Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 12 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, June 12, 2008


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Finance and Sustainable Growth

Question 1 is in the name of Richard Simpson, who is not here. I have to say, again, that a member who is not present to ask a question is being most inconsiderate to other members who might have lost out in the ballot.


Small Business Bonus Scheme

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it is taking to monitor the take-up of the small business bonus scheme. (S3O-3683)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

We are in touch with organisations representing small businesses and with local authorities on the level of take-up of the scheme, and the feedback is encouraging. In due course, we will receive returns from local authorities that will enable us to make definitive estimates about the level of take-up.

Gavin Brown:

My understanding is that some local authorities—possibly four of the 32—are automatically awarding the small business bonus. Will the Government consider finding ways to ensure that all local authorities automatically award the bonus so that businesses are less likely to miss out?

John Swinney:

To my knowledge, five local authorities have undertaken to exercise their discretion to award automatically the small business bonus scheme relief. They are the City of Aberdeen Council, the City of Glasgow Council, Stirling Council, East Renfrewshire Council and Renfrewshire Council. Obviously, it is within the competence of local authorities to determine their approach.

On wider application of the scheme, we see from our initial information that the level of take-up is high, which is encouraging. I suspect that that reflects that the SBSC is of benefit to small businesses in a pretty challenging economic climate.

I will give consideration to the point that Mr Brown raised, but I stress that it is within the competence of individual local authorities to exercise that discretion of their own free will.


Fuel Prices

3. Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):

To ask the Scottish Executive how much it estimates that the recent fuel price increases will cost (a) the Scottish economy, (b) local government, (c) the national health service and (d) the remaining areas over which the Scottish Government has responsibility, in 2008-09 if such prices remain at current levels. (S3O-3701)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

Escalating fuel costs are having wide-reaching impacts across both the Scottish economy and the public sector in Scotland.

All parts of the Scottish public sector will be affected, including local authorities and the national health service. These effects are complex and in part depend on future movements in fuel prices over the remainder of the financial year, on relative fuel dependency and on the way that different parts of the public sector pay for their fuel. Unless additional funding is made available from the United Kingdom Treasury, the impact of rising fuel costs will be similar to a budget cut for the Scottish public sector.

High oil prices mean a big revenue gain for the UK Treasury, but they also mean a great deal of pain for families, households and businesses across Scotland. That is why we need a new approach, with Scotland getting a fair share of the windfall oil wealth.

Kenneth Gibson:

While speaking to the chief executive of North Ayrshire Council on Tuesday, I was advised that its bill will increase by at least £1 million. That local authority area represents only one fortieth of Scotland's population.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is absolutely shameful for the UK Government to deny Scotland a modest share of the more than £4.5 billion that it will gain in increased revenue this year as a result of rising fuel prices? Further, does he also agree that the silence of the unionist parties in this Parliament—in terms of defending Scottish interests and seeking a reasonable portion of what is rightfully ours—has been deafening?

John Swinney:

As always, Mr Gibson makes some fair points. If oil prices are sustained at the level that they have been at, on average, since the start of the financial year, the Treasury will receive in excess of £4.5 billion in additional revenue. Quite clearly, that is a windfall gain to the Treasury. The Scottish Government's position is that, at a time when various public sector organisations—including North Ayrshire Council, to which Mr Gibson referred—are wrestling with increased costs, the Treasury is making a tremendous windfall gain. Obviously, the Government is making strong representations to ensure that we have access to some of the oil wealth that is generated within Scottish territorial waters.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Jamie McGrigor to ask question 4.

I say to Jamie McGrigor that it is quite intolerable that members are not present in time for their question. That is the second time it has happened in this meeting. Members well know what time question time is and they should be here throughout it.


A82 (Upgrading)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on progress towards upgrading the A82. (S3O-3679)

I call Stewart Stevenson.

I think the minister will have heard what I have just said.

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

The minister did hear. I am sorry.

