Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 10, 2011

Official Report 1217KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

General Questions

---

Energy-from-waste Plants

1. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on large-scale energy-from-waste plants. (S3O-13276)

The Scottish Government recognises that the energy-from-waste process has a role to play in the delivery of our zero waste policy, albeit a restricted role.

It must be remembered that the new regulatory measures that we seek to introduce under the zero waste plan will restrict significantly the volume and type of materials that can be processed in thermal treatment plants. It is important, therefore, that we do not go down the road of building large-scale, inefficient energy-from-waste plants, as the materials to feed such facilities will not be available in the future.

The minister might be aware that, in a speech to Parliament on 24 January 2008, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment laid out the Scottish Government’s policies for a zero waste Scotland. He said:

“the Government is opposed to large, inefficient energy-from-waste plants. Such plants could easily become white elephants and drain public funds. They require excessive transportation of waste and could crowd out recycling and waste prevention.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2008; c 5494.]

I very much agree with his statement.

Will the minister reaffirm that the Scottish Government continues to oppose large-scale energy-from-waste plants that are assessed as contradicting Scotland’s zero waste strategy and deemed to be inefficient in the amount of waste that is recycled and in how the energy that they produce is used? Will he confirm that an incoming Scottish National Party Government would continue to oppose such plants?

I am happy to build on my original answer. I reaffirm that the Scottish Government’s position remains that we do not support large-scale, inefficient energy-from-waste facilities. I fully expect that any future SNP Government would maintain that position.

Given that energy-from-waste plants are one of the least preferred options in the waste hierarchy and that they undermine efforts to reuse, recycle and compost, does the minister agree that the Scottish Government should do much more to limit the percentage of waste that is directed to such plants? Given the minister’s previous answer, will he explain to my constituents why his Government has not chosen simply to say no to Shore Energy’s appeal for the proposed pyrolysis incinerator energy-from-waste plant close to homes, schools and nurseries in my constituency?

The key message is that only materials that cannot be reused or recycled should go to energy-from-waste plants. Local authorities should avoid committing large tonnages to long-term residual waste treatment contracts, as they might struggle to meet their contractual obligations in the long term, because new measures that will come into force will limit material streams.

As for the debate about Elaine Smith’s local situation, I suggest that she discuss that with her local authority. Where necessary, she can weave in the Scottish Government to help to manage the conversation going forward.

---

Social Care (Parkinson’s Disease)

2. To ask the Scottish Executive how plans to integrate social care into the national health service will affect people with Parkinson’s disease. (S3O-13225)

The integration of health care and social care is a key issue for people who live with conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. We are tackling that in several ways. In the next financial year, we will invest £2 million to support local partnerships with the integration agenda. We have set up a £70 million change fund to increase communities’ capacity to support people through partnerships between health care, social care and the third sector. Self-directed support has great potential to help people to integrate all the services that they need. That approach, of course, applies to people with Parkinson’s disease.

Parkinson’s UK has long called for better links between health care and social care. If full integration is not planned, that will mean lead commissioning without statutory underpinning. How will the minister guarantee support for and access to services for all those who have Parkinson’s, regardless of their age?

The lead agency model is one model for fully integrating health care and social care, in which the council commissions the NHS to deliver social care under one system. As in the Highland area, discussions can take place about what the local authority may commission to be delivered. The basic point is that the outcome for service users and carers is that their services will be delivered under a single system.

I know that Labour takes a different position on the delivery model—it proposes a national care service—but I hope that we can agree that the outcomes for older people, people with Parkinson’s and people with other conditions are the most important thing. In my view, the outcomes will be best served by a single system and an integrated model.

---

Freight Facilities Grants

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what response it has had to its invitation to submit note of interest forms for freight facilities grants for 2011-12 and to what extent it expects the fund to be over or undersubscribed. (S3O-13243)

We have received notes of interest from 19 eligible projects, eight of which have indicated that the planning and build of the facilities could be completed by 31 March 2012 and so could utilise the 2011-12 budget. If all of those eight projects were to be successful in their subsequent applications at the levels of support indicated, the fund would be oversubscribed by £3.75 million.

Given that there was only one week in which to declare a note of interest, I am pleased to hear the number of applications that were made. However, given the oversubscribed nature of the grants, will the minister consider re-opening the application process?

We are talking not of applications but of notes of interest at this stage. It is always true to say that there are many more applications for freight facilities grants than there are successful applicants. That is not because of a lack of funds in the budget line but because many applications do not come to fruition. That is for a number of reasons, which I think that Cathy Peattie recognises.

It is worth pointing out that we have had around £10 million in the budget for freight facilities grants, which is £10 million more than the United Kingdom budget for those grants, because it was cut more than five years ago. We have spent substantially more in Scotland up to this point. Many projects do not go all the way through the process.

It is unfortunate that Cathy Peattie and her colleagues voted against the £2 million that we allocated to the grant in the budget. We will persist with it nonetheless. We are anxious to see how many of the eight projects get to a level at which we can support them during the current year. Of course, what happens in future years in terms of how much will go into this funding is for future Governments to decide. We have no intention of re-opening the notes of interest process at this stage.

