Plenary, 11 Jun 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, June 11, 2009

Official Report 824KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

Finance and Sustainable Growth

---

Boath v Perth and Kinross Council

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it has considered the financial implications for local authorities of the Court of Session decision in the case of Boath v Perth and Kinross Council. (S3O-7287)

Before I call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, I point out that, as I am sure members know, the matter is still in the courts and therefore some aspects of it will be sub judice. I hope that members will be careful not to encroach on those aspects.

The Scottish Government is engaged with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in a joint review of the operation of the free personal and nursing care policy. The opinion that was recently issued in the case of Boath v Perth and Kinross Council is under consideration as part of that work.

The decision in the case, which was announced last month, vindicates the many members of Parliament who have known for a long time that there was no confusion in the original law relating to assistance with meal preparation as an aspect of free personal care, despite the fact that the previous Scottish Executive, the present Scottish Government and COSLA all chose to pretend that that was the case. The court ruled that a proportion of the charges that Perth and Kinross Council made for its meals-on-wheels service was illegal under the original law and that the sums involved, when quantified, are to be refunded to Mr and Mrs Boath. Thirteen councils throughout Scotland are in the same situation. On the basis of the refunds from the six councils that have already done the honourable thing, I estimate that the total refunds that are due to pensioners who have been illegally charged for services in the past seven years are in the order of £20 million.

Will the cabinet secretary discuss the financial implications with the affected councils? Will he regard the financial consequences of the decision as a new funding pressure for the purposes of the concordat with local government? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that pensioners receive the refunds to which they are entitled as a result of the decision?

I acknowledge the sustained interest that David McLetchie has taken in the issue, in the previous session of Parliament and in the present one. I record that point, as he has pursued the issue on several occasions. However, I must correct his narrative, in that it was the present Administration that acted, through the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002 (Amendment to schedule 1) Order 2009, to establish absolute clarity on the issue and to ensure that there can be no dubiety. As I said in my original answer, the issue is being discussed between the Government and COSLA as part of our consideration of the free personal and nursing care policy. Obviously, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing or the Minister for Public Health and Sport will make the appropriate announcements to Parliament when that work is concluded.

The Government has a regular, on-going dialogue with local government about funding pressures and issues, which is conducted in terms of the concordat. I give Mr McLetchie the assurance that we will continue to operate in that fashion.

---

Local Authority Services (Budget Cuts)

To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of a number of local authorities announcing budget cuts, what impact this will have on services. (S3O-7323)

It is for each local authority to allocate the total resources that are available to it on the basis of local needs and priorities, in line with its statutory obligations and jointly agreed national and local priorities and outcomes.

Even a cursory examination of Professor David Bell's recent report on the United Kingdom's budget position and its strategic implications for Scotland tells us that the cuts that we have seen so far are as nothing compared with those that are to come. We can play political knockabout regarding who is to blame, but there are no respected commentators who doubt the severity of what is to come. What action does the Scottish Government intend to take to mitigate the effects of the substantial reductions in public expenditure that are to come?

As is always the case, Mr McCabe marshals his arguments before the Parliament carefully and strongly, with substantial evidence. I appreciate the manner in which he advances his point of view because he recognises as well as I do that, from any reading of the budget red book, the forthcoming perspective on public expenditure is poor, no matter what the outcome of the next United Kingdom general election. In my appearance at the Finance Committee a couple of weeks ago, I endeavoured to set out some of that detail to the committee.

Mr McCabe is absolutely right that there will be great pressures on public expenditure in the period to come. I advised the Finance Committee that, in my estimation, there will be real-terms reductions in the public spending that is available to the Scottish Government through the departmental expenditure limit. That position has been validated by Professor Bell in his analysis and has also been confirmed to varying degrees in the analysis of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Centre for Public Policy for Regions. That means that we must address the public expenditure challenges that we face in what I hope will be a mature and considered fashion.

To answer Mr McCabe's final point, I am addressing the challenges in numerous different ways. First, the Cabinet is considering the issue actively and will continue to do so in advance of the submission to Parliament of the Government's draft budget in September of this financial year. Secondly, at the suggestion of Mr Purvis and Tavish Scott, the Government established a joint review of public expenditure involving the finance spokespeople of each party, Margo MacDonald and me to look at some of these difficult questions. The group has met on two occasions, and we will continue to meet to consider a programme of initiatives as part of our work. Thirdly, as I referred to in my response to Mr McLetchie, the Government will, of course, be engaged in detailed dialogue with local authorities as significant spenders of public money about the budget position that they face.

