Mainstream Education
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the presumption of mainstream education. (S4O-05254)
The Scottish Government’s position on the presumption of mainstream education is clearly set out in legislation. The Standards in Scotland’s Schools etc Act 2000 places a duty on education authorities to provide education in a mainstream school unless specific exceptions apply. In summary, those exceptions are where education provided in a mainstream school is not suitable for the aptitude and abilities of the child in question; where placing the child in a mainstream school may be seriously disruptive to other pupils at the school; and where placing the child in a mainstream school would incur unreasonable levels of public expenditure. The legislation indicates that it is presumed that those circumstances will arise only exceptionally.
I have received concerns from across Scotland about great inconsistencies in how the presumption of mainstream education is being applied. Can the minister confirm that the Government intends to review the presumption and indicate what he hopes a review might achieve?
I can certainly confirm to the member that a review of the guidance on the duty to provide mainstream education will take place. The review will aim to refresh the current guidance in light of legislative and policy developments, and it will be undertaken in partnership with stakeholders. The draft guidance that will be developed subsequently will be subject to public consultation to ensure that the contributions of a wide range of interested individuals and organisations can be made and heard. Given the member’s long-standing interest in and knowledge of the subject, I would certainly welcome hearing his views about the refresh of the guidance as it develops.
Paris Agreement (Fossil-fuel Production and Consumption)
To ask the Scottish Government what the implications for Scotland are of the Paris agreement for fossil-fuel production and consumption. (S4O-05255)
The First Minister and I were privileged to represent Scotland at the United Nations climate conference last month. Thanks to the efforts of everyone in Scotland, we reported a 38.4 per cent cut in emissions since 1990, which is much more than the 31.7 per cent originally envisaged. We now generate half our electricity demand from renewables and have delivered our 500MW target for community renewables five years early. In addition, our 12 per cent target for energy efficiency improvement was already at the required level in 2013. The First Minister pledged a further doubling of our climate justice support for some of the world’s poorest people.
As we hoped, the Paris agreement provides certainty about the global low-carbon future in the same way that we set certainty for Scotland’s low-carbon future in legislation in 2009. The agreement sets a clear international context for our climate change proposals and policies covering the period to 2032 and, in addition to Scotland’s economic and industrial objectives, it will set the context for our new energy strategy.
I am grateful for that answer, although it did not mention fossil fuels, which were the subject of the question. The fifth assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was the first to include a carbon budget—an expectation of the amount of fossil fuel that the world can use if we want to have a reasonable chance of achieving the goal of restraining climate change to 2°C above the pre-industrial temperature level. Given that the Paris agreement sets a more ambitious goal of well below 2°C and aims at 1.5°C, will we not inevitably have to acknowledge that the world has dramatically more existing reserves of fossil fuels than we can afford to use and that countries such as Scotland or the United Kingdom are going to have to abandon the strategic objective of maximum extraction?
We very much welcome the Paris agreement, which pledges the best global efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C. That is a tremendous victory for our poor and vulnerable, and for climate justice. Advice on the next set of greenhouse gas targets is expected from the Committee on Climate Change in March 2016, and it will be based on the latest evidence, including international policy. The Scottish Government has been clear that Scotland needs a diverse and balanced energy portfolio to provide us with secure and affordable electricity and heat for the decades to come. Our ambitious renewables targets, our climate change targets and our policies on electricity generation, renewable heat and energy efficiency are progressively reducing our use of fossil fuels. As I said, Scotland already generates half our electricity demand from renewables.
I have to declare an interest because I have just leased an all-electric Nissan Leaf.
Does the minister agree that the number of rapid 50kW electric car charging points in the Highlands and Islands should be increased to make ownership of electric vehicles in the Highlands and Islands more attractive?
Yes, that is why we are working closely with our local authorities and other partners to deliver rapid charge points across the Highlands and Islands. There are already 43 available for public use, with a further 10 to be commissioned in the coming months.
Scotland now has one of the most comprehensive networks of rapid charge points in Europe, supporting the continued growth of the electric vehicle market.
Marine Protected Areas (Socioeconomic Impacts)
To ask the Scottish Government what socioeconomic impact assessments it has carried out of the new marine protected areas and how many jobs will be lost on shore and at sea in these locations as a result of their designation. (S4O-05256)
Protecting the habitats and species that exist in our seas is vital if we want to see sustainable futures for the industries that operate in them and realise the wider societal benefits that our ecosystems deliver, for example through carbon capture and storage, coastal defence and, of course, the conservation of fish stocks. The Scottish Government has undertaken detailed impact assessments covering our network of marine protected areas and they show that the long-term benefit for Scotland is very positive.
Will the cabinet secretary listen to the concerns of fishing communities? They have protected the marine environment for generations—had they not, nothing would be left to designate—and they are concerned that designation will pose the biggest threat to the fishing industry and fragile communities for decades. Will he ensure appropriate compensation for workers who are affected by job losses at sea and on shore? Will he set up a partnership action for continuing employment team in each affected area to help the workforce that will be displaced?
