Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Plenary, 28 Jan 2010

Meeting date: Thursday, January 28, 2010


Contents


Question Time


SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE


Finance and Sustainable Growth


PFI/PPP Contracts (South Lanarkshire Council)

To ask the Scottish Government what South Lanarkshire Council's financial commitment to private finance initiative/public-private partnership contracts is expected to be in 2010-11 and 2011-12. (S3O-9347)

The estimated annual PFI/PPP unitary payments for South Lanarkshire Council in 2010-11 and 2011-12 are £26.9 million and £27.6 million respectively. Those figures are inclusive of Scottish Government PFI/PPP funding contributions.

Christina McKelvie:

Is the cabinet secretary as concerned as I am about the on-going impact on local authority budgets of servicing PFI/PPP contracts? The figures that he has just given for South Lanarkshire constitute a huge burden on the council's available resources at a time when local budgets are being squeezed as a result of cuts from Westminster. Does he agree that it is more important than ever to provide local authorities with mechanisms for infrastructure investment that provide far better value for the public purse than those that were available under previous Administrations?

John Swinney:

Christina McKelvie is correct to highlight the fact that the sums for repayment on an annual basis are significant. To put it into context, between this financial year and the next one, I have to find in the Government's budget a new £100 million to support repayment charges for public infrastructure. Those are significant sums of money that have to be planned for in a prudential fashion to ensure that, as well as servicing the costs of PFI and PPP contracts, we and local authorities such as South Lanarkshire Council can provide funding for the essential local services that matter to all the individuals whom we represent.

Andy Kerr (East Kilbride) (Lab):

I am sure that the cabinet secretary recognises the legendary knowledge of Ms McKelvie on matters relating to PPP—see "Newsnight" for further information. Does the cabinet secretary not understand the changes in the make-up of the financial support for local government, which mean that we have gone from 80 per cent support from Government and 20 per cent liability for local authorities to a split of two thirds to one third? That means that local government loses out and therefore that fewer schools may be built. Would he care to address the key point in relation to Christina McKelvie's question? Is it not the case that Barry White, chief executive of the Scottish Futures Trust, Unison, the Cuthberts and Professor Pollock have all said that the mechanism that the cabinet secretary and the Government are deploying is nothing but PPP by another name?

John Swinney:

Mr Kerr always gets on to more substantive ground when he moves off the pejorative but, even when he is on the substantive ground, he misses the fundamental differences between the Government's approaches and the PFI schemes over which he presided. The capped equity returns in the non-profit distributing model are a fundamental difference in characteristics between the two models. While Mr Kerr churns out all his invective, he should bear it in mind that significant financial burdens are being wrestled with in the Scottish budget.

To reiterate what I said to Christina McKelvie, from this year's budget to next year's, we have to find £100 million of new resources to pay for repayment mechanisms of the type that she asked about. That should be recorded and recalled in the budget discussions.


Deprivation (Glasgow City Council)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has had with Glasgow City Council regarding the allocation of additional funding to tackle deprivation. (S3O-9297)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

My ministerial colleagues and I have been engaging in a series of meetings with local authority leaders to discuss local government finance. The current local government distribution formula already takes account of needs-based indicators such as deprivation. The recent joint review of the formula concluded that the existing indicators are reasonable and generally a fair indication of need and that they should be retained. All the review's recommendations have been accepted by both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish ministers.

Pauline McNeill:

Is the cabinet secretary aware that, if Glasgow had received an average settlement, it would have received an additional £20 million, and that, if it had received the same settlement that Perth and Kinross Council did, it would have had an extra £51 million? Is he aware that Glasgow's is the worst settlement that any council has received since devolution? Is he really arguing that it is a fair settlement for Glasgow, given the city's burden of deprivation? Will he reflect on fairness for Glasgow in the future?

