General Questions
Crown Estate
The transferring of responsibility for the administration of the Crown estate and control of the revenues to the Scottish Parliament is a priority for the Scottish Government. It is our firm belief that we must reform the outdated and outmoded arrangements for management of the Crown estate to help Scotland to realise the massive potential of our enormous offshore renewable energy resources and our sea bed.
In the light of rumours that the Crown Estate intends to base its administration of marine and tidal developments in London, not Scotland, and the consensus in Parliament that we should return those powers here, how does the cabinet secretary view the negative response from the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Liberal member who has said no?
On the member’s point about the location of that post, I agree that it would be absurd if the post relating to our offshore renewables were to be based in London and not in the north of Scotland, where many of the resources are. That highlights a lack of transparency and the Scottish Parliament’s lack of control over the Crown Estate’s activities. I hope that the Crown Estate makes the right decision—I know that it is being lobbied hard by interests from the north of Scotland, the member’s constituents and the member himself.
Waste Incinerators (Planning Regulations)
There are no current plans to review planning regulations regarding waste incinerators. Modernisation of the planning system includes Scottish planning policy and the Scottish Government’s zero waste plan, which provide a waste and planning policy framework that includes restrictions on inputs to energy-from-waste facilities.
I welcome the minister to her new post. I did so in her absence yesterday, but I take the opportunity again today.
The Government is committed to recycling, reusing and preventing waste. The production of energy from waste is part of that. As the member knows, each planning case is considered on its merits and at a local level. The appeal decision on the Carnbroe application is final, subject to the right of any party to appeal to the Court of Session within six weeks of the date of notice, therefore it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of that development at this stage. As the member knows, I made representations relating to Dovesdale in my previous role as an MSP for the South of Scotland. However, in my new position as the Minister for Local Government and Planning, it would not be wise for me to comment further on that issue.
The minister will be aware that I have already communicated with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth regarding Dovesdale, which is in the Stonehouse area of my constituency. Does the minister agree that the creation of national guidance on dealing with planning applications for waste incinerators and waste-to-energy plants would help local planning authorities that are facing decisions about proposed developments and the communities that would be affected by them—there are 25,000 objectors in my constituency alone—to be apprised of the full range of issues involved? Will the Scottish Government actively consider my request that the development of such guidance be sought?
National guidance already exists in the shape of the national planning framework, Scottish planning policy and the zero waste plan, and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency provides a level of scrutiny and regulatory functions. There is a commitment to provide further planning guidance on waste management, but there are no plans at present to develop further policy guidance.
With regard to the proposed pyrolysis incinerator in Coatbridge that was—astonishingly—granted planning permission on appeal by the Scottish Government reporter despite massive community objection, will the minister consider recommending a review and a possible fresh application, given that the inquiry was interrupted due to a sudden change of Government planning policy, which resulted in presubmitted precognitions having to be rewritten overnight?
In relation to Carnbroe, as I have already said to Mr McMahon, the decision is subject to the right of any party to appeal to the Court of Session, and unfortunately I cannot comment on the merits of the development at this stage.
Affordable Housing
In 2011-12, we are providing £50 million for the new innovation and investment fund, £8 million for the new supply shared equity with developers scheme and around £188 million to fund commitments from developments that were approved in previous years. In addition, we are providing £98 million to the City of Edinburgh Council and Glasgow City Council for affordable housing.
I am sure that everyone in the chamber will welcome those figures.
The member might be aware that we are developing the strategy for housing for older people, and the Government will be consulting on it over the summer. Given that that is the case, I will be delighted to take the chance to meet representatives from East Dunbartonshire, as she suggests, and to discuss the affordable housing needs of that area.
Gourock to Dunoon Ferry Service (Tender)
On Wednesday 25 May, we announced that the preferred bidder for the Gourock to Dunoon ferry service tender is Argyll Ferries, a subsidiary of David MacBrayne. Subject to a statutory standstill period, the contract to run the service is due to be signed on 7 June. The new passenger ferry service will then start by 30 June.
The Gourock to Dunoon ferry tender has had more twists and turns than a trip over the Rest and be thankful. The minister does not need to take my word for that; he need only read the letters page of any edition of the Dunoon Observer and Argyllshire Standard over the past 12 months. Does the minister accept that the route from McInroy’s point to Hunter’s Quay on the Clyde is eligible to be treated as a public service route under the European Union’s maritime cabotage regulations of 1992, should Scottish ministers deem it appropriate? Will the minister support my call to refer the matter to the Office of Fair Trading for a full, comprehensive and independent inquiry?
Not everyone agrees with David Stewart’s assessment, including those who write to the local newspaper. Indeed, before I came into the chamber this morning, I received an unsolicited letter from a member of the public in Argyll—
The letter said:
Just last week, the First Minister delivered his promise of no public service compulsory redundancies, while his new minister for broken promises, Alex Neil, was announcing such redundancies for CalMac Ferries workers on the existing vehicle route between Gourock and Dunoon. Will the cabinet secretary explain why CalMac workers are not covered by the First Minister’s promise to the public sector of no compulsory redundancies?