Rhoda Grant speaks of the fishing industry. I point out to her that there are many sectors in the fishing industry, of which some believe that we are not going far enough with our proposals and some believe that we are going too far.
I have listened very closely to the concerns that have been expressed, which is why we have had substantial consultation over many months on the proposals, as have the Parliament’s committees. I announced a three-point plan covering environmental monitoring, including £500,000 of support for vessels to participate in that monitoring over three years. We are also monitoring the economic impact and taking other mitigation measures.
The minister will be aware that the proposed marine special protection areas are even more challenging because restrictions on activity are imposed as soon as draft areas are selected for consultation. In Orkney, the areas that have been selected are disproportionately large, offer little scope for mitigation through the relocation of activity and risk sterilising huge areas that are of strategic economic importance to the local community and the country.
Will the cabinet secretary commit to amending the proposals for Orkney waters to address concerns that have been raised by the local council, Orkney Fisheries Association and others?
Although I do not agree with all the language that Liam McArthur used in his question, I recognise that there are concerns about the forthcoming consultations on the SPAs. However, we have European obligations to fulfil and I believe that the people of Scotland want to protect our waters and marine environment. We therefore have to strike a balance between protecting the social and economic interests of our island communities and fulfilling our obligations to protect the marine environment. I will listen closely to representations from Orkney and our other island communities.
Does the cabinet secretary share my disappointment with the Labour Party because it appears not to be interested in protecting the marine environment? Does he agree that, far from costing jobs, marine protected areas will boost jobs by helping to ensure sustainable fisheries and will deliver additional jobs in tourism, angling, marine research and so on?
As is the case with many issues, we have had different messages from different members of the Labour Party. I commend the Labour spokespeople for being supportive of the Government’s direction of travel in marine protection, but other members have perhaps taken a slightly different view.
What is really important is that there is public support for what we are doing to protect the marine environment in Kenneth Gibson’s constituency and elsewhere in Scotland.
The cabinet secretary will be aware of the concerns of the Clyde Fishermen’s Association about the South Arran Marine Conservation Order 2015 (SSI 2015/437) on the recovery of maerl beds. The order prohibits fishing with gear and certain other types of fishing. Does he agree with the Clyde Fishermen’s Association that that level of protection is unnecessary and unwelcome, that the consultation period was inadequate and too short, and that Clyde fishermen’s incomes and livelihoods will be put at risk as a result of the order?
I assure John Scott and others that we undertook 20 weeks of consultation on the management measures and, as I said, parliamentary committees also undertook around eight weeks of consultation on them. I point out that many parts of the fishing industry support what we are doing and wish that we were going further. We have also had a lot of support from local communities, whose voices we must listen to when we consider the future of Scotland’s marine environment.
Public Services (Universalism)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on calls to revisit its position on the principle of universalism in public service provision. (S4O-05257)
We believe in a fair and equal Scotland and our commitment to universal public services, which we reaffirmed in the recent draft budget, is vital to create the right social and economic conditions for everyone to flourish.
Can I take it from his response that, like me, the cabinet secretary is proud to be part of a Government that opposes unnecessary means testing for the provision of public benefits and does not want to return to the previous situation, as promoted by the better together parties?
Absolutely. Universal services in Scotland are wide ranging and consequently apply to different groups on a range of bases. It would be extremely difficult to apply any form of means testing for existing universal services on an equitable basis. Such universal benefits have the advantage of being transparent, equitable and non-stigmatising. Take-up is often a matter of individual choice, rather than relating to demonstration of experience of need, and that reduces unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy.
Unlike Johann Lamont, who at the weekend questioned whether people need free higher education, free bus passes, free school meals and free prescriptions, we believe that people do need those things. We all contribute to society, and we all benefit. These are the choices on investment in our society that we make to reduce poverty, and they support the Government’s commitment to a fairer, healthier and more prosperous country.
Does the cabinet secretary not think that it is time to embrace progressive universalism, rather than crude universalism? For example, within the universal provision of healthcare, more resources should be targeted to general practitioners in deprived areas, and within the universal service of education, more resources should be targeted at schools and nurseries where there are significant numbers pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, as proposed by Kezia Dugdale.
We already have progressive universalism. For example, in the health service—[Interruption.]
Order.
—we have more than 100 deep-end practices, in and around Glasgow in particular. They get additional resources for link workers and the like. My point about Johann Lamont’s contribution was that it was neither universal nor progressive.
National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (Meeting)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the outcome of its recent meeting with the RMT union. (S4O-05258)
I met RMT on Thursday 7 January and again this morning as part of a Scottish Trades Union Congress delegation, and I look forward to continued dialogue.
