Good morning. We come first to general question time.
Scotland Bill (Planning for Additional Powers)
To ask the Scottish Government what planning it is carrying out regarding the additional powers proposed in the Scotland Bill. (S4O-05194)
The Scottish Government is committed to using the new powers to create a fairer and more prosperous country for everyone who lives here. We set out early policy priorities in the programme for government for 2015-16, which was published in September this year, and we are committed to an open and consultative process in developing policies for the new powers under the Scotland Bill. The Government will not recommend that the Parliament should approve the bill until a fair fiscal framework has been agreed.
As the cabinet secretary is aware, it is proposed that control over the winter fuel allowance will come to this Parliament. He will also be aware that, down at Westminster, my MP colleague Mike Weir has sought over many years to secure early payment of that allowance to recipients who live off grid in rural areas, so that they can, for example, purchase fuel oil when it is cheaper to do so. Will the Scottish Government consider taking such a step to ease the financial pressures on people such as those whom the cabinet secretary and I represent and to alleviate rural fuel poverty?
I am aware of Mr Weir’s efforts. That is a point of detail about the operation of the winter fuel allowance that the Government will be happy to consider. Through the fairer Scotland process, which is being presided over by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners’ Rights, Alex Neil, we are having an on-going discussion about how effective the winter fuel payment can be at particular stages in the year in supporting individuals. As part of the wider consultation on implementation of the new powers under the Smith commission, we will consider carefully the suggestion that Graeme Dey has made.
Question 2, in the name of Michael McMahon, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.
Individual Patient Treatment Requests (Replacement)
To ask the Scottish Government when it will introduce the new peer-approved clinical system to replace the individual patient treatment request system. (S4O-05196)
A pilot of the peer-approved clinical system has been introduced and the initial outcomes from that pilot will inform further roll-out. As the member will be aware, the revised individual patient treatment request system has provided substantially increased access, ahead of a body of decisions from the Scottish Medicines Consortium under its new process.
I am led to believe that the peer-approved system was promised for May 2015. Given that the individual patient treatment request system was extended and given the new guidance on dropping exceptionality, what monitoring has the Scottish Government done to ensure that the postcode lottery has been eliminated?
We keep a close eye on such matters. As we review the new SMC process, which I said previously we would do at the end of a year and we are doing now, we will have an opportunity to look at all those matters.
It is important to note that the reformed individual patient treatment request system has resulted in great improvements in patient access across Scotland, ahead of the body of decisions from the SMC. For example, in 2012-13, before any policy changes were made, around 50 patients in Scotland accessed orphan, ultra-orphan and end-of-life drugs through that route. In 2014-15, the equivalent number was around 500. That is why further changes are being carefully tested before roll-out.
It is in everyone’s interests if patient access is facilitated through good-quality submissions, with a fair offering on price, from the pharmaceutical industry to the SMC. As I said, the review of the new approach is providing a good opportunity to look at the impact of the changes.
Question 4, in the name of Ken Macintosh, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation.
Further Education Colleges (Allocation of Resources in Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it considers that the three Glasgow colleges each receive a fair share of the region’s resources. (S4O-05198)
It is for the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council to assess regional needs and to determine the appropriate funding allocations for Glasgow and its three colleges, consistent with the region’s jointly agreed curriculum plan.
Concern has been expressed in some areas that, because City of Glasgow College has new buildings and needs to fill them and draw in students, that could be detrimental to Glasgow Clyde College and Glasgow Kelvin College. I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s assurance that Clyde and Kelvin colleges will receive the resources that they need.
The Glasgow curriculum plan, which all three Glasgow colleges signed up to, indicates an overall 2.5 per cent increase in provision in community locations, so I expect the funding allocations for Glasgow Clyde College and Glasgow Kelvin College to reflect that and to be sufficient to support it. It is also worth mentioning that Glasgow Kelvin College is building on its successful youth access programme, which involves working with a wide range of community partners in college and community settings to provide a range of courses to 12 to 19-year-olds.
Forth Road Bridge Closure (Impact on North-east Communities)
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact of the closure of the Forth road bridge is on communities in the north-east. (S4O-05199)
The impact of the closure of this significant piece of national infrastructure has been felt across Scotland. The Scottish Government recognises that and I give my assurance that we are using every resource available to minimise the duration of the closure and to get the bridge reopened at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, we are working with our partners to minimise the impact of the closure, and I would again like to thank the travelling public, commuters and local communities for their continued patience while work to reopen the Forth road bridge continues.
