Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, March 18, 2010

Official Report 930KB pdf

---

Scottish Executive Question Time

---

General Questions

---

Stones (Recycling)

Mr McLetchie is not present to ask question 2. That is regrettable. As I have said before in the chamber, if a member does not turn up to ask their question, supplementary questions are ruled out. Also, question 2 has brought the Deputy First Minister, who will not have to answer another question during general questions, to the chamber. That is highly regrettable.

1. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to recycle unused stones located on rural land for construction projects. (S3O-9957)

The member makes an interesting point. Like many people in Scotland, I live in a house in a steading in a rural setting, which makes use of stones that were found around the farm when the steading was converted. That is a traditional approach to building, which commends itself in many instances.

Local authorities could impose planning conditions on the design of buildings in the countryside, to ensure that we use such stones, which people have been digging out of arable land throughout the world for some 8,000 years.

Unused large stones are a common feature of many fields and could provide a cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternative to disruptive quarrying practices. Will the minister undertake, along with local authority officials and construction companies, to examine ways of encouraging the use of such stones in construction projects, which would reduce carbon emissions and damage to the environment?

Decisions on the suitability for reuse of unused stones on rural land are best taken at a local level. Not all unused stones are suitable for construction.

---

Public Sector Efficiency Savings

In the Audit Scotland report, the scale of the achievement of Scottish public bodies is acknowledged. I have said this before in the Parliament, but it is important to remember that in 2008-09 the efficiency savings programme realised savings of £839 million, which exceeded the target of £534 million by more than half. The analysis of performance that Audit Scotland has provided is welcome, and the whole process of efficiency achievement is a central part of managing the challenge in relation to public expenditure that we will face in the years to come.

Of course, the Government will look at Audit Scotland’s report. However, I point out that Audit Scotland is positive about the achievements that have been made and the mechanism that the Government has deployed to ensure that we deliver the efficiency savings programme that the taxpayers of Scotland expect us to deliver.

3. To ask the Scottish Executive what percentage of efficiency savings made by the public sector in 2008-09 is attributed to the sale of surplus assets and underspends due to staff vacancies. (S3O-9885)

In his 2006 report, “The Efficient Government Initiative: a progress report”, the Auditor General for Scotland recommended that the Government ensure that

“all reported efficiency savings are calculated using suitably robust methodologies”.

In his report, “Improving public sector efficiency”, which was published in February 2010, the Auditor General noted that the Scottish Government

“does not validate reported savings”,

and he went on to say:

“There is a risk that public bodies are reporting efficiency savings which are actually cuts in service as they have adversely affected the quality or level of service provided.”

Is the cabinet secretary concerned about that? What is he doing to address the matters that the Auditor General raised in his report?

Public bodies reported savings made through improved asset management of £82 million in 2008-09, which represents 9.8 per cent of the £839 million total. The figure is not restricted to asset sales, but will include savings that were generated through better use of assets, such as energy efficiency measures, generating income from assets or better fleet management. Public bodies were not asked to report savings due to staff vacancies.

---

Teacher Numbers (Reductions)

Employment of teachers is primarily a matter for local authorities. However, the Scottish Government is committed to ensuring that Scotland has the right number of teachers to meet the needs of our pupils. That is a logical step that I am sure would appeal to all in these straitened times.

My initial message is not to believe Labour press releases. Even the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities delivered a statement yesterday that chided Mr McNulty for the way in which he had presented something in his press release. The reality is that the biggest fall in teacher numbers in the 2009 teacher census came from Glasgow City Council, which accounted for 28 per cent of the 1,348 lost teaching posts.

What the member needs to look at—this is where reality should kick in—is that the cost to local authorities of employing 2,000 more teachers would be roughly £80 million per annum. If the member is committing herself to the wrong number of teachers for our schools at this stage, it will cost her another £80 million, which is yet another spending pledge at a time when not one member of the public believes a word that Labour says about this.

4. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is committed to reversing the reductions in teacher numbers that have taken place since May 2007. (S3O-9882)

So, if the Scottish Government remains committed to maintaining teacher numbers in the face of falling school rolls, as it promised in 2007, why do the public sector employment in Scotland statistics that were published yesterday show a further year-on-year fall in teacher numbers of 600? If it is up to local councils to make good on the Scottish National Party’s manifesto promises, what message does the cabinet secretary have for the 11 out of 13 SNP-run councils that have cut teacher numbers since the SNP gained power at Holyrood?

