Finance and Sustainable Growth
Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is themed question time. The whole session will be given over to questions on finance and sustainable growth. Question 1 is from Christopher Harvie.
It is regrettable that Christopher Harvie is not here. I therefore move to question 2, from Mike Pringle.
Gilmerton Core Store
I am glad to say that I am here, Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Executive what notice it was given of the British Geological Survey’s proposal to relocate the national offshore oil and gas core store facility based at Gilmerton in Edinburgh to Keyworth in Nottinghamshire. (S3O-9684)
The Scottish Government did not receive any notice of the British Geological Survey’s proposal to relocate the Gilmerton core store facility to Keyworth in Nottinghamshire. We became aware of the BGS’s decision following the publication of its report on 24 September 2009. Since then, we have expressed our concern about the proposal direct to the BGS on a number of occasions, including at a meeting on 25 January 2010. We remain concerned and we plan to hold further discussions on the matter.
I appreciate that the minister shares many of my concerns about both the proposed relocation and the business case on which it is predicated. The Edinburgh facility is largely purpose built and it has decades of spare capacity. A recent poll by the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain revealed that 70 per cent of its interested members were in favour of retaining the store in Edinburgh, and there is also widespread academic opposition to the relocation.
Two important outstanding issues are what costs the British Geological Survey attributes to keeping the core store in Edinburgh as opposed to its transfer, and whether it has factored in to the business case funding for the transfer of the fragile core store, which is estimated to be worth between £3 billion and £5 billion. I sent the minister some interesting information today about what the BGS thinks the cost would be. Perhaps he could comment on that, and as well as that—
I must hurry you, Mr Pringle.
Will the Scottish Government seek an urgent meeting with the management of the British Geological Survey to examine the serious concerns that are shared by a wide range of stakeholders regarding the business case for the proposed relocation?
I share Mr Pringle’s analysis and his concern about the costs. When we met the executive director of the BGS, Professor John Ludden, on 25 January, we made clear our concerns, which echo Mr Pringle’s. At that meeting, the BGS agreed to hold a stakeholder engagement session, which I would facilitate, to allow Scotland-based users an opportunity to participate in an open and inclusive discussion. We are pressing the BGS to honour that commitment.
There are a number of concerns about the proposed move, including about the lack of effective consultation, subsequent use of opinion, concerns about cost, and the clear impact that it would have on teaching and research, together with concerns about the assumptions and assertions that the BGS has made. We wish it to reconsider its decision and we are doing all that we can to urge it to reflect on and change its view.
What action has the Government taken as a consequence of the poll by the Petroleum Exploration Society of Great Britain, which is the professional body for practicing geologists? The poll clearly demonstrates widespread opposition to the transfer and to the complete failure of the so-called consultation to engage with that key group of stakeholders.
We have noted the results of the poll of PESGB members, which shows that 89 per cent of active users are against the move. We believe that the views that were raised reinforce our concerns about the proposed move and, in particular, about the failure properly to consult users of the Gilmerton core store. We are liaising with a number of users and urging the BGS to meet stakeholders to engage fully and address the concerns. I am grateful for the cutting that I have been given from The Press and Journal in which Jeremy Cresswell eloquently summarises a proposition that I think everyone in the Parliament is behind.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you give members advice on how they might ask supplementary questions when other members who have the primary question are not here in time to pose it?
As I have said before, I am afraid that they cannot. That is one of the regrettable knock-on effects of members not being here on time. I am aware that you wished to ask a supplementary to question 1, but I am afraid that that cannot be done.
Union Terrace Gardens
To ask the Scottish Executive whether regeneration of Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen is a matter for Scottish Enterprise or for Aberdeen City Council. (S3O-9718)
Decisions on the future development of Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen are a matter for Aberdeen City Council in its leadership role, working with its community planning partners, including Scottish Enterprise.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of yesterday’s statement by the leader and deputy leader of Aberdeen City Council that
“there are no proposals for the council to commit expenditure to the development”,
which is currently being consulted on by Aberdeen city and shire economic future. Does he agree with them that it is for the Scottish Government to put up any public funding that might go into that project? If so, how and when might such funding be delivered?
As Mr Macdonald knows from the discussion that we had some weeks ago in my office, along with other members who represent north-east constituencies, the Scottish Government takes the view that it is a matter for the citizens of Aberdeen to address whether the Union Terrace gardens development is an approach that they wish to take. I understand that a public consultation on that question is under way. The proposals that ACSEF has set out are very ambitious and would involve participation by a range of organisations. The Scottish Government would certainly be happy to take part in discussions around those issues. As I said in my original answer, Scottish Enterprise is, of course, a participant in ACSEF as, I might add, are Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council. My point about the importance of the issue being developed at local level is key in the development of proposals for Union Terrace gardens.
