Effective Government
The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister on delivering more effective government. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, therefore there should be no interventions.
This Government has made a firm commitment to simplify Scotland's public services to deliver more effective government and contribute to our core purpose of creating a more successful country by increasing sustainable economic growth. We aim to achieve fewer national public organisations with less duplication and less bureaucracy, as part of the Government's wider programme to renew and reform Scotland's public services.
Today, I will set out how we will meet our commitment to reducing the list that we published last October of the 199 national public service organisations by at least 25 per cent. Let me explain first how the Government will approach those reforms. Clearly, our objective is not to get numbers down to zero. Public organisations in Scotland do vital work—their functions are a necessary part of Scottish life. I am thinking about roles such as protecting our natural environment, generating jobs and prosperity for the people of Scotland, and running our prisons. The Government is acutely aware of the importance of excellent public services in supporting a strong and dynamic economy.
When we launched the Government economic strategy last autumn, we emphasised that our greatest asset is our people. Scotland's public servants make a great contribution to our economy and society. I have often seen it reported that half of the Scottish workforce is in the public sector. That is simply not the case. The latest published statistics, in December, indicate that 22 per cent of Scotland's workforce is in the public sector. That is significantly lower than in recent years and includes the growing number of police, teachers and doctors who are delivering at the front line. I understand that police numbers are likely to grow further before long.
Our aim is to ensure that our institutional structures are fit for a nation and an economy of 5 million people, and to achieve more outcome-focused, efficient and streamlined public services, which provide better value for the public pound. Looking at the landscape of Scotland's public organisations today, we see a confusing array of organisational roles, remits and functions. It is a complex system, which risks being ever more concerned with talking to itself about procedure instead of improving services and speaking directly to citizens to address their needs. Simplification and the reduction in the number of public bodies are but one strand of our overall approach to more effective government, on which we began work immediately on entering office. I remind members that we reshaped the Scottish Government, resulting in fewer departments, ministers and special advisers than our predecessors.
The Government's economic strategy and spending review provide a coherent framework for the entire public sector, with clear objectives and fewer targets. Our move to a new outcome-based relationship with local government will mean less bureaucracy, more effective monitoring and better public services. That new relationship with Scottish local government is widely recognised and welcomed in Scottish society, although not by every party in the chamber.
In reforming Scotland's public organisations, our overall approach is first, to streamline decision making and increase transparency; secondly, to bring together organisations with similar skills, expertise and processes; thirdly, to stop activity that no longer contributes to the public purpose; and fourthly, to apply much tougher tests to the creation of new bodies.
We have made important changes. The policy and delivery functions of Communities Scotland are being transferred to the Scottish Government. We have reformed the enterprise networks, removing 21 local enterprise companies and streamlining Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. VisitScotland will rationalise its own 14 regions to six, in line with new structures in the enterprise networks. We have set out plans to create a single, integrated, national sports organisation; that has been widely welcomed, at least outside the chamber. We are merging a range of skills and careers functions into skills development Scotland. Our rural and environmental agencies have agreed to work together to develop a single rural service. Earlier this month, we announced our plans to strengthen the children's hearings system—that reform has been widely welcomed and will result in significantly fewer public organisations.
Today, I want to outline our further proposals. The details will be worked out in the coming months with the bodies themselves, and with staff, unions and other stakeholders. Where appropriate, we will consult on specific reforms.
To better protect Scotland's marine environment and streamline services that support that vital Scottish industry, we will bring together marine management functions from across public organisations into a single body.
Scotland's environmental research capacity will be strengthened and its international competitiveness enhanced by encouraging our environmental and rural research organisations—notably, the Macaulay Land Use Research Institute and the Scottish Crop Research Institute—to form a new single institute. We will integrate the Fisheries (Electricity) Committee with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
We will merge the Deer Commission for Scotland with Scottish Natural Heritage and remove the need for a statutory body to advise SNH before it designates sites of special scientific interest. We will also bring the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency into the Scottish Government. [Interruption.]
