Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, September 5, 2013

Official Report 830KB pdf

---

General Question Time

---

Glasgow Airport (Aecom)

1. To ask the Scottish Government when Transport Scotland received Aecom’s initial recommendations on public transport infrastructure options relating to Glasgow airport. (S4O-02342)

Transport Scotland has been working with the group led by Glasgow airport on future surface access to the airport since 2010. That client group received the completed initial appraisal report on the Glasgow airport strategic transport network study from Aecom on 29 August 2013. The study includes a range of options across all modes of transport, which are recommended to be taken forward to detailed appraisal.

Regarding the delay in publishing that report, it was reported that initial findings were given to Transport Scotland as early as April. That came alongside news that the last plot of Glasgow airport rail link land was sold back to the original owner for £50,000, which, at almost £800,000 less than they were originally paid, highlights the folly of the Government’s scorched-earth policy on GARL. What cumulative loss was made by the Government in disposing of land that had been purchased for the GARL project?

First, I welcome Mark Griffin to his new position. I also congratulate him on his engagement over the summer.

Mark Griffin’s question has a fundamental flaw. The land that was purchased that he mentioned was initially purchased by Strathclyde partnership for transport, not by the Government, although the Government subsequently bought it from SPT. He might wish to address some questions to SPT about that.

We have just had the initial appraisal report. There is no question that the Government is delaying. The first time that it came to the notice of the client partners—the lead partner is Glasgow airport, not the Scottish Government, and the other two partners are Glasgow City Council and Renfrewshire Council—it was the two councils that asked for substantial changes to the initial recommendations, which had to be worked through. There is no question of any delay. There have been substantial benefits in the Paisley corridor and improvements in the area, paid for by the Government. The cancellation of the GARL project saved £176 million.

Of course there has been a cost, because land was purchased at the height of the market and then sold during a recession—there is no question about that. However, let us compare that with reports that Mark Griffin talks about. Those reports refer to the £2 billion of additional costs for the aircraft carriers that the Labour Party signed up to, and the point that he raises today seems a much smaller matter.

We took the right decision on GARL at the time, and our position remains the same. The Government will not be funding a heavy-rail link to Glasgow airport, albeit that the report recommends that such a link may be investigated if a private sector bid comes forward; the Government would of course consider that.

Which Government minister authorised the sale of the land that was referred to in The Herald’s report this morning?

The sale of the land had to proceed from the decision that was taken by Parliament in the budget paper that was agreed. That falls under the Crichel Down rules. Like any other public authority, the Government is obliged to sell that land—there is no option but to do that. We did the right thing. If James Kelly thinks that it was the wrong thing, perhaps he should talk to his colleagues at Westminster and have the primary legislation changed.

---

Civil Emergencies

2. To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to review its arrangements for dealing with civil emergencies. (S4O-02343)

Recent events and emergencies, ranging from the London Olympics to abnormally severe weather, have shown that the Scottish Government’s arrangements for dealing with emergencies remain sound. However, we continue to keep them under constant review and to refine them when lessons are identified, either during exercises or during real emergencies.

I recently lodged a parliamentary question to ask the Scottish Government

“whether it maintains details of companies based in Scotland that are involved in research into, development or manufacture of armaments.”

In response, I was told:

“The Scottish Government does not maintain a central list of companies”.—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 July 2013; S4W-15197.]

If that is the case, how can the cabinet secretary assure the public that all contingencies to cover civil emergencies are in place?

Civil emergencies cover a broad spectrum. The Government does not maintain a central list of companies that are based in Scotland and involved in research into the development and manufacture of armaments, and neither do the enterprise agencies.

It is clear that the Government—and the Scottish National Party, as Mr Finnie knows—has a view on the sale of armaments. However, some of the issues can become quite complex. Certain technologies are developed through the military that have civilian and police benefits. That does not apply only to the internet. For example, the automatic number plate recognition system started out as a military development, but is now used to a great extent by the police and has been very well received by them. Such things are a matter of balance. There are political issues involving areas of conflict in which we would not support armament sales, but it is equally clear that certain developments by the military such as the internet and the ANPR system bring significant benefits for society and for civilian policing.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that Dumfries and Galloway Council’s application for support under the Bellwin scheme to help it to meet the costs of the severe weather in March as an emergency was deemed to be ineligible under the scheme’s rules. In that instance, both the threshold for assistance and the criteria were against the council, which nevertheless accumulated considerable costs as a result of the weather.

Will the cabinet secretary look at what may still be done to support Dumfries and Galloway Council through other methods?