Should it be decided to pursue the proposed city square scheme to redevelop Union Terrace gardens, can the cabinet secretary suggest any particular sources of funding that could be accessible to the project?
As Nanette Milne will know, the Government makes a range of interventions in regeneration activity. Scottish Enterprise takes forward different initiatives in relation to the implications of regeneration, leading to commercial development. Those opportunities can be discussed by the partners who are responsible for taking forward the Union Terrace gardens proposal and by the relevant bodies in the public sector.
The cabinet secretary might wish to elaborate further on that. In particular, if the city square project gathers sufficient public support to proceed, how could any public finance, other than direct Aberdeen City Council or Scottish Government finance, be achieved? Could that mechanism be available for other public projects in Aberdeen?
I should have said in response to Dr Milne that significant private sector funding has been pledged to the development by Sir Ian Wood, which is a welcome contribution to the regeneration of the city of Aberdeen. As I said to Dr Milne, there are a range of opportunities, through the Government’s regeneration work and the work of Scottish Enterprise, to take forward such developments. We have to consider specific proposals when they emerge. As I indicated in my answer a moment ago, I have had some discussions with members who represent north-east constituencies and I am happy to have further discussions in due course.
Coalfields Regeneration Trust
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth is planning to renew funding for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which expires at the end of March 2011. (S3O-9700)
I can confirm that all future expenditure plans beyond March 2011 will be subject to the next spending review. The issue that Cathie Craigie raises will be considered at that time.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a charitable organisation that benefits many groups in Scotland, including the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre in my constituency. It is understandable that the CRT is worried about funding after March 2011 and that the Cumbernauld and Kilsyth unemployed workers centre is concerned that without CRT grant it will face financial difficulty. I appreciate that a spending review is coming up, but can the cabinet secretary tell me whether the CRT will again gain backing from the Scottish Government?
Cathie Craigie’s supplementary question indicates that she accepts some of the constraints under which I operate in the context of my ability to provide a definitive answer to her question. As she knows, the Scottish Government does not yet know what financial settlement will be at our disposal for the period beyond March 2011. It is in the public domain that there will be significant constraints on public expenditure—we have heard those forecasts from the Treasury—so it would be inappropriate of me to give particular commitments.
The work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has been supported by the previous Administration and by the current Administration, has been significant in assisting the regeneration of areas that were previously dominated by coal mining activity, including in many parts of the constituency that Mrs Craigie represents. The CRT’s work is appreciated by the Scottish Government.
Small Business Bonus Scheme
To ask the Scottish Executive how many businesses in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire will benefit from the extension to the small business bonus scheme after 1 April 2010. (S3O-9739)
Last year, 5,000 properties in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire—more than a quarter of all business properties—paid no rates at all under the small business bonus scheme. From 1 April, about 300 more business properties in the area are likely to benefit from the expansion of the scheme. That is, of course, only one element in an overall rates relief package that is worth some £2.4 billion over the next five years.
In the context of the general payment of rates in Aberdeen, will the cabinet secretary outline his thoughts on tax incremental funding, perhaps for projects in Aberdeen such as the Union Terrace gardens project or combined heat and power plants?
The tax incremental financing model presents many opportunities for expanding the revenue base at local level. I have asked the Scottish Futures Trust to work with a number of local authorities in Scotland to develop tax incremental financing models. That work is being taken forward and I expect to receive the results in due course. The proposal has significant merit.
In his first response to Mr Don, the cabinet secretary was clear about the number of businesses that benefit from the small business bonus scheme. However, is he aware of the number of businesses in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire that are losing out as a result of a large increase in their rates burden and the lack of transitional relief that is available in other parts of the United Kingdom? Does he accept that the late setting of rates and the high rate of increase in rates for some of Scotland’s larger businesses is having a detrimental impact, not just on business planning but on jobs and the wellbeing of businesses?
As the First Minister said today, 60 per cent of businesses in Scotland will benefit from a valuation settlement that reduces their valuation. As a consequence of the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure that the business rate poundage in Scotland was set no higher than the business rate poundage in England, which we have honoured, we have delivered a settlement that results in a saving for businesses of approximately £220 million.