I hear Lord Foulkes suggesting from a sedentary position that integrating the Fisheries (Electricity) Committee with SEPA was long overdue. If it was so long overdue, why on earth did the Labour Party not do it in its long period in power?
To integrate planning, architecture and building standards, we will bring the Scottish Building Standards Agency into the Scottish Government as part of an integrated directorate for the built environment. We will also examine the scope to simplify and increase joined-up decision making across the public sector functions that are involved in considering development proposals.
Our proposals include a new streamlined and more consistent approach to advisory functions across Government. We will abolish the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland, the building standards advisory committee and the Scottish Records Advisory Council. Following reform of the enterprise networks, we will abolish the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board.
We propose to establish the General Teaching Council for Scotland as a self-regulating, profession-led body, along the lines of the General Medical Council.
We plan to bring together the public transport users committee and the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland into a single body to represent the interests of all transport users in Scotland. We will engage with key stakeholders to ensure that the change strengthens the voice of people with travel accessibility and mobility issues.
There are some important areas in which further work is needed. Our national collections play a vital role in our cultural life. I have asked them to look at how they can work together more closely to strengthen their impact in their national role, in supporting collections activity throughout Scotland and in representing Scotland abroad.
Public safety is our top priority in dealing with high-risk offenders. We will review the role of the Risk Management Authority to determine whether integrating its functions into other bodies would improve the effectiveness of our systems.
We will consider the case for an integrated tribunal service for Scotland. For example, we do not believe that it requires a separate agency to provide the administrative support to the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland. A final decision about the future of that function will be made following the review of tribunals.
Earlier this month, we published our response to Professor Crerar's review into the scrutiny of public services. The Government will work with the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and with local government on proposals to reform that complex area to achieve a radical reform of how scrutiny operates and a substantial reduction in the number of organisations with a scrutiny role. We will set out details later this year but, as a first step, we are announcing today changes to the scrutiny of the fire and rescue services.
I am pleased to say that our proposals represent the most ambitious drive to reduce Government bureaucracy since devolution. However, I must tell members that the firm proposals that the Government is presenting do not meet our commitment to a 25 per cent reduction in the number of national public bodies—they will exceed it, at 26 per cent. If we include the reduction of justice of the peace advisory committees, which took effect in December but was planned by our predecessors, there will be a 39 per cent reduction in the 199 organisations. By 2011, that will bring the number of national public organisations in Scotland to around 120—the lowest number since devolution by some considerable distance—but that is not the final position. After appropriate consultation with stakeholders, further reforms to scrutiny and complaints organisations and to tribunals, as well as other strands of further work that we are setting out today, will bring down that figure further.
The rationale for the reforms is simpler and more effective government. In a tough financial climate, we also need to increase the productivity of the public sector, with challenging efficient government targets. This package will make a significant contribution to the efficiency gains of around £25 million that are required under efficient government from the bodies directly affected by the changes. The savings that are made will be available to support improved services.
Our drive for more effective government will produce substantial savings in the wider economy, by making it easier and quicker to deal with the public sector. Let us consider for a second the scale of what could be achieved. If we argue that simpler, more effective government could help, in terms of dealings with the private sector, to raise productivity by only 1 per cent, the increased benefit across the Scottish economy could be as much as £800 million.
Our aim is clear. We want a simple and effective public sector that is focused, delivers results and helps to facilitate growth in Scotland's economy. Let me illustrate the drive behind the reforms with some specific examples. A sheep fermer in the north of Scotland is currently subject to separate visits from the Scottish Government and SEPA in relation to sheep identification and sheep dip disposal. Our proposals for a single rural service would cut the number of visits for such purposes from almost 450 to around 100 each year across Scotland.
An aquaculture development could currently require six separate consents. Better integrating marine management will streamline those services to customers. Even the simplest planning applications for a rural housing development can involve up to half a dozen public agencies—in addition to the local authority—all working with different perspectives, procedures and deadlines. Indeed, I am told that larger developments can involve even greater complexities these days.
