Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Official Report 755KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

---

Flood Prevention

1. No question on flooding can be quite as attractive as that was.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its flood prevention programme. (S4T-00122)

The Scottish Government is working with partners to implement the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which is the most substantial change to flooding legislation in 50 years. The 2009 act helps to ensure that communities and businesses across Scotland benefit from a modern and sustainable approach to flood management, which is suited to the needs of the 21st century and to addressing the increasing impact of climate change.

I refer the minister to Derek Mackay’s answer to question S4W-06436 on 19 April, which referred to an application by Scottish Borders Council for around £3.5 million for flood prevention schemes in Galashiels, at Plumtree, Wilderhaugh and Netherdale. Was the application successful?

I confirm that the scheme will receive support from the Scottish Government of up to 80 per cent of the total cost, via the general capital grant to local authorities. The current estimated total cost is £3.6 million. I hope that that answers the member’s question.

That is fine for the local authority. However, an individual who runs a successful business at Flotterstone in Midlothian finds that his inn is flooded too regularly and that it is almost impossible to find the proprietors round about who are liable. What can he do, other than approach his MSP to try to get help? How can he access flood prevention schemes?

Christine Grahame makes a fair point. It is difficult to comment on an individual case when I do not know the full detail. In general, flooding from one private property to another should be resolved by negotiation between the parties concerned. I will be happy to comment further on the details of the case if the member writes to me about it.

I thank the minister for coming to Comrie this morning after yesterday’s serious flooding. The village very much appreciated that the minister came and listened.

Will the minister undertake to speak to the chief executive of Perth and Kinross Council by the end of the week and to secure from her a firm commitment on the start date of the remedial work that has been identified?

I had a productive conversation with Bernadette Malone on Monday regarding the situation in Comrie and I was glad to visit Comrie today, to hear directly from members of the community. I recognise the severity of the impact on the village. The fact that there have been two floods in a short period of time has had a substantial impact on the community. I undertake to speak again to Bernadette Malone about the options that are available and the timescale for the remedial works, and I will write to the member on the outcome of that meeting.

In light of the continual landslides and blockages on the A83 at the Rest and Be Thankful since 2007, with the problem recently exacerbated by heavy rain, when is the relief road due to be completed? On 19 July, in reply to my written question, the Minister for Transport and Veterans said:

“The works are programmed to start in August and be completed by November 2012.”—[Official Report, Written Answers,19 July 2012; S4W-08320.]

It is 20 November and there is no sign of completion. Will the minister apologise on behalf of the Government to the people and businesses in Argyll and Bute who are affected by the continual closures? Will he explain why the promise that was given has been broken and give us an update on progress towards completion of the relief road, so that we can keep a vital lifeline route open?

The member knows that we are considering flood prevention. I expect questions to be a bit more focused on the rain that has fallen during the past few days. I am sure that the transport minister will answer his question in due course; there is no need for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change to do so.

Further to Christine Grahame’s question, what discussions has the Scottish Government had with local authorities and the police and fire services on its flood prevention programme, particularly in the Borders, which are part of the South Scotland region, which I represent?

As I said, implementation of the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 offers an opportunity for us to take a strategic view of flood prevention measures in Scotland for the first time and to target resources at areas that are at most risk.

I am aware that a number of areas in the Borders are vulnerable to flooding or are identified as potentially vulnerable areas in the flood risk management plan. Our agreeing to fund the scheme in Galashiels should be welcomed by all people in the Borders. I will be happy to discuss with Claudia Beamish what more we can do on flood matters in the Borders.

The minister will be aware that the village of Aberfoyle was similarly inundated this week with floodwaters that impacted on a number of businesses. It is not the first time in the past few years that that has happened. Would he be happy to discuss with me what best could be done—together with Stirling Council—to alleviate matters for Aberfoyle? The businesses affected are important, because they provide lifeline jobs in an area whose economy is based on tourism.

I am more than happy to discuss issues in Aberfoyle with Bruce Crawford. Having seen at first hand the impact that the flooding has had in Comrie, I certainly appreciate that in Aberfoyle, too, the perceived risk to businesses and individuals could be quite damaging to confidence in the community. I am therefore more than happy to meet with the member to see what more we can do for the people of Aberfoyle.

What guidelines are in place to ensure that Scottish Water deals with regular flooding from sewers such as that in Aberdeen’s merchant quarter?

I am aware that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure, Investment and Cities, who has responsibility for Scottish Water, is looking at issues in relation to Aberdeen’s merchant quarter. I am sure that if the member writes to the cabinet secretary, she will be more than happy to address the point that he raised.

