Glasgow Airport Strategic Transport Network Study
To ask the Scottish Government when the Glasgow airport strategic transport network study will be published. (S4T-00612)
We expect the report, which was commissioned by Glasgow Airport Ltd, to be available after 12 March this year.
It is a number of months since several press outlets reported on the initial proposals from the study, but we still await the outcome, despite the minister selectively briefing the press last week. Can the minister confirm whether any of the options in the Glasgow airport strategic transport network study will require the purchase of any land to allow it to go ahead?
First, there was no selective briefing. A statement was issued, which in part responded to calls from the Labour Party to have sight of the proposals as soon as possible. The consistent accusation that we have delayed the report does not seem to take account of the fact that the report was led by Glasgow Airport and not by the Scottish Government.
Among the options that are offered, improvements to bus services would not require any land take. It is perfectly possible that the option of a tram-train link would require land but, from the initial report, it seems that it is not likely to be the land associated with the previous Glasgow airport rail link project. That is exactly why I have asked officials to look into the matter further and come back with more detail on that proposal.
The minister makes the point for me, which is that he is not sure which land—if any—is needed and where it is located. It seems bizarre that while a report, which was part-funded by the Scottish Government, was being done, the Scottish Government decided to sell off land at a massive loss of more than £8 million to the public purse, although the land could be needed to implement some of the report’s recommendations. Why was the sale carried out when, as the minister has stated, the requirement for land in the future was uncertain?
We made it clear during the course of the study that we did not intend to support a heavy rail option and we made it clear to all the partners that we would not fund a heavy rail option. Obviously, it was open to the partners involved to bring forward an option that they wanted to fund or that the private sector could fund. That is why we proceeded with the disposal of land. In the process, we saved £179 million, which would have been the cost of GARL. It is quite right that we asked the partners involved and, in particular, the consultants, to look at the other possibilities.
The member said that I should really know which land it is proposed to take for the link. That is exactly the point of the study: to come up with proposals that it will be possible to take forward.
We are saying that we should look at the issue in more detail. That is exactly what Glasgow Airport, which led the study, asked of the consultants. We have been supportive of that approach and supportive of Glasgow Airport, just as Glasgow Airport has been supportive of our subsequent statements.
By working together with the consultants we can come forward with a conclusion on how viable a tram-train link would be. Of course, there are issues with that; this is not to say that we would support such a link. However, let us look at the possibilities and consider the one thing that the Labour Party seems to have forgotten about, which is what will benefit the people who want to get to and from Glasgow airport.
I find it extraordinary that while one section of Transport Scotland has been selling off land around Glasgow airport in relation to an airport link, another section is involved in discussions with a group that is considering rail links. It must be asked whether the minister is in control of his department or whether power has been passed to the Sir Humphrey Appleby unit at Transport Scotland.
I think that we have heard all this before from James Kelly. I am not sure whether he regards the situation as extraordinary or astonishing—whatever word he wants to use from the range of adjectives.
We are moving forward from the position to which James Kelly referred. The Scottish Government has said, quite openly, “Let us listen to what the partners involved say.” Let us listen to Renfrewshire Council, Glasgow City Council and, most important, the airport. Let us take an objective way forward, which everyone has agreed on, by using consultants to produce a report, led by Glasgow Airport, that genuinely seeks to find the best way forward. If members consider the recommendations of the report when it is published—it will be available on request from Glasgow Airport, which commissioned it—they will see that, notwithstanding that there is still a lot of detail to be gone into, the benefit-cost ratio for a tram-train link is substantially better, indeed, something like three times better, than it would have been for a heavy rail link.
Let us open our minds to the possibilities rather than live in the past and make accusations that are nonsensical and not well founded. Let us genuinely try to consider what will benefit people who want to get to and from Glasgow airport, and what will help modal shift away from the private car and taxis, where possible. Let us try to go ahead together on that and see what we can achieve.
Local Government Finance Settlement 2015-16
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had any further discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on the local government finance settlement allocations for 2015-16. (S4T-00619)
I meet the COSLA leadership on a regular basis, and we discuss a range of matters. On 21 February, I wrote to all COSLA leaders setting out that I was minded to approve the proposal from the convention not to update the relevant indicators but considered that, in the interests of transparency, council leaders should be aware of the implications of such a course of action. Yesterday, I received the COSLA president’s reply, in which he informed me that COSLA leaders have agreed collectively to reconsider their position at their meeting on 25 April, once they have had the opportunity to scrutinise the detailed calculations behind the two sets of figures. My officials are working with COSLA to provide all the relevant information that is required to enable that consideration to take place.
