Good morning. The first item of business is general question time. Question 1, in the name of Claudia Beamish, has not been lodged, but the member has provided an explanation.
Royal Mail (Universal Service Obligation)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the commitment of Royal Mail to maintaining the universal service obligation given its economic impact. (S4O-03317)
Postal services are a vital lifeline for many of Scotland’s communities, particularly in some of the nation’s more remote rural areas. Those communities depend on the delivery service that is guaranteed by the Royal Mail’s universal service obligation, which is why it is so deeply worrying to see Royal Mail’s concerns about its ability to fulfil the universal service obligation. The Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism has written to the United Kingdom Government to request reassurances that the universal service obligation still stands.
With independence, the regulation of mail will be in the hands of the Scottish Parliament. That will provide an opportunity to ensure that we have a universal postal service that is in the best interests of communities and postal service users. An independent Scotland will also ensure that we have the ability to restore Royal Mail in Scotland to public ownership.
The cabinet secretary will undoubtedly be aware how important the issue is for Scotland’s rural and island communities, including Arran and Cumbrae in my constituency. Indeed, he touched on rurality in his response.
On page 289 of the white paper, the Scottish Government raised concerns about the future of the universal service obligation in relation to Royal Mail privatisation. Does the cabinet secretary agree that keeping Scotland’s rural and island communities well connected via the post and other means is vital? Can he explain how we would be more able to address the challenge and serve Scotland’s rural and island communities effectively if we had the full powers of an independent country?
I will make three points. First, as I highlighted in my initial answer, Mr Gibson is absolutely correct to say that postal services are fundamental to the connectivity of rural and island communities. The Government accepts that point, which is why we attach such importance to the universal service obligation.
Secondly, there is the issue of digital connectivity, which we recognise to be of equal significance in enabling businesses and individuals to be properly connected in the modern world.
Thirdly, the opportunity for Scotland to become independent opens up the prospect of the Government of an independent Scotland having the ability to ensure that all those aspirations are properly and effectively fulfilled by taking forward the universal service obligation as part of the exercise of its responsibilities.
Independence (Economic Challenges)
To ask the Scottish Government what the principal challenges for the economy would be in an independent Scotland. (S4O-03318)
Scotland has a strong and prosperous economy. Gross domestic product per head in Scotland was the 14th highest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2012, putting us ahead of the UK, Japan, Italy and France.
In common with most other advanced economies, Scotland will face a number of challenges in the years to come, including those of tackling inequalities and building greater economic resilience. Independence would equip future Scottish Governments with the policy levers that will be required to provide greater flexibility in decision making, and it would offer an opportunity to rebalance the economy and to fully tackle the key economic issues of population, productivity and participation.
I must apologise to the cabinet secretary, because I realise that even the entire question time slot would be inadequate to describe the economic challenges that would confront an independent Scotland.
Now that we know that the financial illustration on page 75 of the white paper is wrong, because the Scottish Government ambitiously overestimated oil revenues and grossly understated expenditure, thereby producing a budget deficit that was dramatically lower than the Institute for Fiscal Studies’s recent projection of £8.6 billion, will the cabinet secretary scrap page 75 of the white paper and produce a corrected version?
I do not know whether Baroness Goldie was unavailable—perhaps she was in the House of Lords and did not catch up with the projections that I set out last week, which were full and comprehensive. The Government estimates that I set out were based on the most recently available information on the financial health of Scotland in 2016-17.
Of course there are differences of opinion on these questions. As Ms Goldie has just said, the IFS uses the Office for Budget Responsibility’s figures on oil and gas revenues, which ignore the fact that, for a two-year period, the price of oil has been $11 higher than the OBR estimate and that on a variety of projections—not least the Department of Energy and Climate Change projections—it is likely to go even higher, although we have not used that assumption.
The figures also ignore the fact that oil and gas companies are investing £14 billion in oil and gas activity in the North Sea. Despite that, the OBR’s belief—endorsed by the IFS—is that there will somehow be no consequent increase in production in later years, although industry analysts contradict that. I encourage Ms Goldie to look at the financial projections that we set out last week, which addressed directly the question that she raised.
Ms Goldie cites the analysis by the IFS, which is an indictment of the management of this country’s public finances by Westminster Governments. It is time that we acquired the powers to deliver a better economic future for the people of our country.
The cabinet secretary is right to say that opinions differ on such matters, but is it not the case that the vast majority of economists point out that the fiscal situation for an independent Scotland will be more difficult than that for the rest of the UK and that, as I reminded him last week, interest rates will certainly be higher for a considerable period?