In relation to all aspects of the public sector, we have a public expenditure challenge to meet in 2010-11. Whatever way we look at it, we will have less money at our disposal than was planned. We must address those issues in Parliament, and I hope that we do so constructively.

Given the challenges that we face, does the cabinet secretary believe that MSPs should follow the example of councillors in Aberdeen and set aside party differences to back the Scottish Government in its opposition to the £500 million of cuts to the Scottish budget that are planned by the UK Government in each of the next two years?

I certainly welcome that expression of unity of opinion by all members of Aberdeen City Council. We face a significant challenge in 2010-11, and we will address it in consultation with members of this Parliament and our local authority colleagues.

I say in passing that Aberdeen City Council has had a challenging time in the past year or so. I pay tribute to the way in which the council's administration has worked with such diligence to tackle a difficult financial situation.

In light of Maureen Watt's clear misunderstanding of the debate at Aberdeen City Council a couple of weeks ago, will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, in fact, the opposition parties in the council took the view that the Scottish Government ought to do more to ensure that Aberdeen City Council secures its fair share of spending in future? Does he accept that Maureen Watt's proposition is wrong and that there is no all-party position on funding, whether in Aberdeen or anywhere else in the country?

That is a fascinating contribution to the debate and in marked contrast to Mr McCabe's mature contribution. I just wish that the back benchers would influence the front benchers, because if they did I dare say that we would make a great deal more progress on some of these difficult issues.

However, Lewis Macdonald has put his words on the record. He knows that a review of the distribution arrangements is in place. I say without in any way trying to sour the atmosphere with any politics that he also knows that I inherited the distribution formula from the Administration of which he was a member. Tackling all the questions that have been raised cannot have been much of a priority when he was sitting around the ministerial table. However, I assure him that the issues are being dealt with actively.

---

Banking Inquiry

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will convene a meeting of all interested parties to discuss an inquiry into the banking industry in relation to protecting jobs in Scotland. (S3O-7384)

At its meeting on 3 June 2009, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee agreed in principle to hold an inquiry into the banking and building society sectors. The Scottish Government understands that at a future meeting the committee will consider in more detail the inquiry's remit and terms of reference. Identifying how best to undertake the inquiry is a matter for the committee. The Scottish Government will be pleased to assist the committee with its inquiry in any way.

I am grateful that the committee will look into the subject.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the announcement from Lloyds Banking Group that it will axe more jobs after repaying £4 billion to the Westminster Government is a slap in the face for the hard-working staff in the banking industry, and that those job losses are a direct result of the HBOS-Lloyds merger that Gordon Brown pushed through at Westminster?

The financial services sector has many difficulties and uncertainties. I regret very much the loss of employment in any financial services company and in any sector of the economy.

We must recognise that the banking sector must take measures to stabilise its activities. The Government's approach in all such discussions—we have regular discussions with Lloyds Banking Group and other key players in the financial services sector—is to protect employment and to protect the activity of financial services companies in Scotland.

At the same time as job losses are being announced, job gains are being announced. The Government was delighted with the recent announcements by esure and Tesco Personal Finance—the First Minister opened Tesco Personal Finance's new headquarters in Scotland just yesterday. That indicates further confidence in the financial services sector in Scotland, which is evidenced by the strong performance of many companies in that sector, notwithstanding the difficulties that our banks still face.

In a recent debate on the banking crisis, the Scottish Government said that it would prefer the United Kingdom Government to publish advice to ministers in relation to decisions that the UK Government took. Is the Scottish Government prepared to publish the advice that the Scottish ministers received about HBOS, Lloyds Banking Group and Dunfermline Building Society?

The Government answers a significant number of freedom of information requests. We also publish a colossal amount of information. I do not think that the Government could be criticised for publishing not much information. The last time I looked, we were publishing a hang of a lot of information. On freedom of information requests, we endeavour to publish as much information as we can.