I accept that some businesses face increases in their valuations. They are entitled to appeal the valuations, which have been arrived at by independent valuation personnel around the country. It is quite proper for businesses to advance their positions, which the valuations service will consider in the appropriate way.
INCREASE III Funding
To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has had with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment with regard to the percentage of waste prevention projects funded by investment in community recycling and social enterprise III to be terminated in 2010. (S3O-9728)
I have had no discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on the issue.
Following a delayed start, the communities reducing excess waste project was launched in November 2008, and it has gone from strength to strength. Given the Government’s climate change targets, surely CREW is not the kind of initiative that should be cut. It must be supported and the funding should not be cut halfway through the project. Will the cabinet secretary please review that decision?
It would be appropriate for me to pass the issue to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, who carries operational responsibility for that programme. According to the information that I have in front of me, the CREW project has not delivered on the performance target that was agreed at the outset. I see that Cathy Peattie is shaking her head. If the information that I have in front of me is incorrect, she should write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment. I am sure that he will consider her points.
I suspect that the question was asked in case it is me that it cutting the budget. I should make it clear that the issue is about the project’s performance and not an accusation about my conduct concerning the size of the budget.
Transmission Charges
To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the recommendation on transmission charges in the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee report, “The Future of Britain’s Electricity Networks”. (S3O-9756)
The existing transmission charging regime for use of the Great Britain grid network means that generators in Scotland pay the highest transmission charges in the United Kingdom. Scottish ministers believe that that works against the development of clean renewable energy in Scotland. We believe that the locational charging methodology applied by Ofgem and the National Grid needs to change to help deliver the transition to a low-carbon economy and help Scotland to play its part in meeting European Union and UK climate change targets.
We therefore welcome the concerns that such an influential UK committee is expressing about locational charging, and we fully support its recommendation that the Department of Energy and Climate Change should establish an independent review of transmission charging. We continue to press UK ministers to undertake that independent review quickly, and based on the positive work that we already have in hand on changing the minds of Ofgem and the National Grid.
Like the minister, I welcome the report and many of the key recommendations that he has highlighted. Have we yet received any indication from DECC about whether it will accept the committee’s recommendations, particularly on the manner in which the network charging regime discriminates against wind generators, and the recommendation that an independent review should look again at whether locational charging is an appropriate system? If we have not heard from DECC yet, will the minister undertake to continue to press for a positive response to those recommendations?
We are already working closely and productively with DECC. The First Minister and I have argued, and will continue to argue, strongly and consistently about the need to change the current transmission charging system. As a result, National Grid is now considering a charging methodology for wind generators that could significantly reduce the transmission costs that it faces. We are also now working on other charging options.
However, it is significant that such an influential UK committee shares our concerns about transmission charging and has highlighted that charging
“should not discriminate against renewable energy wherever it is located in Britain.”
That shows that the UK Parliament is listening to the arguments, as are, I trust, others.
As the minister said, he is aware that transmission charges for intermittent electricity generators are currently under review on the ground that their take-up of transmission is around half that of fossil-fuel power stations. What level of reduction in charges does he believe that could bring to the wind energy sector in Scotland? Is he making representations on behalf of the Scottish Government in relation to that review?
Rather than picking a specific number, we are determined to achieve a materially beneficial position. The member knows that we ran a session that brought together Ofgem, National Grid, Scottish academia, Scottish utilities, Scottish renewables interests and the Scottish Government in one room. We now plan to make sure that we bring others, including DECC and generators from other locations in the UK, into that room as we go forward.
I wrote to UK ministers on 25 February to support the committee’s call for an independent review of transmission charges. We will continue to press for that and for positive outcomes that result in a better deal for Scottish generators.
Scottish Futures Trust
To ask the Scottish Executive what cost savings have been delivered by the Scottish Futures Trust. (S3O-9711)
The Scottish Futures Trust is working with a range of public sector organisations to deliver substantial value-for-money savings across a number of areas, including transport, schools, community infrastructure, regeneration and affordable housing. Full details of the savings that are achieved will be reported in the SFT’s annual report for 2009-10, which will be published later this year.
The strategic business case for the SFT stated that it would save £150 million. In reality, it has delivered nothing and is paying £400,000 to consultants. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is the most expensive job creation scheme in Scotland, which is paying overinflated salaries and stuffing consultants’ pockets full of public money?
No—I do not agree with that point of view.
I am not surprised.
No matter how many times Mr Kelly asks the question, I will not agree with him on that point.
