Plenary, 03 Dec 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, December 3, 2009

Official Report 765KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

---

Glasgow Airport Rail Link

To ask the Scottish Executive how it responds to the recent statement by six business organisations concerning the importance of the Glasgow airport rail link to Scotland as a whole, its affordability and the case for its reinstatement in the draft budget for 2010-11. (S3O-8722)

I have responded to the letter from the various business organisations to set out this Government's rationale for taking the difficult decision to cancel the branch line element of the GARL project. I have explained that the decision was made in the wider context of the significant budget cuts that were imposed by the Treasury. This Government is willing to make difficult decisions in a time of unprecedented economic and fiscal constraints.

I thank the minister for his answer, but the letter from the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, and Scottish Financial Enterprise sends a powerful message to him to reinstate the Glasgow airport rail link. It says:

"we do not accept that there are insurmountable financial reasons for its cancellation … In our view, the GARL project is not only desirable but affordable. It has been cancelled only as a result of the Scottish Government's priorities lying elsewhere".

Question, please.

This week, the Scottish National Party has lost one minister who would not listen. Will the cabinet secretary listen to those business organisations, meet them again and take the big decision of reinstating the GARL project?

I undertake regular dialogue with the business organisations—I do not think that there could be a criticism of a lack of dialogue with them. Of course, I take their views and opinions seriously, but I have to make difficult decisions in the current financial situation. As Mr Whitton well knows, there will be a decline in capital budgets in the years to come.

Mr Whitton quoted a view that the project is affordable, but it is only affordable if other projects are sacrificed. The judgment that the Government has reluctantly come to is that the project cannot proceed because we do not have the resources in the medium term to support its delivery. That is a decision that we have come to reluctantly, but the Government has to face the situation.

I will continue to listen carefully to feedback from the Parliament's committees in relation to the Government's budget and will consider any issues that they raise in that respect. However, I say with respect to Mr Whitton, as I say to Parliament, that members who advance arguments for increasing public expenditure on certain projects must advise me of the things that they are prepared to give up to ensure that those projects can be afforded.

Is the cabinet secretary aware that Fife Chamber of Commerce has said that the proposal to pay for GARL by reinstating the tolls on the Forth road bridge is idiotic? Does he also agree with the chamber of commerce that, if business organisations and the Labour Party are going to campaign for transport projects, a carefully thought-out plan is required, which includes realistic suggestions for funding, unlike the suggestions that were made by Iain McMillan and Steven Purcell?

As I said to Mr Whitton, I listen carefully to the points of view that are put forward by various organisations. Clearly, this Government cannot do everything that all business organisations want us to do. In the past, the business organisations roundly criticised the previous Administration for not having a business-rate poundage level that was at parity with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have that under this Administration, and it is one of the many approaches that we take to support business in Scotland.

I am aware of the criticism by Fife Chamber of Commerce of the suggestion that tolls be reinstated on the Forth road bridge. The proposal to remove those tolls was supported broadly in Parliament—even by the Labour Party, if memory serves—and the Government will maintain that position as part of its budget settlement.

---

Glasgow Airport Rail Link

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that the Glasgow airport rail link would have a positive impact on Scotland's international connectivity. (S3O-8704)

A number of factors impact on a country's international connectivity, foremost of which is obviously that it has airports that provide the service routes and frequency to meet the requirements of the business and leisure traveller.

I acknowledge the range of concerns that were expressed in my colleague David Whitton's question about the legitimate concerns of business organisations in our largest city, which take the view that the decision taken summarily to axe the Glasgow airport rail link was the wrong one.

In recognising the importance of the GARL project to the west of Scotland economy, does the minister accept—in the year of homecoming and, in fact, in the week of its final celebrations—that the decision to close all options on progressing GARL reduces the capacity of our largest city to compete in the important business tourism market and, given the current economic conditions, turns its back on the opportunity for 1,300 jobs and more than £300 million of investment, which would be of real benefit to the west of Scotland economy?

I am not sure quite where Mr McAveety is looking in his constituency. If my geography is correct, a substantial investment is going right into the heart of his constituency—or certainly very close to it—through the M74 investment. The M74 project represents a significant investment in the west of Scotland economy, and it is creating many jobs and a lot of economic benefit in the west of Scotland.

If Mr McAveety had taken care to look at some of the opinions that have been expressed by the business community—the six business organisations that have been mentioned do not reflect the whole range of business opinion—he would have seen that many business representatives have commented in the media on the relative ease of getting to Glasgow airport by established transport links and have welcomed the fact that the Government has given priority to a number of areas of capital investment, including social housing in the west of Scotland, which I would have thought would be of benefit to the people who Mr McAveety represents.

