Plenary, 08 Oct 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, October 8, 2009

Official Report 758KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Finance and Sustainable Growth

---

Active Travel (Funding)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the draft budget for 2010-11 will support the aim of achieving a significant increase in walking and cycling compared with other transport modes. (S3O-8121)

In 2010-11, the draft budget will continue to support local authorities, Sustrans, Cycling Scotland, Living Streets and other delivery bodies to increase the numbers of people cycling and walking. For example, we will continue working in partnership with the seven smarter choices, smarter places communities in Scotland, which aim to increase active travel.

For the past two years in a row, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee has agreed unanimously on the need for a substantial increase in funding if more journeys in Scotland are to be undertaken by active means—walking and cycling—for climate change, health and a host of other reasons. However, we continually see reductions in funding for those modes of transport and the Government pouring money into road building projects. How is it to be remotely credible that the Government wants a substantial increase in cycling journeys—for example, under the cycling action plan—when, this year again, there is an overall reduction in the funding for active travel?

An interesting thing was illustrated when I was in Elgin on Sunday participating—to some limited extent—in a mass cycle ride to raise money for the Grampian Society for the Blind. Moray Council gets no more money than any other council but delivers four times as much cycling as others do. That illustrates that a change of approach may be required of Government, councils and many others to deliver improvements. Of course, we need to provide the funding—we have increased the active travel budget from £33 million to £35.7 million—but money alone is not enough: we need to think smarter and spend smarter.

What impact has the climate challenge fund had on encouraging modal shift? I draw the minister's attention to the awards of £283,000 given to Greener Leith's active Leith project, £182,000 to recyke-a-bike in Stirling and £47,000 to biketown Huntly to name a few. What effect do funds like those, which are not included in the active travel budget, have on the Government's wish to increase the number of people who cycle in Scotland?

Ms Somerville is correct to point to the benefits and impacts that derive from Government expenditure that is outside the active travel budget. The climate challenge fund draws together interests beyond Government in the decision-making process and ensures that the funds are targeted where they will be most effective. The progress that has been made so far is commendable indeed.

I took the point about Moray that the minister made in his response to Patrick Harvie. It is unfortunate that the cuts in Moray include cuts to the active travel co-ordinators who have driven the increase in cycling so effectively.

I know that the minister has a high regard for the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Adonis, who announced last week that he would make £40 million available for, I think, up to eight cycling transport hubs at major stations. That will implement ideas that have been very well developed in Holland, where there are cycle parks at major stations so that people are encouraged to cycle to them. If there are budget consequentials from that announcement, I encourage the minister to consider an equivalent approach in Scotland—particularly in Scotland's major cities.

I get on very well with Andrew Adonis and respect much of the activity that he undertakes. He is certainly on the case.

I will illustrate my point about Scotland's stations by referring to my visit to Attadale station, which has fewer than 100 passengers a year, in common with every other station in Scotland, it has parking space for cycles—a Sheffield rack. Therefore, in some ways, we may be ahead of what is happening south of the border. Perhaps they are playing catch-up.

---

Glasgow Airport Rail Link

To ask the Scottish Executive what criteria it used when deciding to remove the funding for the Glasgow airport rail link from its budget. (S3O-8133)

The overriding criteria that resulted in our decision to cancel the branch line element of the Glasgow airport rail link project were the significant pressures that arose in our budget for 2010-11, including the budget reductions that were imposed on us by the United Kingdom Government, and the expectation that those pressures would grow. It is essential that all projects are affordable and all budgets sustainable.

Why did the cabinet secretary previously tell the chamber that the cost of the Glasgow airport rail link was £397.5 million, when a significant element of that figure relates to the Paisley corridor renewal project, which, as I understand it, has not been cancelled? Furthermore, why, in answer to questions from my Labour colleague Charlie Gordon, have the cabinet secretary and the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change contradicted each other on the costs and savings associated with the project? Finally, why have Scottish Government officials already commenced cancellation procedures, which, by the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change's own admission, will have negative cost implications for the reinstatement of the project, given that its axing is, at this stage, only a proposal in the minority Government's draft budget?

