Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, June 3, 2010

Official Report 976KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

General Questions

---

Nurseries (Fife)

1. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it will take to support nurseries in the independent sector in Fife that have seen the rates on their buildings increase by between just under 30 per cent and 200 per cent in the absence of transitional rates relief. (S3O-10754)

We are taking a range of actions to support businesses, including independent nurseries, in Scotland. On 10 February, I announced a package of measures to support all businesses in Scotland following the 2010 revaluation, amounting to around £700 million in 2010-11 alone. That includes the most generous reliefs available in the United Kingdom, which, in total, will be worth around £2.4 billion to Scottish businesses over the next five years.

Will the cabinet secretary welcome representatives from Fife nurseries who are in the public gallery today to hear his response to my question? This is a serious situation that will impact heavily on future provision. What help will be available to support Fife nurseries now until their appeals against the outrageous increases can be heard in the autumn at the earliest? What support will the cabinet secretary make available to families who will not be able to meet the increased costs? Will he consider transitional relief and commit to meeting Fife Council to urge it to reconsider the unsustainable increases in rates for nurseries in Fife?

Decisions about the valuation of business properties are undertaken by independent valuers who follow a methodology that is consistent throughout the country and is published by the Scottish Assessors Association. I acknowledge the fact that, in some circumstances, people face significant increases in their rates bills. However, equally, many businesses face significant reductions in their business rates bills. As I have confirmed to Parliament before, although not to Marilyn Livingstone, the approach that we have taken to setting the poundage rate brings benefits to businesses throughout the country and was a major factor in my decision on transitional rates relief. I take it from Marilyn Livingstone’s question that the businesses about which she is concerned have appealed against their valuations, which is the correct approach for them to take. I encourage any business that is concerned about the issue to follow that course of action.

Will the cabinet secretary confirm, as he did in correspondence with me this week, that in each year from 2008 to 2010-11 the yield from businesses paying business rates and taxation has been higher than the Government’s forecast? Indeed, businesses have paid £170 million more in rates, not all of which has been redistributed to local authorities. Where is the money that nurseries, hotels and other businesses are paying through large increases in bills going?

Mr Purvis will be aware that the yield from business rates must take account of the fact that there will be years in which appeals come through that deliver a lower rates income than might be expected. Such factors are netted off year by year to ensure that we have stability in the business rates income. The crucial point about how non-domestic rates income plays into the local authority settlement is that the Government gives a guarantee of the resources that will be paid to each local authority in non-domestic rates whether or not that figure is realised. That guarantee must be given over a number of years to ensure the delivery of stability in local authority finance.

---

Devolution

2. To ask the Scottish Executive how it plans to engage with the development of the United Kingdom Government legislation to transfer further powers to Scotland. (S3O-10817)

The Scottish Government is engaged in a constructive dialogue with the United Kingdom Government to secure transfer to the Scottish Parliament of the responsibilities and powers that Scotland needs to succeed. Having previously spoken to Danny Alexander, I was pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the new Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, earlier today.

I am pleased that the minister wishes to engage in a constructive dialogue. Does that mean that the Scottish Executive will make available the appropriate number and level of civil servants within its control to engage not only with the Scotland Office, but with the Treasury?

It is clear that the Scottish Government has a responsibility to work directly with the United Kingdom Government to take forward any legal transfer of powers, as the Scotland Office acknowledges. It is appropriate that there is constructive dialogue between Governments.

UK ministers will be supported by their civil servants and, as the minister acting on behalf of the Scottish Government, I will be supported by my officials.

It is now generally recognised that the Calman proposals as published are not in Scotland’s interest. To what extent has the intergovernmental debate moved on? Is it clear which of the original Calman recommendations the UK Government supports?

It is not clear to us at this stage which of the original Calman recommendations the new UK Government supports. We know that the previous UK Government did not support all the Calman recommendations—indeed, it rejected nine of them.

The Labour Party is the only party that supports the full and immediate implementation of the Calman proposals, and last week this Parliament rejected that position. Issues have been overtaken by events, but constructive discussions are taking place. I am sure that everyone in this Parliament will have the opportunity to express their views, as they did in the debate—and indeed the vote—last week. I was encouraged to hear that parties in this Parliament support the UK Government’s willingness to consider giving this Parliament greater fiscal responsibilities.

---

Autism

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what progress has been made in revising or withdrawing section 5 of “The Autism Toolbox”, “Overview of Interventions”, following its acceptance of the findings of the review in November 2009. (S3O-10776)

“The Autism Toolbox: An Autism Resource for Scottish Schools” was written by a multiprofessional writing team, overseen by a working group and published by the Scottish Government in April 2009. We were approached in July by an individual who raised concerns about a section of the toolbox, the “Overview of Interventions”. There has been no formal review; however, we have taken account of the views of professionals who have developed, written and commented on the toolbox.