Today has been dominated by a new start in education. Will the cabinet secretary imbibe that spirit of repentance and renewal in his portfolio? Will he accept the widespread consensus on the value of the Glasgow airport rail link in improving Scotland's connectivity and engage on a cross-party basis with business, councils and other stakeholders to look openly and positively at the possible funding options for delivering the Glasgow airport rail link?

I have made it clear consistently that I will, of course, consider credible and affordable proposals to deliver the Glasgow airport rail link. I cannot deliver those within the financial framework set out for me by the United Kingdom Government. [Interruption.]

Order.

Just in case members did not hear it the first time, I will say it again because it obviously gets them a little bit hot under the collar. I cannot afford this proposal under the fixed financial framework given to me by the UK Government and—I say this just for Jackie Baillie's benefit—the savage cuts in public spending that we are experiencing.

I am perfectly prepared to consider credible and affordable proposals for the rail link and, of course, we have a budget process that provides exactly that opportunity for anybody who wishes to advance such a proposition. As I have said, I will listen carefully to any input and feedback that the committees of the Parliament wish to give me on the issue.

---

Schools (Financial Education)

To ask the Scottish Executive what financial institutions it is working with to improve financial education in schools. (S3O-8686)

Learning and Teaching Scotland is working with a range of financial institutions and other organisations to support the financial education of all young people in schools.

The minister will be aware that over the past 18 months I have been raising concerns about the presence of the Royal Bank of Scotland in the Scottish centre for financial education, which is responsible for providing financial education in schools across the country and whose membership is currently being reviewed.

Given the events at RBS in the past 18 months, and bearing in mind the petulant response of the current RBS board in the past 24 hours to the efforts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to curb its obscene bonus culture, does the minister agree that, if the Government is serious about improving financial education in Scotland's schools, it has to ensure that RBS is removed from having any advisory role whatsoever?

As Bill Butler mentioned, he has asked a series of questions on the matter. He will be aware from the answers that were given that a partnership review group was established and will report back to LTS in the middle of next year. The group's membership will not include the Royal Bank of Scotland.

On RBS and its suitability to take a role in financial education in our schools, there has obviously been a substantial corporate failure by RBS in its strategic management, but it is also true that RBS contains a large number of staff whose knowledge and experience enables them to provide young people with up-to-date facts about a wide range of financial products and services and about money management and debt. In any case, membership of the Scottish centre for financial education is a matter for Learning and Teaching Scotland. It is right that we draw on whatever resources we can to ensure that our children have the best possible financial education.

---

Education

To ask the Scottish Government whether it is satisfied with Scotland's overall performance in education. (S3O-8659)

We are satisfied but not complacent. Scotland has a good performance record: in 2009, there were record high pass rates at both higher and advanced higher, entries to higher and advanced higher have increased, and the standard grade pass rate is at its highest since 2000. Two main international attainment surveys show Scotland's performance at well above the international average.

We are determined to drive up standards. That is why we are introducing the curriculum for excellence, which will improve both knowledge and skills through a broader teaching and assessment framework, a new framework for qualifications, and wider opportunities for young people through 16+ learning choices.

I thank the cabinet secretary for that comprehensive answer. I am delighted that he is not complacent, and I welcome him to his post.

Does the cabinet secretary believe that improving attainment and Scotland's international position in education requires increased spending per pupil?

What it requires is to continue the record investment that the Government has been undertaking. If the member had been present earlier this morning, he would have heard me say not once but twice that improvement in education requires us, as a Parliament, to work together to build a consensus and ensure that we all encourage performance—not undermining developments such as the curriculum for excellence but ensuring that we get them right. I look forward to his participation and that of his party. Indeed, I look forward, I hope, to the participation of the entire Parliament.

The minister will be aware that the average cut to school budgets in Scotland in 2010-11 is of the order of 2.5 per cent. In contrast, the minimum funding guarantee in England, which provides financial protection for the schools budget, is set at 2.1 per cent for the next financial year. Does the minister agree that his policies and his party's proposals will make things worse rather than better?

Absolutely not. I will not accept that in the slightest. Our policies are driving forward improvements in Scottish education. When relationships require to be improved in order to improve delivery, that is what will happen.

Once again—and we have only reached question 4—a representative of the Labour Party has demanded more spending. Frankly, it cannot go on like that. If a member of the Opposition, particularly the Labour Party, wants more spending, let them speak to the chancellor about the £500 million cuts.

---

Carbon Emissions

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it plans to sign up to the 10:10 campaign pledge to reduce its carbon emissions by 10 per cent in 2010. (S3O-8673)

Although we have not specifically signed up to the 10:10 campaign, we have firm plans in hand to go well beyond that short-term goal in tackling the emissions that are associated with our operations.

The Scottish Government already has in place a commitment, which has been agreed with the Carbon Trust, to reduce by at least 20 per cent by 2014 the carbon emissions that arise from the way in which we operate our 18 largest buildings, and to adopt even more sustainable travel practices. Delivery against that target is underpinned by a series of specific, planned projects. We are in the process of agreeing with the Carbon Trust an extension of that commitment to a further 64 buildings, and we are undertaking a review of the Scottish Government's travel plan.