As I said, the Scottish Futures Trust is working on a range of projects, which includes the work that I mentioned earlier on tax incremental financing, and the work on the schools programme, the hub partnership, the Borders rail line—on which work started yesterday—and the procurement of the NHS Tayside non-profit-distributing project on mental health. The SFT is actively involved in a range of different projects and is working to deliver value for money for the taxpayer.
How much is expected to be saved on the Borders railway as a result of the SFT’s involvement?
As I said in my answer to James Kelly, any savings that are delivered by the SFT will be reported in the annual report, which is the proper and orderly place in which to put such information in the public domain.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the expensive quango that he has created simply reflects the role of the senior civil service prior to the SFT’s establishment? The aggregation of contracts, the legal documents, the insurances and other procedures—as well as projects such as the hub, the schools project and others—were all previously handled by the civil service.
The SFT is a fig leaf to address the SNP’s manifesto commitment to set up a not-for-profit trust in Scotland, and it simply does not work.
There have been a number of contributions to the debate on the procurement activities regarding the most recent round of private finance initiative projects that were set up around the country. Lack of aggregation was one of the major criticisms about the way in which those projects were procured—a criticism that came not from me, but from Audit Scotland.
The National Audit Office—I accept that it has a wider canvas on such questions—warned in November last year that the value for money of 43 major projects with a combined worth of £200 billion was at risk because of significant weaknesses in the Government’s commercial skills and expertise. That is a United Kingdom report, but it is important that we understand the point that it makes in order to guarantee that we maximise the opportunities to deliver value for money, which is exactly what the Scottish Futures Trust does.
Local Government Finance (Third Sector)
To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of the local government finance settlement for 2010-11 on the third sector. (S3O-9696)
The local government finance settlement for 2010-11 of £12 billion has increased local government’s share of the overall Scottish budget to 34.1 per cent, which is up from 33.4 per cent in 2007-08 when the Government took office. It is for local authorities to use that funding to meet the needs of their communities and deliver the outcomes in their single outcome agreements.
I am confident that local authorities recognise the benefits to the community that accrue from using the third sector to design and deliver local services.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that, on 11 March, every council department in the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrat-led City of Edinburgh Council is expected to slash grants and reduce support to countless organisations that provide vital community services? The predicted £1 million of cuts will have a devastating effect on groups, services and third sector organisations that provide essential services to our communities.
Will the cabinet secretary, in light of his answer to my first question, assure us that the Scottish Government will intervene where funding arrangements and relationships between local government and the third sector do not reflect the areas of agreement in the joint statement on local government and the third sector, which the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations highlighted in its February 2010 report?
The local government settlement would have represented a larger cash sum if we had not had to reduce our budget by £500 million, at the direction of the United Kingdom Government. That is the hard, inescapable reality of what faces the Scottish Government and local authorities.
Before we embarked on the budget settlement for 2010-11, we conducted discussions bringing together the SCVO, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Government to agree an approach that valued third sector funding and activity in Scotland. That has been signed up to by the Government, by local authority partners and by the voluntary sector. I expect local authorities to take due account of that as they pursue their decisions on service provision.
It is important that we recognise the significant role that the third sector can play in the development and delivery of public services, and I encourage local authorities to take that approach as we all face up to very difficult financial challenges.
Many voluntary groups across the country feel that the principles of the joint statement are not being followed in practice. Given what the cabinet secretary has just said, what recourse do voluntary organisations have if they believe that the principles that were set out and agreed by the Scottish Government, local government and the SCVO are not being followed? What action can those organisations take that would actually lead to some of the issues being addressed?
I have made it absolutely clear to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations—as I do to any third sector platform that I address—that the Government is very open to dialogue and discussion about all these questions, including performance on the commitments that have been agreed to under the statement to which Mr Brownlee refers. I have made the offer to have that discussion, and I will ensure that any issues that are raised with us by the third sector about performance in honouring commitments will be pursued by the Government and will be discussed with local government. I remind Mr Brownlee—although I am sure that he needs no reminding—that local authorities are independent statutory bodies, which are responsible for their own decisions.
Equality Trust
To ask the Scottish Executive what its position is on the value of the Equality Trust website as a resource for policy makers and whether the principles espoused there could shape the Scottish Government’s financial policies. (S3O-9761)
Policy makers use a range of information sources in the course of their work, and the Equality Trust website is treated like any other. As with all evidence sources, we seek to assess the robustness of any conclusions or recommendations before taking any substantive action.
