General Questions
Third Sector Support 2011-12
The Scottish Government will continue to provide a broad range of financial support to the third sector across all portfolios. For example, we have announced the new £5 million early years and early intervention fund; we will continue to support third sector organisations working with children, young people and families with £7.1 million through the unified voluntary sector fund; and we are providing an additional £10.3 million in 2011-12 to community organisations through the climate challenge fund. In addition, in 2011-12 we will increase the core third sector budget by 16 per cent, or £24 million, and we have added a further £3 million to the Scottish investment fund. That builds on the £91 million that has already been invested in core third sector development in the period from 2008 to 2011. Finally, last week, I was pleased to announce details of the £10 million community jobs Scotland scheme, which will give up to 2,000 young unemployed people the opportunity to experience paid jobs in the third sector, to gain new skills and to contribute positively to their community.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for his answer, particularly the announcement of funding for new initiatives. However, does he agree that organisations such as Voluntary Action North Lanarkshire in my constituency, which supports North Lanarkshire’s voluntary sector, provide an invaluable range of services to voluntary groups and organisations in our communities? Is he aware that those organisations are concerned that, despite having been told that they will receive funding, they have not as yet received any details of exactly how much money they will receive in core grant this year? If they do not receive any confirmation by 1 March, they will have no choice but to issue redundancy notices to their staff. I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that that is not what the Scottish Government would wish—
Quickly, please, Ms Whitefield.
Will the cabinet secretary confirm exactly how much each council for voluntary service in each area will receive next year?
The funding distribution to CVS organisations will be undertaken shortly; indeed, I imagine that it will be in place before 1 March 2011. However, I say to Karen Whitefield that it certainly would not be in place if she had got her way a fortnight ago and the Government’s budget had been defeated, because there would be no financial allocation to make. Perhaps she will point that out to her constituents in Airdrie and Shotts.
North Lanarkshire Council (Meetings)
The Scottish Government is in regular contact with North Lanarkshire learning and leisure officials. Last summer, I met representatives of the community planning partnership, and the Minister for Children and Early Years has had separate meetings with the council.
What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with North Lanarkshire learning and leisure officials about the school building programme? Has the placement of the St Andrew’s high school campus building been raised, in light of the decision to proceed with its construction on top of a former landfill site and the site of mine workings with a number of associated mineshafts and air vents? On a related issue, might the Scottish Government be asked to sanction further borrowing powers if the choice of site causes the cost of construction to go well over budget?
My officials discuss details of school buildings with every local authority. We are absolutely determined to do two things, the first of which is to take the maximum number of young people out of unacceptable buildings. In that respect, I am very pleased about the 330 buildings that this Administration has managed to achieve, which is well beyond anything that was planned by any other party. Of course, if any problems are identified in the process of planning a building, my officials will discuss them in detail with the council. If the member wishes to meet those officials to discuss the issue, I will be happy to facilitate such a meeting.
Forth Replacement Crossing (Procurement)
The procurement of the Forth replacement crossing project has been separated into three contracts. Tenders were received for the principal contract, which includes the bridge and the approach roads, on 28 January 2011, and they are being assessed. The principal contract is on programme for award in April 2011. The intention is to issue the invitation to submit final tenders for the Fife intelligent transport system contract this week, and for the M9 junction 1A contract in early April. Those contracts are on programme for awards in May and July 2011 respectively.
Can the minister assure us that the Government is doing everything it can to afford opportunities to Scottish businesses to get involved not only in those tenders, but in smaller pieces of work in this unique project? Does he accept that a range of concerns exist about the project? For example, why has the Government decided to go ahead with contract announcements during purdah, given the impression that that gives to some people and the need for an incoming Government to be 100 per cent signed up to the delivery and detail of the contract? Finally, does he accept that there is local concern that the Government’s guarantee to BP that at least £100 million will potentially be given on every occasion that there is a pipeline rupture was heard in private, when everyone in Queensferry knows where the pipeline is and pipeline concerns did not figure in local consultations or the Parliament’s Forth Crossing Bill Committee’s work?
I will deal with the last point first. There were good reasons why that was heard in private, and I do not intend to go further into that issue today. However, I am happy to answer the point about the announcement being made in April. I understand why some people—some in the Labour Party, for example—who see the project as a waste of money should think that there is no real urgency, but most of the rest of us believe that the project is vital. The reason why we have had the dual process of going through Parliament and advancing the procurement process as quickly as we have done is that the project is vital, and the first possible chance that we will have to make an announcement—I think that this has been cleared with the Presiding Officer—is April, shortly after the contracts have been awarded. That is why that is happening. Things are happening as quickly as they possibly can because we see the project as vital.
