General Questions
Question 1, in the name of Paul Wheelhouse, has not been lodged and question 2, in the name of Nanette Milne, has not been lodged.
Prisons (Sex Offender Treatment Programme)
As with all questions regarding the operation of the Scottish Prison Service, I have asked John Ewing, the chief executive, to consider this question and he has advised the following.
Does the minister agree that now would be a timely opportunity to conduct a review of the programme—and other training courses that are administered by the Scottish Prison Service—in terms of cost and benefit, with particular attention being paid to reoffending rates before and after participation in such courses?
Yes. That is a valid question. It should be pointed out that the pilot project, good lives, which was delivered in Peterhead prison, has now been evaluated and is scheduled to roll out in HMP Edinburgh in January 2012. Following that, it is anticipated that it will roll out in all other SPS establishments that currently deliver sex offender programmes. The groundbreaking—if I can put it that way—sexual offender treatment programme, or STOP, that existed in Peterhead has been built on and improved by the good lives project.
Flooding (Protection)
We are helping to protect communities across the whole of Scotland from flooding by working with our partners to implement the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and by providing funding through the local government settlement for local authorities to continue to invest in flood-protection measures.
Flood defence schemes are necessarily long term. Funding for schemes that do not yet have statutory consents, such as on the South Esk at Brechin in my constituency, will necessarily go beyond the current spending review period. Will the minister clarify the Government’s intention on funding for such schemes and will the Government consider further assistance to local authorities and others with the considerable up-front costs of developing such schemes?
I understand that there are issues around the proposed Brechin scheme relating to an objection that has been raised by an individual. Unless it is withdrawn, there may well be a need for a public inquiry.
I should perhaps declare an interest as somebody who threw out her constituency office carpet the other day for the second time in two years. Funding is important, but I wonder whether the Scottish Government can enable the sharing of good practice, because—to be quite frank—many local authorities struggle to find solutions to flooding problems.
I share Elaine Murray’s view that good practice ought to be shared among authorities. If she has specific examples, I will be more than happy to pass them on to Mr Stevenson, who is responsible for such matters. Her suggestion is eminently sensible.
Internal Ferry Fleet (Orkney)
There have been ongoing discussions between Transport Scotland and Orkney Islands Council on the matter. They have focused on the £1.5 million grant that has been provided by the Scottish Government for the lengthening of the MV Shapinsay, which I am pleased to inform the member has now been paid for in full. Concerning the council’s on-going ferry-replacement programme, I wrote to the convener, Councillor Stephen Hagan, on 24 August agreeing to his request for a meeting and I look forward to his response.
I thank the minister for that helpful reply. As he will be aware, vessels serving the outer northern isles within my constituency operate in open waters, requiring them to be of a higher specification, similar to the specification of the NorthLink Ferries fleet and the Caledonian MacBrayne vessels that serve the Western Isles. Given the significantly higher costs in procuring ferries of such classification and the pressing need to replace the vessels that serve the outer northern isles routes, what assurances will the minister give me that the costs will not fall solely on Orkney Islands Council? Does he accept that it is not unreasonable for my constituents to expect ministers to adopt a similar approach to that which was taken in the Western Isles, where the Scottish Government covers the cost of vessel replacement? Will he commit to looking at how, with the additional £433 million of capital funding that is now available to Scottish ministers, a reasonable and equitable solution can be reached to this increasingly urgent issue?
Liam McArthur should recognise that Orkney Islands Council wants to run the services at its own hand. I acknowledge the point about the additional costs, but it is also worth pointing out two major differences between the Government and the council: Orkney Islands Council has substantial reserves, unlike the Scottish Government, and Orkney Islands Council can borrow, unlike the Scottish Government. He should take those differences into account, although I take the member’s point, despite that.
Does the minister agree that Orkney’s internal ferries are vital to the small island communities that they serve? Will he set out in more detail how Orkney Islands Council can access the infrastructure funding that was announced this week, in order to upgrade and replace vessels?
