scottish Government what it estimates the job creating potential of enterprise areas will be, net of displacement. (S4O-00647)

At this stage it is not possible to quantify the number of jobs that might be created in Scotland’s enterprise areas. The Scottish Government recently announced the sites that we expect to include in our enterprise areas, subject to detailed engagement with local authorities on aspects of implementation.

Does the minister agree that the employment opportunities that are generated in sites such as the Prestwick international aerospace park must be accessible to unemployed people in nearby areas of disadvantage? If so, what measures will be introduced to achieve that objective?

Mr Ingram makes a strong point, and I will certainly actively consider the issue that he raises. It is important that, where we are able to attract different ventures to build their businesses in enterprise areas, we ensure that a much wider area than the immediate locality benefits from that economic activity. I will happily take forward any proposals that Mr Ingram has about encouraging mobility in the populations of areas that surround the Prestwick site or the other enterprise areas in order to maximise the access that people in those areas have to those opportunities.

I should perhaps have said to Mr Ingram in my earlier answer that his point on displacement is also taken seriously by the Government. We designed the enterprise areas in such a fashion as to focus on the sectors of the economy that we believe have growth potential. We have not defined the areas in such a way that companies could access some of the preferential regime just by moving from one location to another. The issue of displacement will be monitored carefully as we deploy the enterprise area initiative.

How will the cabinet secretary ensure that areas such as Inverclyde that have not been afforded enterprise status, on top of a cut in the regeneration budget, will not be the net losers for the gain in jobs in nearby areas?

I reassure Mr McNeil that the Government’s economic strategy is designed to support the development of employment opportunities throughout the country by various mechanisms. I know that Mr McNeil will accept the range of those interventions. The enterprise areas are just one part of the overall economic strategy.

I reiterate the point about displacement that I made in response to Mr Ingram’s question. A criticism that is often made of the enterprise zones of the 1980s relates to displacement. We specifically constructed the enterprise areas to avoid the generality of enterprise zone status. It is a specific enterprise zone status that is related to the sectors of the economy. We intend to avoid any displacement activity by that mechanism and the monitoring that we undertake.

---

Small Business Bonus Scheme (Glasgow Shettleston)

10. To ask the Scottish Government how many businesses in Glasgow Shettleston have received support from the small business bonus scheme. (S4O-00648)

Data on the number of recipients of support from the small business bonus scheme are held on a local authority, not a constituency, area basis. The number of recipients of support from the small business bonus scheme by local authority area at September 2011 was published on 27 October 2011 in the official statistics publication “Non-Domestic Rates Relief Statistics for Small Businesses in Scotland 2011”. In the Glasgow city area, 7,476 properties were in receipt of relief through the small business bonus scheme.

Does the minister agree that although Governments are often accused of helping only new businesses and not always helping existing businesses, the small business bonus scheme’s advantage has been that it has been a tremendous boost for existing small businesses, including local shops in my constituency—in fact, when the cabinet secretary met a shopkeeper in my constituency, he was congratulated on that—and that the scheme helps to protect such businesses in difficult times and thereby saves jobs that might otherwise have been lost?

I entirely agree with Mr Mason’s proposition, and I hear that other members do so, too. I think that 63 per cent of shops receive support from the small business bonus scheme, and many small shops have been able to survive because of the measure, which the Scottish National Party Government introduced. As members know, I am not generally given to hyperbole, but I cannot think of a policy that has been introduced in Scotland since 1707 that has done more to help small businesses throughout this country.

Thank goodness there were Conservatives in the Parliament to vote the measure through.

The minister will have seen the recent report from the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the small business bonus scheme, which argues that it has not had a beneficial impact and that it should be scrapped. Does the minister have any comments to make on the quality of the analysis in that STUC report?

I regularly engage with the STUC, and I met it fairly recently. To the best of my recollection, that topic was not among the topics that were raised with me then.

I have been advised that the report contains errors, as the small business bonus thresholds from 2009-10 are quoted. That is not the appropriate analysis. The report says:

“the STUC openly accepts that these statistics do not tell the full story about the impact of the SBBS”.

I suspect that that quotation is familiar to Mr Fraser. I am happy to engage with my friends in the STUC and to tell them the part of the story that is not told in its report.

---

Remploy Employees

11. To ask the Scottish Executive what support has been provided to help employees of Remploy find alternative employment. (S4O-00649)

The Department for Work and Pensions has not announced its decisions about Remploy’s future. The Scottish Government has made clear to the DWP that we expect it to offer support to individual employees should it be necessary for them to find alternative employment. In Scotland, partnership action for continuing employment—PACE—is ready to offer assistance to employees who require it.

Given the fact that 85 per cent of those who lost their jobs when Remploy factories were closed in 2008 still do not have a job, and with unemployment high already, what practical measures will the cabinet secretary put in place to support disabled adults who are looking for a new job?

As I explained in my earlier answer to Sarah Boyack, the issue of supported employment is taken seriously by the Government. There is a requirement to ensure that individuals with disabilities who are seeking employment are given every support and assistance. That is available in one respect through the PACE programme, if people are in employment and lose that employment. More generally, it is available through the advisory services that are made available through Skills Development Scotland. Assistance is available to individuals who require it.

One of the Government’s objectives in relation to supporting people into employment is to ensure that there is good co-ordination between all the agencies that are involved in that work. I would be the first to address any inconsistencies or lack of cohesion and co-ordination in the support that is available to people. If Mary Fee or other members encounter that, I would be delighted to address it.