The principles of the Equality Trust align very closely with the approach that the Government has taken to reduce the significant inequalities in Scottish society. One of the measures of our overall purpose is the solidarity target, which aims to increase overall income and the proportion of income that is earned by the lowest income deciles, as a group, by 2017.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his response, particularly the last couple of lines. In the light of that, does the cabinet secretary agree that a progressive tax system is an essential part of a fair society; that the reintroduction of VAT at 17.5 per cent by the Labour Government is a regressive measure; that the Labour Government’s failure to reduce significantly tax evasion and avoidance—estimated to be £70 billion and £25 billion respectively by the Public and Commercial Services Union—is highly damaging to the wellbeing of the people of the United Kingdom and elsewhere; and that the Robin Hood tax on financial transactions is a good idea?
I certainly agree with Dr Wilson that the concept of progressive taxation should lie at the heart of any tax system that we adopt. That approach is reflected in the direction of the Government’s policy. The solidarity target to which I referred is an important part of the Government’s economic strategy, which is designed to tackle the difficulties and problems that are created by low incomes. I assure Dr Wilson that that will remain significant in the Government’s focus on delivering its economic strategy.
Question 11 was withdrawn.
Forth Replacement Crossing
To ask the Scottish Executive what methodology will be used to reprioritise other capital spending in order to pay for the Forth replacement crossing. (S3O-9685)
We are committed to taking forward the Forth replacement crossing through public procurement and finance. We are working to manage the impact of the project on the Scottish budget to ensure the continuity of the Government’s capital programme.
Capital budgets have not yet been set for the years beyond 2010-11, as they are outwith the current spending review period, but the potential impact of future capital allocations is currently being considered.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that officials who are leading the Forth replacement crossing project told the Finance Committee recently that ministers will have to reprioritise all other capital spending, including health and local government capital spending, to pay for the crossing using the method that the Government has set rather than using the revenue funding model to spread the repayment. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important that the Government state clearly now what methodology it will use for that reprioritisation? Otherwise, every other project could fall foul of the treatment that the Glasgow airport rail link received. That project was cancelled without any statement in advance on the merits of cancellation, or on whether any cost-effective method had been used to prioritise all other schemes. When will the Government make it clear what methodology it will use?
The procurement method that the Government selected for the Forth replacement crossing delivers value for money. That is the test that was passed. It would be a strange Government that did not follow the assessment of value for money that was carried out in the project.
There are clearly implications of the Forth replacement crossing being supported by the traditional method of capital financing within the Government’s programme. We will set out, as we do in all circumstances—as I did in the spending review 2007 and as I do in the annual budget documents that I lay before the Parliament—the approach that we are taking to other capital projects. That approach will be available for the Parliament to scrutinise, as it has been in every year of this Administration.
Of course, our ability to exercise financial flexibility would be enhanced if the Parliament had borrowing powers, for example. That would make a significant difference and is something on which Mr Purvis and I have common cause. If we were able to exercise greater financial responsibility than we currently are, we would be more able to deploy the flexibility that is required in management of a capital programme at a time of significant pressure on capital programmes. The Treasury sets out that such pressure will be the case and it will be a significant issue for the Government to manage.
Single Outcome Agreements
To ask the Scottish Executive how it is monitoring the progress of local authorities’ single outcome agreements. (S3O-9725)
Local authorities report to their communities and to the Scottish Government each year on progress that they and their local partners make on the outcomes in their single outcome agreements. Those reports—taken alongside other statistical information, service inspection reports and best-value reports—assist community planning partnerships as well as the Scottish Government to understand and track progress, learn lessons and implement continuous improvement. Part of the approach of all community planning partnerships is to ensure that that information is distilled as effectively as possible to members of the public.
The cabinet secretary is aware of Scottish Environment LINK’s concerns about the lack of environmental targets in single outcome agreements—for example, only four out of 32 local authorities mention biodiversity. How will he respond to its suggestion that a strategic environmental assessment be done on all SOAs?
The question whether an environmental impact assessment should be carried out on a single outcome agreement would be determined by whether the single outcome agreement passed the test in the environmental legislation on the requirement for a strategic environmental assessment to be undertaken. It is important to recognise that all local authorities have requirements to deliver on targets that may not be contained in single outcome agreements, but which are equally valid. As I said, there are various other channels of statistical information that are reported on for waste recycling or other issues of that character. Other reporting strands outwith single outcome agreements provide the public information that allows the Government to judge whether sufficient progress is being made on the achievement of major targets that face the country.
