Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 17 Apr 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, April 17, 2008


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Finance and Sustainable Growth


First ScotRail Franchise

1. Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive why, in advance of a study by Audit Scotland to establish whether the First ScotRail franchise is giving value for money, it announced the extension of that franchise for a further period of three years without prior reference to the Parliament. (S3O-2916)

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

This was the best time to extend the franchise, allowing the Government to secure early service improvements and funding from the franchisee. The option to extend was part of the original franchise agreement, which was fully consulted on before it was let. The core franchise proposition has not changed as a result of our exercising the extension option.

Jackie Baillie:

The minister will be aware of the anger and disappointment felt at the fact that he failed to consult stakeholders, failed to await the publication of the Audit Scotland report in the autumn and even failed to give Audit Scotland advance notice of what he planned to do. There is undoubtedly plenty of time for us to reflect on whether the franchise represents value for money to the public pursue. I hope that he will agree that the best time for deciding whether to renew the franchise is when we have secured such value for money.

I ask the minister to indicate whether he agrees with the following comment:

"Whatever else we might disagree on, we should surely agree that, when we spend public money, we must seek value for money. That means not tying our hands."—[Official Report, 5 March 2008; c 6581.]

He may be interested to learn that the comment was made by himself—yes, by Stewart Stevenson—in the chamber on 5 March.

Stewart Stevenson:

I am pleased to advise the member that the agreement that we have reached gives us a further 18 months in which to decide whether to refranchise in 2011. That will allow us to take account of any conclusions that Audit Scotland reaches that are material to the performance of the franchisee. I continue to agree with myself—I am not having a bout of schizophrenia. We shall, of course, engage with stakeholders when deciding how to spend the extra £70 million that this excellent agreement will deliver for Scotland's railways.

Alex Johnstone (North East Scotland) (Con):

I heard with interest the answer that the First Minister gave earlier today on this subject. I was delighted to hear that there will be additional developments in services between Edinburgh and Glasgow, south of Glasgow and north of Inverness. Will you give a commitment today to ensure that there is effort to improve services between Aberdeen and the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, so that your constituents and mine can enjoy some of the benefit of the agreement?

I will not answer the question, but the minister may.

Stewart Stevenson:

Fortunately, we have already committed ourselves to improving services between Aberdeen and Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow and Aberdeen and Inverness, as well as between Inverness and the central belt. The announcement of improvements north of Inverness means that the whole of Scotland will benefit from the extra money that is being invested in railways, which will now be augmented by £70 million under the wonderful agreement that we have concluded.


Work Placements

To ask the Scottish Executive what support is to be provided to businesses to expand work placement opportunities. (S3O-2894)

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

The Scottish Government recognises the importance of work placement opportunities and the valuable role that they play in enabling Scotland's young people to develop their skills, knowledge and understanding in preparation for entering the world of work. Through determined to succeed, our strategy for enterprise in education, we will continue to assist local authorities throughout Scotland in providing help and support to employers in building effective relationships with schools. Indeed, a characteristic of our consultations with industry sectors has been that virtually every sector wants to have the opportunity to showcase the potential of its industry to pupils and schools. Consequently, we can be sure that work placements and other enterprising and entrepreneurial activities will take place in the context of the curriculum for excellence to help create a smarter Scotland.

Jeremy Purvis:

Does the minister agree that the co-ordination of assistance is best done at the local level, as has always happened successfully in the Borders using connections between local careers advisers, companies and schools? Indeed, the Borders has been highlighted as one of the success stories in Scotland.

I hope that the minister will share my surprise and considerable disappointment on receiving a letter recently in which I was told that, as a result of the Government's decision to establish a new centralised skills agency, work experience placements in the Borders will no longer be co-ordinated from the Borders. I was told that, from 1 July, all work experience programmes for the Borders will be co-ordinated through the continuing education gateway, Pollokshields, Glasgow. Will the Government reconsider the matter? It is a considerable mistake to move something that has always been in the Borders to somewhere that has no connection to the Borders.