John Swinney:

The settlement that was arrived at for Glasgow was a direct product of the application of the distribution formula that has been agreed by local government and the Scottish ministers. The member is in no position to single out Glasgow as an example of exceptional treatment. That distribution formula is almost identical to the one that was used until 2007 by the Administration of which she was a supporter. The formula takes into account a range of indicators and arrives at a position of need and distributes resources on that basis. I point out to Pauline McNeill that Glasgow City Council receives the highest per capita funding of any mainland local authority in Scotland as a result of the application of the formula, which takes into account the circumstances of all local authorities in Scotland.


Housing Sector Representatives (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth last met housing sector representatives to discuss the 2010-11 budget. (S3O-9299)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

Along with the Minister for Housing and Communities, I met a number of housing sector representatives on 24 September 2009, after the publication of the draft 2010-11 budget. We were able to reassure them that the housing budget over the three years from 2008 to 2011 remains at the record level of £1.65 billion that was set by this Government at the 2007 spending review. We also explained that, in order to increase housing investment in 2010-11, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would require to provide more funding, which he declined to do in the pre-budget report in December.

Mary Mulligan:

The cabinet secretary will be aware that outstanding housing debt for councils is continuing to rise. Given that the only way in which that is repaid is from tenants' rents, which I hope we are all concerned about, has he discussed with local authorities the outstanding housing debt and how they will reduce it in order to keep down rents in 2010-11?

John Swinney:

As Mary Mulligan will appreciate, the decisions to which she refers are entirely for local authorities to make as independent governing bodies. It is up to local authorities to make judgments about the financial commitments that they make and their ability to service them in due course. That is their responsibility and it would be entirely inappropriate for me to interfere in that process.


Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth last met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and what was discussed. (S3O-9288)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

I attended the meeting of the Scottish Cabinet and COSLA that took place on 13 January 2010. The concordat, the financial climate and climate change were the agenda items for discussion at the meeting. That meeting is part of regular contact with COSLA representatives on a number of issues.

Johann Lamont:

When the minister met COSLA, did he discuss the impact of the severe weather on the capacity of local authorities to deliver their services? I understand, for example, that maintenance and care budgets will have had to be used to deal with the immediate emergency that the severe weather created. What will the cabinet secretary do to help local authorities to address, for example, the impact on the regular road maintenance budget of the spending of money to mitigate the effects of the severe weather and the fact that the challenge of maintaining the roads has been heightened by the consequences of the severe weather, such as the increased numbers of potholes?

John Swinney:

The effect of the severe weather was discussed at the meeting between COSLA and the Cabinet. The meeting gave the First Minister and the president of COSLA the opportunity to reflect on the high levels of co-operation among local authorities as they addressed, for example, the severe strain on salt supplies, which increased their ability to deal with the difficulties around the country. It also gave us the opportunity to thank the public sector employees who did so much to ensure that vulnerable individuals in our society were properly supported throughout the winter weather. The question of the financial impact was raised by COSLA representatives. We will continue to discuss such questions in relation to the circumstances of local government as a whole and of individual local authorities. Of course, I will share any relevant information with Parliament at the appropriate time.


Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (Meetings)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it last met Strathclyde partnership for transport and what issues were discussed. (S3O-9265)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

Ministers and officials meet Strathclyde partnership for transport regularly to discuss transport issues across Glasgow and the west of Scotland. I most recently met SPT when I was pleased to launch the partnership's hybrid bus-based mobile travel advice centre outside the Scottish Parliament on 8 December.

Bill Aitken:

SPT's decision to axe the short ferry crossing between Yoker and Renfrew is understandable in light of the dire financial conditions that the Labour Government has imposed on us all. Nonetheless, it saddens me that that popular service, which has been with us for more than 200 years, is falling by the wayside. That is also likely to cause considerable hardship to those who use the ferry to commute to work. Will the minister assure me that every possible avenue has been, or will be, explored with SPT prior to the final withdrawal of the route in two months' time?

Stewart Stevenson:

The member makes the good point that Labour's cuts are impacting on the commuting arrangements of many people who rely on the ferry.