Transport Scotland is currently taking forward some £16 million of improvement schemes from the A82 route action plan to improve safety and speed up journey times for local communities, tourists and businesses. That includes improvement work at Pulpit rock and a bypass for Crianlarich, which we aim to deliver within the current programme to 2012.

Other improvement schemes that are recommended in the route action plan are being considered for future investment as part of Transport Scotland's strategic transport projects review, which will deliver its findings to ministers in the summer of 2008.

I apologise to you, Presiding Officer.

Thank you.

Jamie McGrigor:

Presiding Officer, I, too, humbly apologise for my lateness.

The number of road accidents on the A82 since 2007 amounts to no fewer than 143 injury accidents, including eight fatalities. That is a dreadful record that makes it one of the most dangerous trunk roads in Scotland. In the light of that, does the minister believe that the Government is giving enough priority to upgrading the A82? What hope can he give to the long-suffering tourists and commuters who depend on that vital route, and what will he do to bring down the accident rate?

Stewart Stevenson:

Jamie McGrigor is aware, as I am, of the vigorous campaign that is being waged to ensure that we get appropriate investment in the A82. I have met the campaigners and discussed many of the issues that are associated with the A82. I am no happier than the member about the accident record and the number of fatalities on the road. It is one of a series of difficult challenges that we have inherited as a Government. We are currently investing in the A82 and, as part of the strategic transport projects review, considering what further investments we wish to make.

Has the decision by Parliament last year to invest £0.5 billion in an Edinburgh tramline had any effect on the amount of finance that is available for other transport infrastructure investment in Scotland?

Stewart Stevenson:

Dr McKee makes a fair point. However, I make it absolutely clear that I regard that decision as being of the past, although it clearly influences room for investment today. I am sure that people will take account of it when they examine the Government's performance and that of Parliament as a whole.


Infrastructure Investments (Discussions)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions about its proposals for future investment in Scottish infrastructure it has had with representatives of European Governments. (S3O-3746)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

We published our plans for current and future investment in Scottish infrastructure at the end of March in our "Infrastructure Investment Plan 2008". There were no specific discussions with European Governments over that plan, but the financial partnerships unit keeps in contact with several European Governments over methods of delivery and funding of infrastructure.

Michael McMahon:

Will the cabinet secretary take the time to visit the Irish Government's public-private partnership website, which provides guidance on its PPP process? He will find there details of the new PPP projects that the Irish Government is taking forward, such as the Waterford bypass, the new criminal courts complex and five new secondary schools.

Has he had any contact with the Nordic PPP forum, which provides a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure financing and developments in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, with advice from companies such as KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst and Young? Could that effective use of PPP be one of the reasons why the aforementioned countries form the SNP's celebrated arc of prosperity?

John Swinney:

Mr McMahon will be aware that self-governing countries are free to take decisions as they choose. This Government simply wants Scotland to be a self-governing country. If Mr McMahon has had a road-to-Damascus conversion, he is welcome to join the Government in its aspiration for Scotland to be self-governing.

As Mr McMahon is an enthusiastic follower of everything that I say in Parliament on infrastructure matters, he will know that I have set out in committee, in a statement to Parliament and in a debate the ambitious infrastructure investment programme in which the Government is involved. As part of that programme, projects are under way in every part of Scotland. In close proximity to Mr McMahon's parliamentary constituency, the development of the M74 is taking place, and there are school and hospital developments in every part of Scotland.

Mr McMahon should not worry about whether there is a lack of infrastructure investment activity. Through the Scottish futures trust and our infrastructure investment plan, the Government has put in place ambitious plans to invest in Scotland's infrastructure, and we will take those plans forward.

Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab):

In relation to the point that was made in response to Mr McMahon's question, I wonder what makes the Scottish Government's strategy different from the strategies of the nations in the arc of prosperity, about which we hear so much in the chamber. Those nations are following the PPP route. I also wonder what makes the Scottish Government different from local government, the financial sector, the banks and the construction industry in Scotland, all of which think that the Scottish futures trust has no future.