Jim Mather:

The member needs to look at the practicality of life on the ground. The determined to succeed funding is going to local authorities, who will be responsible for local economic development, control the business gateway and are already building strong links to the business community. I hope to help that myself in practical terms. The real test is how this shapes up on the ground: how we get local interests to merge to deliver everything we want, including determined to succeed, more work placements and a better economy.

Question 3 is withdrawn for entirely understandable reasons. If he is quick about it, I will let Michael Matheson ask question 4. Your late arrival is a slight discourtesy to the chamber, Mr Matheson.


Scottish Water (Compensation Payments)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is satisfied with the way in which Scottish Water is handling compensation claims from farmers. (S3O-2874)

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

The procedures for providing compensation for loss or damage that is sustained by any person by reason of the exercise by Scottish Water of its powers are clearly outlined in both the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Water (Scotland) Act 1980, and they have operated successfully for a number of years. The legislation also provides for arbitration in case of disputes.

Michael Matheson:

I apologise to the chamber for my late arrival, which was due to the change in time of the business programme.

Is the minister aware that it can take almost three or four years for farmers to secure compensation from Scottish Water when it causes damage to their farmland as a result of its work programme? Will he ensure that Scottish Water looks at its compensation scheme so that it provides compensation more timeously to farmers where it accepts liability for the damage that it has caused to farm land?

Before I call the minister, I accept your apology, Mr Matheson, but I point out that Parliament agreed the change to the business programme yesterday.

Stewart Stevenson:

A delay of three to four years is not the kind of performance that I expect to see. Scottish Water has improved its performance in many areas. Certainly, it is stepping up its game on customer service. If the member makes me aware of the specifics of the instances to which he referred, I will be happy to raise the matter with Scottish Water management to ensure that no one else experiences delays of that order.

Alasdair Allan (Western Isles) (SNP):

A dh'fhaighneachd do Riaghaltas na h-Alba ciamar a nì e cinnteach gum bi Uisge na h-Alba ag obair nas fheàrr anns an àm ri teachd ann a bhith a' reic grunnd croitearachd tro rop poblach.

To ask the Scottish Government how it will ensure that in future Scottish Water improves the way it deals with instances where it sells crofting land by public auction.

Stewart Stevenson:

Tapadh leibh, Alasdair.

There was a recent sale of land that had once been crofting land but was no longer in crofting ownership or subject to the various crofting acts. I have discussed the issue with the Minister for the Environment, who has a particular interest in the subject. We are looking at what options we have to ensure that communities have the most effective opportunities to ensure that land that has been taken into the control of Scottish Water and other public bodies is returned to the communities that once owned it.


Bus Service Operators Grant

To ask the Scottish Executive what response it has made to representations from the bus industry regarding the bus service operators grant. (S3O-2946)

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

Ministers are currently considering the future levels of bus service operators grant. Any changes to the increased level of funding that was set out in the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth's budget statement on 6 February 2008 will be announced in due course.

Des McNulty:

The minister might remember that, during the budget debate, I raised the issue of the bus service operators grant, and specifically the fact that it would inevitably lead to fare increases. Is the minister aware of the Competition Commission report that was released earlier this week, which removes the cap from fare levels in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and which directly blames the Scottish Government's BSOG policy for the fare increases? Is he aware of this week's announcement by Stagecoach of bus fare increases in Fife, which are also directly attributable to the incompetence of his Government?

Stewart Stevenson:

I am afraid that the member must look closer to home for incompetence. He will be aware of the substantial increases in taxation that have led to the increases to which he refers—and there is the huge bonus that the Treasury is getting from the increase in the price of oil. If the member were to examine the construction of the bus companies' cost base, which is leading to the fare increases, he would find that the bus service operators grant is an extremely marginal part of it, and that the essence of the increase in the price of bus services is derived from the increase in the cost of fuel. The Competition Commission did not draw the conclusion to which the member refers.


