General Questions
Edinburgh Holiday Lets (Community Safety)
To ask the Scottish Executive, following the round-table meeting on 29 March 2010, what action it is undertaking in partnership with the City of Edinburgh Council, local agencies and local communities to tackle antisocial behaviour and community safety issues arising from short-term holiday lets. (S3O-10370)
Antisocial behaviour should not be tolerated wherever it occurs. Our framework for tackling antisocial behaviour, “Promoting Positive Outcomes”, will help local agencies to work together in partnership with local communities and others so as to respond in a proportionate, appropriate and timely fashion.
I recognise the efforts that members have made—Sarah Boyack in particular—in raising the issue. I know that Sarah Boyack attended the meeting on 29 March, and I hope that she was encouraged by the commitment of local agencies, including the City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police and Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service, to address the matter. As was reflected by those who attended the meeting, the problem is best resolved locally. However, we remain in regular contact with local agencies, and we are keen to assist those agencies in practical ways to help to draw attention to the issue.
I thank the minister for checking out what happened at that meeting. My constituents feel very let down following the meeting, given the lack of practical action. Although local agencies are willing to be supportive, they cannot do anything other than react. The prevention side is incredibly difficult to put into practice. Will the minister now consider prevention, and focus on the landlords of the holiday lets, rather than reacting afterwards? There was a serious public order and safety incident last month, which led to a huge police action, and there is now real fear and concern in the communities concerned.
I appreciate the concern that local residents and their representatives, especially Sarah Boyack, have expressed. Tackling antisocial behaviour is primarily the responsibility of the criminal justice agencies and the police. I am willing to meet Sarah Boyack to discuss the issue more widely.
We are planning a private housing bill later this year. If Sarah Boyack has practical suggestions to make, she should be aware that we are always open to talking to people and listening to their ideas.
Scottish Housing Quality Standard
To ask the Scottish Executive which local authorities it categorises as being at high risk of not achieving the Scottish housing quality standard by 2015 for a significant proportion of their housing stock and what investment per housing unit is required in these authorities to deliver compliance of this housing stock. (S3O-10395)
The Scottish Government does not categorise local authorities as high, medium or low risk against achieving the Scottish housing quality standard by 2015. All local authorities have set out plans for how they will fund and comply with the quality standard by 2015 and they will report progress and updated projections to the Scottish Housing Regulator this autumn, and annually thereafter. That information will be used to inform the shared risk assessment exercise that is to be undertaken with other scrutiny bodies. We will publish draft guidance later this year to help landlords to interpret the SHQS and target their SHQS activity more cost effectively.
The estimated cost of meeting the SHQS across all local authority housing in Scotland between now and 2015, according to the landlords themselves, is approximately £6,000 per unit of the total housing stock. However, those costs have not been broken down by local authority, and they might include works that are not strictly required to meet the basic SHQS requirements.
I find the minister’s answer absolutely staggering. Not to have a risk analysis of what is happening by local authority in this regard—whereas there is one for registered social landlords—is quite disgraceful.
According to a paper that West Dunbartonshire Council discussed today, the council will not be able to bring all its dwellings up to the standard without increasing rents to a level that would make them unaffordable to many residents. According to a document that was circulated by Councillor Craig McLaughlin of West Dunbartonshire Council in 2008, £21 million of regeneration money was loosely earmarked for West Dunbartonshire. What happened to that early action money? Will the minister visit Salisbury Place, Clydebank east or south Drumry, in my constituency, to see the conditions that people are living in as a result of the lack of investment from his Government?
I recall that Mr McNulty was once a minister with responsibility for housing. The reality is that we inherited the target of 2015 from the previous Administration without any plan, let alone a risk assessment. As I said in my answer, we will undertake a risk assessment after the autumn, after the Scottish Housing Regulator reports on progress and updates projections. I think that Mr McNulty wrote his reply to my answer before I gave it, so I repeat—read my lips—that that information will be used to inform the shared risk assessment exercise with other scrutiny bodies. We are undertaking a risk assessment exercise for a target that is five years away.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have in my hand the risk assessment that was available under the previous Administration. It is interesting that the minister said that we did not have a risk assessment and that he does not have one.
That is not a point of order.
Did the minister hear the Prime Minister’s interview with Jeremy Paxman on Friday night last, in which he said:
“Housing is essentially a private sector activity ... I don’t see the need for us to continue with such big renovation programmes”?
Will he assure us that the Government in Scotland recognises that, in any decent society, the public sector bears much responsibility for ensuring decent housing standards?
I heard the interview and was, to use a Des McNulty word, staggered by the way in which the Prime Minister completely wrote off the importance of social housing south of the border. Given the low level of investment in social housing by the Labour Government south of the border, I can understand those sentiments. However, north of the border, under this Administration, we have had record spend, approvals, starts and completions.
