Plenary, 27 Mar 2008

Meeting date: Thursday, March 27, 2008

Official Report 712KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

---

Fuel Prices

To ask the Scottish Executive what assessment it has made of the impact of high fuel prices on the Scottish economy. (S3O-2852)

We are fully aware that high fuel prices impact on the people of Scotland and can result in fuel poverty and difficulties for our rural communities, our public transport and our businesses, particularly those with heavy transport costs. In the lead-up to the United Kingdom budget, the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth made strong representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the impact of steeply rising transport charges. We will continue strenuously to pursue the issue of fuel poverty with the UK Government and the energy companies to ensure that Scots are not left out in the cold.

I thank the minister for that full response.

I realise that no Government can change world oil prices, but does the minister acknowledge that fuel prices are hitting Scottish businesses and, indeed, are impacting in two ways on island and rural businesses in particular? Will the Government commit to matching the fuel support schemes that the French and Spanish Governments have introduced for their fishermen and which, we are told, are consistent with European law? Will the minister continue to make representations on the crude one-size-fits-all approach taken in the UK budget, which penalises Scottish crofters, farmers and fish farmers for using pick-ups? Those vehicles are not Chelsea and Milngavie tractors, but essential to businesses.

As someone who, like Tavish Scott, represents many of Scotland's fishermen and has substantial rural interests, I know that both communities—and, indeed, all people in rural areas—are genuinely concerned about these matters. I note that Her Majesty's Treasury has had, through a combination of North Sea oil revenues and VAT receipts, a £4 billion windfall over the past 12 months. We will continue to press the UK Government for a fair deal for our rural areas and for a price-cap through a modification of the tax system.

Given that most of the price of a litre of fuel is tax, does the minister agree that the current high cost of fuel further demonstrates the desperate need for a fuel tax regulator to even out the highs and lows of fuel costs?

We continue to believe that a fuel tax regulator would play a significant role in protecting rural communities from high fuel costs. Given that the taxation burden on diesel fuel in the UK is the highest anywhere in Europe and that the burden on petrol is in the top five highest, it is clear that taxation contributes very significantly to escalating fuel costs and is something that the Treasury benefits from. We do not believe that that is either fair or right.

To what extent is the Government correlating information to inform it—and subsequent Governments—of the impact of fuel prices on rural businesses?

I know that my colleague Mr Mather is taking a close interest in that matter. After all, in rural areas, the cost of transport and the cost of heating, which is largely driven by oil-based products, is very substantial. We will monitor the situation to ensure that we make the best possible case for the people of Scotland, particularly those in rural areas and in fishing communities, to have equity with other European countries and communities.

---

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met representatives of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. (S3O-2822)

I regularly meet all NHS board chairs to discuss matters of importance to health and to the national health service in Scotland. My most recent such meeting was on 25 February 2008. Health officials are also in regular contact with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde on a range of matters.

Does the minister understand the disappointment of the community that lives in the area around Stobhill hospital about the fact that the Scottish Government has not been willing to appoint an independent scrutiny panel, which would have allowed for proper scrutiny of previous decisions by the health board in connection with the delivery of acute services at Stobhill hospital? I do not need any gentle reminders from the minister about the actions of previous Governments; I want to know what the present Government will do.

As Paul Martin does not need any gentle reminders of the actions of previous Governments, I will give him a not-so-gentle reminder that it was the decision of the Labour and Liberal Government to approve the health board's plans to change provision at Stobhill hospital. Since I took up the job of Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, I have been open, honest and frank in making it clear that I cannot undo all the decisions that the previous Administration took. In the case to which Paul Martin refers, the decision was taken several years ago, and its implementation is now at an advanced stage.

In my time as cabinet secretary, I have also made it clear that the Government is committed to local provision of health services. That is why we set up an independent scrutiny panel that led us to overturn the decisions to close accident and emergency services at Ayr and Monklands hospitals, and why this Government, unlike the previous Government, will continue to act in the best interests of local health services.

---

Affordable Rented Housing

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the supply of affordable rented housing. (S3O-2797)

In "Firm Foundations", we consulted on a range of proposals for increasing the supply of affordable rented housing, including ending the right to buy on new social housing; providing incentives for local authorities to build new council houses; getting better value from public investment in new housing association stock; subsidising the development of housing for mid-market rent; and encouraging the private rented sector to provide more good-quality accommodation for rent.

Crucially, "Firm Foundations" made it clear that our plans for improving the value that we get from our investment in new stock will allow smaller associations, including community-based associations, to continue to acquire new stock.