I think I covered that in the response that I have just given. It is worth reiterating that the services are provided by the council and that they are services that the council wants to continue to provide in the future. Given that, given the settlement that we make to local government and given the situation of the Orkney Islands Council in terms of having reserves and borrowing powers—neither of which is available to the Scottish Government—the matter has primarily to be the responsibility of Orkney Islands Council. However, I have made it clear that we will continue to work with the council and to discuss the issues that it faces in renewing the fleet.
Does the minister agree that building new internal Orkney Islands ferries would benefit from being linked to the needs of similar ferries in Shetland and the west coast, which could lead to the development of an expanded shipbuilding industry in Scotland for this niche market?
Rob Gibson makes a very good point. I am sure that he will have noticed that the most recent order for two hybrid ferries went to the Ferguson shipyard and is the first shipbuilding there for over four years. Obviously, it gives a lot of satisfaction to Scottish ministers when that kind of result occurs, in so far as we are able to influence it within the law.
I wrote to the minister on this subject some time ago and suggested that it might be helpful if councils that run their own ferry services were able to lease ferries from the Scottish Government’s ferry-owning company, which would allow them to spread the cost of developing new ferries and not to take the whole burden of replacing a ferry route. Has he given that any consideration and will he look at it again?
Yes, we have considered that. Rhoda Grant will know that many of our arrangements for ferries are leasing arrangements rather than outright purchase arrangements: that forms part of the tenders. Again, I have to say that the initiative for that really has to come from Orkney Islands Council. I am sure that it will be one of the things that it is considering, so it may well take that forward. We are happy to help the council with any expertise that we have in the area.
Welfare Reform Bill
The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Cities Strategy met with Iain Duncan Smith on 15 September 2011 to discuss the Welfare Reform Bill and related welfare reform matters, including the Scottish Government’s interests in relation to the proposed devolution of housing benefit, to kinship carers, to the impact of the reforms on devolved social care policy and to a requirement that the consent of Scottish ministers be sought before regulations are made, where they are material to Scottish interests. The Scottish Government is continuing to progress discussions with the UK Government around the need to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is properly advised of all the likely impacts of welfare reform changes.
In a submission to Holyrood’s Health and Sport Committee, Dr Pauline Nolan of Inclusion Scotland said that disabled people could not shoulder the burden of the cuts, which would lead to destitution and homelessness. She also said that Scotland would be disproportionately affected compared with other areas of the UK because it has a higher rate of impairment because of the number of traditional working-class areas and that benefits changes would cost disabled people in Scotland more than £500 million. Does the minister agree that the cuts would lead to the loss of a disabled person’s ability to live independently and participate in community life?
I acknowledge the concerns that the member has referred to about the impact on disabled people. I am conscious that the Health and Sport Committee has today published its report on the proposed changes to welfare legislation. It is extremely important that we take time to consider the issues that are highlighted in the report and to recognise the serious concerns about the potential impact that the changes could have on some of the most disadvantaged people in our community. I am sure that everyone would recognise that there is always benefit in simplifying the welfare benefits system. However, it is not acceptable to do so in a way that would disadvantage some of the most vulnerable members of our society. In the discussions that we have been having with UK ministers and at official level we have been highlighting those concerns.
The minister will be aware that many disabled people receiving lower-rate disability benefit are concerned that the Government will use the opportunity of the Welfare Reform Bill to remove their access to concessionary travel. Will he guarantee that all disabled people who currently have free bus passes will keep them, regardless of other choices that the Scottish Government makes in relation to passported benefits?
Clearly, we will have to consider the way in which the Welfare Reform Bill is implemented and the impact that that will have on passported-benefits provision through Scottish Government policies. That is an area that we will have to review once we have the detail. Part of the problem in addressing issues is the lack of detail around the Welfare Reform Bill. On the concessionary travel scheme that we operate as a Government, there are no plans for that to change.
National Health Service Boards (X-ray Services)
We issue no such guidance. NHS boards are responsible for planning the provision of healthcare services to meet the assessed needs of their resident populations.