Just before the board meeting at which the subject was discussed, SPT wrote to our director of transport to highlight some of the issues. We are continuing discussions with SPT, but I make the general point that SPT and councils throughout Scotland have seen increases in their funding that are substantially above the increase—or the absence of one—that the Scottish Government has. We will continue to discuss that matter in a positive way.

Charlie Gordon (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab):

Is it not the case that SPT's budget for next year, which was adduced as the reason for the cut in the ferry service, is at a standstill in cash terms and therefore has been cut in real terms, which is the responsibility—partially—of the Scottish Government?

Stewart Stevenson:

SPT, like regional transport partnerships throughout Scotland, relies on subventions from local authorities. In the case of SPT, there is direct money from the Scottish Government but, in any event, we are putting record investment into transport throughout Scotland and local authorities are getting increased sums of money.


Fairer Scotland Fund (Guidance)

6. Michael McMahon (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab):

To ask the Scottish Executive whether the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has discussed with the Minister for Housing and Communities proposals to change its guidance explaining ministerial priorities for the fairer Scotland fund. (S3O-9295)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

As part of the concordat, the ring fence associated with the fairer Scotland fund will end in March 2010, with the sums allocated to local authority areas rolled up within the local government finance settlement from 2010-11 onwards.

To set out the on-going commitment of national and local government to tackling deprivation, we published a joint statement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities entitled "Equal Communities in a Fairer Scotland" in October 2009. That contains a set of key principles, which are built on those underpinning the fairer Scotland fund approach and are focused on prevention, early intervention, partnership working, employability and community engagement.

Michael McMahon:

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, regardless of what guidance exists and what priorities he might ever have had for the use of the fairer Scotland fund, he relinquished any ability to ensure that the fund was used for its intended purpose when he removed its ring-fenced status? Will he accept that the proposals that some local authorities are considering to use the FSF to replace core funding gaps are entirely down to his decision and his failure to fund local government adequately?

John Swinney:

That is an interesting point from Mr McMahon, which he has made on a number of occasions, about the overall funding settlement for local government in Scotland. I look forward with interest to the Labour Party lodging an amendment, which I have already invited Mr McMahon to do, to improve the local government financial settlement. We will see what comes of all that.

On the fairer Scotland fund, Michael McMahon starts his question from the premise that he is fundamentally not prepared to trust local government in Scotland. That can be the only explanation of the point that he makes. Bearing in mind that, I think, his entire constituency is located in a Labour-controlled local authority area, I think that that raises questions about his respect and regard for his own local authority. I am certainly prepared to trust local government to take decisions in the interests of local communities. In co-operation with my ministerial colleagues, I have put in place guidance on the fairer Scotland fund to address the circumstances but, given the content of the question that he asked me, Mr McMahon has to think about his view of local government.

Malcolm Chisholm (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab):

Can the cabinet secretary reassure those parts of my constituency that are still benefiting from the fairer Scotland fund, albeit at a reduced rate, about what will happen to area-based regeneration funding in the future? Is there anything in the single outcome agreements or the guidance to ensure that my council, which is a Scottish National Party coalition administration, will still have to dedicate money to area-based regeneration?

John Swinney:

I make to Mr Chisholm a similar point, but perhaps not with the party-political invective that I gave to Mr McMahon. I simply make the point that Mr Chisholm's question assumes that local authorities are somehow not supportive of, interested in or committed to local regeneration. In my experience, that is not the case. I discuss with local authorities the various efforts that they are making to regenerate communities and seek to ensure that they have the flexibility at local level to use resources from the fairer Scotland fund and other elements of the core financial settlement to maximise the economic impact of regeneration. We should encourage that process of local democracy and motivate people to carry it out rather than criticising it in Parliament.


Rail Services and Infrastructure(Severe Weather)

To ask the Scottish Government what reports have been received from Network Rail and First ScotRail regarding performance in the operation of train services and infrastructure during the recent period of severe weather. (S3O-9350)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

During the period of severe weather, Transport Scotland received frequent, detailed reports on the operation of train services from both Network Rail and First ScotRail. Transport Scotland officials also met the directors of Network Rail and First ScotRail. The two companies have started a review of their performance during the severe weather conditions so that any lessons to be learned are captured.