Closer to home, even my predecessor's plan for a flagpole at Bute house required both a planning consent and a listed building consent. I have to tell the Parliament that there is still no flagpole at Bute house.
Turning away from the impact on our economy, let me give members an example of the potential simplification that could be achieved for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. As we conducted our exercises to consider the scope for streamlining, one local authority reported that it could require 29 separate local processes, 63 possible meetings and 108 different documents to discuss needs and agree action for one single child. That overcomplex process is being streamlined, and it will be enhanced further for the most vulnerable people in our society by the changes that we are making to the children's hearings system.
Governments north and south of the border are embarking on programmes to achieve more effective government. There is, in my submission, a vital difference in our approach. Let me make this absolutely clear. We in the Scottish Government are honouring our commitment to no compulsory redundancies. I believe that large-scale reform of the public sector is best achieved where the valuable and valued public service staff have security and can focus on their core role of delivering for our citizens.
Our changes will of course mean a reduction of nine publicly appointed boards, which means approximately 90 fewer public appointments across Scotland. In advertising costs alone, there is a saving of around £250,000 for each round of appointments—for each time that all those posts are advertised.
We will transform the Government's relationship with public bodies, with clear lines of accountability, a stronger focus on outcomes and better co-ordination of the work of Government.
We have delivered greater flexibility for local government through the introduction of outcome agreements. We will extend that outcome-based approach to national public bodies.
We intend to deliver the package of reform by 2011. Some of the changes will be made in the next year; others, particularly those that require legislation, will take longer. Later this year, we will produce proposals for the necessary legislation. We will work closely with, and support the leaders of, our public organisations in implementing the changes to ensure that the reform delivers clear benefits for the customers, the consumers, the people—the public of Scotland. We will engage with staff, trade unions, local government and other stakeholders to ensure that the changes are well designed and implemented.
The package of changes that I have announced today and the Government's programme will make a real difference to public services throughout Scotland. Together, they will improve responsiveness and build simple and effective government. The impact will be felt across a wide sweep of public services, from housing to enterprise and from marine management to children's services. The Government is making reform a reality. We want to build a new, simpler and better model for government in Scotland, with better value for money, better quality of service, better governance and better outcomes for the people of Scotland. Those priorities are our priorities—I trust that they will command support from throughout the Parliament.
As I said, the First Minister will take questions on the issues that are raised in his statement. I intend to allow about 40 minutes for questions. I anticipate that a large number of back-bench members will want to ask questions, so I ask their front-bench leaders to show a good example by keeping their questions as short as possible.
We welcome the genuine efforts to streamline and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, as outlined in the Crerar report. However, real progress will mean avoiding the sense that we have a rose by any other name. In short, when is a public organisation not a public organisation? An answer to a parliamentary question indicated that, since May, the Government has set up an additional 24
"consultative committees, groups, councils and other bodies".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 20 November 2007; S3W-8657.]
Only one of those 24 extra bodies featured in the statement. The same question is due for answer again on Friday. By how much does the First Minister expect that figure—for the number of extra consultative committees, groups, councils and other bodies that have been set up since May—to have risen by Friday? How many extra bodies have been set up in the past nine months?
To make my question about when a public body is not a public body real, I turn to economic development. The statement mentioned the abolition of the LECs. How many new co-ordinating committees will be established automatically as a result of changes to the enterprise network? Will the First Minister confirm that his Government has moved away from his party's manifesto commitment to merge Scottish Natural Heritage and SEPA?
Finally, I come to the numbers. We will have evidence of better services when the promised 2 per cent efficiency savings that are planned for each year are realised. The efficiency savings are to start a few short weeks from now. When will the Government publish details of the efficiency savings that are planned to start at the beginning of April? Finally, on a simple point, the First Minister mentioned the flagpole at Bute house. In three years, will planning consent and listed building consent still be required for a flagpole at Bute house?
I do not think we are getting the flagpole, because the cooncil turned it doon.