The minister will be aware that hauliers are facing extra costs of as much as £95 per vehicle per trip for runs between Aberdeen and Edinburgh and between north-east Scotland and north-east England. Given that those added costs are greater than the return that they would expect to make on those runs, can the minister tell us when the Scottish Government expects to make decisions on compensation for hauliers who are facing such unforeseen losses? They have adapted very well to the bad news from the Forth road bridge; can they expect some good news for Christmas?
Surely everyone would agree that the first priority has to be to get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible. The best possible mitigation for the current disruption is reopening the bridge, so all efforts are on that at the moment. The Deputy First Minister has held talks with businesses to hear their issues and concerns. During the period of closure, there has been a priority route for goods vehicles to support industry and business, and there has been on-going liaison with the Road Haulage Association. In fact, I had the chair—or was it the chief executive?—of the Road Haulage Association in the control room at the bridge to talk about issues of importance to hauliers. We will continue to engage, to monitor the situation and to mitigate the impact, but we will remain focused on getting the Forth road bridge open as quickly as possible.
I agree that the first priority must be to get the bridge open, and I welcomed the confirmation that 4 January is the date that we are working to. Nevertheless, there are businesses in Fife and elsewhere that are experiencing difficulties and bearing a financial burden as a result of the closure, so it is important that the minister indicates that we will be working with businesses to see how they can be assisted over this period.
I thank Alex Rowley for his comment, and also for his praise of me in relation to the travel plan that has been delivered by Transport Scotland and our key partners. The amendments to our travel plan were welcomed by business organisations, showing that the Government is listening and responding to the pressures on business during the closure. However, the one major action that everyone is calling for us to deliver is the reopening of the Forth road bridge, and that is exactly what I am focused on and what the Government and our agencies are focused on.
I must always declare an interest when asking a question such as this. What impact has the closure of the Forth road bridge had on farmers, on livestock haulage and on the delivery of animal feedstocks in the run-up to Christmas, particularly bearing in mind the impact that flooding has had in some areas and how the livestock industry has been affected in the north-east and in the south?
John Scott raises a reasonable point. A number of sectors have been affected by the closure, which is why we have been engaging with businesses. Other interventions that I did not mention earlier, including the relaxation of drivers’ hours, have also helped. Every possible action has been taken to support business, and animal welfare has been considered as part of the wide range of actions. We understand the impact of the closure and we will look at that. It remains our priority to get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible. As there is such interest in the matter, I can report to members that the works on the Forth road bridge are very much on track.
The minister will be aware that the closure of the A985 is having a huge detrimental impact on small businesses in my constituency, such as the Walled Garden. As a result, staff have had to be laid off. Normally, the business would expect to serve 130 meals a day during the busy Christmas period. Last week, on Wednesday, it had just seven customers; on Thursday, it had 11; and on Friday, it had 18. That has had a knock-on effect on suppliers too. I am pleased that restrictions are being lifted from next Wednesday, but I ask the minister once again whether he will act to remove the A985 restrictions outside peak periods now, and whether small businesses such as the Walled Garden will be compensated for their severe losses.
The issue of compensation is a wider point. Lewis Macdonald started by asking what extra prioritisation we would give to the haulage industry. I outlined what that is, and then Cara Hilton complains about the prioritisation for industry on the A985.
The Government has taken the right interventions to support business and communities, and to mitigate the impact during the necessary closure of the Forth road bridge. I appreciate the impact that the closure has had on local communities. We have been engaging with Fife Council and local communities during this period of disruption, and we will continue to do so. We remain focused on the objective of getting the bridge reopened as quickly as possible, because that will give the greatest relief to those communities that have been affected by the closure.
I for one welcome the way in which the minister has risen to this significant challenge. There are obviously real challenges still going on, but the on-going closure provides an opportunity to do other work on the bridge. What other work is going on while the bridge is closed?
I appreciate the praise from Bruce Crawford, although it is perhaps not as surprising as the praise that was heaped on me by Alex Rowley for my handling of the travel action plan.
I confirm to members that we and the operating company have taken advantage of the opportunity that the closure provides to undertake further works and to accelerate work that had been scheduled for a later date. A range of work is being undertaken to take advantage of the opportunity that the closure provides, which members will surely welcome as a correct and proactive intervention.