John Swinney:

With questions like that, we all know that Mr Kerr has no future in his aspirations to get back in government.

I have made it clear to Parliament on numerous occasions—and have marshalled in "Infrastructure Investment Plan 2008"—the Government's determination to invest in a significant £3 billion per annum strategic infrastructure investment programme that is making an impact in many parts of the country, not least in Mr Kerr's constituency.

We are determined to use the Scottish futures trust to aggregate projects and to develop the non-profit-distributing model to ensure that we retain expertise and leverage out more value for money for the taxpayer. That is what the Administration is about: it is determined to deliver maximum value for money for the taxpayers of Scotland, and that is what we will deliver for the people of this country.


Rural Deprivation (Measurement)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress has been made to measure more accurately the elements which constitute rural deprivation so as to release a fair share of public funds for services in remote and rural areas. (S3O-3702)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

A great deal of progress as been made on the matter. With agreement from the Office for National Statistics, a commitment has been made to publish annual poverty figures that are broken down into rural and urban areas. We have commissioned a review and follow-up qualitative research into the impact of poverty and people's different experiences of it in rural and urban areas, and we have developed sub-Scotland income statistics through the Scottish household survey to create a more accurate picture of the impact of poverty in our communities.

We will hold a consultation event on the Scottish Government's anti-poverty framework in a remote and rural community planning partnership area to discuss the specific challenges that such community planning partnerships face. Those efforts will help us to assess accurately the extent and impact of rural deprivation, and they will affect Government policy making on remote and rural areas of Scotland.

Rob Gibson:

I thank the cabinet secretary for the detailed exercise that he is undertaking. Does he agree that, before the end of the current session of Parliament, we need a root-and-branch review of how rural services are funded? Will he include in such a review the policy of equivalence, which is adopted and applied in many of the Nordic countries? That will ensure that we do not end up with a system in which urban is treated as normal and rural is treated as abnormal.

John Swinney:

As Mr Gibson knows, within the calculations of the measures that influence local authority spending, account is taken of, for example, island status and rurality. Deprivation weighting is also included in the indices that are used by the Government for local authority funding allocations. They are characteristics of the framework within which we undertake decision making on funding for services in rural areas. I will examine Mr Gibson's suggestion and assess the impact that it could have on how we undertake that work in the future.

Mr Gibson is also aware that the Government is working with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to examine the basis of local authority funding allocations. Although that work will not have an effect during the current spending review, it will inform the next one.


A87 and A887 (Motorcycle Traffic)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of the heavy motorcycle traffic on the A87 and A887 over the summer months and what assessment it has made of the impact of the poor condition of these roads on motorcycle safety. (S3O-3766)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I am aware from the automatic traffic count data for the A87 that there is a significant increase in the number of motorcyclists using this route during the tourist season. No data exist for the A887. The number of reported injury accidents involving motorcyclists on the A87 has, however, reduced in each of the three years between 2005 and 2007. There were no reported injury accidents involving motorcyclists on the A887 during the period.

John Farquhar Munro:

I hope that the statistics can be improved on this year. I am afraid that, because of the current condition of the surface of the A87, we are leaving ourselves open to serious injury claims because of that section of road. When can we expect to see even minor improvement to the road's surface?

Although it has been 40 years since I was on a motorcycle—my wife no longer allows me such pleasures—

Steady now. We do not want to go there.

Stewart Stevenson:

We have to have some fun.

I am aware of the effect that poor surfaces can have on safety and motorcyclists' ability to use roads. We will be looking at the A87 in the context of the strategic projects review and will be keeping the situation under constant review. If John Farquhar Munro is especially concerned about specific parts of the road, I will be grateful if he draws them to my attention so that I can take specific action.