We have discussed with the United Kingdom Government the importance of ensuring that the employment measures that we take forward align directly with the employment measures that the UK Government takes forward, to ensure that members of the public receive a co-ordinated service. If there is more that needs to be done to improve that, I will certainly take that forward.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the best way to enable workers with a disability to maintain employment is by increasing the number of jobs that are open to them? Would the cabinet secretary like to comment on the number of Government contracts that are issued that include clear provisions under section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Does he think that those section 19 provisions might be one way in which we could increase the number of jobs that are available for such workers?

The issue that Patricia Ferguson raises is one of the essential elements of ensuring that our approach to procurement delivers a range of social and economic objectives in our society. One of her colleagues, Mr Park, has frequently raised the issue of community benefit clauses in relation to opportunities for apprentices. I accept the argument for that within procurement.

Patricia Ferguson makes a fair point in relation to people with disabilities and I will ensure that the representations that have been made today in Parliament are properly considered by those who are preparing the Government’s forthcoming procurement reform bill so that we can ensure that any additional provisions that could be made in this area are properly considered.

---

Scottish Retail Consortium (Meetings)

12. To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met the Scottish Retail Consortium. (S4O-00650)

I refer the member to the answer given to question S4O-00642 from Christina McKelvie.

The retail sector employs 240,000 people and remains the largest private sector employer in Scotland. A third of those employees are under 25, and many young people get their first job opportunity in retail. How will targeting a new Scotland-only tax, in the form of the public health levy, which will threaten jobs by taking more than £100 million in tax over three years from one sector, help to achieve the Scottish Government’s stated objective of prioritising the tackling of unemployment, especially among young people?

Margaret Mitchell and her colleagues overstate the case massively. The sum that is involved is £30 million a year.

Let me go down memory lane to a time, 15 years ago, when the Conservatives had power over such matters. According to research by Craig Campbell of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, which has never been challenged by the Conservatives, the extra tax that Scotland paid due to overtaxation in the period from 1990 to 1995—during the Conservative regime—was £1.2 billion. That is £250 million a year in extra taxation on Scotland. We are not taking lectures from the Conservatives on business rates in Scotland.

---

Employment (Clydebank and Milngavie)

13. I apologise to you, Presiding Officer, and to everybody in the chamber for being a bit late for questions, as I was attending an event in the education centre.

To ask the Scottish Government what funding it provides to local organisations seeking to get people in Clydebank and Milngavie into work. (S4O-00651)

I thank the member for his courtesy in sending a note to explain his delay.

The Scottish Government has supplied a range of funds to East Dunbartonshire Council and West Dunbartonshire Council with a view to helping residents of those areas into work. West Dunbartonshire Council forms an integral part of the Clyde waterfront partnership. Since the partnership’s inception, a combined private and public investment of almost £1.8 billion, including £80 million from Scottish Enterprise, has been effective in creating more than 18,000 new jobs.

Under priority 5 of the European social fund, we have allocated West Dunbartonshire community planning partnership £1.2 million to deliver a strategic skills pipeline. Through that pipeline, 1,600 people are targeted to receive support and 480 of them are expected to enter employment.

The minister is no doubt aware that, in its recent budget, West Dunbartonshire Council allocated funding to create more than 250 jobs for young people through help for small businesses and the voluntary sector. Will the Scottish Government work with the council to ensure that that scheme succeeds and to enable all local authorities to use it as a template for assisting young people into work?

Yes—I certainly will do that and we will work closely with West Dunbartonshire Council. As the member knows, we recently announced £30 million of new investment to support youth employment and we have drafted a youth employment strategy to move that forward.

It is relevant to say that, because we are proceeding with the public health levy, we will be able to continue the excellent work that will help young people—especially those from the most disadvantaged areas—who are most at risk from problems such as drug addiction and alcohol issues. A massive priority for the Government is helping the unfortunate minority of young people who need help. I welcome support from across the chamber from people who are committed to the essential objective of helping young people in Scotland.

---

Post Office Branches (Council Counters)

14. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with local authorities on introducing council counters in post office branches. (S4O-00652)

The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism attended a round-table discussion on 19 January in the Scotland Office at which relevant stakeholders, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, discussed the possible role of post offices in delivering some local authority services.

Will the minister agree to investigate the possibility of a national framework for co-locating council and police counters in post office branches, to provide additional help and services for the public, particularly in rural areas?

A range of considerations can be taken forward to ensure the viability of local post offices. Actions that we can take include continuing the small business bonus scheme, which has been a safeguard for local post offices. Rural post offices have been a particular beneficiary of that, as they have greater rates relief.

Local government continues to talk to the Scotland Office about opportunities. A convention will be organised to debate the integration of some services with post offices, to give them the sustainability that the member seeks. I understand from discussions with the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers that nine local authorities are considering working with Post Office Ltd, as well as having the convention discussion that I just mentioned.

A range of discussions is on-going to try to integrate services locally. The matter is for local discretion and local support, but the Government encourages any measure that safeguards the future of our post office network.

---

Budget Priorities (Glasgow)

15. To ask the Scottish Executive what its budget priorities are for Glasgow. (S4O-00653)

The Scottish Government’s priorities for the city of Glasgow are to support the delivery of effective public services and to implement the joint priorities that have been agreed between the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

The cabinet secretary might be aware of my concern about a local train service in my area. Has he discussed with Network Rail or with his Cabinet colleagues the cost implications of upgrading the Cowlairs junction as part of the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme, to allow my constituents who live in an area of high unemployment and low levels of car ownership to easily access the city centre?

I am not entirely familiar with the Cowlairs issues, but now that they have been raised with me, I shall make it my business to become so. Mr Neil is here and has heard Patricia Ferguson’s point. The Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme is being implemented as part of the spending review and the Government’s infrastructure investment plan. I will explore the issues that Patricia Ferguson has raised and ensure that they are fully considered by the relevant ministers.