Shirley-Anne Somerville:

A great number of First ScotRail and Network Rail staff did everything they could to provide as good a service as possible to passengers under exceptionally difficult circumstances during the severe weather that we all experienced at the turn of the year. However, I am sure that the minister, like all MSPs, will have received a number of complaints from passengers who experienced significant travel problems including cancelled or severely disrupted services and fewer carriages on the services that did run. What is being done to ensure that we learn lessons from the process, particularly on the impact on commuters? What can be done in future to ensure that people can get to work as quickly as possible?

Stewart Stevenson:

The member makes a number of important points with which I agree. In particular, staff in all our transport modes made heroic efforts to keep services running but, in the face of the worst period of winter weather for a very long time, some disruption was inevitable.

It might be worth reporting that, between 22 December and 9 January, 88 per cent of trains operated. Yes, there were a significant number of cancellations, but a great deal of the network continued to operate. Truncations were an issue and we had overcrowded trains. At the height of the disruption, some 50 trains were out of action due to the effects of ice and snow or as a result of collision damage due to their hitting stags on the line.

Just today I met the new chair of Network Rail and discussed certain aspects of what we have to learn—indeed, the organisation is very keen to learn lessons. I have also had discussions with First ScotRail. The key area that we will focus on in early course is improving communication to ensure that, if any disruptions occur, travellers can make better plans based on a better informed understanding of what is happening. There are a lot of lessons to be learned—and we will learn them.


Haudagain Roundabout

To ask the Scottish Executive what its preferred option is for improvements at the Haudagain roundabout and when work on this will commence. (S3O-9269)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

We will commence improvements to the Haudagain roundabout following completion of the Aberdeen western peripheral route. When the orders for the route have been approved by Parliament—assuming, of course, that they are—consideration of options will be finalised and a decision made on the preferred option.

Richard Baker:

If there is no prospect of work on the Haudagain roundabout starting before the end of this parliamentary session and given that Aberdeen City Council's development plans for the Middlefield area are contingent on its preferred option for improving the roundabout being selected, will the minister tell us when the final decision on the preferred option will be taken? I understand that the council expected a decision before Christmas.

Stewart Stevenson:

Whether the AWPR proceeds is contingent on Parliament agreeing the orders that are before us. We will not make a decision until that process has been completed.

I also make the very general point that there has been considerable discussion about the number of crossings over the Don and the approach to redevelopment, all of which have played their part in ensuring that we are equipped to make the decision after the Parliament has taken its view.

Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):

The minister might be aware of proposals for further substantial housing and business developments in the Grandholm and Danestone areas of Aberdeen. Will he ensure that the redeveloped Haudagain roundabout has the capacity to cope not just with current traffic levels but with the levels of traffic that are expected if the developments go ahead?

Stewart Stevenson:

We have always said that we will take responsibility for raising the capacity at the Haudagain roundabout to meet the needs of the area after the introduction of the AWPR, which of course will take traffic off the existing A96 and A90 through Aberdeen. We will absolutely deliver on that promise.

Lewis Macdonald (Aberdeen Central) (Lab):

Does the minister accept that his Government's target date for starting the AWPR is now the same as the previous Administration's target date for completion? In that context, will he agree today to bring forward moves to address the Haudagain pinch-point and get the work done in advance of work on the AWPR?

Stewart Stevenson:

Mr Macdonald and I will continue to disagree about the state of preparedness that we inherited when we came into government in 2007. If targets of the nature that Mr Macdonald has referred to were indeed set, they were not matched by any plans that this Government inherited.


Essential Services (North Lanarkshire Council)

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth has had with North Lanarkshire Council during the budget process about provision of essential services. (S3O-9306)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

Discussions on the budget process are taken forward through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities acting on behalf of all local authorities. The Scottish Government is in regular contact with political leaders in local authorities, including North Lanarkshire Council, as part of our regular dialogue with COSLA on a range of issues including the provision of essential services.