---

College Funding 2012-13

2. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning first became aware that there would be a reduction in college budgets for 2012-13. (S4T-00132)

Presiding Officer, with your permission, I first wish to apologise to the whole chamber for the answer that I gave to Mr Malik on 28 June. I said that there was no reduction in funding for colleges in the financial year 2012-13. However, when all the budget revisions are included, the revised 2012-13 budget is £9.3 million lower than the budget for the previous year. I should have immediately recognised that the answer that I gave was not right. I did not—I apologise for that to the whole chamber and, in particular, to Mr Malik.

Turning to Mr Henry’s question, as members know, I wrote to the convener of the Education and Culture Committee on 18 October setting out the accurate budget figures, including all revisions. That, I hope, reassures members that my answer to Mr Malik was a genuine mistake.

The figures for college budgets that were originally published as part of the spending review in September 2011 have, of course, been revised at various points since then as a result of budget decisions by this Parliament. Those revisions have sought to help the college sector by adding additional funding to the baseline budget in 2011-12 and in 2012-13. I shall go on seeking ways to help in-year as I always have.

As the First Minister has set out, last week’s inaccurate information was based not on an overstatement of spending in 2012-13 but on an understatement of spending in 2011-12. However, let me be clear: even after the additional funding is added in, the revised revenue budget is still falling. I acknowledged that in my evidence to the Education and Culture Committee on 23 October and in the debate last week, and I do so here again today.

At the weekend, Larry Flanagan of the Educational Institute of Scotland encouraged all of us to focus on the substantive issues that are facing colleges, including funding. On that basis, I welcome the proposed debate this Thursday on Scotland’s colleges and the regionalisation process that is currently under way.

I make it clear again that my apology is full and unreserved. It is to the whole chamber, including to Mr Henry. It should not have happened.

Presiding Officer, there should have been a full statement by Mike Russell. To apologise in this way shows a real contempt for the Scottish Parliament. Presiding Officer, I ask you to release to MSPs the original letter of apology that was sent to you by Mike Russell.

The ministerial code—

Mr Henry, this should be a question to the cabinet secretary. If you have a further question for the cabinet secretary, please ask it. In relation to letters that are sent to me, it is not for me to release them; it would be for the minister himself. If you could now concentrate on a question to the cabinet secretary, I would be grateful, and so would the members in the chamber who are waiting to hear from you.

Certainly, Presiding Officer.

The ministerial code says that any inadvertent error should be corrected at the earliest opportunity. Mike Russell misled the Scottish Parliament in June despite knowing the true figures since February. Why has it taken him five months to apologise?

Cabinet secretary, I think that that was a question for you.

In response to Mr Henry’s request for a statement, I have indicated not only that I am responding to his question and issuing a full and unreserved apology, but that there will also be a full debate at the request of the Liberal Democrats on Thursday, in which we will have the opportunity to debate all the issues surrounding college funding and regionalisation. I shall be entirely open in that debate, as I am now.

Matters of the ministerial code are not for me but for the First Minister.

I did not ask why the ministerial code has not been applied. The question that I asked was why it has taken the cabinet secretary five months to apologise, and he has just ignored it.

The ministerial code also says that ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to resign. Mike Russell knew in June that he had misled the Parliament when he said:

“There is no reduction in funding ... in ... 2012-13.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2012; c 10776.]

He then, knowingly, misled the Parliament again last Wednesday when he said:

“I have never said that there were no cuts”.—[Official Report, 14 November 2012; c 13463.]

He has knowingly misled the Parliament not once, but twice. Why has Mike Russell not offered his resignation?

The answer that I gave on 28 June was given in good faith. I have apologised for that answer, as it was erroneous. I have apologised twice for that answer in this statement, and I apologise again for that answer. It was certainly given in good faith.

In terms of the debate and discussion of this issue, I made it clear last week—I said so in my statement—and in my evidence on 23 October, and I make it clear again, that I have always acknowledged that the budget would fall over the spending review period. That is what I said, and it is why I have worked so hard to get in-year additions within the budget. Those in-year revisions have been designed to help the situation, and I will continue to seek them.

In the First Minister’s statement on Thursday, he produced a revised baseline figure for 2011-12 of £556 million instead of the £545 million that was cited in the Audit Scotland report. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that that amended baseline figure is correct and that it therefore means that the colleges budget has suffered a cut of more than 24 per cent in real terms?

I can confirm the first part of that, which is to say that the figure is correct. However, I would also say—I indicated this in my statement and do so again now—that there have been in-year revisions. For example, the figure in the following year was raised by, I think, £39.5 million, and revisions will continue to take place for next year. Indeed, those are indicated in the figures issued to the Education and Culture Committee. It is also indicated that there remain sums that have not yet been allocated but which I hope to allocate to the college sector after discussion.