I stand by all the detail that has been provided to Parliament on the financing of the project. If the member has specific concerns about information that has been provided to her by ministers, she can, of course, write to me and I will address them, as it is my duty to do.

In connection with the operational decisions that ministers have taken on the arrangements for the branch line element of the GARL project, it is prudent for the Government to take steps to deliver the commitments that we have set out in the budget. It is open to Parliament to work to amend the Government's budget, but I respectfully point out that the expenditure that Patricia Ferguson seeks would have to be found from another part of the capital programme. If she or any other members of Parliament wish to make a proposal to reinstate the Glasgow airport rail link, they would have to identify how the capital budget could be made to balance because, as all members know, budgets must be met from a fixed settlement. The Scottish Government has put forward its proposals; I await with interest the proposals of others.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the capacity and signalling improvements on the line between Glasgow and Paisley that formed part of the overall GARL scheme are to be progressed? Subject to its receiving budgetary and parliamentary approval, what is the likely timescale for that project, which is vital to improving the quality and frequency of rail services in Ayrshire and to developing the county's economy?

I assure Mr Scott that the signalling and capacity improvements on the line between Glasgow and Paisley are unaffected by the decision to cancel the branch line element of the GARL project. That means that for many of his constituents and people in other parts of Ayrshire, there will be a significant increase in the capacity and dependability of that line. I have no changes to the timescale for the development of that project to report to Parliament.

---

PFI/PPP Payments

To ask the Scottish Executive what effect inherited private finance initiative/public-private partnership payments will have on its future budgets. (S3O-8095)

The estimated total unitary payment cost for PFI/PPP projects covering the spending review period from 2008-09 to 2010-11 is £2.2 billion. The estimated total unitary payment cost for PFI/PPP projects covering the future spending review period from 2011-12 to 2013-14 is £2.9 billion. The estimated total annual payment cost peaks at over £1.1 billion in the year 2024-25. The funding that the Scottish Government provides in support of those PFI/PPP projects impacts on its departmental expenditure limit resource budget.

Is the cabinet secretary concerned about the effects of PFI/PPP projects on local authority budgets? An illustration is that the total cost for South Lanarkshire PFI/PPP schools over the lifetime of the contracts will be more than £1 billion. Revenue budgets over that period, which are already restricted as a result of cuts from Westminster, will be further restricted by servicing those contracts. Is the cabinet secretary concerned that local authorities are in that position? Does he agree that the previous Administration in Scotland was lax in not making better use of the public's money by using traditional procurement?

I will again make a point that I tried to make to members this morning. In the forthcoming years, there will be an increase in the repayment costs for PFI/PPP projects. For example, between 2009-10 and 2010-11, there will be a £100 million increase in the costs of PFI repayments. In the subsequent year, there will be an additional cost of £57 million, and in the following year, there will be a further cost of £43 million. Those sums of additional money must be identified, committed and paid with a revenue budget that will decline in real terms. Members must be made fully aware of the financial strain that the increasing costs of PFI/PPP projects will place on the revenue budget, which, as I say, will decline in real terms. The point that my colleague Linda Fabiani makes applies as strongly to central Government as it does to local government.

Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the same applies to Scottish National Party non-profit-distributing schemes that have a unitary payment over a lifecycle of 20 to 30 years? Is the budgetary treatment for them the same? Why does the current tender shortlist for the hub Co through the Scottish Futures Trust invite equity stakes in a public-private partnership? That was done over the summer. Is it a PPP and will the return on the equity investment for that be the unitary charge that he has just castigated?