As Mr Purvis well knows, the publication of advice to ministers might affect the commercial operations of organisations and might involve other considerations that ministers must bear in mind. However, I assure him of the Government's commitment to openness and transparency. We try to issue as much information as we can on all such questions.

I am sure that Mrs White agrees that the people of Scotland and the employees of Lloyds and HBOS would have had an even bigger slap in the face if the Government had not stepped in to rescue that bank and the depositors at not just Lloyds-HBOS, but the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that when the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee holds its inquiry, it should spend its time looking forward rather than backward? [Interruption.] Oh dear—Scottish National Party members do not seem to be keen on doing something positive. [Interruption.]

Order.

The committee should look forward rather than backward, because we know that job losses are coming in the banking sector and that they will involve skilled workers who could be deployed elsewhere in the financial services industry. If we can combine the operation of the partnership action for continuing employment teams with the banks that are involved, I hope that we can redeploy many of the workers who face redundancy.

I am glad that there is nobody in the press gallery for what is about to come: I agree with Mr Whitton on the question that he raised. I hope that the inquiry will be forward looking, because there are many challenges for the financial services sector in the period ahead—[Interruption.] Mr Whitton is pointing at the members of the public in the public gallery; I hope that all of them are listening. I am sure that I will get a good going over for what I am about to say. Notwithstanding that, I will plough on.

There are also many strengths in the financial services sector, and we can build on them to overcome the difficulties that we have experienced. I am very concerned to ensure that that, all for the sake of 12 to 18 months when the banking sector took its eye off the ball, we do not undermine 300 years of excellent tradition and expertise in financial services in Scotland.

I hope that the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee will concentrate on those forward-looking perspectives and set out the arguments. The Government remains very ready to listen to the arguments and find ways in which we can more actively strengthen the sector in Scotland.

We recently published the annual report of the Financial Services Advisory Board, in which the board acknowledged the difficulties but then set out an agenda for the way forward. I hope that the committee inquiry can be taken forward in that spirit.

I am keen to bring in supplementaries wherever possible. If we are to make progress on the number of questions that we get through, both questions and answers will have to be briefer than they have been thus far.

---

A9 (Improvements)

To ask the Scottish Executive what budgetary provision it will make for improvements to the A9 over the next five years. (S3O-7314)

The current three-year budget settlement does not extend beyond 2010-11. The planned improvements to the A9 are set out in the Scottish motorway and trunk road programme and published on Transport Scotland's website.

The minister is building overtaking lanes instead of stretches of dual carriageway—overtaking lanes that will have to be dug up when dual carriageways are built. That is a clear indication that the minister has no timescale for dualling the A9, and no money and no plans to do so. The Press and Journal reported that, when asked how long it would be before the A9 was dualled, the minister said, "I will be alive." Methuselah springs to mind, but—

Question, please.

In the interests of getting a clearer timescale, will the minister tell the chamber how long he expects to live?

I realise that I have created a hostage to my future good health in the somewhat off-the-cuff remark that I made that the A9 will be dualled within my lifetime, of which I am absolutely certain. I am, of course, equally certain that dualling the A9 would not have been done within my lifetime if it had been left to any previous transport minister. We are continuing to improve the A9 and to improve safety. Interestingly, the W2+1 sections that we are creating have a substantially better safety record than dual carriageways in some parts of the network.

We are extending the dual carriageway at Crubenmore. I was delighted to be at Carrbridge last week to open a £2.7 million upgrade and, at Bankfoot, there are £2.7 million of junction improvements. The strategic transport projects review has £1 billion of investment for Inverness and the north. That is unprecedented in anybody's lifetime.

In light of concerns about safety on the A9, will the minister look at the Wellbeck Estate proposal for small-scale improvements at Berriedale that have the support of the freight transport companies in the far north? In addition, will he consider providing a route around Thurso's town centre to Scrabster harbour in preparation for the likely increase in container traffic?

I think that the member is aware that I have visited Berriedale. I am very aware of the issues in that regard. A number of options are available to us, and they are being considered.

Scrabster is a key port that faces the prospect of real economic success with the terrific expansion that we expect to see involving tidal power in the Pentland firth. I will engage further with the authorities at Scrabster as is necessary in the coming months and years.

There are a number of welcome improvement works to the A9, such as the upgrade of Bankfoot junction, although they were all inherited from the previous Administration. When will this Government bring forward new initiatives to improve the A9, in addition to those that are simply a hangover from the Labour/Liberal Democrat Executive?