It is clear that there are a range of views among professionals about the effectiveness of some of the interventions that the toolbox sets out. It is also clear that this is an area of developing research.

Having reflected on the text of the toolbox and the comments from professionals, I consider that the “Overview of Interventions” section of the toolbox needs to be updated. I have written to local authorities to advise them of that decision, to ask them in the interim not to base decisions solely on that section and to seek views on the extent to which the toolbox has informed practice.

I thank the minister for responding to an issue that was raised with the Government as long as a year ago, and on which a satisfactory conclusion has still not been reached. All good science is subject to peer review. Will the minister direct his officials to meet my constituent, Mrs Mahoney, and experts on applied behavioural analysis as soon as possible to discuss plans for updating the toolbox and amending the section on ABA? Will he direct his officials to show how they will ensure that in future the entire toolbox is monitored, revised and kept up to date on an on-going basis?

I understand that my officials have already contacted Robin Harper’s constituent via Govan Law Centre to offer a meeting. I will ask them to ensure that it takes place as quickly as possible and to provide me with an update following the meeting.

In response to the second part of Robin Harper’s question, I hope to get a continuous flow of feedback from our autism spectrum disorder reference group on how the toolbox is operating in practice.

Question 4 has not been lodged.

---

National Health Service Patients (Private Facilities) (Complaints)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive whether NHS patients referred to private facilities for treatment have recourse to the NHS’s complaints process and, if not, for what reason and whether patients are informed of this before treatment. (S3O-10826)

I can confirm that national health service patients who are referred to private facilities as part of their NHS treatment have recourse to the NHS complaints procedure.

The cabinet secretary is aware of a constituency case that I am dealing with in which a lady was sent by NHS Lothian to a private hospital where she suffered a neurological injury that has left her permanently disabled. The NHS has passed the complaint to the private hospital, which has asked that it be sent on to the individual surgeon and his defence team for a response.

All those barriers to the truth have upset my constituent and added to her distress. Is the cabinet secretary content that such complaints are being dealt with properly? Is she content with the way in which NHS boards choose the hospitals to which they sub-contract care? Will she meet me to discuss the general concerns that this disturbing case raises?

I thank Margaret Smith for copying me the details of the constituency case. As she will appreciate, I will not refer in detail to the circumstances in which a particular patient found themselves. However, it is important that anybody who has an adverse experience in, or while they are under the responsibility of, the NHS has full recourse to the complaints system.

The system is rightly independent of ministers, but I am happy to meet Margaret Smith if it would be helpful to discuss how she can best represent the interests of her constituent in this matter.

Has the cabinet secretary any information on the number of NHS patients who are receiving care in private facilities in comparison with in previous years?

I do not have the precise numbers at my fingertips, but I am happy to provide them to Ian McKee. The Government has made a clear commitment to using taxpayers’ money to build NHS capacity rather than the capacity of the private sector, as was the policy of the previous Administration.

We will continue our policy, and private hospitals will continue to be used only at the margins when NHS boards need them for strategic reasons. Our commitment is to the publicly owned and publicly delivered national health service.

---

Ferry Services (Review)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive when it will report to the Parliament on the outcome of its review of ferry services. (S3O-10748)

The consultation document is currently going through the Cabinet clearance process. After that, there will be a 12-week public consultation during the summer. A draft Scottish ferries plan will then be prepared. Because additional environmental information needs to be included, the draft plan will then undergo a further six-week consultation. The plan will then be finalised and presented to the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee. Thereafter it will be published and launched on a date that is still to be agreed.

Given that, according to previous ministerial answers, ferry fares in communities that are not covered by the road equivalent tariff pilot have increased by 9.8 per cent since 2008, will the minister guarantee that options to reduce fares for those communities will figure in the review?

As far as I can ascertain, there has been no substantive review of ferry policy and practice that covers the whole system for more than 100 years. I assure Charlie Gordon that every aspect of ferry provision will be considered. Issues such as appropriate fare levels and whether ferries are the right transport solution in certain circumstances or whether other options exist will form part of our consideration.

I echo the sentiments that Charlie Gordon expressed in his question. The minister will be aware of the concern among people in my constituency about the effective removal of the lifeline ferry services to and from the constituency at the end of April. Will the minister give a commitment that the ferries plan will contain a protocol for any future diversion of lifeline ferry services for whatever purpose, a definition of an emergency and an agreed process of consultation on that protocol?

As Liam McArthur is aware, services continued across the Pentland Firth when we had to divert the Hamnavoe to rescue citizens from throughout the British isles and beyond from Norway. The Pentland Ferries operation continued, and had the capacity to support all requirements for travel across the Pentland Firth.