Of course, Mr Purvis is correct to say that NPD repayments are part of the numbers that I have just given. The NPDs are not just SNP NPDs; they are NPDs that we inherited from the previous Administration. The costs are new additional costs that must be met while the budget is reducing in real terms. Members cannot constantly ignore the reality of that factor in the financial planning that the Administration has to undertake. There are rising cash commitments in the years to come while the budget is reducing in real terms. That is the difficult financial management exercise that the Government must address.

---

Budget (Purchasing Power)

To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason it has not publicised the fact that it has an extra £880 million in purchasing power available in its 2010-11 budget due to lower rates of inflation. (S3O-8159)

That has not been done because it is not the case. Freeing up an additional £800 million as the member suggests would require us to cut salaries for Scotland's teachers, health staff and police officers, which the Scottish Government is not willing to do. The resources that are available to the Scottish Government will not increase in 2010-11. Even after accounting for the expected lower rate of inflation, the Scottish Government's budget will still fall by 0.9 per cent in real terms between 2009-10 and 2010-11. That is the first real-terms cut since devolution.

The Scottish Government has been entirely open about the scale of the financial pressures that need to be addressed, and our budget calculations clearly reflected the lower inflation forecasts. The member will find that the foreword to the draft budget document contains exactly that point.

I would like to confirm some of the basic facts to find out whether we have any agreement between us.

First, is the cabinet secretary aware that £880 million is not my or my party's figure, but is from the Scottish Parliament information centre? It gave an independent view and suggested that there is additional headroom in the budget. Secondly, does the cabinet secretary agree that the inflation rate will probably be between 1 and 1.5 per cent, whereas the original budget estimates last year were based on an assumption that inflation would be 2.75 per cent? If we can agree on those facts, we can begin to discuss why projects such as the Glasgow airport rail link have been cut although there is further headroom within the budget.

If Dr Simpson looks at page 15 of the budget document, he will see that the real-terms calculation has been made using an assumed gross domestic product deflator of 1.5 per cent, which is exactly the GDP deflator that has been identified by Her Majesty's Treasury. If I had set the budget figures on the basis of the GDP deflator in the 2007 comprehensive spending review, I would not have identified a 0.9 per cent real-terms reduction in the budget; I would have identified a 2.1 per cent real-terms reduction in the budget. I am normally criticised for not defending Her Majesty's Treasury, but I have purely and simply followed the guidance of Her Majesty's Treasury in applying the appropriate GDP deflator. Those are the basic facts that underpin the budget.

If Dr Simpson looks at page 6 of the draft budget, he will see that I state:

"The Scottish public sector already has an excellent record of setting and meeting challenging efficiency targets. Of course success in the past means progressively greater difficulty in achieving further reductions in future. However, sharply lower general inflation rates since budgets were first proposed in 2007 will provide some help."

That has been stated clearly and openly in the budget document.

Dr Simpson also asked for an explanation of why projects such as GARL have had to be cancelled. I will give him a simple explanation. In 2010-11, the reduction in the Scottish Government's capital budget applied by Her Majesty's Treasury will be £129 million. That is a consequential impact of a decision to reduce the Department of Health baseline figure in the United Kingdom budget by about £2 billion. I decided not to apply any of that reduction to the health service in Scotland, so I have used end-year flexibility to cushion the impact of that. I can do that only once, however, in 2010-11. In 2011-12, we will face a further, additional £129 million cut in the budget. I must ensure that the capital budget remains sustainable not just in 2010-11, but into 2011-12 and 2012-13, when we know that capital budgets will be under significant pressure.

I hope that that explains the matter to Dr Simpson. I apologise for the length of that answer, Presiding Officer, but those are important facts to put on the record concerning the difficult decisions that the Government has had to make.

---

Single Outcome Agreements (Zero Waste)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth had with local authorities in relation to zero waste in finalising the single outcome agreements. (S3O-8154)

I have met a number of local authorities to discuss single outcome agreements. Scottish Government directors with responsibility for overseeing the single outcome agreement process have held discussions with all the community planning partnerships over the past year on issues of common interest, including zero waste.