When?

---

Energy Efficiency

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to promote energy efficiency. (S3O-7378)

The Scottish Government is developing a range of measures to promote energy efficiency. They will be covered in our energy efficiency action plan, which will be published later this year as a key part of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill.

We are already taking action to help reduce energy consumption across all sectors, including through our funding of the Energy Saving Trust, the Carbon Trust, the energy assistance package and the home insulation scheme.

Last week, the Scotch Whisky Association launched its environmental strategy, in which energy efficiency plays a large part. However, it was disappointing to hear that the association is finding it frustratingly difficult to deal with Network Rail in attempting to move transportation from road to rail. Similar comments have been made by people in the road haulage industry, who are themselves quite keen to move to rail for longer hauls. What can the minister do to make Network Rail more responsive to such concerns—within his lifetime?

Uisge-beatha is of course an important part of extending my lifetime, and I am therefore pleased to have heard about the efforts that have been made by the whisky industry. We have had some notable successes. Our investments at the Needlefield depot in Inverness have led to 400 lorries a week coming off the A9, which contributes to enhanced safety and environmental benefits. That is part of what we want to do.

We recognise the challenge that lies in delivering further schemes—particularly in relation to our understanding of gauge constraints in the network. I understand that there are some shortcomings in the Network Rail database, and that is one of a number of things that we will talk to the company about. We will work closely with Network Rail, as we have a high aspiration to get more freight on to our railways and off our roads.

Questions 6 and 7 have been withdrawn.

---

Transport (Fife)

To ask the Scottish Executive when ministers last met Fife Council to discuss transport priorities and what in particular was discussed. (S3O-7302)

Transport matters were raised as part of a general discussion when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth signed off Fife Council's first single outcome agreement in August 2008.

I record my thanks to the minister for being helpful regarding the campaign for dualling the A92 around Glenrothes. He has met me and members of the Glenrothes Area Futures Group, and we now have proposals for some minor upgrades at two local junctions. I was disappointed, however, to receive a letter from the minister that seems to close the door firmly on dualling the A92 around Glenrothes. Will the minister confirm that? If so, will he outline when the next opportunity for consideration of that transport scheme will be?

There are many ways in which road improvements can be undertaken. It was identified in the consideration that came through the strategic transport projects review that the benefits of the proposal that was discussed regarding the A92 were largely local. I am certainly open to continuing to engage with the regional transport partnership and the local council, which I believe continues to consider the issue.

The minister will be well aware that the Parbroath junction—where the A92 crosses the A913, between Cupar and Newburgh—is one of the most dangerous intersections on the A92, but is the only major intersection on that road, between Kirkcaldy and Dundee, that does not have a roundabout. Does the minister agree that a roundabout is required as a matter of urgency in order to cut down the number of accidents at that well-known accident black spot?

I may have driven through the Parbroath junction for the first time in 1963, so I am very familiar with it. There have been many improvements to it, and I think that the staggering of the junction has improved safety. If there are remaining issues around the Parbroath junction, that is, of course, something that Transport Scotland would seek to address.

---

Financial Services Industry

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support the financial services industry in Scotland. (S3O-7365)

The Scottish Government supports the financial services industry in Scotland through the partnership of the Financial Services Advisory Board, which is made up of key private and public sector interests. On 1 June, FiSAB published its 2009 annual report, which sets out the aspirations to develop the industry to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead. A finance services jobs task force has also been established to co-ordinate efforts across Scotland to retain jobs and skills for the financial services industry and the wider economy.

Does the cabinet secretary agree with the statement that was made by John Campbell, the chairman of Scottish Financial Enterprise, at the launch of FiSAB's annual report last week? He said:

"we need to remind homegrown, City of London-based, and international companies of the benefits of choosing Scotland as a financial services centre from which to do business.

We do, after all, continue to have many top-class companies within our industry, who are internationally acknowledged as such."

Will the cabinet secretary comment on the recent merger between Clerical Medical and Scottish Widows, which kept the Scottish Widows name because market research found that "Scottish" was still a strong brand name among finance customers?