Mr Chisholm’s first point was about the variety of voices. All the analysis that the OBR, the IFS and the Centre for Public Policy for Regions undertake on such questions is driven by the OBR’s analysis—there is no other analysis or detailed research process. Last week, I set out in considerable detail our issues with the OBR’s analysis of oil and gas revenues. Last week’s analysis showed that Scotland’s public finances in 2016, on all key fiscal measures,
“would be similar to, or stronger than, both the UK and the G7 ... industrialised countries”.
It is high time that Opposition members recognised that we have opportunities to create a better economic future in Scotland. The question is whether we have the determination and the confidence to acquire those economic powers and start to tackle the issues of inequality and poverty that exist in our society. The Labour Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives are prepared to tolerate those issues for a good deal longer, but we are not.
General Practitioners (Rural Practices)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the progress of the models for GP practices in rural areas. (S4O-03319)
The Scottish Government continues to promote a range of initiatives to recruit and support GPs working in remote and rural areas, including work that NHS Highland is leading to develop and test innovative ways of delivering healthcare in rural areas.
Progress has been slower than planned because of on-going difficulties in recruiting GPs to vacant posts. To address those difficulties, a bespoke recruitment exercise is under development and is expected to be in place by the summer.
I assure the Parliament that the Scottish Government recognises the current challenges in remote and rural healthcare delivery and is committed to ensuring that all communities in Scotland have access to high-quality and sustainable healthcare services.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that my constituents in the west Lochaber area are concerned about the situation. The model that NHS Highland is driving and which he supports is good, but we must overcome the difficulty in attracting GPs to posts. In the meantime, we are spending an awful lot of money on locum GPs, who are costing the health board a fortune. Will he elaborate a wee bit on the bespoke model that he mentioned?
I am pleased that one new GP has been appointed. A major recruitment campaign will be launched in the next few weeks, with the support of a marketing expert, to recruit the additional GPs who are needed to staff the model. Of course, the original proposal for the model came from local GPs. In the meantime, we have been fortunate to have some consistent locums who have provided continuity of care. Dr Gartshore is providing clinical leadership for the locums.
Along with NHS Highland, we are happy to look at any additional work that we can do, such as using telehealth more extensively, to try to overcome the problems in west Lochaber and other remote and rural areas across Scotland.
The cabinet secretary has, of course, just laid the new pharmacy regulations, which may remove some of the uncertainty, although it is disappointing that there is not a proposal to have joint pharmacy and GP dispensing established. Does he recognise that, although a marketing programme is welcome, he will have a recruiting problem until the uncertainty around current applications for pharmacies for some areas is dealt with? Does he recognise the problems that have been created by existing pharmacy applications in Killin and Drymen and also possibly in Aberfoyle if the appeal against the pharmacy is not successful?
It is because I have recognised those problems that I have taken action to deal with them. That is why the regulations are now before Parliament. Assuming that they are approved by Parliament, they will be implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.
It is highly regrettable that, in Cumbrae, for example, we have lost a GP dispensary because a pharmacy came in. The cost so far to the health board of recruiting locums for that particular area has been £0.5 million. That money would have been far better spent in investment in other parts of the health service.
I absolutely agree with the analysis and have put in place action to deal with the problem.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is disappointing that, in relation to Drymen in particular, some political parties have put out the message that it would be possible in law to bring in a moratorium before the new regulations came in? That has happened, and it has misled local people. Does he welcome the fact that the health board turned up to a meeting this week at which there were more than 200 people to explain how matters would be taken forward? I was the only MSP who was in attendance.
Bruce Crawford has made a number of relevant and absolutely true points, with which I agree. One of the great tragedies of recent developments has been the spreading of disinformation. We saw that with the policy on continuing healthcare. Deliberate disinformation has been spread by certain political elements who, quite frankly, should know better.
I reinforce Richard Simpson’s point and agree with the cabinet secretary’s remarks on how important pharmacies are to GP practices. I have the regulations with me. Can the cabinet secretary tell Parliament and, more important, GP practices what practical difference the new regulations will make to ensure that some of the circumstances that members have described and that there have been in my constituency are not repeated in the future?
The two core impacts that the new regulations will have are that there will be a community voice in the application process—that has been missing to date, and it will be extremely important—and the board will have the power in looking at any particular application to consider the potential consequences for the wider health service, particularly the impact on primary care services in the area.
Currently, the board would not be legally covered by the existing regulations if it took that consideration into account in deciding on an application. It will be able to do that under the new regulations so that, in a Cumbrae-type situation for example, if the consequence of approving the entry of a new pharmacy would be that the local GP service would be lost, that would be justification for the board’s refusing the application for the pharmacy.
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what matters were discussed. (S4O-03320)
Ministers and Government officials regularly meet representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to discuss matters of importance to local people.