Economic Growth<br />(Small Business Bonus Scheme)

To ask the Scottish Executive how the small business bonus scheme will aid economic growth. (S3O-2937)

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

The wider economic outlook suggests a challenging period ahead for the Scottish economy. Reducing business rates through our small business bonus scheme will be a key element in helping to sustain existing small businesses and in allowing more people to start up new businesses.

Johann Lamont:

The minister has said in the past that the scheme will cost something like £165 million a year, which everyone would agree is a significant amount of money. However, there appears to be no evidence of the benefits that would establish the scheme as a worthwhile way of spending money. The comparison with the approach to the voluntary sector is remarkable—it is shocking, in fact. In that case, it seems that we have agreed to identify where the valuable parts are and where the dross is. Will the minister confirm that no conditions are attached to the money for small businesses? What systems has he put in place to measure the effectiveness of the scheme? How will he ensure that there is public scrutiny of the claimed benefits of the scheme, as members of our party certainly have no faith in trickle-down economics?

John Swinney:

The Government is clear and firm in its support for the development of the voluntary sector, which is why in our budget statement we allocated an increase of 39 per cent in the funding for the third sector. Mr Mather and I have spend a formidable amount of our time as ministers engaging with the third sector and making it clear that we recognise the enormous contribution that it can make to the development of public policy.

On small businesses, the Government recognises the positive impact of reducing costs to businesses and allowing them to reinvest. Over the course of the recess, I visited a number of businesses in my constituency and other parts of the country. They very much welcome the opportunity to reinvest that the small business bonus scheme allows. As for establishing whether businesses are eligible to benefit from the scheme, the eligibility criteria could not be clearer.

That was not the question.

John Swinney:

The eligibility criteria are what I was asked about. They cannot be clearer, given the arrangements that we have put in place, the work of the assessors in determining who is eligible and the application that individual businesses are required to make. I am delighted to say that businesses are applying for the support so that they can guarantee their further contributions to the growth and development of the Scottish economy. The small business community will clearly understand that the Government is on the side of small business, whereas the Labour Party simply moans about the support that we are giving to the Scottish economy.

What steps will the Government take to ensure that every business that is entitled to a small business bonus receives it?

John Swinney:

The Government has made of the order of 250,000—the exact number is not quite in my head just now—leaflets available to local authorities for dispatch to the businesses that they consider to be eligible. The eligibility criteria are very clear from rateable values. If Mr Brown has not seen that leaflet, I will be delighted to ensure that a copy of it is made available to him, which will give him a full explanation of the eligibility criteria for the small business bonus scheme. If there is any evidence that the leaflets that have been made available are not reaching businesses, I will be delighted to address the situation. I am aware that the City of Edinburgh Council, which covers part of the region that Mr Brown represents, has made the leaflets available to the eligible businesses in its area.

Questions 7 and 8 have been withdrawn.


Business Improvement Districts

To ask the Scottish Executive how it intends to support business improvement districts. (S3O-2947)

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

First, may I congratulate Bathgate town centre, Inverness city centre and the Clackmannanshire business parks on becoming Scotland's first business improvement districts, following their successful ballots. There is now a solid framework for business improvement districts in Scotland, which is backed by practical and financial support from the Government, and the availability of guidance.

Mary Mulligan:

I thank the minister for his congratulations for Bathgate in my constituency, which became the first business improvement district in Scotland. I hope that, in offering his congratulations, Mr Swinney recognises that such districts aid economic growth. Does he also recognise, however, that even with the income that will be raised from the business levy, some problems will be beyond the business improvement district organisation? Will he agree to consider a fund that would assist BIDs with major infrastructure projects, such as the fund to deal with derelict buildings in our town centres, which Labour proposed in the lead-up to last May's election?

John Swinney:

Over the summer, I visited Bathgate to hear about the proposed business improvement district. Mary Mulligan was in attendance that day, and I congratulate her on the success that has been delivered in Bathgate. What struck me about my visit to Bathgate was the fact that its highly motivated business community was determined to improve the locality and the local economy and was making a formidable practical and financial contribution towards making that happen.