I am happy to confirm that the figure of £555 million is accurate—I think that it is £555.7 million—but I continue to seek in-year revisions as I have always done in order to ensure that as much as possible is spent on the college sector.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s remarks, following those of the First Minister on Thursday, apologising for the inaccurate figure presented to Parliament. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the corrected figure for 2011-12 shows that the Scottish Government actually spent more on colleges in 2011-12 than was indicated by the uncorrected figure?

As I made clear in my answer, last week’s inaccurate information was based not on an overstatement of spending in 2012-13 but on an understatement of spending in 2011-12. That understatement of spending was, I think, of the nature of £9.3 million. The figure is at the root of this matter, and it is an understatement of what we actually spent on the college sector.

I continue to offer my sincere apologies, particularly to Mr Malik. However, I think that that places a context for those figures that at least needs to be understood.

Last Thursday, as the First Minister was misleading Parliament at First Minister’s question time, television viewers could also see Mike Russell nodding vigorously in support of the First Minister’s answers to Johann Lamont. Why was Mike Russell nodding so enthusiastically when he knew that the figures that were being quoted were wrong?

I can only say to Mr Bibby what I have said to the whole chamber, which I repeat: my mistake was a genuine one, for which I apologise. I am sorry that, as yet, that apology has not been accepted by members of the Labour Party, but it is meant for them as well as for everyone else in the chamber.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s concession of a further debate on Thursday this week, but I repeat Neil Bibby’s question: why did he nod vigorously throughout First Minister’s question time when he knew that the figures were wrong?

In light of the Presiding Officer’s comments, will the cabinet secretary also clarify whether he is willing to release the letter that he sent to the Presiding Officer at the end of last week?

I shall certainly consider that matter, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.]

Order.

I am grateful that the member has acknowledged the apology that I have made to him and to the whole chamber; I hope that he will recognise that it was a genuine mistake that I made. I am entirely happy to take part in the debate that he has called for. During that debate, we will have the chance to discuss a range of issues to do with regionalisation.

I remind Mr McArthur, along with the rest of the chamber, of the words of Larry Flanagan of the EIS, who encouraged all of us to focus on the substantive issues that colleges face. I believe that that is what we should do, and that is what I will try to do.

The cabinet secretary can pretend that he did not know that the figures were wrong, but on the radio this morning Mr Swinney told us that he knew that that was the case and yet did nothing to stop the First Minister misleading Parliament.

Can we have a question, please, Mr Findlay?

I am coming to my question.

On 25 October, Mike Russell told the Education and Culture Committee that he had looked at the college budget figures

“front-ways, back-ways, sideways and upside-down”.—[Official Report, Education and Culture Committee, 25 October 2011; c 324.]

Why did he not just look at them straightforwardly and honestly?

I provided the member, along with all other members of the Education and Culture Committee, with the accurate figures—they were provided in a letter dated 18 October. I acknowledged the fact that the funding was falling over the spending review period in my evidence to that committee. I have reread that evidence, and it is quite clear that I was—as I remain—at pains to have a full discussion of the issues of college funding and the way in which we can take forward what are necessary but difficult reforms in the sector.

I apologise for that mistake; I also apologise for the effect that it will have on debating the issue, which Larry Flanagan has drawn attention to. I am very keen that we continue to debate seriously the changes that must take place in Scotland’s college sector so that we can focus on the needs of and the opportunities for young people.

The cabinet secretary has said several times today that there was no overstatement of the 2012-13 budget. The figure of £546 million relies on a sum of £13 million, which is entitled “College places—SDS”. Independent sources suggest that that £13 million is split over two years, with £8 million being for 2012-13 and £5 million for 2011-12. One of those independent sources is the Scottish Government’s own budget revision document. Can the cabinet secretary categorically assure us that not a penny of that £13 million has been spent in a year other than 2012-13?

Mr Brown must recognise that, in dealing with the college and university sectors, there is a difference between academic years and financial years. That is reflected in the figures, but the figures as provided are accurate.

George Adam—I take it that your question is about college funding.

Yes, it is.

I will take the advice of Larry Flanagan of the EIS and talk about education. Will the cabinet secretary confirm the number of full-time Scottish college students on higher education-level courses who are benefiting from the Scottish Government’s free tuition policy, while their peers south of the border pay fees of more than £6,000 per year on average?

I am informed by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland that there were 26,335 students studying HE-level courses at colleges in 2011-12. They are the ones who would be adversely affected by any change in the fee regime.