The origin of the contract and tender was essentially the European Commission. The Scottish Government had no option other than to tender the service. We had to take decisions on the basis of the tenders that were returned, and we took the option that involved the absolute minimum number of redundancies. Had we taken any other option, the number of redundancies involved would have multiplied by four. I take it that all members in the chamber will welcome the Government’s policy of minimising redundancies in such situations.
I have a personal interest in the matter as my wife is currently a CalMac employee on the Gourock to Dunoon route. Does the cabinet secretary think that the proposed new working hours and shift patterns are sustainable, especially given that no part-time opportunities are available on the route? In addition, there will be only one person to do the pier work, which particularly concerns me with regard to late-night travellers on Fridays and Saturdays.
In awarding the contract, two considerations arose that are relevant to the question. First, we wanted to ensure that there was adequate staffing. We are absolutely satisfied that under the successful contract bid adequate staffing will be made available on the service at all times.
National Forestry Treasures
As we stated in our manifesto, we will keep the Forestry Commission as a publicly owned body and our forestry estate as an asset for the nation.
The minister may be aware of a recent Sunday Times article in which a land agent who works closely with the Forestry Commission in Scotland was quoted as saying:
Order, Mr Hume. It is a question, not a statement.
Okay. Does the minister agree that an audit of our forestry estate is required as soon as possible to determine whether there are other areas of neglected forest that are devaluing the Scottish people’s £1 billion estate?
I am aware of the case in Jim Hume’s region, although I tell him not to believe everything that he reads in the papers. Wind blow in Scotland’s forests is of course nothing new; we are one of the windiest countries in the world and the forestry sector deals with that on an on-going basis. Although I respect the fact that the handsome majority that the SNP achieved at the election gives us a mandate to deal with a range of matters, even this Government cannot stop the wind blowing in Scotland.
Grade-separated Junction (Laurencekirk)
On 25 January, I announced a cost refinement exercise to identify the potential level of cost that is likely to be involved in constructing a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk.
I had been hoping for an unequivocal answer.
If the member thinks back to the discussion that we had with her, Mike Rumbles, Nigel Don and others, she will remember that what not only members but petitioners wanted were more definite costings, and I have responded to that by announcing the cost refinement exercise. There is no point in committing to a grade-separated junction in advance of that exercise if that is not what comes out of it. My answer is not equivocal—I am unequivocally saying that we have announced the cost refinement exercise. We will await the results of that exercise and take decisions when it is complete.
I am grateful to the minister for reiterating what I think we all knew. Does he agree that we need to find some way of ensuring that something is built here? If so, will he agree to meet me and Transport Scotland to explore the options, which might include not a grade-separated junction but merely a bridge, and to explore with the local council funding arrangements for whatever is done? After all, I am aware that we might need to get funds from more than one source to make it happen.
The member has identified the different elements at play, including the council’s local plan and, following on from that, the possibility of a public inquiry that might apportion responsibilities and costs or give direction in that respect. As part of the debate that I mentioned in response to Alison McInnes, I am more than happy to discuss with the member other options that might help to improve safety at this junction.
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Regulation)
Existing animal welfare legislation is under consideration and the Government will announce its intentions about whether to replace some of the older animal welfare acts and make new regulations under the 2006 act later in the year.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the disappointment in the last session that expected secondary legislation did not materialise. Is he considering the regulation of animal sanctuaries and livery stables, the protection of racing greyhounds and a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses and electric canine collars?
As I have indicated, we are considering our next steps for promoting animal welfare in Scotland. The member has raised a number of important issues and I am open to representations from her, other colleagues and, indeed, outside organisations. Of course, many of the issues that she has raised are not as clear-cut as one might think on first impression; for instance, evidence on the treatment of wild animals in circuses is, as she will be aware, inconclusive. However, we are paying close attention to what is happening south of the border, as it might have implications for what happens north of the border. I guarantee to the member that we have an open mind on these matters.
Local Authorities (Duty of Care and Responsibility)
Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment at Glasgow City Council’s decision to scrap the concessionary rent scheme, which has benefited hundreds of charities across the city? The move leaves many of them facing the possibility of closure. Will she join me in urging the council to put a moratorium on the decision until its own grants integration scheme comes into force next year to give these charities, which deal with the most needy in our society, a chance to put in place an alternative funding mechanism to ensure their survival?
I very much share James Dornan’s concern and agree with the thrust of his question. I am sure that all members recognise and value the hugely important work that is done across a whole range of areas by charities in Scotland, without which statutory agencies, including local authorities, would find their job much more difficult and expensive to do.
Previous
Green Energy