That is as it should be—we must acknowledge that the solution to many of the challenges that are faced in our small towns, of which there are many in the constituency that I represent, lies in the private initiative of individual businesses. That is why the Government has put in place support for the small business bonus scheme, which gives greater control to businesses so that they can contribute to some of the schemes to renew the infrastructure and the facilities of town centres that Mary Mulligan might be talking about, and why it is providing additional support to encourage the development of the BID programme in other parts of the country.

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):

Does the cabinet secretary agree that BIDs will be successful only if they are part of a wider package for towns and local communities? He will recall that local authorities, led by Scottish Borders Council, took forward the small-towns review, which was a process that the previous Government started in an effort to examine other ways of providing direct funding for whole-town reviews to co-ordinate not only BIDs but the planning process. That has stalled since the new Government took office—

Briefly, please.

Will the cabinet secretary now breathe new life into that process to ensure that small towns that are outside the BIDs process can have a future?

John Swinney:

In my answer to Mary Mulligan, I made it clear that the Government does not think that the answer lies solely in the BIDs process. Through the budget that Parliament approved in February, we have put in place practical support for the small business bonus scheme, which will resonate in every community, including those in the Borders that Mr Purvis represents.

I recall the small-towns review to which Mr Purvis refers, and I will certainly look at it again to identify whether any further material from that process can be added to the Government's already formidable armoury for supporting the development of small towns, which are fundamental to the Scottish economy.


Public Expenditure

To ask the Scottish Executive how it proposes to increase the level of public expenditure in Scotland. (S3O-2887)

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

The Scottish Government's spending plans were published in "Scottish Budget Spending Review 2007" and made full and prudent use of all the resources available to us. Further expenditure can be authorised only if the Scottish Government is in receipt of additional funding.

Ross Finnie:

We all understand that, but the cabinet secretary has made much of the fact that, in his opinion, the settlement was poor. In the ordinary use of the English language, the only reasonable inference to draw from that is that he would have wished to spend more. My question was therefore direct. How would he spend more, particularly given that he has made much of not wishing to penalise business by increasing taxation and that he is tied to a monetary policy in London that would not allow him to borrow more? I repeat my question: given that the cabinet secretary has made much of wishing to spend more, how would he raise that money?

John Swinney:

Well—that question is fascinating. If the Presiding Officer will indulge me, I can address Parliament for the remainder of the afternoon on how we could change the fiscal settlement. Mr Finnie has experience as a minister of eight years and he knows as well as I do the financial rules in which this constrained Parliament must operate. If he wishes to join me in the endeavours to give the Parliament greater power and ability to increase public expenditure, reduce business taxation further and command the enormous resources that the Scottish economy contributes to the United Kingdom Treasury, I will be only too delighted to co-operate with him.

Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP):

It is clear that the cabinet secretary shares my surprise that Ross Finnie did not follow the logic of his own argument and argue for Scottish independence. Is the cabinet secretary also surprised that the member ignored the Government's successful moves towards efficiency in government, which are delivering more public services for the small amount of money that we are receiving from Westminster?

John Swinney:

As one would expect from Mr Morgan, that was a clear and eloquent explanation of the dynamic debate in which we are involved to move to Scottish independence. The Government is using all the powers and opportunities that are available to it to deliver an efficient public sector that maximises the impact of the public expenditure that is under its control. The Government will proceed in the next three years to use fully the public expenditure that is at its disposal.

I just want to check something with the cabinet secretary. Surely he is not suggesting that if he had access to greater tax powers, he would use them to increase tax in Scotland even further.

John Swinney:

I ask the Presiding Officer to allow me to take up the remaining part of the afternoon session in answering Mr Brownlee, who has of course had formidable academic training in economics and accountancy. The opportunity would be available to reduce business taxation, which plenty of evidence shows would increase the tax take, thereby allowing Governments to make more public expenditure. The Government would be delighted to have the powers to embark on that. If, as a consequence of this afternoon's rather traditional question time format, Mr Finnie and Mr Brownlee enthusiastically join me in a campaign for Scottish independence—my goodness—we will have made progress.


