Water Direct Scheme (Midlothian and East Lothian)
To ask the Scottish Government what information it has regarding how many local authorities use the water direct scheme to deduct water and sewerage charges, and whether this includes Midlothian and East Lothian councils. (S4O-04718)
As the use of water direct is a matter for individual local authorities in collaboration with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Scottish Government does not retain a list of the local authorities that use the scheme. However, the Scottish Government recognises that water direct is being used in Scotland, and it is working to facilitate discussions between relevant parties to support the development of a common understanding on the appropriate use of the scheme.
Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to poverty reduction and to alleviating the impact of changes to benefits payments brought in by the Westminster Government, has the cabinet secretary offered any guidance to local authorities about the need for them to take into account the customer’s ability to pay and to consider whether a benefits deduction for water and sewerage charges, or debt resulting from unpaid water and sewerage charges, will cause financial hardship to the customer before they apply to the DWP to make deductions from the benefits payment?
The member raises a good point, but he will be aware that it is for local authorities to decide which tools to use to collect water charges and in what circumstances they should apply any particular approach. However, it is important that any debt recovery tool, including water direct, is used responsibly. A forum is therefore being established, which the Scottish Government will chair, to ensure that stakeholders, including customer representatives, can discuss the implications for different groups of individuals of the use of water direct and other charge recovery methods, with a view to establishing a common understanding of good practice that best protects the most financially hard pressed.
It is also worth noting that in Scotland water charges are, on average, £39 lower than they are in England and Wales, and that they have been falling in real terms in recent years. The linkage to council tax means that charges are the most progressive in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Seafish (Review)
To ask the Scottish Government when the next review of the industry authority, Seafish, is scheduled to take place. (S4O-04719)
Following the Smith commission’s report, options for making administrative changes to Seafish have been under discussion across the four United Kingdom fisheries administrations. We do not believe that those discussions address the fundamental flaws that are inherent in Seafish as a reserved body that is attempting to operate in an area in which policy is devolved. We have therefore asked the UK Government to support the devolution of powers to raise and administer food levies, including the seafood levy that Seafish administers, via legislative change through the Scotland Bill. Once such powers have been devolved, we will be in a position to undertake a proper and fundamental review of food levies in Scotland, including Scotland’s place in Seafish and the implications for that body’s role in the UK.
I thank the minister for her answer, but I am quite surprised, because such UK-wide bodies must be reviewed every three years. As I understand it, the most recent review of Seafish was supposed to have taken place last year, in 2014. The Smith commission asked the Scottish and UK Governments to work together on the matter. If the discussions that have been taking place have not yet resulted in the devolution that we want to see, is it not time for Seafish to be reviewed out of Scotland?
Christian Allard is absolutely right to point out that a review of Seafish is overdue. Indeed, we believe that a fundamental overhaul of the arrangements for raising and administering seafood levies has been pressing for some time.
Following the Smith commission’s report, options for making administrative changes to Seafish have been under discussion across the four UK fisheries administrations, but we do not believe that those discussions address the fundamental flaws that are inherent in Seafish as a reserved body that is attempting to operate in an area in which policy is devolved. That was demonstrated recently when Seafish chose to use this year’s UK fish and chip shop awards, at which a Shetland business deservedly won the best fish and chip shop award, as a vehicle for the Norwegian Seafood Council to promote frozen Norwegian white fish in the UK market. Although that plays to the interests of powerful importers of frozen fish elsewhere in the UK, it fails to put Scottish interests first.
We have asked the UK Government to support the devolution of powers to raise and administer food levies, including the seafood levy that Seafish administers, via legislative change through the Scotland Bill. Once such powers have been devolved, we will be in a position to undertake a proper and fundamental review of food levies in Scotland, including Scotland’s place in Seafish and the implications for that body’s role in the UK.