Would the minister be prepared to set up baseline traffic and environmental monitoring for areas around the Forth replacement crossing, particularly on the A904 in Newton village, which is in my constituency, prior to any contracts being signed?
We do not want to do anything at this stage that would delay the award of the principal contract in particular. There are also tight timescales for the other contracts, but I am happy to take away Mary Mulligan’s suggestion, ask officials to look into the matter, and come back to her on the substantive issue.
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (Meetings)
I last met the chair of SPT, Jonathan Findlay, and its interim chief executive, Gordon MacLennan, on 27 January 2011, when a range of issues were discussed. I also met the chief executive on 23 February 2011, when I opened the new park-and-ride facility at Croy.
I understand that the Government has the business case for the much-needed modernisation of Glasgow’s subway system from SPT and that officials are content that they have everything that they require. I welcome the planned upgrade of Hillhead underground in my constituency, which will start in July, but the funding will soon run out. I have a strong interest in the matter, as half of the stations in the system are within the Glasgow Kelvin constituency. When will the Scottish Government be able to make a decision on the business case for the underground modernisation? If it is to make a decision, will it or will it not be made in this parliamentary session?
First, it is worth confirming to Pauline McNeill, as I have done to other MSPs who have been in touch about the issue, that the Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to helping to make subway modernisation happen. We are convinced of the case for it, which is why our officials have worked closely with SPT officials to bring forward the business case along with the accompanying request for funding support. Those came to ministers quite recently and are being considered. We will make an announcement as soon as we are able to do so.
The minister knows about my on-going interest in subway modernisation, as I have met him and the previous transport minister to discuss the matter. I will meet the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth this afternoon to discuss the matter further. Does the minister agree that another key reason why subway modernisation is vital is that 100,000 extra passengers frequented Glasgow’s subway in December last year during the period of bad weather while overground transport was seriously hampered?
I agree with Bob Doris and have made it clear to Pauline McNeill that there is a compelling case for the modernisation of Glasgow’s subway. Obviously, such modernisations involve large sums of public money, which is in fairly short supply at the moment, so we are right to take the necessary time to ensure that we make the right investment at the right time. As I have said, the business case and the accompanying request for funding support came to ministers fairly recently—on 22 December, I think—and we are considering them urgently, but I accept Bob Doris’s point. Passengers very much valued the underground’s ability to help to address the winter resilience issues that we had.
How much funding has been set aside for 2011-12 to contribute to fastlink? Is that funding the entirety of the Government’s contribution?
It is only right that we should wait and see what the various partners involved come forward with on the funding that they intend to contribute. My experience of the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line was that that was how the previous Administration sought to advance matters. We should see what the partners that propose the project are willing to contribute before we come to a conclusion on the Scottish Government’s contribution. However, I can confirm that allowance has been made for that in the budgetary year to which the member referred.
Scottish Borders (Economic Development)
We are working with the south of Scotland alliance, which is a partnership of Scottish Borders Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council and Scottish Enterprise, to facilitate its competitiveness strategy, and we have transferred responsibility for local economic development, including the business gateway, to local authorities. Already this year, more than 200 businesses have been helped to start up in the Borders. Our delivery agencies support a range of projects in sectors that are key to the Borders economy, such as tourism, textiles, food and forestry, and we continue to improve the business environment through the small business bonus scheme, reducing business rates for more than 3,000 businesses in the Borders, reducing unnecessary burdens through better planning and procurement, and encouraging easier access to public sector contracts. This week, we have announced a £10 million fund to encourage small and medium-sized companies to take on staff, and we are working with Scottish Development International and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce to assist the export potential of Borders businesses.
The minister will be aware of, and has been supportive of, moves to secure faster and more reliable broadband and mobile telephony for the Scottish Borders, which are critical for the future economic wellbeing of the region. He will also be aware that the Scottish Government ranked the Highlands broadband bid to the United Kingdom Government’s Broadband delivery UK over that of the south of Scotland. Most of that area is in my constituency. As there is a new process going forward, will the Scottish Government work proactively to support the proposal from the south of Scotland, which includes the Borders, to secure additional funding support? I am aware that the parliamentary session is nearing its end, but will the minister have time to meet me and local agencies to discuss how that partnership working can be taken forward for the better securing of faster broadband in the Scottish Borders?
I will cut to the chase: I would welcome the opportunity to meet Mr Purvis. We have recently raised the issue of the south of Scotland in conversations with United Kingdom ministers and we are working assiduously to ensure that the Scottish Borders case is as strong as it can be and that lessons are learned from other cases that have already passed the test.
Does the minister agree that the small business bonus scheme to which he referred has protected local firms and safeguarded local jobs, that more than 8,000 local firms have paid no rates or have had their rates significantly reduced, and that that approach contrasts with the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats, who pose as guardians of local businesses but oppose taxing Tesco superstores that undermine the viability of small businesses?