The cabinet secretary is aware that £25.3 million was transferred from the environmental protection, sustainable development and climate change budget to local government in the current financial year and that there are plans to transfer a further £26.3 million next year. However, the Government's consultation on its zero waste strategy does not close until 13 November and we do not yet know when the finalised strategy will be published.

The cabinet secretary is responsible for signing off local authorities' single outcome agreements. How many local authorities have waste reduction outcomes in their SOAs; do those outcomes relate to the implementation of the waste hierarchy or simply to reductions in landfill; and who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that Scotland's waste reduction responsibilities are met—is it Mr Swinney, is it the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment or will the buck be passed to local authorities?

That was a cheery end to the question.

Obviously, I am answering the question because it has been lodged to be answered during the finance and sustainable growth question time and, of course, I have dialogue with local authorities about general financial issues and the contents of single outcome agreements. However, I cannot profess to have the encyclopaedic knowledge of the zero waste fund approach that Dr Murray has asked about, so, in the interests of ensuring that she gets a quality answer, I will write to her after question time to address the specific points that she raises.

Dr Murray asked where responsibility lies. I do not carry policy responsibility for the zero waste strategy; I carry policy responsibility for issues around climate change, which, of course, is associated with the debate on waste. We take forward those commitments with our local authority partners, discussing the approach that we can take together by using our resources to achieve the objective of establishing a zero waste strategy for Scotland.

As I said, I will write to Dr Murray with further details following further examination of the questions that she has raised.

---

Enterprise Budget (Economic Recovery)

To ask the Scottish Executive in what way it considers that real-terms reductions in the enterprise budget promote economic recovery. (S3O-8122)

The chancellor has cut the Scottish Government budget for next year by £500 million. As a responsible Government, we have delivered a budget to promote economic recovery and protect front-line services. Changes to the enterprise budget in 2010-11 reflect the widely supported earlier acceleration of capital expenditure, the streamlining of the enterprise bodies as a result of the enterprise network review, and the transfer of the business gateway and regeneration to local authorities. Furthermore, the budget to help enterprise in Scotland is much wider than the enterprise budget, and this Government will continue its focus on delivering economic recovery in Scotland.

Given that the Scottish Government's economic strategy involves asking Westminster to bring forward capital spend next year, why has the Scottish Government chosen to cut its own capital budget by more than £600 million—a 17 per cent cut in real terms, which is 17 per cent larger than the 0.9 per cent that the minister claims that he is facing overall? Is it not hypocrisy to be cutting capital expenditure by 17 per cent in real terms next year while calling for Westminster to bring forward capital expenditure?

In essence, what we have here is a Government that is focusing on optimising the totality of Scotland. That is happening also in our enterprise budget, when we adjust for what has been happening with the transfer to local government of the business gateway and the £35 million of capital expenditure that we have accelerated from 2010-11. The argument focuses, as it always will, on the financing of Scotland in totality.

The member might be interested to know that, at 10 o'clock on 12 October in the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the authors of the paper on fiscal federalism that was presented as part of the Allander series of seminars that she led will launch their new book, which contains their proposition that Scotland should fully fund itself through fiscal autonomy.

During a meeting of the Finance Committee, David Whitton asked the chief executives of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise whether the changes had had any adverse impact on delivery. Mr Cumming of HIE replied that there was

"no evidence of any negative impact",

and Mr Perry of Scottish Enterprise replied:

"the answer is no. We have driven year-on-year productivity improvement within the organisation … the head-count reductions were of our design—they were not mandated by the Scottish Government … We have seen nothing but an improvement in our productivity, and our output measures have actually increased over the period."—[Official Report, Finance Committee, 5 May 2009; c 1216.]

Is the minister aware of that exchange?