Elaine Smith:

Did the cabinet secretary discuss with COSLA the fact that the percentage share of the Scottish Government's budget that is allocated to local government has fallen from 34.7 per cent in 2006-07 under the Labour-led Administration to 33.9 per cent this year? Based on current allocations, the reduction means that North Lanarkshire will lose out to the tune of £17 million. Will the cabinet secretary increase the funding or justify the cut to my constituents who are resisting the closure of Gartsherrie primary school in Coatbridge?

John Swinney:

Obviously there is not an awful lot of chit-chat among North Lanarkshire Labour MSPs. If Elaine Smith had spoken to Mr McMahon, he might have shared with her my regular contribution to this debate—which I apologise for rehearsing again today—that under the previous Labour and Liberal Administration the share of the Scottish budget going to local government was falling year on year. It came down from 36.7 per cent in 2003-04 to 33.39 per cent when the current Government came to office.

Thankfully for local authorities and communities around Scotland, this Government has taken a different view and has set about restoring the share of the Scottish budget that goes to local government by reversing the trend of our predecessors and increasing the share each year since we came to office. I am delighted to continue to put that on the record and make sure that everyone listens to that particular point. I will do it with the frequency required to educate the Labour members about their record in office.


Rail Freight (Consultation)

To ask the Scottish Government when Transport Scotland expects to publish the results of its developing rail freight in Scotland consultation. (S3O-9340)

Responses to the consultation will be published on Transport Scotland's website in March 2010.

Jamie Hepburn:

The minister will be aware of the existing heavy freight traffic on the Cumbernauld to Falkirk Grahamston line. Given the plans to electrify that line, the long-standing hopes of local people to see an increased and improved passenger service, and the campaigns to create Abronhill and Grangemouth railway stations, will the minister guarantee that increasing freight traffic on the line will not impinge on any possibility of future improvements to passenger services?

Stewart Stevenson:

We will be electrifying 350km of track in Scotland's rail network as we take forward our plans. That is an ambition for railway infrastructure development that has not been seen in my lifetime.

As we increase freight traffic on the Cumbernauld line, there will be issues about timetabling, but there is capacity on the line to allow us to continue to develop passenger services as well as freight. The slots are provided through the usual mechanisms involving Network Rail and all the rail companies in semi-annual discussions.

Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):

Did the consultation include consideration of the disruption and disturbance due to noise and vibration, particularly in the night running of freight, which has started in the past few years and affected my constituents along the Stirling-Alloa-Kincardine line?

Stewart Stevenson:

A wide range of issues was covered by the rail freight consultation. The member and I have discussed the issue of night running for freight, which is likely to continue to be an important part of the services that run on that line. The important things are that we protect communities from the effects of that, that mitigation is in place, and that we work with rail freight companies to ensure that appropriate and up-to-date wagons are used that cause little or no disruption. We will continue to do all that.


Rail Projects (Funding)

To ask the Scottish Executive what criteria it uses in deciding to fund some rail projects from borrowing via Network Rail's regulatory asset base. (S3O-9282)

The Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change (Stewart Stevenson):

To be eligible for regulatory asset base finance, the expenditure must relate to a project that will create assets that will be owned by Network Rail. Any decision on funding mechanisms is considered on a case-by-case basis and must demonstrate value for money in accordance with the requirements of the Scottish Government value-for-money guidance.

Charlie Gordon:

Aside from the irony that the criteria apparently do not include rail projects that were approved via a full act of the Parliament, such as the Glasgow airport rail link, does the minister not see the inconsistency in his criteria, which lead, according to one of his recent parliamentary answers, to spending money that John Swinney claims we do not have on rail projects such as Glasgow crossrail, which I support but which will not stack up without the Glasgow airport rail link?

Stewart Stevenson:

Perhaps I should make a couple of points in response to Mr Gordon's comments. In my initial answer, I said

"the expenditure must relate to a project that will create assets that will be owned by Network Rail".