That operation, of course, took place at a time when demand was comparatively low. We would always wish to engage as far as possible with anyone who is affected by sudden changes in plans. However, it is worth pointing out that weather is the predominant factor that affects ferry services. On that occasion, it was clear that there was a substantial benefit to people who were in distress in another country, and it was entirely appropriate that we did what we did. I congratulate Andrew Banks on supporting the needs of the people in Orkney.

---

Gaelic-medium Education

7. A dh’fhaighneachd do Riaghaltas na h-Alba dè bhios e a’ dèanamh a dh’obair le comhairlean a tha ag iarraidh, no tha deònach, sùil a thoirt air siostam anns am biodh foghlam tro mheadhan na Gàidhlig na roghainn àbhaisteach anns na ciad bhliadhnaichean anns a’ bhun-sgoil.

To ask the Scottish Government what it will do to work with local authorities willing to consider making Gaelic the default medium of education in the early years of mainstream primary education. (S3O-10789)

Following our response to Bòrd na Gàidhlig’s action plan, we are working with the board, education bodies and local authorities to identify potential areas where progress can be made with Gaelic education in schools.

Curriculum for excellence already provides schools and practitioners with guidance on the use of Gaelic as the medium for learning and teaching. As part of that, the experiences and outcomes across all curriculum areas will be made available in Gaelic for the start of the new school year.

The aspiration of my council—Comhairle nan Eilean Siar—is that, as far as possible, every child in the future should start their education in Gaelic. That aspiration is welcome, but does the minister agree that unless it becomes reality, it is difficult to see how Gaelic can survive as a community language in the islands?

I have the strongest sympathy for the aspirations of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar in that regard. I have met the convener of its education committee and am happy to offer my support for the initiative. The other authorities are unlikely to take that route but I agree that, unless radical action is taken on Gaelic in Scotland, the prospects for the language look bleak. Anything undertaken in that direction will have my support and that of the Scottish Government.

Although I support the sentiment behind Alasdair Allan’s question, I ask the cabinet secretary to give an absolute assurance that local authorities with no interest in Gaelic will not be coerced into adopting it into mainstream primary education.

There has never been, is not and will never be such a policy from any Scottish Government.

Oh, be clear.

Mr Rumbles does not think that that is clear enough but it is absolutely and utterly wrong to say that any authority has ever been coerced into adopting Gaelic in mainstream primary education.

I say to Mr Brocklebank, who has a good track record of supporting Gaelic, that to raise the issue simply sows doubt in the minds of people who have shown hostility to the language. There is no need to raise it. The reality is that, even in Comhairle nan Eilean Siar’s plan, there is an absolute commitment to English-speaking parents; a capacity for English-medium education will always be sustained. The promotion and advancement of Gaelic does not threaten any other language; sadly, other languages have threatened Gaelic almost to death.

---

Community Health and Care Partnership Framework (Glasgow)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in respect of the community health and care partnership framework in Glasgow. (S3O-10740)

The original CHCP scheme of establishment for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and the revised scheme were jointly developed by the NHS board and Glasgow City Council. Following detailed discussions with officials, the scheme was approved by ministers. The timetable for implementation was also clearly set out in the revised scheme of establishment, and the revised arrangements were intended to strengthen joint working locally. The difficulties have arisen since Glasgow City Council’s decision not to proceed to the agreed timetable for devolution of full budgets to the CHCPs, but I very much hope that those difficulties will be resolved by the partners locally.

Like the cabinet secretary, I am a Glasgow MSP and am extremely concerned at the current impasse between the health board and the council on the matter. The cabinet secretary will not need reminding that some of our most vulnerable constituents depend on the services that CHCPs provide. Given her Government’s stated desire for sharing services and partnership working between agencies, will she assure those constituents that she will use her considerable influence to ensure that the health board accepts Glasgow City Council’s offer of talks, brokered by the highly respected Sir John Arbuthnott, to achieve a positive resolution for all concerned?

Bill Butler and I both share a desire for CHCPs to work successfully in Glasgow. If a health board takes a decision that I think is wrong, I never hesitate to say so but, in this instance, Greater Glasgow and Clyde NHS Board deserves praise for the commitment that it shows to CHCPs.

It helps nobody to play a blame game on the matter, but it is worth pointing out that the health board has fully devolved budgets for primary and community care, amounting to some £500 million. Glasgow City Council has not done likewise for the services for which it is responsible. That leads to an imbalance in the CHCPs that must be addressed. I certainly hope that the council uses the good offices of Sir John Arbuthnott, and I hope that that exercise leads it to review its position and to get back to a commitment to the timetable and the commitments that were agreed jointly and to which I referred in my initial answer.

That concludes general questions. Before we come to the next item of business, all members, I know, will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery the recently appointed Belgium ambassador to the United Kingdom, His Excellency Johan Verbeke. [Applause.]