The industry often sees the cost of Network Rail work as excessive and says that those costs are a big factor against any increase in rail freight connections. Given the opportunity offered by the recent devolution in the structure of Network Rail, will the minister take an early opportunity to talk to Network Rail in Scotland to get it to start to reduce its charges to more realistic rates?

I am happy to do that. Over the past week alone, I have spoken to Network Rail a number of times on the issue. As the member rightly points out, the further devolution of Network Rail functions—and it is further devolution; Network Rail Scotland was already perhaps the most devolved part of the UK network—presents a number of opportunities, not least in terms of the new First ScotRail franchise. I am happy to take up the point with Network Rail as Alasdair Morgan suggests.

Question 4 was not lodged.

---

Unemployment

5. To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to reduce unemployment. (S3O-13235)

The latest published figures show that Scotland has the highest employment rate in the UK: 71.1 per cent compared with the UK average of 70.5 per cent. In the last three months of 2010, Scotland was the only part of the UK where unemployment actually fell.

While those figures are to be welcomed, we are far from being complacent. On the contrary, we are doing everything within the limit of our devolved powers to help even more people back to work. In the coming year, we are committed to delivering a record 25,000 modern apprenticeship starts, 14,500 training places for the unemployed and 7,000 flexible training opportunities for smaller businesses that want to invest in their workforce. We have also announced a £10 million package of support for small businesses that recruit the long-term unemployed and a further £10 million community jobs fund to offer work opportunities to young people in the third sector. In uncertain times, I believe that those measures will help to consolidate further Scotland’s labour market position.

Does the minister recognise that the recession has hit young people particularly hard? For example, in East Renfrewshire, youth unemployment has more than quadrupled over the past year. As well as the measures that he has outlined, will the minister pledge his support even at this stage for Labour’s future jobs fund?

I admire the proposition that the member puts forward. It is entirely right that we focus on unemployment and unemployed young people. Unemployment is impacting on them very badly. Having economic recovery and high levels of employment is the main focus of this Government, and it will continue to be so.

I turn to the competing fund from Labour. Our funds are on the table; they are in action and working. In putting the proposition and such questions to ministers, there needs to be a certain humility on the part of Labour. It was Labour that denied this country the resilience and increased competitiveness that greater autonomy and independence would have brought it; it was Labour that kept Scotland in the branch economy, vulnerable to downturns; it was Labour that created the downturn and committed a gross failure of stewardship; and it was Labour that initiated the cuts on Scotland that were too fast and too deep.

Surely advances in communications technology enable us to tackle rural unemployment by relocating more Government jobs to communities in the Highlands such as Lairg, Golspie, Wick and Thurso. Does the Scottish Government support that proposal? Will it bring maximum pressure to bear on Her Majesty’s Government in London to do likewise, rather than to scrap rural jobs by virtually closing the HM Revenue and Customs office in Wick?

I note the fervour of the question. I know that the member is now well connected in high places in London and can get that message across directly. Yesterday in Edinburgh, Richard Lochhead and I attended an event on rural broadband. Real lead is being put into the pencil of rural broadband. The member knows about what is happening with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and projects in its area. That creates a situation in which such jobs and private sector jobs can be relocated to the Highlands and Islands and the rest of rural Scotland, so that people can move to a rural setting to do the work that they have done in cities in the past but in a much better place with better quality of life.

The minister said that, within the limits of devolution, the Government was doing its best to cope with unemployment. I infer from that that he thinks that a measure greater than devolution would produce a better result. Can he tell me how he will get there?

I would love to have a full day to discuss that. Although I will leave politics in May, I will continue to be part of that process, which is the direction of travel. The current position is the ratcheted thin end of a wedge that will go further and further. Scotland will become independent, because people always adopt what works.

---

Barra Wind Turbine (Lease Negotiation)

6. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making in negotiating a lease with the community in Barra for their planned wind turbine at Gob Sgurabhal. (S3O-13263)

On 25 February 2011, Scottish Government officials issued a draft lease to the Gob Sgurabhal wind turbine project co-ordinator for consideration. I apologise for any mispronunciation of the Gaelic.

There was none that I heard. I warmly welcome the fact that an offer of a lease for the land has been made. Can the minister confirm that the department will continue to negotiate with the community to agree an appropriate rent that will allow community benefit to be derived from the project?

I commend the crofters on their initiative, but I advise members that having wind turbines on croft land is a relatively new approach to the use of such land, which meant that there was no off-the-peg lease to use and that some thought had to be given to the initiative. The initiative deals with issues of high energy costs and fits in with the Government’s overall policy on renewables.

Sales or leases by the Scottish Government are normally required to be advertised. We took time to consider that but, because of the potential for the community group, we deemed it acceptable under the public finance manual to proceed under private provisions, which is now happening. We will negotiate a fair and equitable rental value to allow this exciting project to provide financial benefits to the community, as well as to meet the Government’s requirements as landlord.