Given that the proposals in the Housing (Scotland) Bill to amend the right-to-buy rules would result in a loss of revenue to local authorities, will the Scottish Government give an assurance that it will replace that funding to ensure that, through their investment, local authorities are able to achieve the Scottish housing quality standard by 2015?
As I explained last week to the Local Government and Communities Committee, of which Mary Mulligan is a member, our proposals to reform the right to buy would have only a marginal impact on Scottish housing quality standard funding. Indeed, other factors—such as the continuation of the rental income from 18,000 houses that will remain in the rented sector instead of being sold off—mean that the overall impact of our right-to-buy proposals will have a positive effect, not only on the quality of housing in Scotland but on the number of houses that are available for rent in Scotland.
It is a pity that the main Opposition party will not come clean on whether it has a policy on modernising the right to buy or whether it is simply waiting to see what the Tories do so that it can follow in their footsteps.
Derelict and Vacant Urban Land
To ask the Scottish Executive
what measures it is taking regarding the amount of derelict and vacant urban land throughout Scotland. (S3O-10355)
Over the financial period 2008 to 2011, we will allocate a £36.6 million vacant and derelict land fund to five local authority areas, namely Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, Dundee and the Highlands. We will also publish the “Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land survey”—I am sure it will be a bestseller—which is an annual survey of all local authority areas to establish the extent and state of vacant and derelict land throughout Scotland.
Is the minister aware of the measures that North Lanarkshire Council is taking to rehabilitate the record amount of derelict and vacant urban land in its area, which is estimated to amount to 14 per cent of Scotland’s total? Is he aware that those measures have resulted in the council being awarded approximately £19.5 million between 2004 and 2011 to deal with the issue?
Yes, I am aware of the activity in North Lanarkshire, which of course includes the very substantial Ravenscraig site. I take this opportunity to underline and reiterate our commitment to the development of Ravenscraig.
Does the minister agree that many vacant urban sites are ideal for affordable housing developments? What specific measures can he take to encourage such developments on vacant land?
In addition to the five areas that qualify for assistance through the derelict and vacant urban land fund, housing associations and local authorities would qualify for housing association grant or, potentially, assistance with council house funding for housing developments in the social housing sector. As the member will know, this Government has engaged in assisting housing associations and councils to build new houses in Scotland. In fact, between this year and next, we will build more than 3,000 new council houses in Scotland, which is a record about which I am sure that he will be very complimentary.
Scottish Futures Trust
To ask the Scottish
Executive what action it is taking to monitor the expenditure of the Scottish Futures Trust. (S3O-10383)
Arrangements for monitoring expenditure are guided by the management statement and financial memorandum that are agreed between the Scottish Futures Trust and the Scottish Government. Value for money is a core principle that guides the SFT’s expenditure. The SFT’s budget is approved annually by the Scottish Parliament. Funding that is drawn from that budget is paid only when detailed monthly invoices that are received by the SFT have been approved by the Scottish Government. The SFT is also required to appoint auditors to audit its accounts, which are passed to the Scottish ministers for consideration prior to the accounts being laid before Parliament.
Three years into this Scottish National Party Government, the Scottish Futures Trust has still not laid a brick. Meanwhile, the costs soar and the executives are paid film-star wages. What action is the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth taking to control costs? What action is he taking to generate the declared savings of £150 million? Or is that just another SNP fantasy?
The SFT is working to deliver value-for-money savings. I would have thought that any member of the Labour Party, which has set out a United Kingdom budget that involves swingeing cuts to public expenditure, would understand the need to maximise value for money and effectiveness in public expenditure. The SFT is undertaking that task. As I said, rigorous controls are in place to scrutinise its expenditure. The SFT is taking forward 16 specific infrastructure projects, including schools, the hub project, supporting the development of the Borders railway, the Forth replacement crossing, waste management infrastructure and a variety of other projects. Those are exactly the types of infrastructure projects that the Labour Party has been demanding be undertaken by this Government.
Roads (M74)
To ask the Scottish
Executive whether it plans to rule out delaying the completion of the M74 junction 5 Raith scheme until 2013-14. (S3O-10380)
We are considering the benefits of combining the M74 Raith junction scheme with the M8 Baillieston to Newhouse scheme and the M8, M73 and M74 network improvement schemes as a single contract to be funded by a non-profit-distributing model. The M74 Raith programme would be tied to the M8, a decision on which will be made shortly.
If the Raith interchange scheme is put back on to the same timescale as the M8 Baillieston to Newhouse scheme, thus delaying it a year, what additional costs will fall on the Raith scheme? Can the minister guarantee that both schemes or the combined scheme will be ready in time for the 2014 Commonwealth games in Glasgow?
By consolidating many items of work into a single non-profit-distributing model, we are able to achieve economies of scale and reduce and manage the costs in an appropriate way. We have reached the point where we have all but completed the planning issues that are associated with that. We expect to make the remaining orders. We are making the best possible speed in bringing forward a long-awaited project.