I welcome Wendy Alexander's welcome for the statement. However, I have to say to her that quoting Lord George Foulkes is always a dangerous occupation but relying on one of his parliamentary questions—I have here the one to which she referred—is very, very dangerous indeed.
There is a world of difference between statutory national public bodies, with boards and appointments, and groups that provide external advice and support to the Government for the delivery of specific commitments.
Twenty-four.
For the benefit of Jackie Baillie, I will read out some of the bodies that Wendy Alexander is talking about. One is the Glasgow 2014 strategic group. Are we to count that as a national public body? There are also short-term groups looking at housing supply statistics, such as the housing supply task force. Those groups are engaged in the normal business of government, and the vast bulk of them cost no resources whatever. Specific commissions that are established to do vital work in Scottish society, such as the broadcasting commission—which we have every reason to believe will focus attention on an issue that will generate tens of millions of pounds of extra investment in the Scottish economy—and the prisons commission, which is doing vital work under the former First Minister, Henry McLeish, are short-term bodies that provide advice on certain issues. Such bodies are, again, involved in the normal business of government and have always been set up by the Government. There is a world of difference between them and statutory national bodies. I am sure that someone of Wendy Alexander's intelligence understands that distinction full well.
Last October, we helpfully published a list of the 199 national statutory bodies, so that the Parliament and the whole of society could have a reference point against which to judge our progress. I cannot imagine that Wendy Alexander looked at that list because, if she had, she would have known that the local enterprise companies were not on it—because they are local, as opposed to national—and are therefore not counted in the statistics relating to the substantial reduction in national statutory bodies. However, our reforms of the enterprise network—local and national—will provide a more effective process for the pursuit of good governance in Scotland.
There are changes coming to Scottish Natural Heritage and SEPA. However, Wendy Alexander's almost last point—the one before her last point—dealt with the 2 per cent efficiency savings that this Government is determined to see across the public sector. As John Swinney said at the time, indications of those savings will be published in March. However, as I remember, in her hungry caterpillar speech, Wendy Alexander bemoaned what she saw as our far-too-modest efficiency targets. Rather than me saying how the Government will achieve our sensible, effective 2 per cent efficiency targets in conjunction with our staff and unions, perhaps Wendy Alexander can remind us how she was going to achieve her targets without widespread compulsory redundancies across the public sector in Scotland. [Applause.]
Performing seals.
Order.
I do not think that Lord Foulkes has ever applauded me before, Presiding Officer—I rather like it.
What we have here is a pack of cards being reshuffled and redealt, leaving us still with 52 cards. That is not how we should approach effective government. In principle, my party supports a reduction in the size of the state, although I confess to a penchant for police and prisons. However, that reduction is not achieved by renaming, rebadging, mergers and amalgamations.
The test of whether this statement is just craftily spun candy floss or a statement of substance that represents a real rolling back of the state is not whether there are 26 per cent fewer quangos, but whether there will be a 26 per cent cut in the cost to the taxpayer. The questions that every taxpayer wants answered are these: how many fewer people will be employed in the public sector and how much money will be saved to the public purse by today's announcement? The First Minister must surely be briefed on those aspects. Will the reduction in persons employed and the saving to the public purse be more or less than 26 per cent?
Many of the functions that we are discussing are vital for Scottish society, and I am sure that Annabel Goldie would not suggest for a second that they should disappear. The Government believes that it is far better to work in an integrated way with one organisation than with what are, in many cases, multifarious organisations throughout Scotland.
The efficiencies that will be made are twofold. First, we believe that the changes we are making to the organisations that I have mentioned and their administrative and other costs will contribute substantially to meeting the demanding and effective target of 2 per cent annual efficiency savings. As I said earlier, on the organisations mentioned alone, that represents £25 million.
Secondly, I argue that the real cost of confusing bureaucracy falls not on the public services but on the people who attempt to deal with them. Those people are often shunted from pillar to post and find that they need numerous and delaying consents. I have given specific examples of problems that we came across during this and the other simplification reviews. In the projection that I suggested, a mere 1 per cent saving to the private sector in Scotland as the result of its dealing with a simplified and coherent public service in Scotland would be worth some £800 million to the Scottish economy.
