SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE
General Questions
Football
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will consider carrying out an economic impact assessment in relation to the support that it and other public bodies provide for football, in light of petition PE1233, submitted by former Scotland coach Craig Brown, regarding the creation of a Great Britain football team. (S3O-6240)
The Scottish Government has been asked by the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee to respond to Craig Brown's petition, and I advise Parliament that the Government will do so in full.
Does the Scottish Government share the concerns of the Scottish Football Association, the tartan army and former Scotland managers that the UK Government has indicated this week that, regardless of the consultation that FIFA has undertaken with the four home football associations, it will press ahead with fielding a GB team even if it is made up entirely of English players and regardless of the dangerous precedent that it will set and the threat that it poses to Scottish football? Does the cabinet secretary agree that such direct political interference, which originated from Gordon Brown and 10 Downing Street, is precisely the type of behaviour that will risk Scotland losing its independent footballing status?
I certainly share the concerns of the individuals and organisations that Christine Grahame mentioned about the notion of a GB football team. Like most people in Scotland, I do not favour the idea of a GB football team. It is an absolutely ridiculous idea that has no public support whatsoever in Scotland, probably made all the more ridiculous by suggestions earlier this week that the team might consist entirely of English football players.
In light of the petition's being in front of the Public Petitions Committee, which I convene, does the minister agree that it is appropriate for that committee to address any petition that is put to it? Does she agree that comments such as those from the SFA and Gordon Smith about politicians addressing the issue by raising it directly with all the football authorities to receive clarification are helpful?
The Public Petitions Committee is doing the job that it exists to do on this matter, as on so many others, and it is doing that job well—if that is not currying favour too much with the Public Petitions Committee.
Town Centre Regeneration Fund <br />(Licensed Trade)
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will support applications from the licensed trade to allow responsible publicans to play a part in spending the town centre regeneration fund. (S3O-6205)
We are currently working on the details of the fund, and we expect to be able to make an announcement by the end of March 2009.
The minister's colleagues are on a crusade against the irresponsible consumption of alcohol. I am sure that most people support that crusade, but as part of it responsible elements in the licensed trade have been demonised. Pubs in our town centres perform critical economic and social functions. Is the minister prepared to meet Scottish Beer and Pub Association representatives and other representatives of the licensed trade to discuss how it can play its part in transforming Scotland's town centres?
We are happy to listen to any representations from anyone in developing our proposals, but we must move fairly quickly: as I said, we expect to make a full announcement about the fund by the end of March. I acknowledge the role that responsible landlords play in the communities in our town centres; we do not wish at all to demonise responsible landlords for their role.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth confirmed that the source of the fund is accelerated capital funding as a result of Barnett consequentials on accelerated affordable housing investment in England and Wales. Will the minister confirm that that accelerated capital must be not only identified but spent in this financial year?
The member is correct: the money must be identified and spent in the incoming financial year.
Young Drivers (Rural Areas)
To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to improve road safety among young drivers in rural areas. (S3O-6179)
Through Road Safety Scotland, the Scottish Government is taking action to raise awareness among young people of their vulnerability on the roads and to encourage responsible driving attitudes. The Scottish road safety framework, which is to be published later this year, will include measures to address young driver safety.
The Government's research in "Rural Road Safety: Drivers and Driving", which was published in December, noted that
There is much in what the member says. I share concerns about the development of the necessary skills for driving on rural roads, particularly at night. We are working with the United Kingdom Government, through the Driving Standards Agency, on driver training.
What discussions has the minister had with local authorities to encourage them to use their powers to lower speeds on dangerous single-track roads?
I have not discussed single-track roads, but I agree with Rhoda Grant that many drivers who are unfamiliar with such roads do not realise their particular dangers. When a driver approaches a corner that they cannot see round on a single-track road, it is different from approaching such a corner on a dual-track road.
The minister talked about the pass plus scheme. Has he considered discussing with the police, insurance companies and the Institute of Advanced Motorists the inclusion of advanced driving tests in his proposals? Young drivers in Caithness and other areas in the north have approached me to suggest that, and we think that that well-known means of improving driving would be a great enhancement for them.
I declare an interest as a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. The IAM is one source of additional driver training, and I support all such sources—the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, for example, is also keenly engaged in the issue. The Institute of Advanced Motorists is represented on our road safety strategy group, and I am sure that, when we publish the road safety strategy, it will reflect the additional and voluntary training that bodies such as ROSPA and the IAM can provide.
Forestry
To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will abandon its proposal to lease out a large proportion of Forestry Commission Scotland land, given that 71 per cent of respondents to its consultation opposed the idea. (S3O-6190)
As the member knows, the option of leasing parts of the national forest estate was part of our consultation on the forestry provisions in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. The responses to the consultation are being considered, along with an options review prepared by the Forestry Commission Scotland. An announcement will be made in due course.
I wonder how long we will have to wait for the Scottish National Party to admit that it got the proposals wrong and to end the uncertainty in the wood-processing industry and the worries of staff about their jobs.
I regret that the Campbeltown Courier is not on my regular reading list; perhaps the member will give me a copy of that press coverage.
The minister will accept that the published responses to the Government's consultation were largely hostile and that the evidence to the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee provided more questions than answers about the leasing scheme. It is clear that the proposal simply does not command sufficient support throughout the Parliament to progress. On that basis, is it not more sensible for the Government to withdraw the proposal and instead focus on the opportunities that could arise from pursuing joint ventures between the Forestry Commission and other interested parties, which could generate the tens of millions of pounds of investment that are necessary to meet the planting targets?