Does the minister agree that the local Barra community should be commended for a project that will, I hope, produce a sustainable income for the community for many years to come and for many generations of Barra people?

I think that I have already said that. I add that I expect that there will be many more similar applications, once people see the success of the project and the enormous benefits that the approach can bring to very rural and peripheral areas.

---

Whistleblowers

7. To ask the Scottish Government what action it takes to encourage and protect whistleblowers in public services or those working for companies fulfilling public contracts. (S3O-13288)

The Scottish Government has an established policy on whistleblowing for Scottish Government staff, which is based on the provisions of the civil service code and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. The policy is published on the Scottish Government website.

The relevant national policy for NHS Scotland states:

“Organisations must welcome the raising of issues and concerns and promote this as a measure to ensure employee satisfaction and ultimately lead to improvements in patient care ... Employees must also be assured that no victimisation as a result of raising a concern will be tolerated by the organisation.”

It is for individual local authorities to ensure that their staff are aware of the policies that are in place to encourage and protect whistleblowers. Contracts between the Scottish Government and providers of goods and services do not normally include clauses on the relationship between the contractor and his staff, beyond those that are necessary for performance of the contract.

Does the Scottish Government agree that, with reference to whistleblowing, WikiLeaks provides a valuable service; that individuals who provide information to it, such as Bradley Manning, should be viewed as heroes rather than villains; that however they are viewed they should not be subject to cruel or degrading treatment; and that subjecting individuals to prolonged isolation is a form of torture?

I am sorry, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish Government’s remit, so I will not call the minister to respond.

Given that many national health service staff can be absent from work for weeks, months and, in some cases, years—both paid and unpaid absence—will the Government ensure that employment mediation services are available and do all that is possible to get valued staff back to work rather than punish people for raising issues of patient safety?

I apologise, but I did not catch what was said.

Briefly repeat your question, please, Mrs Scanlon.

I just asked whether the Government will ensure that NHS staff who have been off work for months and years are given access to employment mediation services and that staff are not punished for raising issues of patient safety.

That is a matter for another portfolio. However, as someone with a track record of favouring mediation, I am interested in the member’s question, which I am sure has been heard by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing.

---

Police and Fire Services Review

8. To ask the Scottish Executive whether its review of police and fire services will include an analysis of the impact of any restructuring on civilian police staff numbers. (S3O-13252)

Yes. The work of civilian support staff is one of the core functions against which the sustainable policing project, which is being led by Deputy Chief Constable Neil Richardson, is assessing the three reform options on which we are consulting. That work will be reported to the Scottish policing board on 21 March and published on the Scottish Government website by 22 March to help inform the debate on the future of policing in Scotland before our consultation closes on 5 May.

Should not the cabinet secretary have fully evaluated the impact of his reforms in advance of the consultation, so that the public were properly informed of the real impact on staffing numbers? What is his response to the fact that the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is in no doubt that the Government’s savings figure could be achieved only through the loss of thousands of officers and support staff? Does the cabinet secretary believe that ACPOS is scaremongering?

Yes. Those figures are disputed. What is clear, though, is that the consultation is on-going and that information has been provided to the police family.

As has been pointed out, the status quo is not tenable, because we would end up in the same position as south of the border—which is due to the Liberal Democrats—where 28,000 front-line staff are threatened with redundancy and police officers’ terms and conditions and pay are threatened with being varied and reduced.

Indeed, I remember being in this chamber for a debate on forensic services, when we took steps as a Government to ensure that we protected front-line services in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow, and were criticised by Ms McInnes. The position of the Liberal Democrats south of the border has not been to preserve those services; it has been to privatise them.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you provide clarification, even at a later date, as to why I cannot ask the Government for its views of and position on WikiLeaks?

It is because questions must be within the general responsibility of the minister to whom they are posed, Mr Wilson

---

Fish Discards (European Commission Proposals)

9. To ask the Scottish Executive what its response will be to the European Commission proposals to stop fish discards. (S3O-13209)

The Scottish Government believes that discards of fish are a scandalous waste of resource brought about in large part by the failed common fisheries policy. We are committed to working towards the elimination of discards, and the initiatives that we have developed with the Scottish fishing industry and environmental non-governmental organisations are leading the way in Europe. I hope that the Commission will now make proposals that build on Scotland’s achievements.

Given the cheerfully piratical disregard for any or most regulations designed to conserve our fish stocks that is exhibited by a substantial minority of Scottish skippers, is the minister confident that anything other than an overall reduction in the catching power of the European and Scottish fleets will deliver the possibility of our having a harvestable stock of fish left in Scottish waters in 20 years?

I remind the member, in light of his inaccurate information, that the current compliance rate among the Scottish fleet has never been better and that the Scottish white-fish fleet has halved the discard rate of North Sea cod since 2008, which is the biggest achievement in Europe. I suggest to the member that he investigate those facts and get his information right in future.