In the case of GARL, it is clear that rebuilding a car park, providing a new nursery and relocating a fuel farm at the airport do not meet that test.

I simply point out that one important feature of regulatory asset base finance that we must recognise is that, like any source of finance, it is finite. Control period 4, which runs from 2009 to 2014, was agreed some time ago. We will of course continue to consider regulatory asset base finance when it is appropriate and delivers value for money.

Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD):

The Scottish Government ruled out using the regulatory asset base for the Borders railway and is instead using a private finance initiative variant—a capped profit return, wholly privately financed construction. Will that depend on revenue that is raised on the line? Will the minister give a categorical assurance that ticket pricing on the Borders railway will be no different from pricing in any other part of the network in Scotland?

Stewart Stevenson:

The Government expects to contribute to the revenue costs of trains that run on the Borders line, as we contribute to the great majority of lines throughout Scotland. I expect the cost per kilometre on the Borders railway to be substantially similar to that elsewhere in the network.


Boiler Scrappage Scheme

To ask the Scottish Executive what it would cost to introduce a boiler scrappage scheme similar to that in place in England and Wales. (S3O-9294)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

A boiler scrappage scheme similar to that which has been introduced in England would cost approximately £5 million over two years.

We already support the replacement of inefficient boilers. Since the launch of our energy-saving loans scheme last October, we have received applications that are worth nearly £480,000 to replace G-rated boilers with an efficient model. Our energy assistance package has supported the installation or upgrading of more than 5,100 central heating systems, including boilers, plus a range of other energy-saving installations for people who experience fuel poverty. Between 6 April 2009 and the end of November 2009, more than £18.35 million was spent on the programme.

Ken Macintosh:

Is the cabinet secretary aware of the experience of East Renfrewshire residents such as Mr and Mrs Stuart, whose broken boiler would have qualified for replacement under the previous Labour Executive's free central heating scheme but no longer qualifies under the Scottish National Party Administration? This year, they received from the United Kingdom Government a winter fuel payment and a cold-weather allowance. If they lived in England, they would qualify for the boiler scrappage scheme, but they have instead had to struggle through the cold spell with an inefficient, expensive and unreliable boiler, with no help from the SNP. What message does the cabinet secretary have for them?

John Swinney:

I listened with care to the point that Mr Macintosh made on his constituents' behalf. The measures that I set out in my previous answer show the activity in which the Scottish Government is involved to support measures to tackle inefficient heating systems, to give people the appropriate heating services that they require and to tackle the challenge for people who experience fuel poverty. That is the Scottish Government's approach. We are supporting a range of individuals around the country who are experiencing fuel poverty and who are making efforts to tackle fuel poverty.


Glasgow Airport Rail Link

To ask the Scottish Executive how much money has been committed to the Glasgow airport rail link. (S3O-9287)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

Although the Scottish Government reluctantly had to cancel the branch-line element of the Glasgow airport rail link project, the project also involves much-needed improvements to the rail corridor between Paisley Gilmour Street and Glasgow Central stations. Those improvements, which are financed through Network Rail, will continue and be completed in early 2012, well ahead of the Commonwealth games in 2014.

The Scottish Government has committed to meeting the total expenditure, which is estimated at £222.59 million, of which £59.84 million had been spent up to 10 January 2010. The total expenditure is a mixture of capital and Network Rail regulatory asset base finance. That will allow the significant investment of the Paisley corridor improvements to proceed, to the benefit of people in Glasgow, Renfrewshire, Ayrshire and Inverclyde.

Andy Kerr:

I listened closely to the previous answer from the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change. How many projects were committed on the Network Rail RAB allocation in October 2009, when the cabinet secretary decided to axe the GARL project?

John Swinney:

The contents of the projects that were involved in the regulatory asset base in October 2009 would be the same as those in the period during which control period 4 was agreed with the Office of Rail Regulation. I cannot recall the date on which control period 4 was agreed.