As I have said, we are considering all options. The Forestry Commission Scotland has prepared an options review, which will be taken into consideration when the decision is made. I will make the decision when I make it, and members will be informed in due course.
Community Enterprises
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support community enterprises. (S3O-6252)
We are committing a record level of investment—£93 million over the 2008 to 2011 spending round, which represents a 37 per cent increase on the previous spending review—to help the sector grow and build capacity, capability and financial sustainability.
Does the minister agree that social enterprises offer a valuable source of local employment and training in addition to making a positive difference to their community? Will he join me in congratulating the Leith-based Out of the Blue Arts and Education Trust on its success in securing a grant and loan from the new Scottish investment fund?
Indeed—all that is true. I see examples of that contribution every day in my constituency and elsewhere. I join Shirley-Anne Somerville in congratulating Out of the Blue on its excellent award from the Scottish investment fund, which will enable Out of the Blue to refurbish its facilities, provide more space for artists and give artists the opportunity to develop their careers and artistic competence. The award means that the community in Leith has a centre that will help local people to undertake a variety of new activities that relate to health, waste reduction and other matters. All in all, it is delivering a positive contribution.
Does the minister recall his announcement on 16 April regarding the aye can project in Aberdeen, which provided supported employment in recycling for disabled people, and its transfer from the city council to become part of a social enterprise? Does the minister recall that the Scottish Government news release at that time promised that aye can would reopen on 1 August? Is he aware that it still has not reopened? What will he do to deliver on his promises to those disabled people?
The current climate is favourable for the aye can project. The direct investment of £30 million that is available from the Scottish investment fund exists for projects that are investment ready. The aye can project clearly qualifies for that, and I look forward to the project making its case strenuously and moving forward to a new phase.
Royal Mail
To ask the Scottish Government what concerns it has for the Scottish economy and wider society in relation to Her Majesty's Government's proposals to part-privatise the Royal Mail. (S3O-6242)
The Scottish Government shares the widespread public concern about the United Kingdom Government's proposals to part-privatise the Royal Mail, particularly concerning the dangers of diluting the universal service obligation and of further reducing the role and presence of Royal Mail and the prospect of job losses in Scotland. The Scottish Government will continue to express our concerns and monitor developments to ensure that service levels, amenity and jobs in Scotland are protected.
I thank the minister for that answer. Does the minister share my view that the fact that more than 130 Labour members of the UK Parliament have indicated their opposition to the UK Government's plans indicates that there is little support in the UK's governing party, as well as no real support in the wider country, for the move? Does the minister agree that the UK Government should swiftly reconsider its proposals?
I fully concur with the member's view, analysis and suggestion about what the UK Government should do. I think that about 170 MPs in total have signed the parliamentary motion opposing the plan. Further, in the House of Lords, Lord Clarke of Hampstead is disputing the claims of Lord Mandelson regarding the viability of Royal Mail Group by pointing out that all of its four sections—Royal Mail, which handles UK letters, General Logistics Systems, Parcelforce Worldwide and Post Office Ltd—are now in profit and that the Post Office is making a profit of £1 million a day.
The Royal Mail's slimming down in anticipation of part-privatisation is probably the reason for its unfortunate decision to axe post bus services in my constituency. Does the minister share my view that that is a backward step for the local economy of a remote and economically fragile part of Scotland? Will he join me in the campaign to persuade the Royal Mail to change its mind? If necessary, will he make appropriate representations to ministers in London who are responsible for the Royal Mail?
I share the member's views to the letter. I deeply regret the withdrawal of that service and the impact on people, the climate and the economy that it will have. It is the antithesis of optimising the local economy and the local environmental and social system. The Royal Mail has a golden opportunity to reverse its decision and grasp some corporate social responsibility. I will meet representatives of the Royal Mail on Monday, and I will convey that message to them.
HM Revenue and Customs
To ask the Scottish Executive, in light of the potential impact on jobs, what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding the closure of HM Revenue and Customs offices in Scotland. (S3O-6160)
Order. There are far too many conversations taking place in the chamber. I would like to hear what is going on.
I wrote to HM Revenue and Customs on 12 February 2009, and I await its reply. I made it clear in my letter that I expect HM Revenue and Customs to place the needs and expectations of customers in Scotland at the heart of any decision of this nature.
It is good to hear that. I recently met staff at the HM Revenue and Customs office in Perth, who have great concerns about the impact of the closures on the local community, particularly pensioners. Can the cabinet secretary confirm what support the Scottish Government can give to help limit the impact on those pensioners?
As I said, the Government is concerned about the impact that the decisions will have on consumers and the employees of HM Revenue and Customs. If the proposals are given the go-ahead, we will be prepared to enter into discussions about how other public facilities could perhaps deploy services in a way that ensured the convenience of members of the public, but I stress that the Scottish Government expresses its deep concern at the proposals of HM Revenue and Customs and urge that an alternative course be taken.
The Parliament may well remember that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown sold more than 600 properties that were occupied by the Government's tax collectors to Mapeley Estates, a company that uses tax havens such as Guernsey and Bermuda to avoid paying United Kingdom taxes. Does the First Minister agree that it is indeed ironic that, while HM Revenue and Customs offices in Scotland are closing and Labour MPs rail against tax avoidance, a private company will continue to profit from assets that were transferred from public to private ownership by the current UK Prime Minister?
Linda Fabiani presents much better than I can an illustration of the complete hypocrisy of the United Kingdom Government on those issues. That complete hypocrisy prevails here among the front-bench Labour Party members in relation to some of their recent remarks.