I have no doubt that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth will be happy to do that. The Scottish Government activated the Bellwin scheme following the severe snow storms in March. The claim that Dumfries and Galloway Council submitted was considered fully but deemed to be ineligible as it fell within the 0.2 per cent threshold that local authorities maintain in their annual budgets to deal with unforeseen emergencies.

I appreciate that the extreme weather had a financial impact in the area, and additional support is being provided. For example, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment announced last week that more than £730,000 in fallen stock payments has now reached the bank accounts of more than 4,000 farmers throughout Scotland. More than half of those funds have gone to farmers in south-west Scotland.

We are happy to consider further assistance through existing available funding streams if an application meets the criteria.

---

School Estates

3. To ask the Scottish Government what statutory duties local education authorities must consider when reorganising school estates. (S4O-02344)

Under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, education authorities have a duty to ensure the

“adequate and efficient provision of school education”

in their area.

The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out the consultation process that an education authority must—and I stress “must”—follow when it is proposing changes to its school estate, such as school closures, relocations and changes to catchment areas.

Does the cabinet secretary share my concern about the rationalisation of the school estate throughout the Renfrewshire Council area and the Labour-led council’s strategy to avoid statutory requirements? Is that not a prime example of how Labour is determined to make the closure of schools a much easier process?

I understand that Renfrewshire Council plans to carry out a preliminary consultation on a range of options for reorganisation of its school estate. I encourage George Adam’s constituents to respond to the consultation so that their views can be taken into account.

Where a council decides to take forward a relevant proposal under the 2010 act to close or relocate a school, there must be no doubt that there is a clear statutory consultation process that it must—I repeat “must”—follow.

I expect Renfrewshire Council—and every council—to follow the law and engage in an open and honest discussion with the community that it serves about any school closure proposal. I also expect educational benefit for the affected children to be central to any and every such proposal.

---

NHS Lanarkshire (Hospital Standardised Mortality Rates)

4. To ask the Scottish Government when ministers last met NHS Lanarkshire to discuss hospital standardised mortality rates. (S4O-02345)

I chaired NHS Lanarkshire’s annual review in Hamilton on 29 August, at which the recently published hospital standardised mortality rates were discussed.

Ministers and officials regularly engage with all national health service boards—including NHS Lanarkshire—to discuss matters of importance to local people.

I thank the minister for that response, but when we look at the mortality rates, there is a marked inconsistency of approach. On the one hand, Wishaw is now being investigated after the figure was 10 per cent higher than expected last quarter, although it was average or below average for the previous three quarters; on the other hand, Monklands’ figure was high throughout the year—it went from 9 per cent to more than 38 per cent, with 80 unexpected deaths—without any investigation until now. Why did it take so long for the alarm bells to ring at Monklands? Should the minister now be considering an independent inquiry into NHS Lanarkshire as a whole?

It is important to recognise that there has been variation across the three hospital sites within NHS Lanarkshire around hospital standardised mortality rates, which has been picked up over several quarters. NHS Lanarkshire has been reviewing its processes and practices to see what it must do to address that issue, and it brought forward a programme of work that it intended to take forward to address the specific issues.

However, in light of the most recent data, Professor Jason Leach, from the Scottish Government, felt it prudent to appoint a specialist team to go in and undertake an independent review of the progress that has been made within NHS Lanarkshire. We expect to receive the review report from Healthcare Improvement Scotland by the end of this year. At that point, we will be able to identify the factors that have resulted in a higher mortality level in the three sites in NHS Lanarkshire. It is likely that there will be a number of different issues, but it is important that we take the right amount of time to investigate the matter thoroughly and then take appropriate measures as necessary to address it.

---

Common Agricultural Policy Reform (Funds)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on distributing the funds arising from reforms to the common agricultural policy. (S4O-02346)

During the recent European negotiations, we were profoundly disappointed that the United Kingdom Government did not attempt to negotiate better budget allocations for Scotland, given our very poor share of CAP funds. However, we are, of course, currently negotiating Scotland’s share of the UK’s CAP budget with the UK Government and other devolved Administrations. We hope that the UK Government will finally recognise our case and agree to give Scotland’s farmers a much fairer allocation of available funds.

Can the minister explain how much support will be lost to Scotland’s rural economy under the new CAP through the UK Government’s failure to press the case for Scotland’s high-quality produce that comes from areas of natural constraint, such as exist in my constituency?