I share the industry’s concerns about any suggestion that Seafish should in any way be promoting Norwegian seafood, given the quality and sustainability of our Scottish fish. The UK Government has said that it is prepared to work closely with the Scottish Government on giving Scotland a greater say over how the levies are spent. Will the minister update us on those talks and on her priorities for spending on seafood promotion in Scotland?
I am happy to write to the member with further details, to make sure that I give him information that is as comprehensive as possible.
Bus Re-regulation
To ask the Scottish Government what its views are on bus re-regulation. (S4O-04720)
Our position has not changed in that I have no plans for wholesale re-regulation but I want to see closer partnership working between operators and transport authorities. We will shortly bring forward legislation to make changes to the registration of bus services, and that will provide an opportunity for those in the sector to demonstrate how they can work together to better manage changes to the bus network.
I thank the minister for that answer, but I find it very disappointing. I am sure that I am not the only constituency or list MSP whose communities have been blighted over the years by the relatively fast withdrawal of bus services from local communities, including most recently the M3 and 10 buses in my constituency. It seems to me that transport authorities are also hidebound in this regard, because their current guidance means that they have no opportunity to intervene when there is another or a similar service operating in the area, which is the case with the two services that I mentioned.
I ask the minister to think again. If he is not content to have, as he described it, “wholesale re-regulation”, perhaps he could look at another model that might give communities the opportunity to have a say in the decisions that are being made that so badly affect them.
I have outlined proposals that will assist in relation to bus services throughout Scotland. There is already provision in legislation for quality contracts, which involve local franchising, and quality bus partnerships. In addition, local transport strategies can be addressed through strengthened community planning.
I disagree with the member’s point that there is no opportunity to intervene. If there is assessed social need, local transport authorities can intervene and implement subsidised services. The legislative change that I am proposing involves better engagement with local authorities in the assessment of transport changes through bus regulation, and I am sure that that will be welcomed by the whole Parliament.
On wholesale re-regulation, if Patricia Ferguson is disappointed in my answer, I am sure that she will be equally disappointed in her colleague Iain Gray, who abandoned his bill. It was apparently about re-regulation but, as with many things in the Labour Party, it was not quite what it said on the tin. David Stewart brokered a meeting between me and Iain Gray, and I was happy to be supportive to strengthen the legislation, but Mr Gray withdrew his bill.
I will do what I can through grant conditions, transport strategies, strengthened community planning and the national transport strategy to support local communities working in partnership with the bus industry, rather than bringing the kind of volatility that I think the Labour Party would wreak on Scotland’s public transport system.
Is it not the case that re-regulation would cost more than three quarters of a billion pounds and that it is the height of cynicism for the Labour Party to suggest such a thing when it knows that the comprehensive spending review is likely to lead to further cuts to an already diminished Scottish budget?
Mr Gibson is right in the respect that wholesale re-regulation or indeed renationalisation would be incredibly expensive. However, as with its proposition on the railways, Labour says that it is talking about renationalisation but it turns out that what it says is not necessarily what it does. It did not deliver re-regulation in administration and it is not even proposing it now in opposition, having abandoned its bill.
That is why we will take the right pragmatic and practical steps to support local communities in engaging changes to bus services while maintaining the national concessionary travel scheme, the bus service operators grant and other measures to try to support accessibility and connectivity right across the country, and we will do so in partnership with the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK. Those are the conditions that will lead to enhanced public transport in Scotland.
As the minister hinted, there is a suite of options with which local authorities can improve bus services, including quality partnerships, quality contracting and punctuality improvement plans. When did the Government last review the take-up of those mechanisms? How many take-ups have there been? Does the minister plan to review or refresh the bus strategy generally?
The good news is that, yes, a refresh of the national transport strategy is under way as we speak. I have set a very challenging timescale for it to be concluded by Christmas. Within that refresh there will be the imminent legislative and regulatory changes that I have proposed, which will be shared with the chamber. The national transport strategy review must prioritise bus transport if we want to get a modal shift from the car to public transport.
