Hall’s Meat Processing Plant
We are committed to working with West Lothian Council and other task force partners to explore all options for a recovery plan, following the disappointing news of the closure of Hall’s of Broxburn. A meeting will be held on 24 October to discuss the plan in more detail and identify the interventions that will provide the greatest impact ahead of a task force meeting on 30 October.
I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and for his efforts on Hall’s. A decade ago, following the Motorola closure, the then Scottish Executive put around £10 million into West Lothian to support it through the trauma of that closure. Given the immense challenge and localised nature of the job losses at Hall’s, what scale of support is likely to be offered to help the county cope with this disaster?
I say to Mr Findlay at the outset something that reinforces what I said to Councillor John McGinty, the leader of West Lothian Council. The Government will work in partnership with the local authority and other partners to tackle the economic issues and consequences that will clearly arise from the decision about Hall’s of Broxburn. At this stage I am unable to put a cash figure on that, but I assure Mr Findlay that the suggestions that have been made by West Lothian Council and developed with my officials, some of the points that Mr Findlay has raised in his correspondence with me, and the points raised locally by my colleagues Fiona Hyslop and Angela Constance will be considered as part of the recovery plan. We acknowledge the significance and localised nature of the economic impact, which will, essentially, structure the approach that we take to designing a recovery plan.
I thank the cabinet secretary and ask simply that he also keeps regional list members informed of what is going on.
Throughout all the dealings on the issue of Hall’s of Broxburn, there has been tremendous co-operation across the political spectrum, and across public bodies and elected bodies in West Lothian. I have greatly appreciated the involvement of members of Mr Findlay’s party in the task force, as well as the involvement of my colleagues. I assure him that I will keep Parliament and the relevant regional and constituency members up to date with the steps that we take. If members have any suggestions as to what steps the Government should take, I make clear in Parliament today the Government’s willingness to hear and act on those suggestions.
Will the Scottish Government seek the release from HM Revenue and Customs of similar data for Vion’s United Kingdom operation on a like-for-like basis? On its consolidated figures for 2011, Vion International had an operating income of €9.5 billion, which was up 7 per cent on the year before. It paid dividends of €327 million, which was up 3 per cent. Its wage bill for that period grew only 0.2 per cent. In 2011, Vion’s nominal tax rate, together with the effect of different foreign taxes, was 26.9 per cent. Its effective tax rate was a clawback of 1.7 per cent.
Through the task force, the Government has worked closely with Vion to ensure that we have had access to a comprehensive range of financial information to enable us to determine some of the underlying difficulties and issues that were being confronted by Hall’s of Broxburn. That financial information has been made available to the accountants whom I commissioned to assess the financial performance, who have advised the task force throughout. I think that the information with which the task force has been provided has given a comprehensive understanding of the financial issues that have had to be addressed in Hall’s of Broxburn and has given us a sense of where opportunities exist to create a sustainable business operation. That will remain the focus of the Government’s activities, which, combined with our dialogue with parties that are potentially interested in components of the operations of Vion, we will continue to take forward to secure the best outcome that we can for the people of West Lothian.
Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route
We are already expediting the delivery of this vital project for the north-east. During the legal challenges, we ensured that as much preparatory work as possible was progressed so that we were in a position to move immediately following the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment last week. The prior information notice signalling the start of procurement was published only two days after the judgment, on 19 October. Further works will begin next month—drilling rigs are on site to carry out vital ground investigations. Over the next year, there will be more advance works to clear the site ahead of the main works, which are expected to get under way in 2014 and to be completed by the spring of 2018.
The minister has already agreed that there should be community benefit clauses in the contracts that guarantee opportunities for apprentices and the long-term unemployed. I hope that there will be work with the universities to give trainee civil engineers and surveyors practical experience. Will the minister also work with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to urge farmers to use recycled stones lying at the sides of their fields in the construction process so that we can regain some agricultural land, which is being lost at a phenomenal rate to house building?
I have assured the member that we will raise that issue with the procurement team for the project. Any development that ensures that materials do not have to be transported, helps the environment and means that we do not need to buy further materials but can use local materials instead will be good for the project. I have therefore given an undertaking to the member that I will take up the issue with officials to see what we can take forward. I give the member the commitment that I will work closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment to see what we can do in that area.