I thank the maestro for his reply. He is no doubt aware that Glasgow City Council is widely expected to quit COSLA later this week. Should that happen, fully a quarter of Scotland’s population will potentially be represented by a local authority that is no longer affiliated to that organisation next year, as councils have to give a year’s notice. On that basis, does the cabinet secretary believe that COSLA continues to legitimately negotiate on behalf of councils?
Membership of COSLA is a matter for individual councils to resolve. The Scottish Government remains committed to working in partnership with local government.
I understand that, under COSLA’s rules, a local authority must give at least one year’s notice of its intention to leave the organisation and that membership is for each financial year, so the earliest that a council’s departure can take effect is 1 April 2015.
I stress that these are matters for individual councils and that the Government’s interest is in ensuring that we maintain a strong partnership relationship working with local government in Scotland.
Friday’s votes at COSLA, when, I understand, its position was reaffirmed, seem to show a pretty farcical situation. Labour councils are being whipped to vote for a settlement that will see many lose money while the single biggest benefactor, Glasgow City Council, is preparing to leave. That is truly a triumph of politburo politics. Surely COSLA is losing its credibility, never mind its members. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what contingency plans are in place for negotiating future financial settlements with local authorities should COSLA fail? Can we have a detailed formal statement from the minister in the near future?
I stress that I consider these to be matters for local authorities to consider individually and collectively with other local authorities in COSLA. It is not for me to write COSLA’s rules or be involved in its internal processes. What I am crystal clear about is that, since 2007, the Scottish Government has attached the strongest importance to working in partnership with local government in Scotland, and we intend to continue to do so.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, by failing to vote for an update to the distribution formula, Aberdeen City Council’s Labour leaders will cost the city an extra £7.5 million and that, instead of trying to pick nonsensical fights with Scottish Government ministers—whether there have been slips of the tongue or not—they should get on with getting the best deal to improve the delivery of front-line services for Aberdeen citizens?
Mr Stewart is absolutely correct to say that the difference between the flat-cash proposition that COSLA leaders supported several months ago and the application of the needs-based formula is around £7.5 million for the City of Aberdeen Council. Obviously, it is up to Aberdeen City Council to determine how it exercises its responsibilities in relation to those questions. However, I point out that it is not backwards in setting out to me its demands for increased money, so turning its back on resources is a rather strange conclusion to arrive at.
Mr Stewart referred to the news that has been percolating around in the past 24 hours that Aberdeen City Council somehow intended to exercise a ban on ministers. I understand, from information that was shared with me as I came into the chamber, that that has now been described as a “slip of the tongue”—whatever that means. I do not think that that is a particularly mature and sensible way to go about exercising the business of a local authority. The Government intends to continue its open and forthcoming dialogue with all local authorities in Scotland such as I will have later today with certain local authorities to pursue the issues that matter to the people of our country.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that detailed reply. Does he accept that the heart of the challenge that COSLA and its members face is the underfunding of our council services through cuts to the resources budget and the underfunding of the council tax freeze? Does he share their view that, if councils had received the same percentage of the budget this year as they received in 2010-11, there would be an extra £600 million for that budget allocation? Does he think that it is acceptable to pit council against council rather than address the yawning gap between the costs of council services and the underfunded settlement that he proposes this year?
I would be grateful if, in the interests of cross-party understanding, Sarah Boyack would write to me to explain the calculation behind the figure of £600 million that she has just lodged in the parliamentary record. I am unable to work out how on earth that point can in any way be valid. Local authorities’ share of the budget in 2010-11 was 31.3 per cent. On a like-for-like basis, its share is now 32.2 per cent. I am afraid that I cannot, for the life of me, understand how Sarah Boyack’s proposition is valid. If she would do me the courtesy of explaining it to me, I would be interested to know its basis. [John Swinney has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]
I will give Sarah Boyack some other statistics. Between 2007-08 and 2012-13, the resources under the control of the Scottish Government increased by 6.4 per cent. Over the same period, local government’s budget increased by 8.9 per cent. I ask Sarah Boyack and her colleagues, who voted for my budget for 2014-15, what the big claim was for local government because it was not a proposition that they advanced to me during the budget negotiations for 2014-15.
We sorted out the bedroom tax.
Ms Boyack!