Unemployment (Mid Scotland and Fife)
To ask the Scottish Executive what measures it is taking to assist unemployed people in Mid Scotland and Fife. (S3O-10399)
Employment policy is, of course, reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, the Scottish Government is taking every action possible within the scope of its responsibilities. In particular, skills and regeneration funding is supporting people across Scotland, including those in Mid Scotland and Fife. For example, in Fife, where the employment rate of 72.9 per cent is below the Scottish average, European social fund funding totalling £1.7 million has been awarded to the community planning partnership to help to tackle unemployment in the coming year. That is in addition to the £3.5 million that was allocated from 2008 to 2010.
I am surprised that the minister did not mention the work that partnership action for continuing employment has been taking forward. In my experience of dealing with a number of companies that have become insolvent or gone into administration, there is clearly a lack of understanding among the administrators and insolvency practitioners about the activity that PACE can take forward. I would appreciate it if the minister looked at that issue as a matter of urgency. If he agrees to do so, I would be more than happy to provide him with a number of examples from Mid Scotland and Fife that would help him in his deliberations.
In Fife, PACE activity has helped 434 employees, who were supported through intervention by Advanced Systems, the Co-op Group, Wincanton, Wallaces Express, Torith, Thomas Mitchell Homes, Ethel Austin, Fife Council and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. There is a great deal of work going on, but I am happy to look at the issue of whether people are sufficiently aware.
John Park might be aware that we have recently produced a very simple leaflet for small employers to ensure that they are fully aware of the options that are available to them. I am sure that John Park would want to acknowledge that in the case of a recession that has been imposed on us by elsewhere and a cut in the money that we have to deal with it, it is difficult to ensure that everybody gets the right solution. Perhaps it would be better if he took some advice from the Labour Party member who phoned Iain Gray this morning, who said that the Labour Party should accept responsibility for its own failures and stop blaming the Scottish National Party.
Questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.
Alcohol (Minimum Unit Price)
To ask the Scottish Executive when it plans to name its proposed minimum unit price for alcohol. (S3O-10367)
As I advised the Parliament last week, we intend to bring forward a specific price before a final vote is taken by the Parliament. The Scottish Government is carefully working through the different issues that require to be taken into account to arrive at the price. I am sure that members agree that that process needs to be carried out in a careful and considered way.
Any regulation to propose a specific price will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure to ensure that there is an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the rationale and considerations that led to that specific price. Any order will be accompanied by a regulatory and competition impact assessment that is tailored to the proposed price.
I note that the Alcohol etc (Scotland) Bill has been a long time in development. Fundamental to consideration of the principle of minimum unit pricing has to be whether it is effective. The European Commission has stated that it is important to consider a range of alternative measures that might have the same, if not a greater, public health impact, and that effectiveness is a key test. Will the cabinet secretary therefore give the Parliament an indication of whether the price will be 40p, as has been modelled by the Government, or 60p, as preferred by the majority of public health professionals, so that the Health and Sport Committee can determine effectiveness before the stage 1 debate?
Yes, I will give that indication when the Government has done the work that is required to get to that point. That is a perfectly reasonable position. I had very constructive discussions on that issue with the Health and Sport Committee this morning. I am sure that Jackie Baillie will catch up with that.
The central problem is not any of the issues that Jackie Baillie raises but that Jackie Baillie has made her mind up on the issue before listening to any evidence. She says at this stage that she cannot support minimum pricing because we have not named the price. I predict that when the Government does name the price, she will suddenly decide that she cannot support minimum pricing because she does not agree with the level at which the price has been set. I urge Jackie Baillie and all members to open their minds to a proposal that can have a significant impact on health. That would do justice to the people of Scotland.
Given the Labour Party’s understandable concerns about the impact of minimum pricing on low-income families and groups, I refer the cabinet secretary to her letter of today’s date to the Health and Sport Committee, in which the final bullet point states:
“Low income harmful drinkers tend to drink more and are much more likely to be admitted to hospital or to die from an alcohol related cause.”
Will she please expand on that?
Christine Grahame raises an extremely important issue. If Labour Party members are genuine about it, they will listen to the point.
The research to which Christine Grahame refers, which has been furnished to the Health and Sport Committee today, shows two things. First, it shows that the vast majority of people in low-income groups—80 per cent of them, to be precise—do not drink at all or drink at moderate levels and therefore would not be adversely impacted by minimum pricing. Secondly, although a small number of people in low-income groups drink at hazardous levels, people in that group are suffering disproportionate harm. They are five and a half times more likely to be admitted to hospital because of alcohol-related illnesses and are 13 and a half times more likely to die from such illnesses. Anyone who is concerned about the impact of alcohol misuse on low-income families and individuals will take those figures extremely seriously.