When the cabinet secretary met that health board, did he discuss the fact that the proportion of Scots aged between 16 and 64 who are overweight or obese increased to 61.9 per cent in 2012? Has he considered the new guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, particularly the recommendation that state-funded slimming classes should be considered as a cost-effective means of dealing with obesity problems?
I have made it absolutely clear to the public health function in the national health service in Scotland, NHS National Services Scotland and the health boards that we should look at every single way in which we can improve exercise and diet, particularly in areas of deprivation and poverty.
As we know, whether the condition is cancer, stroke, heart disease or one of a range of other problems, obesity and being overweight through a lack of exercise and the lack of a proper diet are major contributing factors. We are engaged in a range of initiatives across the country, and we propose to engage in many more to encourage people to take much more exercise and to improve their diet, as a prerequisite to improving their health.
Having met the health board, is the cabinet secretary satisfied that each of the obstacles to which he has recently referred that act as impediments to the introduction of and access to all new medicines have now been overcome?
We are in constant touch with the board and with others who have expressed concern about the process in Glasgow, such as the Beatson oncologists. I have made it absolutely clear that I expect the Glasgow process to be as robust as the process in every other part of the country. There should be no denial of access in Glasgow to medicines that are available to patients elsewhere in Scotland.
Commonwealth Games (Special Reserve Fund)
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Commonwealth games organising committee about the use of the special reserve fund. (S4O-03321)
The games continue to be delivered on time and on budget. The Scottish Government meets the Glasgow 2014 organising committee frequently to discuss a wide range of issues that are relevant to the delivery of a successful games. Those meetings cover financial matters, including how to manage all the elements of the budget, including the special reserve.
Last week, it was reported that the Commonwealth games organisers were preparing to access the special reserve fund to finance alterations to the opening and closing ceremonies. Although we all anticipate an exciting and successful games, the special reserve was, in the words of one Government official, intended to be called on only if a “really unexpected, left-field event” occurred. Access to the fund has to come through the First Minister. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether the reports are accurate and, if so, how much money will be taken from the special reserve?
The operational contingency and the special reserve form part of the games budget of £575.6 million. The funds in the operational contingency and the special reserve are available to be drawn on to ensure that the games can be delivered successfully and that the experience of spectators is optimised.
The organising committee has notified games partners of potential pressures on the special reserve. At this time, £800,000 from the special reserve of £23.8 million has been notionally committed to meet potential pressures that are associated with venue fit-out, should they materialise. Access to the special reserve requires the approval of the Scottish ministers. That request has been approved, and any further requests for use of the special reserve would similarly have to be approved by the Scottish ministers.
Shambellie House
To ask the Scottish Government when it will publish a report on the future of Shambellie house. (S4O-03322)
The Scottish Government has recently received the final report on options for the future use of Shambellie house. We intend to hold a public meeting in New Abbey in July at which we will ask the Prince’s Regeneration Trust to present the report. Of course, all members can be involved in that meeting. We intend to publish the report on the Scottish Government website imminently.
I am grateful to the minister for that response, but the fact remains that the report was supposed to be published in November, was postponed until March and, as far as I know, has been ready for publication since then. Nonetheless, the minister’s answer is good news.
Matters are made worse by the fact that the grounds of Shambellie house have been completely neglected by the Scottish Government since it took over responsibility for them, and the whole place now has an air of dereliction and decay. I plead with the minister to at least ensure that basic upkeep of the house and grounds is undertaken as a matter of urgency until the further options for the property are determined.
The reason for the slight delay in publishing the report is that we had to go through the options thoroughly, as I know the member will understand. I absolutely give the member an undertaking that we will put arrangements in place immediately to ensure that the grounds are to the standard that we would expect them to be. I will ensure that I report back to the member on those arrangements as soon as they are in place.
I can squeeze in question 8 if the questions and answers are brief.
Household Numbers
To ask the Scottish Government how many households there are in Scotland compared with the number of dwellings. (S4O-03323)
The latest National Records of Scotland statistical publication on households and dwellings in Scotland estimates that, as of June 2012, there were a total of 2.39 million households in Scotland, where a household is defined as the people living together in a dwelling. That compares to a total of 2.52 million dwellings as at September of the same year. The number of households is fewer than the number of dwellings because some dwellings are vacant or are second homes.
The report highlights that there are 130,000 more homes than households across Scotland. The largest proportion of that difference was made up of vacant homes. Given that there are housing problems in Edinburgh and that there are 4,300 vacant homes in Edinburgh, what steps is the Government taking to encourage long-term empty properties back into use?
In 2012, we introduced legislation to allow councils to increase council tax charges on certain long-term empty homes. We have also supported the work of the empty homes partnership and provided £4.5 million through an empty homes loans fund. It may also be of interest to note that a number of councils now employ dedicated empty homes officers who work directly with owners of empty homes to bring their properties back into use, particularly for affordable homes.