---

Rural Petrol Stations (Closures)

5. To ask the Scottish Executive how many petrol stations in rural areas have closed in the past 10 years. (S3O-9870)

I answered a similar question—S3W-27817—on 28 October 2009 with an extract from the interdepartmental business register, which is maintained by the Office for National Statistics. Although the figures do not provide a precise answer to the question asked, the latest statistics suggest that there may have been a reduction in the number of rural petrol stations over a 10-year period of about one third.

Prices at many petrol stations in the Highlands are at very high levels right now. Besides hitting customers, those prices may well bring closure nearer to the petrol stations in view of cheaper fuel being available at centrally based supermarkets and areas further south in Scotland. Has the minister had any discussions with HM Treasury with regard to possible changes to the taxation regime that might assist motorists, petrol stations and the local economies of remote and economically fragile areas of Scotland? If he has not had such discussions, will he consider approaching the Treasury as soon as is practically possible?

I suspect that there are few subjects on which we have had more correspondence with the Treasury. In particular, we have drawn its attention to the experience in Corsica—I think that I am correct in saying this—where the European Union has agreed that prices may be supported in a way that ensures that rural and remote areas such as Corsica can have prices that meet local needs. We absolutely commend that approach as one that is appropriate to Scotland. We need support from the Treasury on it, which we have so far not had.

The minister may be aware of the serious situation that is faced by filling stations with attached retail premises, some of which have just seen increases of 50 per cent or more in their rateable values that may well threaten their viability. Does the minister agree that we cannot afford more closures of petrol stations in rural areas? If so, can he tell us what action the Scottish Government will take to try to address this serious situation?

There are two parts to my answer. First, we congratulate many of the rural filling stations as they diversify into other business areas, meeting local needs and, as they broaden their potential income base, giving greater long-term security. Following representations from the industry, the independent Scottish assessors are reviewing the methods used for the valuation of petrol stations.

---

Forth Replacement Crossing (Procurement)

6. To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will provide an update on the procurement processes for the Forth replacement crossing. (S3O-9912)

We remain on track, subject to parliamentary approval, to award the principal contract in spring 2011 and complete the project by 2016.

The question of community benefit clauses is very important. I certainly would want to give Mr Park the assurance that that will be a central part of what the Government takes forward as part of the procurement exercise on the Forth replacement crossing. Community benefit clauses, of course, exist in one of the other major procurement projects in which the Deputy First Minister has been involved, for the Southern general hospital in Glasgow.

Mr Park’s other point, which is equally important, is about the importance of ensuring that there is a long-term, beneficial impact on employment patterns within the area. Certainly, as we have been able to achieve in a range of different infrastructure contracts around the country, we would be looking for new opportunities for apprenticeships to be achieved as part of the procurement activity that is under way. That certainly will be uppermost in the mind of the Government as part of the procurement process for the Forth replacement crossing.

Such matters are always a judgment. Clearly, any party that is involved in the tendering process for this very big contract will incur significant expenditure. The judgment that ministers must weigh up is whether it is appropriate to put in place a payment of that sort to encourage broader competition for the particular tender. It is therefore a matter of judgment, but I appreciate Mr Stewart’s sentiment. However, if as a result of not providing the £5 million payment, we did not have an open competition and, in fact, had only a single tender, I am not sure that the taxpayer would be best served in that case any more than they would by the approach that Mr Stewart has set out in the concerns that he has expressed to Parliament today.

Like me, I am sure that the cabinet secretary hopes that the replacement Forth crossing will be a legacy, in terms of not just infrastructure, but employment and training. Is he in a position to give a cast-iron guarantee that community benefit clauses will be part of the procurement process for the future Forth crossing, which will hopefully provide wider benefits in terms of training and apprenticeship opportunities for local people, and opportunities for supply-chain companies to benefit as well?