Town Centre Regeneration Fund
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth considered maintaining the funding for the town centre regeneration fund. (S3O-9704)
Ministers have not given further consideration to an additional round of town centre regeneration funding. Funding was accelerated from 2010-11 in recognition of the additional needs of our town centres in these difficult economic times, and the fund was always intended to be a one-year capital fund.
It is very disappointing that the cabinet secretary did not, in fact, consider retaining the fund, given that it was so oversubscribed in the previous round. What analysis was done, ahead of the decision not to continue with the fund this year, of the fund’s impact and the potential added value that that money brought to town centres?
With the greatest of respect to Karen Gillon, her response is completely and utterly devoid of any sense of understanding of the financial context in which we operate. There is quite simply not money kicking around for everything.
What about the referendum bill, then?
Order.
Oh, here we are—suddenly the Labour Party has sprung to life at the mention of the financial constraints from its economic failure, which has impacted on our country and our budget. That is what people like me have to wrestle with as we deal with the Scottish budget. The Labour Party can go around promising everything to everybody and demanding things such as a boiler scrappage scheme, then vote against it in the budget. [Interruption.]
Order.
What an absurd position for the Labour Party to get itself into.
Is it the case that the money that was distributed by the town centre regeneration fund was supposed to be spent within this financial year? Given that that is certainly not the case for at least one project that I know of, will the cabinet secretary use any underspends in the fund for excellent bids that were not successful, including the bid from Leith that was ready to deliver in total in this financial year?
Various conditions are applied to the distribution of resources under the town centre regeneration fund. Those conditions were set out by the Minister for Housing and Communities, and the projects are working to deliver against them. Quite clearly, there will be an evaluation of, and a report on, the implications of the town centre regeneration fund, which will be brought forward by the Minister for Housing and Communities. However, I can assure Mr Chisholm that the conditions of the fund are being applied in the projects that have come forward.
Question 15 was withdrawn.
Harris Tweed
To ask the Scottish Executive what its plans are to support the development of the Harris tweed industry. (S3O-9735)
The Scottish Government, alongside Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Enterprise, Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and Scottish Development International, offers a range of support for the Harris tweed industry, encompassing capital investment, training, support for individual weavers and international marketing. Looking forward, we are working with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Harris Tweed Authority to maximise the opportunities offered by the centenary celebrations of the orb trademark.
The minister will be aware of the considerable efforts that are being made to put the tweed industry back on its feet. However, an outstanding issue is how to make weaving an attractive occupation in terms of providing a steady and rewarding income. What plans does the Government have to support the retention of weaving skills in the islands?
The Government and its agencies recognise the skills and craftsmanship that are required of Harris tweed weavers. There is a two-year training programme in place that provides training at all levels for the industry. Mill management and production staff are also benefiting from a range of training in areas such as management, exporting and information technology. In addition, support has been given to enable specialist production staff to pass on their skills across the workforce, ensuring that years of legacy knowledge and experiences are handed on. In respect of the industry’s identified need to recruit new weavers, we have accelerated the training programme for new-start weavers, which will commence next Monday, 8 March, in Stornoway.
Glasgow City Council (Funding)
To ask the Scottish Executive what additional resources it will give to Glasgow City Council to enable it to meet the particular needs of the city. (S3O-9716)
The agreed formula that is used to distribute funding to local authorities reflects the particular needs of each council area. Under that formula, Glasgow City Council will receive £1,671 million from the Scottish Government in 2010-11, which is £16.2 million greater than in 2009-10 on a comparable basis. The increase would have been double that amount, had the United Kingdom Government not cut the Scottish budget by over £500 million.
I had intended to thank the cabinet secretary for his thoughtful reply, but the final sentence of it disappointed me.
This week, the Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee held a meeting with the cabinet secretary’s ministerial colleague, Alex Neil, and senior representatives from Glasgow City Council on the incredible pressures that exist in the Govanhill area of my constituency. As part of his continued thoughtfulness on public finance, will the cabinet secretary consider ways in which his Government could resource the likes of Govanhill Housing Association to take over the neglected private landlord housing that so disfigures a proud and diverse community?
Mr McAveety pursues the issue on his constituents’ behalf, as I would expect him to do. I understand that it was raised at the Public Petitions Committee’s meeting earlier this week, at which Mr Neil was present.
I give Mr McAveety the undertaking that I will discuss the Govanhill situation with Mr Neil. I am sure that we will consider any issues that arise from the points that Mr McAveety has made today and the petition that the Public Petitions Committee considered earlier this week in the context of the wider support for housing and regeneration activity that the Government is providing.
Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Education and Skills