Wind Turbines (Permitted Development Rights)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will reconsider the distance criteria that are proposed as a precondition of permitted development rights for wind turbines. (S3O-2922)

The Government is consulting on revised permitted development rights for microgeneration equipment on domestic dwellings. We shall consider the issue further when the consultation closes on 12 May.

Malcolm Chisholm:

If permitted development rights for microturbines applied only to houses that were at least 100m from the next house, as proposed in the Scottish Government's consultation paper, how many households in Edinburgh does the minister think would benefit from such rights? Would it be better to have a minimum standard for noise emissions from microturbines and to grant permitted development rights wherever that standard was met?

Stewart Stevenson:

The member makes a fair point. The 100m distance was based on concerns about noise. If we can establish a clear and obvious standard, there is no particular reason why we cannot reduce the distance. I look forward to seeing responses to the consultation on that point. I rather hope to put up a turbine myself.

Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):

I wish the minister every success with his new wind turbine.

We currently have hundreds of speculative planning applications for wind farms all over Scotland, which puts huge strain on council planning departments and causes communities grave concern. Surely it is time to revisit national planning guidance on siting onshore wind farms to end that ludicrous free for all.

Stewart Stevenson:

The member is talking about something other than microgeneration. [Interruption.] That noise was not from my phone—I have just checked. Murdo Fraser will be aware of our serious endeavours to improve the operation of the planning system with regard to wind farms and other matters. Having officials making more decisions and dealing with appeals locally will speed up the planning process, improve its efficiency and deliver answers, whether positive or negative, to applicants much sooner than happens at present.


Education Services (Highland Council)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consider providing additional financial assistance to Highland Council to help in delivering education services. (S3O-2899)

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

Highland Council will receive £510.4 million in core revenue funding in 2008-09, which represents an increase of 4.82 per cent compared with a Scottish average of 4.55 per cent. Under the terms of the concordat with local government, it is for Highland Council to allocate the resources that are at its disposal in the light of local requirements.

Jamie Stone:

It will come as no surprise to the cabinet secretary that uppermost in my mind is the state of Wick high school in my constituency, which is in a poor physical state. In view of the fact that Councillor Bill Fernie, the chairman of Highland Council's education, culture and sport committee, said that it will not be possible for the school to be done up under the present funding settlement, is it possible for the council to bid for central reserve funds, contingency funding or end-year savings, which the cabinet secretary could perhaps allocate to his education counterparts? If not, will the cabinet secretary consider establishing such funding in order that problems such as the state of Wick high school can be addressed?

John Swinney:

I appreciate that Mr Stone has pursued the issue of the condition of Wick high school for some considerable time—it is not a new problem that has just arisen. The type of funding opportunities that he suggests are not available within the Government's financial settlement. Mr Stone will appreciate the limitations of the financial settlement that we had at our disposal.

Developing refurbishment or reconstruction proposals for Wick high school is a matter for Highland Council. The Government will continue its engagement with the council on all matters relating to capital investment in the schools of the Highlands.


Aberdeen City Council (Services)

To ask the Scottish Executive what steps it can take to help Aberdeen City Council achieve long-term financial stability and avoid cuts to essential services. (S3O-2941)

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

This Government believes in prudent financial management to safeguard the public purse and to ensure that public bodies, including local authorities, live within their means. We will continue to monitor the situation in Aberdeen to assess what support might be given locally.

Lewis Macdonald:

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer and for his offer to meet me and colleagues from other parties to discuss matters next week.

The cabinet secretary will have read the controller of audit's report to the Accounts Commission. Does he agree that part of the reason for the £27 million of public service cuts in Aberdeen this year is the imbalance between capital and revenue budgets over the past three years? Too much was set aside for capital projects and not enough was available to provide services. Will the cabinet secretary consider what he can do to assist and encourage the council to put that balance right?