Increasing Energy Costs (Advice)

To ask the Scottish Executive what advice is available to people facing increasing energy costs. (S3O-3715)

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism (Jim Mather):

The recently launched energy saving Scotland advice network, funded by the Scottish Government and managed by the Energy Saving Trust, provides advice and support to householders wishing to reduce their energy use and cut their fuel bills. This one-stop shop will offer support on energy efficiency, microgeneration and sustainable transport and will help customers to access grants from the Scottish Government and energy supply companies.

Andrew Welsh:

I welcome the advice that is available to help people to reduce energy use. However, faced with ever-increasing fuel bills, high levels of fuel poverty and the massive increases in the price of oil and diesel that are now hitting the Scottish economy and every Scottish family, surely now is the time in our energy-rich oil-producing nation for Scotland to get the full benefit from its oil wealth.

Jim Mather:

I could not agree more. With oil prices at the record high of $138 per barrel last Friday, the Scottish Government estimates that the United Kingdom Treasury is now likely to rake in an extra £4 billion to £5 billion more than it forecast at the time of the last budget.

Mr Welsh is right: Scotland is an oil-rich oil-producing country, and we should be enjoying the benefits of record oil prices rather than feeling the pain. The UK Treasury is pocketing the proceeds of what is happening. That is why the First Minister set out our position on the future of Scotland's oil wealth in his letter to the Prime Minister last week. It called for an immediate freeze on fuel duty and the introduction of a fuel duty regulator to prevent future price increases, for Scotland to have direct access to a share of North Sea revenues, and for the creation of a Scottish oil fund that will give Scotland a lasting legacy. Those measures would emulate what happens in Norway and put us in a much better position to ameliorate the problems that Mr Welsh mentioned. That is right and necessary because, of the three key poverty factors—energy prices, household incomes and energy efficiency—only energy efficiency falls within devolved powers. The sooner we have rights that are similar to those of Alberta, the better.

One way of reducing energy costs is to install more efficient heating systems in our homes, so will the Government reconsider its ill-timed and ill-advised decision to restrict access to the successful central heating initiative?

Jim Mather:

The Labour Party has retreated from discussing a major issue that the country faces, improved performance on which would ameliorate everyone's position. We will continue with the central heating programme and will make it as effective as possible by offering targeted support.


Prisons (Funding)

To ask the Scottish Government what progress the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has made in discussions with the United Kingdom Government regarding prison funding. (S3O-3716)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

As members will know, in January Her Majesty's Treasury allocated an additional £1.2 billion for prisons in England and Wales. That followed the publication of the Carter review, which drew attention to serious overcrowding in English jails. As the additional funding comes from the UK Government's reserve, Scotland does not automatically receive a consequential share.

Had the funding been allocated as part of the 2007 comprehensive spending review settlement, Scotland would have received an additional £120 million, so we take the view that that amount is being denied to Scotland, contrary to the spirit of the statement of funding policy. Scotland's annual projections of its prison population have shown similar trends to those that affect England and Wales, and the prison estate in Scotland is currently overcrowded. We therefore propose to pursue the matter further through the joint ministerial committee, which we believe is the correct forum in which to resolve it.

Sandra White:

In the light of what Annabel Goldie said earlier about the justice system and the Conservatives' record on prison building, I am sure that we can count on their support when the cabinet secretary next raises the issue. I hope that the same applies to all the parties that are represented in the Parliament.

Given that any application for departmental expenditure limit reserves should be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of the Scottish people, does the cabinet secretary agree that whatever parallel universe Des Browne inhabits, it is not one that best serves the Scottish people?

John Swinney:

This is an issue of real substance. It is my view and that of the Government that the allocation from the UK reserve to support prison expenditure in England has set a highly regrettable precedent. Essentially, the publication of the Carter review slightly later than the comprehensive spending review settlement has provided a means for the UK Government to allocate resources to fund public expenditure in England and Wales, when the need for public expenditure in Scotland is 100 per cent comparable. We could have marshalled as good a case about prison overcrowding in Scotland as has been marshalled in the Carter review about prison overcrowding in England.