There are a number of scheduled rail improvements, not least of which is the work on the Edinburgh to Glasgow improvement programme and on lines to the north of Scotland. A variety of improvements are scheduled as part of the Network Rail RAB. The suggestion that the member is driving at is that there is an easy solution, which is somehow to put GARL into the Network Rail RAB. However, in order to do that, other projects would have to be taken out of the RAB. We cannot escape reality. The programme of capital projects that we wish to undertake has to be constrained because of the financial challenges that we face as a country.


Dounreay to Beauly High-voltage Power Line

To ask the Scottish Government what work is required to reinforce the Dounreay to Beauly high-voltage power line and when it is envisaged that this work will start. (S3O-9337)

The Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism (Jim Mather):

Scottish and Southern Energy's plans to reinforce the Beauly to Dounreay line consist of upgrading an existing line by stringing a second set of cables onto the existing towers. This work is envisaged to start in 2010, with the stringing of new cables being carried out in 2011 and 2012.

Rob Gibson:

I thank the minister for that very positive answer. What new jobs will be created by this work? Will it harness the marine renewables in the Pentland Firth that are at an early stage of development and allow them to reach the transmission system?

Jim Mather:

It is very much our intention that the work will harness those marine renewables. It is clear that the Beauly to Dounreay upgrade is fundamental in delivering the target of installing 700MW of wave and tidal capacity in the Pentland Firth and Orkney waters by 2020. The scale of the opportunity is highlighted in the "Marine Energy Road Map" produced by the forum for renewable energy development in Scotland. The forum envisages the installation of 1GW of marine energy by 2020—a development that could generate £2.4 billion of expenditure, of which £1.3 billion would be retained in Scotland. It would also provide more than 2,600 direct jobs in Scotland and up to 12,500 indirect jobs.


Public Service Reform and Efficiency (2010-11 Budget)

To ask the Scottish Executive for what reason the budget for public service reform and efficiency has increased to £23.9 million in the 2010-11 draft budget. (S3O-9275)

The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth (John Swinney):

The budget takes account of the costs of taking forward a range of initiatives that together will contribute to our overall objective of delivering value for money in our public services. The financial climate makes our pursuit of the agenda more relevant than it has ever been, and that is reflected in the budget.

Cathie Craigie:

The Scottish SNP Edinburgh Government has more money to spend this year than any previous Scottish Administration had to spend. I will take every opportunity to repeat that. I accept that the SNP will make choices on where to prioritise spending, but why has the cabinet secretary chosen to prioritise this area for a budget increase when he is cutting the housing and regeneration budget?

I consider myself to be a member of a Government for all of Scotland that serves all the communities, and not a member of an Edinburgh Government—

Shame.

John Swinney:

I have offended the member for Edinburgh West. It just goes to prove that I can only try my best to cheer up everybody.

I return to Cathie Craigie's point on the public service reform budget and wider financial issues. We are entering a period of acute public spending pressure. She does not need to take that from me; she need only read the Financial Times on a regular basis—as I am sure she does. Just last week, the FT had an interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on its front page in which he spoke of the very difficult times that are coming towards us. [Interruption.] I hear Labour members squawking, "It's this budget". We are prioritising public service reform and efficiency because this Administration is prepared to plan for the future, whereas the Labour Administration has squandered resources, wrecked the public finances and made a mess of the economy. We have come to the rescue.

Dave Thompson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP):

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the efficiency and reform measures that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is introducing. SEPA is axing five of its seven laboratories, including the one in Dingwall, with the loss of five jobs. Does the cabinet secretary agree that, when a public service restructures, there should be a presumption in favour of basing any retained and enhanced facilities in the Highlands and Islands and other areas outside the central belt? Will he ask SEPA to reconsider its decision to base its two remaining laboratories in Aberdeen and Edinburgh?

John Swinney:

I listened carefully to Mr Thompson's point and will draw his remarks to SEPA's attention. I say to the member and to Parliament that in the years to come many difficult decisions about public resources will have to be taken. We will consider carefully the issues that Mr Thompson raised in his question about the laboratory in Dingwall.