John Swinney:

There is a statutory requirement on all local authorities to manage their affairs and finances properly. The Government will support that process in Aberdeen City Council. The Accounts Commission has announced that it is to hold a hearing on the council's funding issues. Nicol Stephen wrote to me on that subject. In my letter to him, which I have made public, I said that the problems did not arise overnight but accumulated over a number of years. I hope that the discussions with the Accounts Commission will create a focus to ensure that the city's financial problems—Audit Scotland has described the situation as precarious—will be addressed properly and fully.

As Mr Macdonald has made clear, I will meet the council's leadership next week, along with members of all political parties who have made representations to me about the subject. I hope that we can have a constructive discussion about how to address the problems, because Aberdeen City Council must be able to live within its means and the people of Aberdeen must have quality public services.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):

Does the minister have a view about how the council arrived at the precarious financial position that it is reported to be in? Is the minister minded to support applications like the one for the aye can project, which has rescued that service as a social enterprise? Might other services follow that avenue?

John Swinney:

As I have set out in my letter to Nicol Stephen and in my public comments on this subject, I am clear that the situation has come about purely and simply because Aberdeen City Council spent almost £50 million more than it budgeted for in the years between 2002 and 2007 and supported that by using reserves. We all understand that that cannot go on for ever, because reserves cannot support expenditure of that magnitude for a sustained period. That is why the situation has arisen, and the city council must face up to those issues. The Accounts Commission will assist it in that process, as will the Government.

I was pleased to see Mr Mather's announcement about the support that has been given by the Scottish investment fund and about the participation of the Wood Family Trust, led by Sir Ian Wood, which has assisted the transition of one council service—aye can—into a social enterprise. That imaginative model has ensured continuity of access to support for people with disabilities. I hope that many people will learn lessons from that imaginative partnership between the city council, the Scottish Government and Sir Ian Wood.


Identity Cards (Access to Services)

To ask the Scottish Government what its current position is on the use of identity cards to access services for which it has responsibility. (S3O-2876)

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

The Scottish Government continues to maintain its position that the United Kingdom identity card will not be required to access devolved services. Scottish interests in relation to devolved services are protected by section 43 of the Identity Cards Act 2006, which specifies that the national identity register or an identity card issued under the act can be used only in relation to matters that are reserved to Westminster, or in accordance with an act of the Scottish Parliament.

Christina McKelvie:

I am sure that, like me, the cabinet secretary does not agree that ID cards would do anything to stop crime or terrorism but would in fact aid some crimes, such as identity theft, especially if the database could be accessed remotely. Can he assure us that the Government will do all that it can to protect the Scottish public from the worst effects of ID cards if the Westminster Government is daft enough to try to impose them on us all?

John Swinney:

That is a decision that the UK Government is perfectly entitled to make, but it is not one that would be supported by this Government. I assure the member that the Scottish National Party Administration intends to remain clear in its opposition to the introduction of ID cards and will certainly not permit any identity cards that are implemented in the UK to be required to access public services in Scotland.


European Funding

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Her Majesty's Government regarding maximising European funding opportunities for Scotland. (S3O-2949)

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

The Scottish Government receives several channels of European Union funding to complement domestic spending priorities. In each case, the Scottish ministers have negotiated directly with United Kingdom ministers on allocations for Scotland to ensure that Scotland receives its fair share of European Union funding. The Scottish ministers are committed to ensuring that that funding is strategically matched to Scottish Government priorities.

Irene Oldfather:

The minister will no doubt be aware that in March the European Parliament voted to grant the UK £115 million of EU solidarity funding to assist with flooding measures. Can the minister explain why the east midlands, the west midlands, Yorkshire, Humberside, Wales and Northern Ireland all applied for a share of that funding but Scotland did not? Is that consistent with the Government's policy of standing up for Scotland?

I am unaware that we failed to apply for funds. I will make strenuous investigations to find out whether that is indeed the case.


Glasgow Subway

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with Strathclyde partnership for transport about the development of the Glasgow subway. (S3O-2903)

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

I have discussed various transport projects that have been proposed for Glasgow, including subway development, with SPT officials. My officials remain in regular contact with SPT and will be happy to discuss any formal subway development proposals if and when they are received.