In our spending review, we took decisions to invest in the prison estate by increasing capital allocations to the Scottish Prison Service, which will allow us to afford the construction not only of the new-build prison at Bishopbriggs but of the new prison in the north-east of Scotland at Peterhead. Given that we took those decisions in the spending review, the implications of the Carter review are that we should have been entitled to consequential funding. Ministers will raise the issue, which the Government considers to be of the greatest significance, as part of the joint ministerial committee process.

Derek Brownlee (South of Scotland) (Con):

This is the second issue that has arisen over the past year to do with what might be termed the technical application of the Barnett formula as opposed to issues of more fundamental importance. The first such issue concerned the health baseline that was used in the comprehensive spending review. In that regard, what formal measures has the Scottish Government taken in relation to the dispute resolution procedures that are set out in the statement of funding policy?

John Swinney:

I have made direct representations to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on this Government's dissatisfaction with the way in which the UK Government has addressed the baseline changes in health and the financial consequences of the Carter review. As I indicated in my answer to Sandra White, the Government will pursue those issues as part of the discussion in the joint ministerial committee, which meets in a fortnight. We indicated our intention to pursue those matters to the Secretary of State for Wales, who has responsibility for convening the joint ministerial committee.


Efficiency Delivery Plans

To ask the Scottish Executive what progress it has made in implementing its efficiency delivery plans. (S3O-3738)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

The second iteration of our efficiency delivery plans was issued on 30 May. Implementation and delivery of those plans is a matter for each organisation concerned. As with the previous programme, each project is subject to assessment as part of the on-going cycle for ensuring delivery, and each organisation should ensure that it has adequate information to support the delivery of each of the efficiency gains. That information is, of course, subject to external audit.

James Kelly:

The cabinet secretary will be aware of concerns in Scotland's communities that, instead of efficiency gains being made in local government budgets, budgets are being cut. Can the cabinet secretary outline how the single outcome agreements covering local government efficiency gains will be sufficiently transparent to allow communities to take a view as to whether there are real efficiency savings or cuts that will result in job losses and reduced services?

John Swinney:

There is a distinction in terms of where the focus of the information will emerge. There is an efficiency programme, and we have set out its direction. There will be a requirement for individual authorities to report on the basis of those efficiency savings. That will not form part of the reporting stream of the single outcome agreements, which exist to ensure that, as a consequence of the collaborative work that the Government is encouraging between different public authorities, including our local authorities at local level, we have a clear understanding of how organisations are working to support the national outcomes that were announced as part of the spending review on 14 November 2007.

The focus of efficiency savings is to ensure that we enhance value for money, deliver improved public services and improve productivity. The definitions of what constitutes an efficiency saving are set out in the efficient government delivery plans that I have published. They are available for members to scrutinise, and of course there will be the opportunity to scrutinise the delivery of the plans once they are implemented.

Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):

Does the minister agree that, if Wendy Alexander's proposal for a 3 per cent top-sliced local government efficiency saving had been imposed rather than the 2 per cent efficiency saving that he has implemented, which can be reinvested, we would now be seeing real cuts in services and real job losses in our local authorities?

John Swinney:

Mr Gibson has made another fair point; he is on good form today in making good points. He accurately says that the Government was criticised by the Labour Opposition—the now Labour leader—for not undertaking 3 per cent efficiency savings. We went for a deliverable 2 per cent efficiency saving level, under criticism from the Labour Party, which wanted us to go further. However, we did not believe that that would be sustainable, because it would have involved the compulsory redundancy programme of Gordon Brown and the United Kingdom Government, and this Government will not go there.

On the local government question, the Government has, for the first time, allowed local authorities to retain for reinvestment in front-line services the efficiency gains that they make. That is the right incentivisation to encourage our local authorities to improve public service delivery, enhance value for money and improve productivity in the delivery of our public services.