Having just finished an answer in a collegiate fashion, I have no option but to agree with Mrs Grahame. There was an opportunity to show cohesion with the vast mass of Borders businesses and many people throughout the Borders who face hard times and uncertainty, but that opportunity was lost. However, I am sure that Mrs Grahame will capitalise on it.
St Margaret of Scotland Hospice
The number of continuing care beds is a matter for the health board concerned, but members will be aware that the situation with continuing care beds in the west of the NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde area has fundamentally changed as a result of recent developments around the Blawarthill proposals. That requires NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to look at the situation afresh and, accordingly, it has agreed to conduct a review. The chair of the NHS board has written to the chair of St Margaret’s seeking a meeting to discuss the hospice’s involvement in the review. I hope that members will welcome that. I have asked the chairman of the board to give me a full report immediately following the meeting.
Given the collapse of the plans for 60 continuing care beds at Blawarthill, will the cabinet secretary encourage NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to fund the continuing care beds at St Margaret’s without the need for yet another review? Will she ensure that the chair of the health board meets St Margaret’s because, despite her telling him to do so in March and November of last year, he singularly failed to do so in advance of the most recent members’ business debate on the issue, which was a few weeks ago?
I encourage the health board to do what is right in the circumstances. I hope that all members will welcome the fact that the chairman of the health board has written to the hospice seeking its involvement in the review. All members will accept that the fundamental change in the circumstances, however it has come about, presents an opportunity to look at the situation afresh and an opportunity for the board of St Margaret’s to make its case. I therefore welcome the approach that the health board has made to the hospice. I hope that it responds to that approach and I look forward to receiving and considering the report of the meeting immediately after it has taken place.
The failure of the Blawarthill project should allow for a major rethink. St Margaret’s hospice has an exemplary record of delivering a service of the highest possible quality in its property. There is certainly an expectation that that record should be taken into account before there are any further deliberations on the hospice or changes made.
I thank Gil Paterson for his on-going close interest in the matter. As he knows, the quality of the care that is provided at St Margaret’s has never been in doubt and nor has its on-going contribution as a high-quality hospice. As I said to Jackie Baillie, the changed circumstances give St Margaret’s an opportunity to make the case that it has been making. I expect the health board to listen to that case and I look forward to hearing the outcome of the discussions.
Disabled People’s Organisations (Meetings)
Ministers and officials regularly meet organisations that represent people with disabilities to discuss the development and implementation of a range of policies that impact on the lives of disabled people. The most recent cross-Government meeting with disabled people and their organisations, as well as partners in the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Association of Directors of Social Work and NHS Health Scotland, was the meeting of the independent living core reference group that was held on 18 January in Edinburgh. The agenda included the independent living programme research; voices of disabled people—the challenge of co-production; the independent living work plan priorities of housing, portability of care, advocacy and inclusive communication; and an update on current co-production pilots.
I am sure that those groups and the minister recognise the critical role of employment for people with disabilities and particularly the role of sheltered workplaces in providing that employment. In a debate on 7 October, the Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism agreed that a timetable for each Government department and agency to reserve at least one contract to sheltered workplaces would be created. Will the minister indicate whether the timetable has been published and if not, why not? Can he list which Government contracts, under article 19, have now been reserved to sheltered workplaces?
The plans will be published shortly and certainly before purdah. At that stage, we will give the detailed information that Johann Lamont seeks.
Rail Ticket Pricing (Sutherland)
Under the franchise agreement, ScotRail can increase regulated fares by up to the retail prices index plus 1 per cent. We intend to retain the cap on fares. Unregulated fares are a commercial matter for ScotRail. The next ScotRail franchise is due to be let in 2014. I am sure that, as part of the preparations for that franchise, a comprehensive review of the fares options that are available will be undertaken.
My constituent Mrs Mackintosh has a Highland rail card, and it costs her £43 per week for a daily journey from Ardgay to Inverness and back. She points out that if she travelled from Helmsdale, which is a greater distance from Inverness, it would cost her the lesser sum of £32 per week for the same journey there and back. That cannot be sensible. Will the minister please help to sort it out?
I accept that there are anomalies in the fare structures, but it is also true that residents of the Highlands benefit from reduced-price rail fares through the 50 per cent discount that the Highland rail card offers. That is an additional discount for Highland residents and it helps to ensure that rural communities remain connected and accessible to the rest of the country. The anomalies are best addressed through the preparations for the next franchise.
Before we come to the next item of business, I think that members will wish to know that I have written to the speaker of the New Zealand Parliament on behalf of the Scottish Parliament to offer our sincere condolences to the people of New Zealand following the horrific earthquake in Christchurch. [Applause.]
Previous
Regeneration