Our enterprise agencies have streamlined themselves, resulting in an annual net saving of £10 million. They have aligned with economic growth, and they are aligning with local authorities. They are working with the strategic forum and opening themselves to engagement with the wider community through the national economic forum. Scotland is getting a line. Scotland is focused on delivering better and better services and better and better economic development. That is happening here, and it will continue to happen.

Can the minister name any department in the Scottish Government that faces a deeper cut than that which is being faced by the enterprise budget?

Gavin Brown might rely on the calculations that I gave in my previous response. When we add the £35 million of capital expenditure that has been drawn forward, regeneration and the business gateway—[Interruption.]

Order.

When we add the savings that have been made and when we consider the small business bonus scheme—which Gavin Brown and his party endorsed—we find that things are moving forward. Scotland is more cohesive: all sectors and public and private agencies are working together.

I am flattered that Kenny Gibson follows my questions at the Finance Committee, but I remind the minister that the question was about capital budgets. Would he care to try to answer—in totality—Wendy Alexander's question?

I wonder whether David Whitton has been asleep for a year. We have accelerated capital and brought forward £350 million, which has gone towards projects such as the Edinburgh BioQuarter, the structural work on the quayside at the Fife energy park and the development of the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre. Scotland is aligned to deliver better. I am sorry if the member does not like that.

---

Non-domestic Rates

To ask the Scottish Executive what contribution the collection of non-domestic rates makes to raising funds for the Scottish Government. (S3O-8094)

Non-domestic rates income funds expenditure by local government in Scotland. In 2009-10, the total amount of non-domestic rates income that is being distributed as part of the local government finance settlement amounts to £2.165 billion.

That is a significant figure. With regard to local authorities' collection of non-domestic rates to reach that figure in raising funds for the public purse, I draw the cabinet secretary's attention to the top 10 non-paying businesses in Glasgow. The total amounts to almost £1.8 million going missing from the public purse, including £450,000 alone from the company Hutchison 3G UK.

Will the cabinet secretary ensure that Glasgow City Council and all Scotland's local authorities take seriously their responsibility to collect non-domestic rates? I suggest that there may be some complacency on the matter in Glasgow, because when Scottish National Party councillors asked about that figure, they were told:

"due to the NDR national pooling arrangement the Council does not keep the rates it collects and therefore the collection of arrears has no direct impact on how much money the Council has available to spend."

Surely Glasgow must do better.

That question was a minute long. If everybody takes that long to ask a question, we will use up question time very quickly. I will stop members before they get to that stage.

The same should apply to the answers.

Answers need to be very long when we are dealing with questions in this portfolio.

It is essential that all local authorities in Scotland engage effectively in collecting non-domestic rates income that is due to public authorities. I take Mr Doris's point that the pooling arrangement does not create the direct link that is required between non-domestic rates income that is raised in one authority and the proportion that is allocated for funding purposes.

Nevertheless, non-domestic rates income, as a proportion of local government finance, is a very significant amount, and if local authorities do not collect it effectively, there is an impact on the overall finance that is available for local government throughout Scotland. I do not think any member of Parliament wishes there to be such an impact.

---

Marine and Fisheries Budget

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth considers that the decision to cut the marine and fisheries budget over and above capital reprofiling is in line with his priority of economic growth. (S3O-8135)

The reduction in the non-capital element of the marine and fisheries budget represents a share of the £500 million cut from planned spend by the United Kingdom Government. Marine Scotland will ensure that the resources that are made available in 2010-11 will be used effectively to contribute to ensuring sustainable economic growth in the marine environment.

The cabinet secretary will no doubt be aware of the difficulties that the fishing industry currently faces and the difficult economic situation that may result from the talks on quotas in Europe this year. Will he undertake to work with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to ensure that sufficient finance will be available to support our fishing communities if the talks in Brussels do not go as well as we hope they will?