I agree with John Campbell's analysis and pay warm tribute to his contribution as the industry chair of FiSAB for the previous Administration and this Administration. His term in office is due to end shortly. He makes two strong points: one is the attractiveness and competitiveness of Scotland as a place to do business and the second is the inherent strength of the financial services sector.

Kenneth Gibson also made a fair point on the judgment that a market research exercise made on the strength of the Scottish Widows brand in competition with the Clerical Medical brand, which is a strong insurance industry brand into the bargain. That demonstrates the point that I made to Mr Whitton earlier that we have inherent strengths in the industry and must ensure that we build on them in the future.

The cabinet secretary did not answer my point about partnership action for continuing employment teams. Will extra effort be made to get PACE teams into areas where job losses will be experienced in order to ensure that FiSAB's work is progressed as he would like it to be?

I apologise to Mr Whitton. At the FiSAB meeting on 1 June, we heard a report from the financial services task force's chair, who is a representative of Scottish Enterprise. In that meeting, we heard an update to the effect that PACE will be involved in circumstances in which job losses have been announced. However, many of the companies that have made such announcements so far have gone to considerable lengths to highlight their confidence that, through turnover and redeployment, they can avoid large-scale job losses. Although a number of substantial job-loss announcements have been made, the companies involved have tried to avoid any of those losses percolating down into traditional unemployment.

Mr Whitton has my assurance that PACE will be involved.

I think I am right in saying that, when Parliament last debated the financial services industry, it resolved that the Government would provide a clear baseline figure for how many jobs there are in the industry, because there was disagreement among Scottish Enterprise, FiSAB and the Government. We also resolved that we would get regular official updates on negative and positive employment changes. How regularly will the Government publish those official figures?

The baseline figures were lodged in the Scottish Parliament information centre as a consequence of the debate—which I think was sponsored by the Liberal Democrats—and are now available there. I am happy to update those reports, but I had better not commit myself to a timescale today without knowing how frequently we can give the comprehensive picture.

I can also write to Mr Brown on the number of announcements of job losses we have had. However, as I said to Mr Whitton, many companies are seeking to deal with losses through turnover and redeployment. If members would also find that figure helpful as an information base, I will make it available in SPICe.

---

Fallago Rig Wind Farm (Public Inquiry)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will publish the decision of the public inquiry into the proposed wind farm at Fallago Rig in Berwickshire. (S3O-7286)

The reporter's findings will be published once the Scottish ministers make a determination. The Scottish ministers are currently awaiting further information from the Ministry of Defence on the Fallago Rig proposal. Once that information is received, all parties who attended the inquiry will be given the opportunity make representations on any new evidence. Ministers will make a determination only after careful and thorough consideration of the material issues, including the reporter's recommendations, in accordance with the relevant planning and legislative obligations.

In this case, the local authority's planning process has been exhausted and a local public inquiry has been held, but discussions are apparently continuing behind closed doors regarding the serious concerns that have been raised by the Ministry of Defence about the wind farm. Both Scottish Borders Council and East Lothian Council have expressed serious concerns about that process. Does the minister agree that the application has highlighted the lack of transparency that can exist in the planning process for wind farm developments, particularly given the Scottish National Party's policy on wind farms?

I disagree with that fundamentally. Our legal advice, and the advice of the director for planning and environmental appeals, supports our actions on handling further evidence post local public inquiry. We are looking forward to receiving updates from the Ministry of Defence and the developer and moving forward to making the final decision.

---

Credit Unions

To ask the Scottish Executive what role it considers credit unions will play during the economic downturn. (S3O-7336)

Credit unions have an important role during economic downturns as the risk of families and individuals being financially excluded increases. They offer an alternative to the existing banking institutions and, in particular, to doorstep lenders and loan sharks with their excessive interest rates and the resulting cycle of dependency.

The Scottish Government has in place funding and support to help enterprising credit unions grow and develop.

Would the minister care to comment on the report from the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee, in which the committee said that it was

"disappointed to see that ring-fenced funding for credit unions from the Scottish Executive now totals … £250,000, a sharp decrease from over £2.7 million before 2008"?

Will he comment on the fact that the number of official provident associations, which in themselves already charge high rates of interest but are at least not loan sharks, has reduced considerably, thus putting further pressure on credit unions?

I am always interested in the output from the Scottish Affairs Committee. I have to say that it is not always best informed about what is going on, as is regrettably true in this case.