I am disappointed that local authorities and transport partnerships have not taken up quality bus partnerships and quality contracts. If I can make it easier for them to do that, I will, but sometimes the issue is about resource, not regulation. There are the tools to do the job at local level, and local authorities need to seize those opportunities and make things happen to help to address need. Those kinds of practical measures—not blanket wholesale re-regulation—will make the difference, because they can be done, and they can be done now.
It is regrettable that the issue is seen as just another example of Labour-Scottish National Party rivalry. If we look around Europe and the countries that enjoy the excellent public transport provision that Scotland deserves but does not have, one thing is clear: those countries regulate firmly, subsidise—not just at the margins—and recognise that a free-market approach involving the private sector alone does not deliver the goods.
Around 45 per cent of total bus income is public sector subsidy. We can do more on integrated transport, smart cards, partnership and local connections, and all that work is under way. I disagree that wholesale re-regulation is the answer when there is a suite of actions that will improve bus patronage in Scotland.
We should celebrate the positives and empower people at the most local level to address social need where necessary. It is my job to ensure that the conditions are there to do that, which is exactly why we are refreshing the national transport strategy. We are making it clear to local authorities that they have the power to take action now to address need in a pragmatic and positive way.
I have been contacted by many constituents in Renfrewshire, which is an area that I and the minister represent, who are concerned about the high price of bus fares and the lack of services, particularly in the evening. I have also been contacted by bus passengers in Clydebank who are dismayed that they cannot get a direct bus to the new Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Some pensioners have to get three buses to travel just 7 miles for a hospital appointment.
If the minister will not regulate the bus industry—clearly he will not—what will he do to address those problems, which bus users face daily?
I do not think that Neil Bibby has been listening to me. I have outlined the actions in the national transport strategy, including quality contracts and quality bus partnerships, and I have outlined the investments and subsidies that we are making. In my previous answer I outlined how, if there is social need, local authorities and transport partnerships can address that, and how they can address wider issues around the personalised journey, including the contacts that can be made through Traveline Scotland to support that. In addition, we make fantastic investment into public transport, including the bus industry, of more than £1 billion every year.
Neil Bibby sounded disappointed that I am not re-regulating. He will be disappointed that even the Labour Party is no longer proposing re-regulation, as Iain Gray has abandoned the bill that was going to do that very thing. We will get on with the job of ensuring that there is satisfactory public transport and we will sustain the very impressive record of infrastructure investment that far surpasses anything that the previous Administration was able to deliver.
Cultural Events (North East Scotland)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote cultural events in the north-east. (S4O-04721)
The national companies are supported in 2015-16 to perform 30 times in the north-east, with an associated programme of more than 170 workshops and events, and they have been asked specifically to support the north-east during the music hall revamp. Partners have engaged with include schools, family centres, the Lemon Tree and the Royal Aberdeen children’s hospital. In 2014-15, Creative Scotland invested £3.6 million in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire local authority areas through 35 awards.
Creative Scotland has provided £90,000 funding towards “Granite”, a major new site-specific piece of participatory theatre that is being made by and for the people of Aberdeen. It has provided £130,000 funding towards Sound Festival for its work in 2015 and 2016 on promoting new music through performances, installations and learning and participation activities across Aberdeen city, Aberdeenshire and beyond. Today I can announce that Creative Scotland is providing Sound Festival with an additional £140,000 to support next year’s festival and enable the company to deliver a high-quality and dynamic programme of education and performance in 2016 and 2017 in Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland.
A recent survey by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce showed that seven out of 10 of their member businesses believe that cultural investment has a strong role to play in making the city a more attractive place to live and work. Given that and the fact that, notwithstanding what the cabinet secretary said, funding for the arts in Aberdeen is significantly lower per capita than in our other cities, what future plans does the Scottish Government have to promote the arts in the city?
While I welcome the cabinet secretary’s announcement about Sound Festival, does she also believe that Creative Scotland should consider awarding funding to Sound Festival from its core funding stream to secure its long-term future beyond next year?