The minister is aware that RMT members who work on the Caledonian sleeper service are in dispute with the new operator, Serco, and that the RMT has identified more than 200 faults with the rolling stock that Serco is operating. The RMT has also repeatedly expressed concern about the inclusion of an indemnity clause in franchising agreements, which it believes undermines industrial relations. Following his comments last night in the members’ business debate on this important issue, will the minister say what action the Scottish Government can take to address those concerns before the arrival of new rolling stock in 2018?
We are all looking forward to the new rolling stock. There is a programme of maintenance and improvement, which has been subject to some interrogation, and I am satisfied with that. On compensation and indemnification, there has been no approach to the Scottish Government for such a payment. However, I am sure that all members will welcome the progress that RMT and Serco have made through the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on the current concerns and issues for dialogue.
Legal Aid Fund
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason total expenditure on the legal aid fund in 2014-15 fell by 8 per cent compared with the previous year. (S4O-05259)
Comparison between years is not straightforward, as a range of factors influences the demand for and level of legal aid. Anyone eligible who requires legal aid will receive it, as it is a demand-led system—we do not ration access to legal aid on the basis of available budget. Indeed, in every year since 2012-13, actual spend on the legal aid fund has exceeded the budget that was set for that year.
A slowdown in court business has resulted in a decrease in criminal expenditure. That is part of a longer-term trend in which criminal proceedings have reduced in number from 179,500 in 1994 to 122,000 in 2013-14.
We plan to work with the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board to review legal aid provision, to understand the factors that influence the need for legal aid and to discuss how best to achieve a simpler and more efficient legal aid system that better manages expenditure while protecting access to justice—something that has not been protected in England and Wales.
In addition, through the justice board, we are taking the necessary steps to speed up access to justice within sheriff courts, and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has confirmed that trial diets are now being made available across courts in line with optimum timescales.
The minister will be aware of the concerns that have been raised by the members of the Falkirk and District Faculty of Solicitors. Under the new sheriff appeal court arrangement, those judges who preside at hearings, the other court officials, police officers and lawyers for the prosecution will receive 2015 rates of pay, while those in court who are standing up for the appellant will receive only 1992 rates of pay. Does he agree that that situation is unacceptable? In his response to me dated 4 November 2015, he stated that he is
“committed to reviewing legal aid arrangements to find a sustainable and appropriate fee structure”.
When does he expect that review to take place?
On the latter point, I have just outlined in my original answer the work that we are doing with the Law Society and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Indeed, I had an internal meeting in the Scottish Government today to discuss how we take that work forward.
On the first point on fee rates, it is worth pointing out to the chamber that there have been significant changes to legal aid fees for summary criminal work in the past decade. For example, in 2008 the payment for guilty pleas under assistance by way of representation funding was increased from £70 in the sheriff court; it is currently £485. Statutory provisions on rates across legal aid have been subject to multiple revisions over the years. For example, the broad structure of the current fixed-payment regime for summary criminal work was put in place in 1999—not 1992—and has been subsequently been amended.
Focusing solely on the perceived profitability of individual elements gives an incomplete picture, because total payment for legal aid work is considered in the round. However, I recognise that there are concerns in the sector. I am happy to continue to listen to the member and others who bring forward such points. I am happy to engage with Siobhan McMahon as the review is undertaken.
Barnett Consequentials (Mental Health Spending)
To ask the Scottish Government what Barnett consequentials will arise from the £600 million increase in mental health spending announced in the recent spending review, and how the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Constitution and Economy plans to allocate this. (S4O-05260)
At a spending review, Barnett consequentials are determined on a departmental level as opposed to a programme level. It is therefore not possible to isolate the financial impact of individual spending decisions, although any consequentials from expenditure on mental health in England will be reflected in the Scottish Government’s total budget announced in the spending review.
Last year we announced investment of £100 million to improve mental health services over the next five years. The draft budget 2016-17 provides an additional £50 million, which results in a total package of £150 million. On Tuesday the First Minister announced that £54.1 million—over one third of that package—will be invested over the next four years to provide support to boards to meet waiting times targets by investing in workforce development, recruitment and retention, and service improvement support.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his response, but we must insist that we take the spending in context. The percentage of national health service expenditure in Scotland that relates to mental health has been falling since 2009. Child and adolescent mental health services receive about 0.45 per cent of the total NHS budget in Scotland, compared with 0.7 per cent in England. Therefore, will the cabinet secretary recognise that children and adolescent mental health services are underfunded and underresourced? Does he accept that the additional £10 million a year for mental health that he has announced is not going to deliver the step change that we desperately need?
The Government and I acknowledge the importance of ensuring that we have in place effective mental health services in the country. We particularly acknowledge that child and adolescent mental health services must meet the needs of individuals in our society. It is for those reasons that the Government has increased the resources that are available to mental health services, to ensure that we can fulfil the expectations that members of the public rightly have. There is provision for that improvement in the budget that I put to the Parliament in December.