The Scottish Government took a decision that we would incorporate the third sector credit union fund within two substantial funds—the Scottish investment fund and the third sector enterprise fund—which, in total, have at their disposal £42 million of resources to support the development of social enterprises, third sector organisations and credit unions. Some credit unions have already received support from those very funds.

I express clearly to Parliament the confidence that the Government has in credit unions. We encourage credit unions to come forward to advance proposals under the Scottish investment fund and the third sector enterprise fund. Indeed, I am meeting a credit union this afternoon to discuss those very questions. I hope that that reassures Dr Simpson that the Scottish Government is doing more than the Scottish Affairs Committee was able to discover in its piece of quality analysis.

---

Local Authority Funding

To ask the Scottish Government what advice it is giving to local authorities regarding the reduction in the Scottish block grant for 2010-11. (S3O-7288)

Under the concordat, the Scottish Government is in regular contact with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on a wide range of issues, including the impact of the United Kingdom Government's decision to reduce the planned expenditure that we had been expecting by £500 million in 2010-11.

In relation to his recent announcement on public sector agency costs, is the cabinet secretary prepared to review the levels of management costs associated with local authority senior officers?

It is essentially for local authorities to determine their management costs: they are self-governing organisations. However, local authorities will be facing many of the challenges that we will all face in respect of public finances. I am sure that the issues that John Wilson raises will be material to those considerations.

Within Government, we are looking carefully at the management costs of all the organisations that are part of the public sector. That advice has been very much to the fore in the recent announcements that I have made on pay policy for members of staff and the chief executives and chairs of public bodies.

I welcome the cabinet secretary's new language. He talked about a reduction in planned expenditure, which contrasts with his comments about a £500 million budget cut. Of course, Stella Manzie, the Scottish Government's director general of finance and corporate services, has advised that there will be a 1.3 per cent increase in the Scottish Government's budget in real terms.

With regard to Mr Wilson's question, will the cabinet secretary advise me about any three-year comprehensive spending review period under the previous Administration, when the average settlement for local government was a 35.5 per cent share of the Scottish block? The share has been reduced to 33.5 per cent, and fewer resources are going to local government. In addition, uncosted commitments in the Scottish National Party's manifesto are expected to be delivered through the concordat, but no resources are available to enable local government to deliver on those commitments.

I was trying to be helpful and constructive at question time, but Mr Kerr is talking about budget cuts again. Perhaps I will join him and go back to talking about budget cuts, now that he has decided that that is the appropriate language.

I thought that Mr Kerr might be exhausted by the debate about the share of the budget that goes to local government, because we have been round the houses and I have lost count of the times that I have stood up in Parliament and set out the situation. Local government's share of the budget was 36.6 per cent in 2002-03 and 36.5 per cent in 2004-05. The share then went down to 35.6 per cent in 2005-06, 34.2 per cent in 2006-07 and 33.3 per cent in 2007-08. That was the budget that I inherited. Thanks to the current Administration, local government's share of the budget is going up again. I think that is the buoyant good news that Mr Kerr is seeking.

---

Rail Freight (Environmental Impact)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment has been made of the environmental impact of increasing the use of rail freight. (S3O-7372)

Recent assessments that were undertaken to develop the Scottish Government's freight grant schemes demonstrated that transferring freight from road to rail has significant environmental benefits.

The minister will, from this morning's debate, be aware of my concern about the level of vibration that my constituents in the Larbert area are experiencing as a result of heavy coal-train freight. During the debate, the minister said that further monitoring of noise and vibration on the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine railway might be required, but it was not made clear whether the Larbert area, which is affected by the problem, would be included. I am keen to ensure that my constituents' problems are not overlooked. Will the minister ensure that further monitoring on the SAK line includes the Larbert area?

Bruce Crawford, the member for Stirling, has contacted me in that regard. We are considering the appropriate way forward and whether councils or the Government should undertake the work. We acknowledge that our having the appropriate information is key to understanding the response that is needed.

---

Union Terrace Gardens

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Scottish Enterprise Grampian on the findings of the feasibility study on proposed developments at Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen. (S3O-7301)

The Scottish Government is aware of and takes a keen interest in the proposed developments at Union Terrace gardens in Aberdeen. The lead on the project has been taken by Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future, in which Scottish Enterprise is a partner.