Given the current credit-crunch effects of reducing the availability of mortgages and increasing their cost, will the minister work with Scotland's housing associations and other affordable rented housing providers, as well as with innovative high-quality prefabrication housing projects such as the Highland Housing Alliance, to ensure that we do not return to a situation in which homelessness is on the increase and there is a lack of affordable and suitable housing alternatives?

Absolutely. I assure the member that that is precisely why we have made housing such a priority for the Government. We launched the housing supply task force last summer and produced the "Firm Foundations" document, the consultation period for which has just ended; we will publish the analysis of the consultation results shortly. I am aware of the Highland Housing Alliance and, last summer, visited some of the projects that it is involved in, including the prefabricated housing projects, the factory in Orkney and the development that will, I hope, go ahead in the Brora area.

We will open up consultation on a range of issues, which are partly to do with the Housing (Scotland) Act 2006 and partly about progressing our work on "Firm Foundations". We take seriously the need for affordable housing in Scotland and the fact that the homelessness target that we must meet by 2012, to which the whole Parliament is signed up, is extremely challenging.

The homelessness charity Crisis published a report in February that demonstrates that, by enabling people to rent in the private sector, deposit guarantee schemes can make a major contribution to tackling homelessness. In light of that report, does the minister have any intention to extend the use of such schemes?

We are considering the possibility of doing what the member suggests. Discussions are being held with a number of stakeholders and once they have come to an evidence-based conclusion that would allow us to take the matter forward, I will be happy to discuss the issue with the whole Parliament, including the member.

I am sure that the minister needs no reminder of the fact that it is the considered view of this Parliament that the Scottish National Party Government does not have a coherent housing policy, and I know that he will respect the Parliament's view in that regard.

I want to talk about the affordability of rented housing—

We are not here to talk; we are here to ask questions.

My apologies; I will ask a specific question.

The "Firm Foundations" document is predicated on higher rent levels. In addition, housing providers are telling us that rent levels might have to rise if the Scottish housing quality standard is to be delivered. What level of rent rise does the minister consider would be acceptable to allow the delivery of the Scottish housing quality standard and the efficiencies that he has identified, in comparison with levels in housing associations down south?

Of course "Firm Foundations" is not predicated on higher rent levels—that is a complete and utter fallacy. However, I am not surprised that the member has again made that claim. Frankly, it is scaremongering to upset tenants across the country by putting forward the wild idea that the process of achieving efficiencies in the sector will be driven by the setting of higher rent levels. That process is not predicated on higher rent levels.

Delivery of the Scottish housing quality standard is not predicated on higher rent levels, either. It is predicated on the fact that local authorities will have a focus on meeting the 2015 target, which used to be supported by Johann Lamont's party. Perhaps Labour is no longer interested in supporting the implementation of a basic standard for public sector housing by 2015. We certainly intend to introduce the Scottish housing quality standard throughout the country for the benefit of current and, in particular, future tenants and those who, under her regime, were unable to get a house.

---

Local Income Tax

To ask the Scottish Executive what research was undertaken prior to publication of its local income tax plans. (S3O-2819)

In preparing the consultation paper on a fairer local tax for Scotland, we drew on a range of existing research, analysis and information, in addition to work that we undertook internally, which included detailed financial modelling of the proposals. The 2007 Scottish social attitudes survey, for example, found that 83 per cent of the people questioned said that they should be taxed according to how much income they had.

The cabinet secretary will be aware that official Scottish Government statistics show that 265,198 people aged between 20 and 34 still stay with their parents and that most of them will have to pay the new local income tax. Does he agree that that will be a double whammy, which will hinder many young people who are trying to get on the housing ladder?

People will realise that the local income tax is a fair system that is based on the ability to pay. The Government has published information on a variety of social groupings that demonstrates how people will be better off. For example, 59 per cent of people who live in households comprising multiple taxpayers—the group to which Mr Kelly referred—will pay less, and there will be no change for at least 11 per cent of them. The evidence on the advantages of having a local income tax is pretty compelling.

The Labour Party's contribution to the debate would have slightly more credibility if in the four years following 2003, when it made a promise to do something to improve the fairness of the council tax, it had lifted a finger. It failed to do anything and, as Labour members all know, the council tax became such an issue in last year's election campaign that it resulted in the Labour Party's defeat.

This Government has made proposals to introduce fairness into the local taxation system and, in due course, I look forward to their receiving enthusiastic support from members such as Mr McNeil, who seems to be particularly cheery about the issue today.