Nor has the Labour Party ever come to me, as the finance minister, in the parliamentary process to ask me to give more money to local government. If Sarah Boyack would do me the courtesy of sending me an explanation of that figure of £600 million, I would be grateful.
As Cameron Buchanan made clear, Orkney Islands Council may be part of a dwindling band of councils that are not threatening to leave COSLA at this stage. However, as the cabinet secretary will be aware, there has been long-standing dissatisfaction with how the funding formula funds Orkney compared with how it funds the other island groups. I recognise the challenges in addressing that, but can he update the chamber on ways in which, perhaps working alongside his colleague the transport minister, he might find ways to inject funding into the likes of our internal ferry services in order to address our underfunding in comparison with the funding for Shetland and the Western Isles?
I am familiar with the issues that Mr McArthur raises, which have been advanced to the Government by Orkney Islands Council in a comparative assessment with Shetland and the Western Isles. As he knows, the funding formula takes into account a variety of indicators that assess such things as population, rurality and island status to produce the outcome with which we are all familiar. There is always space to consider the composition of those indicators, and we will respond constructively to any suggestions that are made to us in that respect.
I am familiar with the issues relating to the internal ferry services for Orkney. Over the term of this Administration, we have taken various steps to resolve some of the genuine challenges that Orkney Islands Council faces and I know that the transport minister will continue that dialogue with the council.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that the Labour-Tory coalition in South Lanarkshire Council is also considering leaving COSLA, despite the fact that the COSLA position agreed by the cabinet secretary would allocate £3 million more than would be available on needs-based indicators? Does he agree that, in some cases, the discussion is about politicking on behalf of councils rather than about the needs and wellbeing of their areas?
The issue that has always been made clear to me by local government in Scotland during my term in office as finance minister is the necessity of ensuring that the relevant indicators of various assessment points of need were updated annually to ensure that we could reflect as closely as possible the needs of individuals within the resources available through local government funding. A different position was taken by the leaders of local government this year, and I felt that, in the interests of ensuring that there was transparency around the decision making—as I was going to undertake the assessment and Parliament would have been surprised if I did not, and as the information could have been made public on any occasion—I should make that information available to inform the deliberations of local government. I await local government’s determination on the issues that I have raised as part of that process.
Can the cabinet secretary confirm that, among the winners and losers from the distribution formula, Fife Council will be a loser? More important, can he confirm that, regardless of the formula, councils across Scotland face difficult times and will have to cut budgets if they are to balance their books and continue to meet the demands placed on them over the next number of years?
I can confirm Mr Rowley’s factual point. If the needs-based formula is applied rather than the roll-forward of the 2014-15 budget settlement, Fife Council’s revenue funding budget will be £2.453 million lower than if the formula had been rolled forward.
Mr Rowley’s second point relates to the funding position of local government in Scotland. I cannot agree with his view of the nature of the settlement that the Scottish Government has put forward. If local government’s budget has been rising at a faster rate than the resources under the control of the Scottish Government, that tells me that, in a tight financial environment—which we are all living in, given the public finance constraints that are being applied by the United Kingdom Government—local government has been treated sympathetically compared with authorities in other parts of these islands. Indeed, the week before last, I met the president of the Local Government Association of England, who spoke in complimentary terms about how financially supportive the Scottish Government had been to local government in Scotland compared with the swingeing reductions in budgets that have been experienced south of the border.
Of course there are public spending constraints. Mr Rowley wrestled with them during his term in office as leader of Fife Council. I have been wrestling with them, but the decisions of this Administration have given much greater preference to local government in Scotland than has been given to local government in other parts of the country, and I can see that reflected in some of the approaches and decisions that have been taken in the design of public services.
The last point that I would make in answer to Mr Rowley is that there is a need for us to reconfigure and restructure the services that are delivered by local authorities in partnership with other public bodies—principally the health service—and that is why integration of health and social care is so important a priority for the Government. I look forward to constructive discussions to ensure that we use the resources at our disposal in the most effective way to deliver the best outcomes for the people of our country.
Now that it seems as if he might be welcome back in Aberdeen, will the minister take the opportunity to review his previous commitment to meet the funding floor of 85 per cent of the average funding for local authorities in Scotland, which is worth £20 million to Aberdeen?
The Government has fulfilled its commitment to provide the 85 per cent floor to local authorities in Scotland. That was put into the settlement, and I remind Mr Rennie that that provision was put in place by this Scottish National Party Administration and was never put in place by any Administration of which he was a supporter.
Previous
Time for Reflection