During my recent conversations with the business community in Fife, including the Federation of Small Businesses, the issue of awarding Government contracts to small and medium-sized businesses was raised. Such businesses are aware of the restrictions on the public procurement process, but they seek fair consideration when contracts are being awarded for large construction projects. Will the minister encourage main contractors to consider using local suppliers to help Scotland’s small and medium-sized businesses to survive and grow, as well as to reduce the carbon footprint of the construction projects?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the point that Mr Tolson has raised. Indeed, in its approach to procurement, the Government has tried to increase the opportunities and avenues for small companies to be able to tender for public sector contract activity. One of the most effective ways in which we have done that is through the establishment of public contract Scotland, which is a web-portal system that enables local suppliers to register their interest in whatever speciality or trade skill they are involved in, whether it is construction, joinery or whatever. Government contracts are advertised in an easy-to-access portal, so there is an increased opportunity for small companies to access that contract base.

Mr Tolson was a participant in the debate that we have just had on bus services, and I think that he will accept that there are elements of procurement legislation that we must observe to ensure that the procurement process is fair and open. However, I believe that public contract Scotland increases the opportunities that are available for smaller companies to obtain that form of business.

The cabinet secretary is well aware of the unsuccessful bidder premium of up to £5 million that will go to the losing bidder. Does he share my view that that must count as the oxymoron of the day and that it is a case of the taxpayer subsidising failure?

---

Oil and Gas Extraction

Through my co-chairing of the PILOT initiative, which brings together Governments, industry and other stakeholders to discuss issues relating to the oil and gas sector, we have regular dialogue with the UK Government on a range of issues, including production. As part of the current refreshing of PILOT targets, we look forward to continued dialogue with the UK Government to ensure that we achieve the best possible output from the Scottish waters.

Although the North Sea is a mature oil and gas province, substantial reserves remain. According to the recent 2010 Oil and Gas UK activity survey, there are up to 25 billion barrels of oil equivalent still to be recovered from the North Sea. The vast majority of those reserves lie within Scottish waters.

I am very much aware of Peter Odell’s comments and in general agree with the concept that greater involvement of authorities is necessary to ensure maximum benefit from the remaining reserves. With a pension fund that is currently valued at more than £270 billion, Norway is a good example of where we can be.

We continue to make the case for Scotland to receive greater direct benefits from oil and gas production. On 30 July 2009, the Scottish Government published “An Oil Fund for Scotland: Taking forward Our National Conversation”, which set out the case for transferring a share of the wealth generated from oil and gas production to a fund for long-term investment purposes. In addition, in November 2009 we published our national conversation paper on energy, which set out the benefits to Scotland of acquiring greater powers over a range of energy matters, including oil and gas. We continue to make representations on that matter.

7. To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change about future extraction of oil and gas in Scotland. (S3O-9935)

Is the minister aware of recent comments by emeritus professor of international energy studies at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, Peter Odell, who said that the UK Government should follow Norway’s example by setting up a hydrocarbons authority that would ensure that public interest is paramount in exploiting future offshore oil and gas production? Does he agree that the best way to ensure that Scotland maximises the potential of our natural resources is for us to follow Norway’s example and have all the powers of a normal independent country?

---

Planning (Agricultural Land)

8. To ask the Scottish Executive what importance in the planning system is given to using prime agricultural land for development. (S3O-9876)

Two recent housing developments on prime agricultural land in the Highlands have been approved—Ness Gap at Fortrose on the Black Isle is grade 1 agricultural land, which I understand is very limited in the Highlands, and the Tornagrain development on the A96 is also prime agricultural land, used previously to grow cereals. Given that food security and self-sustainability remain important issues to future food production in Scotland, will the minister consider re-examining planning policies to ensure that our best agricultural land is safeguarded for agricultural use?

It is clear that I cannot comment on specific planning applications because of potential involvement for ministers as a whole. However, we have recently published the consolidated Scottish planning policy, in which we take a stronger line on such developments than was set out previously. We are also developing a land-use strategy this year as part of our responsibilities under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and I am sure that matters such as the one raised by the member will be taken account of.

The Herald was entirely mistaken in suggesting that it is our intention to abolish planning gain. I wrote to The Herald immediately after the publication of its article to make matters plain. It is clear that the system would benefit from a review of the processes, but where developers are making significant impacts in communities and on the transport network, it is important that they step up to the plate to make their contribution to addressing those problems with their money.

It is Scottish planning policy that development on prime agricultural land should not be permitted unless it is an essential part of the settlement strategy or is to meet an established need where no other site is available.

Will development on prime agricultural land, or indeed on brownfield sites, still be subject to local negotiation of planning gain, or was The Herald correct this week to report that planning gain was to be abolished?