Sustainable Communities

To ask the Scottish Executive how it supports the development of sustainable communities. (S3O-3767)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

The Scottish Government supports the development of sustainable communities in a number of different ways, including the provision of guidance and advice through "Firm Foundations: The Future of Housing in Scotland", the national planning framework and our Scottish sustainable communities initiative.

Hugh O’Donnell:

The cabinet secretary will doubtless be aware of concerns in Lanarkshire about progress on the creation of the new community of Ravenscraig. Can he advise me, in light of those concerns, what funding is being supplied to progress the development of Ravenscraig as a new community rather than as just a peripheral housing estate?

John Swinney:

I do not follow the inference in Mr O'Donnell's question. The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism has met all the players involved in the Ravenscraig development and I visited the site with the leader of North Lanarkshire Council, Jim McCabe, some months ago. The Government remains committed to supporting the development of the new community at Ravenscraig. There is an exciting development there that involves the creation of many new homes, a town centre, business and industrial space, parkland area, a new transport network, a new sports facility, a new college campus and two new schools. The Government is supporting the development process, and we will continue to have constructive dialogue with North Lanarkshire Council and other players to progress the initiative.


Scottish Water (Review)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it intends to complete its review of Scottish Water and report to the Parliament on its conclusions. (S3O-3685)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

I refer the member to the answer that I gave in response to parliamentary question S3W-11146 on 17 April 2008, in which I stated:

"Following the Parliamentary motion of 21 February 2008, we are keeping under review the structure and operations of Scottish Water as part of our regular work on the water industry in Scotland."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 17 April 2008; S3W-11146.]

David McLetchie:

I am well aware of the answer that the minister gave to that question. However, I want to refresh his memory with respect to the content of the parliamentary motion that was passed on 21 February 2008. That motion stated that a number of matters were to be kept under review by the Scottish Government, including alternative models for Scottish Water, such as mutualisation, and that the Scottish Government was

"to report back to the Parliament in due course."

Given the Government's excellent record to date in making ministerial statements to Parliament in response to parliamentary motions, will the minister assure us that "in due course" means before the end of the year?

Stewart Stevenson:

We are keeping things under review as we promised and as the motion requires us to do. I particularly thank the member for giving me the opportunity to fulfil the promise to report before the summer by reporting to Parliament here and now that we have been keeping things under review and that we continue to have the top-performing water company in these islands.


Income Tax (Assistance)

To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it can provide to people whose income is reduced as a result of the scrapping of the 10p income tax rate. (S3O-3705)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in May to outline the Scottish Government's opposition to the decision to abolish the 10p starting rate of income tax and to request clarification on how the United Kingdom Government will fully compensate all those who have lost out as a result of the policy change. The solidarity target in our economic strategy highlights the Scottish Government's commitment to reducing inequality. That is why, in partnership with local government in Scotland, we have secured a freeze on council tax bills and launched our consultation on plans to introduce a local income tax that will more accurately reflect people's ability to pay.

Bill Kidd:

Office for National Statistics figures show that almost 4 million children and 2.5 million pensioners still live in poverty under Gordon Brown's Government. Does the cabinet secretary believe that that poverty will be reduced by replacing the unfair council tax with a local income tax that is based on the ability to pay?

John Swinney:

Mr Kidd will be aware that the Government's local income tax proposals are designed to put in place a system that is based on the ability to pay. More than four out of five households will be better off or no worse off under our local income tax plans. As a consequence of abolishing the council tax there will be real benefits for and relief to people on low incomes. The Government's proposals will be one of the most significant contributions that it can make within its devolved competence to reduce the burden on hard-pressed taxpayers in Scotland.

Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab):

Does the cabinet secretary agree with his colleague in Westminster, Stewart Hosie, who has made it clear that no one wants to reintroduce the 10p tax band and that the important thing is to take measures to compensate those who have lost out? Does he therefore welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's change to the tax code, which will do exactly that?