Bill Aitken:

The minister will be aware of SPT's enthusiasm for extending the Glasgow subway beyond its current very limited circular route. Does he agree that extending the subway into new parts of the city, and therefore opening it up to new customers, could be a crucial step in enhancing its financial viability? Will he pledge to consider seriously whether that project might be worthy of being taken forward?

Stewart Stevenson:

I am certainly interested in improving transport in Glasgow. There are a number of opportunities: we will have a members' business debate tonight on Glasgow crossrail, there are the fastlink proposals for improved bus services, and the subway is an important part of the transport infrastructure in Glasgow. I am seriously engaged with all of those. At the end of the day, the cost benefit cases must stack up. We have to prioritise our expenditure. I expect that SPT will, in its typically professional way, conduct its investigations in a manner that enables it to put a case to ministers that we will understand and to which we will be able to respond.


School Estate

17. Stuart McMillan (West of Scotland) (SNP):

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the recent Audit Scotland report, "Improving the school estate", and in particular the annual charges from private finance initiative contracts. (S3O-2877)

The Scottish Government will have discussions with COSLA on the recently published report from Audit Scotland, "Improving the school estate", most of whose recommendations are addressed to councils, or jointly to the Government and councils.

Stuart McMillan:

The cabinet secretary will be aware that that excellent report highlights that by 2012, annual charges for PFI projects are likely to reach more than £500 million, with just over £200 million being funded by the Scottish Government. The report did not mention who will fund inflationary increases. Will the cabinet secretary agree to look into the matter? Does he agree that the PFI funding mechanism is not the best use of limited public funds?

John Swinney:

This Administration has had to deal with the significantly rising cost of PFI and public-private partnership charges in the financial settlement that we inherited. A number of projects that the previous Administration commissioned did not consider effectively the long-term funding requirements that would arise given the nature of PPP contracts. This Government has had to consider those significant financial pressures.

On the wider debate, the Government has published its infrastructure investment plan, which sets out its vision for infrastructure investment and the various steps that have been taken by Government and councils to invest in the school estate. We will publish, in due course, our proposals on the Scottish futures trust, which will support our investment in Scotland's public estate.

Mary Mulligan (Linlithgow) (Lab):

Is the minister aware that Audit Scotland told the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee yesterday that at the current rate of improvement and modernisation of schools, it will take approximately 20 years to replace or modernise them all? Is he aware that the local authorities told us that there is a vacuum in the Government's plans, that there has been nothing on the Scottish futures trust, and that if that vacuum continues, it could take 25 or 30 years to modernise our school estate?

John Swinney:

The Government has just delivered a budget—of course, Mary Mulligan could not bring herself to vote for it—that increased capital budgets in local authorities by 13 per cent in one year. That is a pretty formidable commitment to encourage our local authorities to be involved in the school building programme. Mary Mulligan should go away and read the school estate investment plans that a number of local authorities have produced, rather than come to Parliament and be so critical of our local authorities. They are working hard to improve the school estate, and the Government will support them in the process.

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):

Is the cabinet secretary aware that Audit Scotland also said that there is no auditing mechanism for deciding how much capital investment will go into schools? It was clear about that yesterday. It was also clear in calling on the Scottish Government to produce a financial strategy that includes targets for the number of schools to be built and information on how they will be built. Will the Scottish Government provide that? If so, when?

John Swinney:

Mr Purvis should be aware that the Government's infrastructure investment plan has been published, and we will publish very shortly our approach with respect to the Scottish futures trust. As I said in response to Mary Mulligan's question, we have set out a budget that significantly expands the investment that local authorities can make in capital projects and that aims to sustain that during the three years of the spending review period. It is clear that there can be an audit once local authorities have allocated resources. That is the proper way in which such matters should be examined, once local authorities have set priorities within the framework of the agreements and arrangements that we have arrived at with them.