The NHS Lanarkshire board reports that X-ray technology in Stonehouse hospital is ageing and is becoming increasingly out of date. However, instead of replacing the technology, it is withdrawing the service from the community entirely and asking patients to travel to Hairmyres hospital in East Kilbride. Many of those who attend Stonehouse hospital live in rural South Lanarkshire, where travel can be difficult in winter and where there are no direct bus or rail services to Hairmyres. Will the Scottish Government therefore intervene to stop the X-ray services from being phased out at Stonehouse hospital?
Earlier this year, NHS Lanarkshire announced its proposals to make changes in how it delivers radiology services. Although the proposals do not constitute a major service change, we have made it clear to NHS Lanarkshire that we expect it to liaise closely with the Scottish Health Council to ensure that it has continued and appropriate engagement with local stakeholders to address concerns that they may have around transportation issues, in particular, and to ensure that their concerns are addressed effectively as the board develops its services.
ScotRail Franchise (Public Consultation)
ScotRail regularly consults regional transport partnerships and Passenger Focus on proposed timetable changes, in line with its franchise obligations. In addition, ScotRail has a customer-contact centre and regular “meet the manager” sessions. Public feedback is taken into account for future timetable changes.
Much to my anger and surprise, I learned just over a week ago that a key morning service from Dalgety Bay to Edinburgh is being withdrawn. That will mean that folk who want to get to work in Edinburgh will not be able to catch a train between 7.46 and 8.26, so they will have to drop their children at school at 7.20 or be late for work and risk being sacked. There is already serious overcrowding on the route. It is simply not good enough that ScotRail has held no consultation on the change. Given that we anticipate road traffic problems as a result of construction of the new Forth road bridge, what will the minister do to address a situation that is completely unacceptable when we are trying to persuade people to stop using the roads and to travel by rail?
I understand the member’s anger, but I cannot understand her surprise because withdrawal of the service in question—an Arriva train—is a result of a change that the Department for Transport made under the previous Labour Government. Since then, ScotRail has tried to accommodate that change in service by providing additional services, which is not easy for it to do under its franchise obligations. [Interruption.] That is the case. My predecessor wrote to Lord Adonis to say that such changes were “unacceptable”—the very word that Helen Eadie used—and I, too, have written to say that they are unacceptable.
The minister may be aware of my long-standing campaign to introduce a rail service with a frequency of 15 or 20 minutes between Ayr and Glasgow. The completion of the improvements between Paisley Gilmour Street and Glasgow Central will make possible the provision of such a service on the line, which has been identified as being potentially the fastest-growing rail route in Scotland. Has any work been carried out on that? Will the minister support such an increase in the frequency of services, particularly with a view to providing a better service for Barassie, in my constituency?
We are, of course, always looking to improve rail services. We have recently issued the “Rail 2014” franchise consultation. The improvements that John Scott mentioned are under consideration, but he will want to take advantage of the consultation process to reinforce his points, which I will be happy to discuss further with him, if he wants to do so.
ScotRail (Meetings)
I last met ScotRail’s managing director last week at the rail winter preparedness summit that was held at the Parliament, which was attended by the Office of Rail Regulation, Network Rail, ScotRail and cross-border passenger-rail operators. In addition, there has been regular engagement with ScotRail as part of the work of the Scottish Government’s resilience and multi-agency response team, which is in operation as part of the Government’s response to the winter weather.
I think that Helen Eadie’s point was about the lack of information for passengers. I found out about the change that she mentioned from a passenger who was handing out leaflets on the train last week. The minister has talked about changes to the timetable, but is not it the case that the new timetable will be in place not for the standard six months, but for a year? Will it be possible to make any changes to it before next Christmas?
In addition to the consultations that I mentioned in my response to Helen Eadie, the matter has been discussed in Parliament on a number of occasions, so I am not sure why Claire Baker appears not to have been aware of it, given her responsibility to her constituents.
Question 10 in the name of Christina McKelvie has not been lodged, although the member has furnished me with an explanation.
Previous
Regulatory Framework