John Swinney:

That might be possible if every individual who had lost out as a consequence of the abolition of the 10p tax rate had been compensated, which is what I said in my answer to Mr Kidd a moment ago. Sadly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not managed to find a way to compensate all those who lost out as a consequence of the abolition of the 10p tax rate.

The Government of the United Kingdom was elected supposedly to support those on low and fragile incomes, yet it has taken the absolutely incredible decision to punish those individuals. That shows where the Labour Government's priorities lie.


Public Transport (Support)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to support public transport, in light of recent fuel price rises. (S3O-3680)

We are investing significantly to improve Scotland's public transport, including rail and tram services, travel information and bus services.

John Lamont:

Does the minister agree that, following the massive increases in fuel prices in recent months, the time has come for a thorough and urgent review of the bus service operators grant, in an effort better to serve our hard-pressed bus companies, such as Munro's of Jedburgh? Does he also agree that, in the light of the intense pressure that operators presently face, this is definitely not the time to attach strings to any rebates, whether related to vehicle type, energy efficiency or other criteria?

Stewart Stevenson:

The very real difficulty that the member has in focusing on the bus service operators grant is that it accounts for less than 10 per cent of the increase in fuel costs that bus operators are experiencing. Where does the other 90 per cent come from? It comes entirely from the increase in fuel prices and the United Kingdom Government's failure to respond to the constructive suggestion that my parliamentary colleagues at Westminster have made for a fuel duty regulator, which would cap the price of fuel and enable bus operators to be supported in an appropriate way through a mechanism that levelled out such increases. I suggest that the member direct his attention towards that issue and to ensuring that his parliamentary colleagues at Westminster support, in committee, the proposals for a fuel duty regulator.


Proposed Climate Change Bill

15. Cathy Peattie (Falkirk East) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it has given to the inclusion in the climate change bill of measures to support the reduction of emissions through reform of planning and building standards for new and existing domestic and non-domestic buildings to facilitate energy conservation and renewable generation, and through the creation of new incentives to make such improvements possible through grants and reductions in local taxation. (S3O-3755)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

Improving the energy efficiency of buildings and encouraging microgeneration where appropriate—whether through changes to planning, building standards, incentives or other measures—will be important in helping to meet the 80 per cent emissions reduction target that will be set by the proposed Scottish climate change bill.

We are already making progress. For example, we have tripled the support for community and microgeneration, bringing the funding to £13.5 million for this year and the next two years. Since its launch in 1999, we have invested more than £4 million in our interest-free, revolving loan fund to enable small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in energy efficiency technologies. Half of that investment has been made since the change of Government. On 4 June, we launched the energy saving Scotland one-stop-shop advice network, which is funded by the Scottish Government and managed by the Energy Saving Trust.

On future legislation, we have consulted on proposals to grant permitted development rights to microgeneration equipment on domestic buildings, and we intend to produce an amendment to the general permitted development order after the summer recess. We also intend to consult publicly, in the coming months, on energy efficiency measures in housing and non-domestic buildings. Should measures come forward that require primary legislation, the proposed climate change bill may provide a suitable vehicle.

I call Alex Johnstone.



My apologies, Mr Johnstone. The minister's answer was so long that I forgot that there was still a supplementary question to come.

Cathy Peattie:

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Does the minister agree that the first steps in dealing with climate change involve convincing local people of the need to do so? Will he consider how the proposed climate change bill can address that? Furthermore, would not improvement grants be a good start in demonstrating the Scottish Government's commitment to tackling the issues around climate change?

I will make this answer brief. Local people and individuals in general are key to moving the agenda forward. I hope that we will be able to persuade as many of them as possible to respond to the needs of climate change.

What scope is there likely to be in the climate change bill, through emissions trading or other mechanisms, to generate resource to underpin the Government's objectives?

Stewart Stevenson:

Emissions trading operates at the margins, essentially. It enables us to smooth bumps and dips as we move forward to achieve our climate change objectives. We are working with the United Kingdom Government and the European Union to ensure that we have appropriate trading regimes in place.