Does the minister agree that full consultation on all options for redeveloping Union Terrace gardens is needed? What dialogue will ministers have with ACSEF on the potential for Scottish Government funding for the plans at any stage?

The study has been completed and the board of ACSEF has unanimously agreed that the project should progress to the next stage, which is extensive consultation of the community. Work will go forward, leveraging in the leadership of ACSEF and the stellar contribution of Sir Ian Wood, who has pledged up to £50 million. Momentum has built up behind the work of Sir Ian and others, who regard the project as a mechanism that could make Aberdeen a world energy city, a showcase for the region and—I think this has been said—a Houston of the eastern hemisphere. We are committed to working with partners to leverage in private and public investment to Aberdeen.

What potential is there for additional employment in the north-east as a result of the project?

There is absolutely considerable potential. The project has been revealed to be technically and financially viable. It has excited the ACSEF board, which has given it the go-ahead, focusing on the two options that would leverage in the maximum number of jobs and the maximum amount of further future investment.

That concludes question time.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

I regret that the Presiding Officer has left, because the point of order would perhaps have been better directed at him. I seek your guidance. I am not often drawn in the ballot for themed question time, and I have neither complaint nor entitlement to complain about supplementaries, nor indeed substantive answers from ministers. However, two questions were withdrawn, and we have just reached question 14 on the list. How many of the questions that we have not reached have already been withdrawn, because there may be a connection? Is it possible for the Presiding Officer to give consideration to estimating how far we will get down the list of themed questions? As I said, we have just reached question 14; with two withdrawn, that is 12 questions. Eight other questions were on the ballot paper. Some members with subsequent questions were not here, and I cannot blame them.

It is an inexact science. In advance, one does not know how many people will seek to ask supplementary questions to any of the substantive questions. Presiding Officers and their deputies have to strike a balance between taking several members on a question in which members are interested, or simply going on to the next question without taking supplementaries. Either way, I suspect that members will be disappointed. It is just the luck of the draw—there is no exact or perfect answer to the question.

Further to that, can we be told how many questions, subsequent to the point that we reached, had already been withdrawn? It is a matter of concern.

That information is not available to me at the moment, but if you care to write to the Presiding Officer, I am sure that he will be happy to oblige by providing you with that information.

On a separate point of order, Presiding Officer.

On Friday, the Scottish Futures Trust e-mailed the convener of the Finance Committee regarding its business plan. The e-mail indicated that the business plan had been published. At First Minister's question time today, the First Minister said that the business plan had been published. The business plan is not on the Government's website, nor is it on the Scottish Futures Trust's website.

In previous points of order, the Presiding Officer has considered the appropriate way in which Parliament should be informed when major publications are presented. Will the Presiding Officers review that policy with the Scottish Government with regard to the Scottish Futures Trust, which is a limited company that is wholly owned by ministers. It seems to be outwith the normal way in which the Government publishes important documents, such as its operating plan.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

May I try to be helpful to Mr Purvis? The Scottish Futures Trust was invited to submit information to the Finance Committee in advance of the appearance of the chairman of the Scottish Futures Trust at the committee this coming Tuesday. The Scottish Futures Trust decided to publish its business plan by doing what I thought was incredibly appropriate, which was to send the business plan to the convener of the Finance Committee, Mr Welsh. I understand that that was the arrangement that was put in place on Friday. As far as I am aware—I have followed this approach on numerous occasions—it is appropriate to communicate such decisions to Parliament by writing to the convener of the relevant committee. That is precisely what the Scottish Futures Trust has done on this occasion.

Further to Ms Grahame's point of order, Presiding Officer.

Could I deal with the previous point of order first, please?

I am not exactly sure whether those were necessarily points of order, but I will draw them to the attention of the Presiding Officer, who I am sure will communicate with the members if necessary.

Will you perhaps ask the Presiding Officer whether he could supply us with the criteria that determine his choice of member in supplementary questions? Is it topicality? Is it a campaign that the member may have been pursuing? I, for one, do not know what criteria I am up against when I try to ask a supplementary.

Far be it from me to interpret the thoughts of the Presiding Officer, but I will draw your remarks to his attention, and I am sure that he will respond appropriately.