I assure Karen Gillon that the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment and I work closely on those matters. Clearly, our budget has to take account of the total volume of resources that we have available, but it must also take account of issues that were not planned at the outset of the financial year but which arise during it. Those issues are kept under review and the opportunity exists, should circumstances change, for the budget to be amended either through parliamentary consideration of the 2010-11 budget or, if that budget is agreed, in the autumn or spring budget revisions. The matter will be kept under review.

---

Dalmarnock Station (Commonwealth Games)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it supports the redevelopment of Dalmarnock station as a key public transport hub for the 2014 Commonwealth games. (S3O-8074)

Yes.

I congratulate the transport minister on the commendable brevity and clarity of his reply, although I remind him that the last time he gave such a brief answer was shortly before the cancellation of the Glasgow airport rail link project.

Will the minister clarify Transport Scotland's involvement in the project? Can he confirm the planned completion date? Will the design and development work—the guide to railway investment projects 31 process—be completed by the end of the financial year, as required by Network Rail, in order to ensure that the thing is done before the 2014 Commonwealth games?

The project is an important one for the 2014 games. It involves Transport Scotland, the transport directorate, Glasgow City Council and Clyde Gateway and it is led by Strathclyde partnership for transport. Network Rail and First ScotRail have also been playing their part in the emerging thinking. We are certainly confident that the project, which is focused on a station that is in key need of investment, will deliver well in time for the Commonwealth games. Of course, by taking the action that we have taken on GARL, we have protected projects throughout Scotland from the effects of the cuts from Westminster.

---

Scottish Enterprise (Restructuring)

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment has been carried out of the impact on the economy of restructuring Scottish Enterprise. (S3O-8080)

The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the impact on the economy of the restructuring of Scottish Enterprise. However, the reforms have allowed Scottish Enterprise to focus on activities that should have the greatest economic impact. That will enable it to maximise its contribution to sustainable economic growth, but it will do so in the context of the Government economic strategy, which sets out a clear purpose for both the Government and its public bodies and provides a basis for close collaborative working towards that purpose. A formal assessment of the specific impact on the economy of the restructuring of Scottish Enterprise would therefore not be particularly meaningful, given that radically changed context.

The Government is, of course, keen to ensure that the restructured Scottish Enterprise maximises its contribution to sustainable economic growth. It will be a continuing operational matter for Scottish Enterprise to consider how best to review, evaluate and demonstrate that contribution, working within the national performance framework.

Parliamentary questions have revealed that the Government undertook no prior assessment of the likely impact of the refocusing of the enterprise network. It is astonishing that neither the Government nor Scottish Enterprise had any idea how many businesses fall into the category of significant, high-growth businesses, which the restructuring was intended to target. The Government slashed Scottish Enterprise's budget with no idea of the effect that that would have on economic recovery.

Now that the minister has admitted that no independent assessment has been carried out, will he confirm that Audit Scotland will be tasked with carrying out an evaluation of the restructuring at the earliest opportunity so that the impact of the Government's cuts can be properly and independently assessed?

Audit Scotland's workload is a matter for Audit Scotland, and successful implementation of the reforms and responsibility for evaluating their impact and effectiveness is an operational matter for the individual enterprise bodies. However, when we look at the headline issues of what has been happening with Schering-Plough, TSC, Welcon Towers, Barclaycard, Goldfish and Rosyth-Zeebrugge, and the new investment such as that by Tesco Personal Finance in addition to what has been done with the Scottish manufacturing advisory service, we can see that Scottish Enterprise is performing well and is very effective.

---

Borders Railway

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on the progress of the project to reopen the Waverley railway line linking Midlothian and the Borders with Edinburgh. (S3O-8127)

Good progress continues with the necessary procurement development for the main works, which will benefit from the acceleration of the utilities and advance works. Recent market testing has revealed that contractors and financial investment organisations still continue to express a strong interest in the project.

All land and property required to construct the works has been successfully acquired, and design works and ground and structural surveys have also been completed. Preparatory work to allow major utilities and advance works to be undertaken over the next two years is well under way, with utilities diversion works due to start before the end of the current financial year.