---

Medical Negligence Claims <br />(National Health Service)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken with the NHS to review the relationship between the £208 million that NHS boards declared in 2006-07 as provisions and contingent liabilities against claims for medical negligence and the payment that year of £23 million in respect of such claims. (S3O-2779)

The £208 million is made up of around £80 million for contingent liabilities and gross provisions of £127.7 million. The contingent liabilities are not a charge to the accounts, but they are reported in the contingent liabilities annex to the annual accounts. The gross provisions are included in NHS boards' 2006-07 annual accounts under the clinical negligence and other risks indemnity scheme and are offset by the related income of £104.3 million that is expected to be recovered under that scheme. The net provision is therefore £23.4 million.

I thank the cabinet secretary for her answer, but does she nevertheless agree that the gap between the amount set aside and the amount paid out appears to be excessive and that at least a portion of the unspent money could be reinvested in front-line care?

I understand Willie Coffey's concern, but I assure him that, to comply with accounting principles, NHS boards are required to recognise provisions in their accounts in respect of the amount of clinical negligence claims that are expected to be payable. As I said, the provisions amounted to £127.7 million in 2006-07. Under the terms of the scheme that is operated on behalf of NHS Scotland boards, the boards must also recognise and make provision for the corresponding income that they expect as reimbursement from the scheme. The net provision is what I explained in my answer.

As a Government, we are committed to patient safety. We want to cut the number of adverse incidents in the NHS, improve outcomes for patients and therefore reduce the number of claims and compensation payments. We also made a manifesto commitment to introduce a no-fault compensation system that would help to foster a more open and less adversarial relationship between patients and staff. We will consult on our proposals in due course.

My final word of what I hope is reassurance to Willie Coffey is this: although the figures that he referred to are large, the amount paid out in clinical negligence claims in Scotland is proportionately less than in the rest of the UK. I hope that those comments reassure him, but I am sure that we will continue to have dialogue on the issue.

---

Cancer Charities (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions ministers have held with representatives of cancer charities. (S3O-2765)

In the past six months, I have met representatives of cancer charities on three occasions. I had a joint meeting with members of the Scottish cancer coalition and Breakthrough Breast Cancer; I visited UCAN in Aberdeen; and with the First Minister I opened the Friends of the Beatson centre in Glasgow. The Minister for Public Health attended the launch of the Elizabeth Montgomery centre appeal, which was co-hosted by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, and she recently visited the Maggie's centre in Inverness.

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the screening matters campaign that is co-ordinated by Cancer Research UK and which seeks action on the part of the Scottish Government and individual health boards to improve and expand existing screening for breast cancer. Will she spell out what specific action the Government intends to take to help meet the aims of the screening matters campaign, which include screening 300,000 more people in Scotland in the next five years and reaching out to people who are eligible for screening but who do not currently take part?

This is an extremely important issue. As a Government, we are advised on screening matters by the national screening committee, and it is right that we act on the basis of expert evidence. However, I thoroughly endorse the campaign's aim, which is to ensure that as many people as possible who are eligible for screening take it up.

We are in the fortunate position in Scotland of seeing rising uptake rates for breast cancer screening, and we must continue to ensure that those who are not taking up screening opportunities do so. Cervical cancer screening rates are going in the opposite direction and have been falling slightly in recent years. That is a matter of concern and is something that we intend to target carefully to ensure that rates increase.

We are also in the process of rolling out the bowel cancer screening programme. That work will be complete throughout Scotland by the end of next year, and it is important, particularly because it is the only major cancer screening programme in Scotland that is available to men, that we work hard to ensure that uptake rates are as high as we expect them to be. I assure the member that we are aware of the issues and committed to ensuring that people take up an important service that, in many cases, saves lives.

At last night's meeting of the cross-party group on cancer, more than one cancer charity pointed out that it is slightly odd that, in the current consultation document, the chapter on diagnosis and treatment is followed immediately by a chapter on palliative care. Does she agree with those charities that there should be more focus on the welcome reality that more people live with cancer for a considerable time? Will she ensure that that reality is addressed more extensively in the final document?

I agree with Malcolm Chisholm that, thankfully, more and more people are surviving cancer and living longer with cancer. It is important that the services we provide change and develop to reflect that reality.

"Better Cancer Care—A Discussion" is a consultation document, as Malcolm Chisholm said. We are very open to views and responses on a range of issues that are covered in the document, which will lead to a revised and updated cancer strategy later this year.

Before we move to First Minister's questions, I am sure that the chamber wishes to join me in welcoming to the Presiding Officer's gallery this morning His Excellency Mr Yury Viktorovich Fedotov, the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom. [Applause.]