I very much welcome the survey that the member has highlighted that shows that businesses in Aberdeen recognise that the cultural offer has been very important to economic growth. I am delighted to hear that.
In terms of what we can do for investment, I point out that the statistics that Richard Baker cited on funding per head of population relate to where the applicant for funding resides as opposed to where the arts activity takes place. Having more organisations that can apply for regularly funded activity, from Aberdeen in particular, would be helpful, bearing in mind that 100 per cent of those from Aberdeen that applied for regular funding received that.
In relation to Sound Festival, I am delighted that the member welcomes our announcement today, but over the period since 2012 Sound Festival has had almost half a million pounds of investment, recognising the quality of what it produces. Clearly, we want to ensure that not just the central belt but every part of Scotland can enjoy the great cultural performances that this country has to offer.
Borders Rail Link (Progress Report)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide a progress report on how the Borders rail link is operating. (S4O-04722)
Patronage on the Borders railway has been exceptional since its opening; nearly 200,000 journeys have been made in the first six weeks. Some performance issues have resulted from those busy services, which ScotRail is mitigating, through additional carriages on some affected services. The performance of the Borders railway is being closely monitored, alongside the rest of the Scottish rail network.
The minister will be aware that some services have been cancelled because of overcrowding. Does he think it acceptable for ScotRail to advise passengers which trains are busier than others, so that customers can make alternative arrangements? Will he tell passengers what he is doing in conjunction with ScotRail to increase capacity in the longer term?
Will the minister also today give a clear commitment to initiating talks with stakeholders about getting a feasibility study into extending the line to Carlisle under way, so that even more communities can reap the benefits?
We have made it clear that we will judge the Borders railway’s performance and talk to the regional transport partnership about a future feasibility study. We will engage with stakeholders.
It is helpful to advise passengers about when the busiest trains run, because some leisure passengers might want to avoid the busier times. That is helpful advice. Most important is what the Government and ScotRail have done to address the huge success of the Borders railway, which has meant adding extra carriages, doubling capacity at certain times.
That success story has had an immense positive economic impact, and there will be further increases in capacity and improvement in rolling stock, which is being used to the maximum in Scotland to address the now-fantastic demand for Borders rail. In due course, 70 new Hitachi electric trains will come to Scotland, which will allow us to cascade existing rolling stock across the country.
I think that I hear Jim Hume saying that that is not happening quickly enough. We cannot magic up new trains, but we have ordered new trains through the franchise. If the Liberal Democrats were in power, there would be no overcrowding on the Borders railway, because there would be no Borders railway. The railway has been delivered by this Government and it provides a fantastic service.
Question 6, from James Kelly, has been withdrawn, for understandable reasons.
Libraries (Usage by Children)
To ask the Scottish Government how it can encourage library usage by children. (S4O-04724)
The Scottish Government places great importance on public libraries: everyone should have access to them. Through our work with the Scottish Library and Information Council, we are providing support for many public library projects that encourage use by children.
In August the First Minister launched the every child a library member pilots, which the Scottish Government has funded from the culture portfolio. The pilots will work with children at key stages up to primary 1. There are a number of programmes to improve literacy and provide access to libraries for our children.
The cabinet secretary might be aware that 4,000 primary 4 children in Scotland were provided with a superstar reader card to encourage them to visit libraries and take part in the six-visit superstar readers challenge. Does she agree that children can take part in such initiatives only if there is adequate access to libraries and that closing libraries is likely to have an adverse effect on the number of children who visit them?
I commend the programme that the member mentioned. Libraries have a central role in our communities. We have published our national strategy for public libraries in Scotland. Any closure must be considered very carefully; we need libraries at the heart of our communities.
Before we move to the next item of business, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery Her Excellency Alicia Castro, the ambassador of the Argentine Republic to the United Kingdom. [Applause.]