Can the minister give us any idea of what savings will be made by combining the AWPR project with the Balmedie to Tipperty project?
We were sure of the savings that we would have made had we been able to proceed with the project when we wanted to some years ago. However, officials are currently working on the cost of the project and therefore the savings that would be arrived at by bundling those two projects together. I intend to produce that information for the Parliament as soon as possible.
Many members want to ask supplementaries, so I urge them to be as brief as possible.
The minister has indicated that the AWPR will be complete in 2018. What impact will that have on improvements at the Haudagain roundabout, which ministers have linked to completion of the work on the AWPR? Can the minister give a completion date for that linked project?
It is not just ministers who have linked the programme; Aberdeen City Council has also said that the AWPR and the third Don crossing require to be in place in order to meet the transport planning objectives for the Haudagain roundabout. It is also worth saying that we have already committed £3 million towards the design work for the Haudagain roundabout. We now have to get on with the AWPR.
I very much welcome the decision of the courts in recent weeks. Can the minister confirm that the Haudagain redevelopment and the third Don crossing works will be included in the AWPR contract? Can he give us some idea of when the individual elements of what is a package are likely to happen?
It is worth saying that, over 30 years, the project will support 14,000 jobs in the north-east of Scotland and create £6.3 billion of additional income, so it will have a massive impact.
Given that the minister has made it clear that other road development projects in the north-east will be included as part of the AWPR development, has he given any further consideration to the option of including the A90-A937 junction at Laurencekirk as part of the AWPR contract?
There is no update to provide in relation to Alex Johnstone’s question since the last time that he asked it. We do not intend to include that junction in the bundle for the AWPR.
Can the minister outline any discussions that he has had with Aberdeen City Council with regard to its responsibilities for the construction of the third Don crossing, which would complete the holy trinity of vital roads projects to keep Aberdeen moving?
The member will be aware of the legal constraints on discussion of the matter. There have been discussions between officials at this stage. We very much hope that Aberdeen City Council will share our desire to progress with the project as soon as possible, because we can then see the implementation of the whole suite of transport solutions for Aberdeen and the north-east. We will continue to work with Aberdeen City Council, with which we have developed a very constructive relationship on how the AWPR is paid for and progressed. We hope to continue such co-operation with the council on other projects.
Can the minister confirm that potential private finance partners remain interested in the AWPR under the non-profit-distributing model that the Government has taken forward? In the event that no competitive bids are received, what is the Government’s plan B for financing such a project?
As the member would expect, there is a very healthy interest in the market for the project. We have been asked to make as many projects proceed as possible within the resource constraints that we face. I do not expect there to be a lack of competition for the contract. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case. We will have the same huge level of interest that there was in relation to, for example, the M8, which was another NPD project. We are very confident about the level of interest that there will be in the project.
The commitment made many years ago was that the two councils would each fund 9.5 per cent of the cost of the AWPR, minus the fastlink costs. The minister has rolled in the Balmedie to Tipperty project and there is talk of rolling in the third Don crossing. How will it be possible to identify the discrete costs of the AWPR if the contract is let in that way? How can local taxpayers be sure that they are not being asked to pick up part of the tab for the other projects? There needs to be absolute transparency and clarity. What mechanism does the minister propose to use? Has he discussed the matter with the local councils?
The mechanism will be one of dialogue. We are talking to the two councils. It is not beyond the wit of the officials and the politicians involved to ensure that we produce the right solution. Discussions have so far been very productive and I am very confident that we will get an agreeable solution.
If the minister is concerned about inconsistency from the other side of the chamber, perhaps he will welcome consistency from the Green Party on the issue. How are we supposed to take remotely seriously any assessment of the costs and benefits of the project when we are still working on an estimate of the cost from almost a decade ago? If he is going to come forward with a revised cost, can he give a clear commitment that he will specify the portion of the revised cost that is about the AWPR specifically and does not relate to the other projects?
Yes, I am perfectly willing to give a commitment that the figures that I will produce for Parliament very shortly—as the member will understand, given that the court decision has just been made, they are currently being worked on—will itemise the cost of the two projects. It will also be clear at that time that it makes sense to do the two projects together.
I regret that I do not have time to call Nigel Don.
Previous
Business MotionNext
Edinburgh Agreement