Delayed Discharge (Edinburgh)
To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to deal with delayed discharge in Edinburgh. (S4O-05200)
The Scottish Government is working closely with NHS Lothian and the City of Edinburgh Council to reduce the length of time for which people are waiting to be discharged from hospital. The partnership is finalising an action plan that will lead to a reduction in delays over the short to medium term. The latest census shows an 11 per cent reduction in delays over three days on the previous month.
The cabinet secretary will be aware that delayed discharge has caused real distress to older people and their families in my constituency and across Edinburgh. Later today I will meet the chief executives of NHS Lothian and the City of Edinburgh Council to discuss what more can be done to address the issue. What more can the Scottish Government do to develop the range of services that will reduce hospital admissions and ensure timely discharge back to the community in order to fulfil the cabinet secretary’s clear commitment to eradicating delayed discharge?
The Edinburgh partnership will receive £8.19 million over three years from the £100 million of delayed discharge funding that was announced. That funding goes towards developing a range of community-based services that are aimed at avoiding unnecessary hospital admission and ensuring timely discharge.
The member will also be aware that yesterday the Deputy First Minister announced our intention to invest a further £250 million per year through health and social care partnerships, which will make a difference.
It is clear that some partnerships, including Edinburgh, have further to travel. We—my officials, in particular—are working very closely with the Edinburgh partnership to ensure that more rapid progress is made. I can keep the member informed about that.
Edinburgh has by far the highest number of delayed discharges in Scotland and asked some time ago for social care funding to deal with its specific circumstances.
Is it not the case that the social care money that was announced yesterday, to which the cabinet secretary referred, will pale into insignificance—indeed, disappear—beside the 7 per cent cut to local government funding, which is five and a half times the percentage cut to the budget overall? Is it not the case that neither social care nor education will be protected in this unprecedented slaughter of local government?
I am a little disappointed by Malcolm Chisholm, who is normally far more accurate. There is not a 7 per cent reduction in local government funding.
I assure the member that the £250 million that we have announced for social care will deliver additional benefit to recipients of social care. It is important that that large injection of resource gets to the places that it needs to get to and delivers the change and reform that the Deputy First Minister outlined yesterday.
That is real action from this Government, which is focused on doing what we know needs to be done. I would have thought that Malcolm Chisholm, of all people, would have recognised and welcomed that.
Flood Defences (At-risk Areas)
To ask the Scottish Government what plans it has to invest in flood defences for areas deemed to be at risk. (S4O-05201)
The Scottish Government is committed to investing in flood protection. Since 2008 we have provided funding of £42 million per year, via the general capital grant, to enable local authorities to invest in flood protection schemes. As the member will be aware from what was announced yesterday in the Scottish budget statement, on a like-for-like basis with the 2015-16 capital settlement there has been a small cash increase in the 2016-17 capital settlement to local authorities, and that will be reflected in the amount of funding that is made available to local authorities to invest in flood protection work over the next few years.
I thank the Government for its confirmation yesterday that the £4 million Barnett element of spending on flooding will be allocated to Scottish local authorities.
It says in the budget document that the Government will
“begin to implement Scotland’s first round of flood risk management plans that focus work at local level to reduce the level of flood risk”.
However, in the budget line, the level 3 figure of £9.1 million is unchanged from last year. Does that reflect an adequate degree of urgency?
The member mentioned yesterday’s announcement; we are providing £3.94 million to the local authorities whose areas were most affected by the severe flooding that storm Desmond caused, to help them to support flood-hit local households and businesses.
Of that £3.94 million, Scottish Borders Council will receive £1.94 million, because it suffered the most severe impact of the storm; Perth and Kinross Council will receive £1.2 million, in recognition of the impact of storm Desmond and the significant damage that was suffered in Alyth earlier this year; Dumfries and Galloway Council will receive £700,000; Stirling Council will receive £60,000; and South Lanarkshire Council will receive £40,000.
Local authorities will be able to provide each flood-affected household or business with a grant of £1,500 to reimburse their opportunity costs, given that the full benefit of services for which they pay through council tax and business rates is not received while people are absent from their homes or businesses have their trading disrupted.
I welcome yesterday’s budget announcement about flooding. To help my constituents in South Scotland who are affected, in Hawick, Newcastleton, Dumfries and elsewhere, will the minister kindly explain the timing of the allocation of money to local authorities, how it will be distributed and how it will relate to moneys that are already there, to ensure that there is proper co-ordination of flood defences, including natural defences, in future?
Please respond as briefly as you can do, minister.
South Lanarkshire Council will be receiving £40,000. I am happy to write to the member with more details about that.
Thank you, minister.