That is a very good point. Scotland went into the negotiations with the fourth-lowest level in Europe of direct payments for farmers and the lowest level of payments in Europe for wider rural development measures. Under the funding formula that was adopted during the recent negotiations, no member state will receive less than the average of €196 per hectare by 2019. If Scotland had been a member state, that would have delivered an uplift of around €1 billion to Scotland—an increase of around 30 per cent—by 2019-20. As matters stand, of course, we are part of the UK, so the UK will qualify for perhaps up to €60 million by 2020, rising from €10 million in 2014. At the very least, that money should come to Scotland because the UK qualifies only because of Scotland, so the money belongs to Scotland and Scotland’s rural communities. That is what we will demand, but it is nothing in comparison with the €1 billion that we will lose out on because we are not a member state in our own right.

---

Underoccupancy Charge (Bedroom Tax)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what impact the underoccupancy charge, which is commonly known as the bedroom tax, is having on communities in Scotland. (S4O-02347)

The Department for Work and Pensions’ underoccupancy charge is affecting 82,500 households in Scotland, of which 63,500 contain an adult with a disability and 15,500 contain children. We estimate the average reduction to be around £11 per week per household.

During the recess, we saw Labour-controlled North Lanarkshire Council threaten to evict a severely disabled single mum suffering the bedroom tax and, reportedly, the council leader turning up on her doorstep to harangue her rather than assist her. Does the minister agree that that conduct was shameful, as was North Lanarkshire Labour’s vote on the council against Scottish National Party councillors’ motion in favour of a no bedroom tax eviction policy?

Like, I am sure, everyone in the chamber, I was very concerned to read about the possible eviction of a disabled lady due to the bedroom tax; in particular, I was concerned that the local authority may have made an error in classifying the tenant as underoccupying her home, when she had said that she had a son and daughter living with her. I therefore wrote to the chief executive of North Lanarkshire Council and asked him to review the case. The response that I received a week later confirmed only that the eviction was not pending. I think that that case highlights the dreadful effect that the bedroom tax is having on Scottish society and why this Government believes that it should be scrapped.

I am sure that the minister will be equally concerned about threatened evictions in East Ayrshire and Clackmannanshire. I think that that makes the point.

Will the minister take this opportunity to tell the Parliament whether the Scottish National Party will support my member’s bill to protect all tenants across Scotland from eviction arising from the bedroom tax—that is something that she can do now—or will she make people wait until 2017?

I will say a couple of things on Ms Baillie’s Labour-come-lately proposal. It is pure hypocrisy. I like a bit of political ding-dong like anyone else, but the issue is far too important for this kind of political opportunism. The Scottish Government has consistently said that we oppose the bedroom tax. We encouraged our SNP councils six months ago not to carry out evictions. We are talking about real people out there. I want to say something important, because we should not have people frightened out there: to date, there have been no evictions in Scotland because of the bedroom tax.

We will continue to talk to councils and work with stakeholders, and we will continue to look at every constructive proposal to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax, but the hypocrisy of Labour at this stage is almost overwhelmingly unbelievable. We are consistent on the bedroom tax, but Labour has not been. I say to the people of Scotland that we continue to work with stakeholders, who are genuinely concerned about the impact that the bedroom tax is having on real people in all our communities. We will continue to do that until we get a yes vote in the referendum. Until then, we will ensure that we protect the people of Scotland from the United Kingdom Government and Labour policies.

---

General Practitioners

7. To ask the Scottish Government how it supports GP practices. (S4O-02348)

The more Scottish GP contract in Scotland will bring real benefits for patients while reducing bureaucracy and enabling GPs to spend more time with their patients. General practice is at the heart of the vision for healthcare in Scotland, ensuring that the people of Scotland are provided with better care in their homes and communities and helping them to live longer and healthier lives.

Last year, the Scottish Government invested more than £757 million to deliver primary medical services, and this year it has increased funding to general practice by £8 million.

The focus on reducing the pressures that are placed on hospitals has moved certain responsibilities, including responsibility for programmes such as detect cancer early, to primary care. Doctors’ practices are expected to handle pre-op care and reduce the prevalence of unscheduled care demands at accident and emergency units, and they have seen an increase in demand for appointments as a result of demographic shifts and because of the pressures of recent changes in benefit qualifications. What steps is the Government taking to ensure that primary care is properly resourced and does not become the poor relation of the national health service?

We have taken forward a range of measures, including making sure that the level of general practitioners available in Scotland is increasing, to help to support the provision of primary healthcare services in our communities.

The member will recognise that the increasing pressure that our GPs find themselves under because of the welfare reform changes has not come about as a result of the actions of this Government. I would prefer to be in a position where we could influence welfare policy to make sure that it aligns more effectively with our healthcare policy in Scotland, rather than having a system imposed on us that causes unintended consequences in the Scottish healthcare service. However, we will continue to ensure that we support our general practitioners to provide the best possible care in the primary care setting in Scotland, and we will continue to take forward those measures in the years to come.