At the moment, my constituents in Midlothian, where most of the new stations on the Waverley line will be situated, do not have access to a local railway service and many are concerned by the Scottish Government's recent silence on the subject. Given the recent scrapping of the Glasgow airport rail link just months after he said that he remained committed to the project, can the minister unequivocally tell the chamber that the Waverley line will reopen as promised in 2013? Will he provide members with an updated cost projection for the project?

Yes. Unchanged.

Question 12 is not lodged.

---

New Railway Stations

To ask the Scottish Government what support exists for the creation of new railway stations not identified in the strategic transport projects review. (S3O-8100)

We will consider proposals for new stations on the rail network where the surrounding population, workplace or visitor need is sufficient to generate a high level of demand and if they contribute to the Scottish Government's policy of improving overall journey times. The fact that a proposal might not have been taken forward by the Scottish Government as part of the strategic transport projects review does not preclude regional transport partnerships and local authorities from considering the value of local interventions.

I thank the minister for that reassuring answer. He will be aware of my calls to open stations at Abronhill in Cumbernauld and Grangemouth and Michael Matheson's calls for a station at Bonnybridge. I realise that the minister might not be able to commit to supporting those projects here and now—although he is welcome to do so—but is he able to assure me that he and Transport Scotland will keep an open mind on those requests?

We will certainly keep an open mind in that respect. However, as the current control period for regulatory asset base funding for rail projects runs from 2009 to 2014, it is likely that any significant additions to our plans for the rail network will take place in the next control period, which will run from 2014 to 2019.

As the minister will recall, he kindly agreed to meet Grangemouth transport forum in June. Among the presentations made by the forum, which brings together the community council and businesses in Grangemouth, was a discussion on Grangemouth's rail links as part of the STPR and the national planning framework, from which emerged the possibility of a spin-off in the form of a Grangemouth railway station. Does the minister recognise the importance to the Scottish economy of reconsidering the proposals in NPF 2 with regard to the Grangemouth transport hub? If so, will he agree to look at them again?

I thank the member for bringing Grangemouth transport forum to meet me. The meeting was very useful, particularly because so many strands of the local community, including business, trade unions and the local council, were represented.

By putting Grangemouth docks into the national planning framework, we signalled the need to improve transport connections to the town. However, among the potential difficulties of adding passenger traffic to the proposals is the fairly certain need for a chord to be built from the current line into Grangemouth and on to the eastbound Edinburgh line in an area where the gradients are challenging. However, we are continuing to consider such matters, and I would be very interested to see any low-cost options that might be proposed.

---

Scottish Futures Trust (Consultants)

To ask the Scottish Executive what spending limit it has set for the use of consultants by the Scottish Futures Trust. (S3O-8128)

The Scottish Government is committed to utilising external consultants only for appropriate projects, and the use of consultancy support in the Scottish Futures Trust's establishment is consistent with that approach. Through its expertise and its purpose of fostering co-operation and aggregation in the delivery of capital projects, SFT is able to help public bodies across Scotland deliver infrastructure investment fit for Scotland's needs while ensuring value for the taxpayer.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, last week, I discovered that the SFT has paid out nearly £120,000 to consultants since June, including £50,000 to Hays recruitment to

"assist in the recruitment of seven senior Scottish Futures Trust staff."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 18 September 2009; S3W-25603.]

Some might argue that that is bizarre, given that the Scottish Government already has a well-staffed and trained recruitment department. Will the cabinet secretary therefore consider setting clear limits on the use of consultants and capping the amount that the SFT is allowed to pay for their services?

The Government already has in place extensive measures to minimise and keep under control the amount of resource that is deployed for consultancy purposes. As I set out in my original answer, we utilise external consultants only for appropriate projects. That is the Government's approach. I assure Mr Butler, as I can see that he is very concerned about the issue, that the Government keeps it under constant review.