I thank the minister for his answer, but I am slightly concerned. As he may be aware, Labour MPs recently voted down an Opposition day motion, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, that called on the Westminster Government to sign up to the 10:10 campaign. The motion was supported by all the Scottish National Party MPs. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 has been hailed as world beating. Why is the Scottish Government not prepared to lead the way again in reducing its own carbon footprint by signing up to the 10:10 campaign? Is it just another case of the SNP saying one thing in opposition at Westminster but doing another thing in government in Scotland?

It would be helpful if the member had listened to my original answer, in which I delineated a number of the significant changes that we are making. Indeed, I am being decanted out of my office in Victoria Quay so that changes that are part of that programme can be made—we are seeking through the upgrade of lighting in that building alone to deliver a 33 per cent reduction in emissions. A review of the Scottish Government's travel plan will inject fresh impetus in our targets and reduce our emissions from business travel.

We are doing a great deal to live up to the commitments that we all made when we passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009—on this subject, we are ahead of the game.

---

Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route

To ask the Scottish Executive what annual provision will be required to meet the costs of the Aberdeen western peripheral route over the next 30 years, if it is procured under the non-profit-distributing model. (S3O-8706)

Subject to confirmation of the final layout of the road following a decision on the public local inquiry process, we will review the cost estimate and establish estimated annual payments to be made over a fixed period, which is yet to be decided.

I am sure that the minister will recognise that, if the project is delivered even at the figures that were estimated some years ago, the annual payments to be made, perhaps over a 30-year period, will be in the region of £16 million to £21 million.

Does the minister recall John Swinney's address to the David Hume Institute in April this year? In that speech, Mr Swinney criticised previous Administrations for making

"vast 30-year financial commitments of growing scale and growing impact in the full knowledge that the growth years of public spending were coming to an end."

Does the minister recall that Mr Swinney described that type of 30-year payment scheme as

"the summit of financial irresponsibility"?

That contrasts with the recent statements from Transport Scotland and the minister's and Mr Swinney's colleague Brian Adam in relation to the procurement of the Aberdeen western peripheral route over a 30-year period.

Does the minister, in the light of his plans for the AWPR, support the view of Mr Swinney or of Mr Adam? Does he have any evidence of private sector partners that are willing to provide the money up front to make the non-profit-distributing model work?

The NPD model and the plan for it to be used in the AWPR are not new: they were published in our infrastructure investment plan in 2008. When I answered Nicol Stephen's written question S3W-24477 on 10 June, I confirmed that there had been no change on that. The NPD model is entirely different from the private finance initiative model in that it caps the commitments that we have to make. We will, of course, consider exactly how we take the project forward, but there is considerable investor interest in the progression of NPD projects by the Government.

---

Carbon Capture and Storage

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of its announcement that any application for a new coal plant in Scotland will need to demonstrate carbon capture and storage on a minimum of 300MW net of capacity from its first day of operation, whether all aspects of the CCS chain will be expected to be working from that first day. (S3O-8669)

Any application for consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 will need to include technically feasible plans to capture carbon from at least 300MW net of the station's capacity. In addition, when consent is given, it will be conditional on the developer submitting information on the consenting and licensing of the whole carbon capture and storage chain that is associated with the application.

We plan to issue our detailed guidance on thermal generation early next year, which will set out our position in more detail. In the meantime, we are working closely with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Marine Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Crown Estate, the Health and Safety Executive and the UK Government in order to develop an integrated approach to the licensing and consents processes that will be required for any CCS project.

The Scottish Government is keen to develop a pragmatic approach to risk assessment and a streamlined approach to decision making that will place Scotland at the forefront of the approach to CCS development. We look forward to continuing those positive discussions with our partners.

In the minister's rather lengthy response, it appears that he was describing the technical feasibility to capture carbon rather than the ability to do so from the first day. That means, therefore, that the plants will just be using a different and stranger variation of the carbon-capture-ready function, which still leaves us in the position that new plants will not have the facility for carbon capture at the point that they start to emit carbon.

I am deeply disappointed by that. The member is in danger of talking down CCS. A former chairman of Shell is telling us that the industry could be as significant as oil and gas. The industry has huge potential in Scotland with our engineering and academic skills, our geology and oil and gas sectors for enhanced oil recovery, and our utility companies and generators, which are in pole position to win the UK demonstrator competition. I will discuss the issue with the member privately; I need to put him in a positive frame of mind on it.

That concludes general questions. Before we move to First Minister's question time, I say to all members, including ministers, that questions and answers appear to be taking on the characteristics of speeches rather than questions and answers.

Hear hear.

There is no need for anyone to applaud; you are all guilty of it. I ask all members to look at their practice.