I depart from Annabel Goldie in my attitude to public sector reform in this respect: I think that the best way to achieve reform and the substantial reductions in the number of organisations that have been outlined today is to work in a co-operative way with our vital staff across the agencies. Our assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies is a vital part of engaging people in a necessary progress for the benefit of our country.
Will the First Minister confirm that the budgeted set-up costs of his new skills quango will be £16 million?
Does the First Minister agree that the problem with his list is that he counts only what he cuts and not what he creates? When he promised to cut 21 local enterprise companies, he replaced them with 48 new national, regional and sub-regional organisations. John Swinney has admitted that he has created another 24, including the new Scottish fisheries council—created, but not counted—four national health service scrutiny bodies, the seasonal flu review steering group, the housing supply statistics group, and the housing supply task force. All were created by the Government but not counted. Last week, the Government announced a crackdown on waste. That created a working group, a review, a consultation and a think-tank. Was any of that added to the list?
Is this not like that episode of "Porridge" in which a prison escape tunnel is discovered? In the final scene, Mackay asks Fletcher, "What did you do with the dirt?" Fletcher replies, "That's simple. We dug another tunnel and hid it in there." Is not the First Minister doing exactly that? Seventy-six new bodies have been created by the Government, and the total is rising. All are supported by a total of 58 reviews and 91 new consultations. Why does the First Minister not admit that he is adding to the clutter and that the truth is that, for every thing that he has dropped, he has brought in something new?
I now know what Nicol Stephen was doing with his Christmas holidays—he was watching reruns of "Porridge". If he encountered the Scottish Prison Service, he would have a chance under this Government of serving out his term in the prison in the north-east of Scotland that his Government would not build but which this Government intends to build.
I will not concede Nicol Stephen's point because there is a world of difference between, for example, a national statutory public body with a board and the seasonal flu review steering group. If he had bothered to read the answer to Lord Foulkes's question, he would have seen that the estimated cost of that steering group is zero because it has only modest incidental expenses. It seems sensible, given that there is the danger of a flu epidemic in Scotland, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing would bring together the expertise that can deal with that. If Nicol Stephen had been health secretary, he would not have done that in case somebody had accused him of setting up a national statutory body.
One of the Scottish National Party Government's first actions was to encourage all the organisations that deliver environmental advice, management and controls to work together in order to reduce duplication and simplify the often complicated landscape of environmental controls. Will the First Minister give us further information and an update on the action that is being taken to provide a more integrated service to farmers and land managers?
The single-stop shop for advice will encompass the five agencies that previously supplied advice on such matters, and will provide an integrated approach. That is welcomed widely—not just in the farming community, but throughout rural Scotland. The reaction from our stakeholders, consumers and voters is to ask why on earth previous Governments did not take such a sensible step.
The First Minister said that the package will make the significant contribution of £25 million to efficiency gains. However, the SNP manifesto said that streamlining government would release £500 million over the next three years. Where will the First Minister find the £475 million to bridge the gap between today's announcement and his commitment in the SNP manifesto?
The gains of £25 million relate to the organisations that have been detailed today—they come from efficiency savings by those organisations of 2 per cent, which moves up to 6 per cent over three years. The other figure refers to efficiency targets for the whole public sector in Scotland. One figure applies to everything and the other applies to the bodies that I have mentioned today. That is reasonably clear.
The First Minister said that the Scottish Building Standards Agency would join a newly formed directorate for the built environment. What other agencies or sections of Government will become part of that directorate?
By bringing the Scottish Building Standards Agency into the Scottish Government, architecture and planning policy will become part of a single integrated directorate. It is proper for those vital skills in the Scottish Government to be exercised by a single unit in the Government, rather than duplicated in several agencies.
First Minister, I heard you say that the SNP Government will honour its commitment to create no compulsory redundancies and that you will consult in the coming months. Will you state for the record—
Ms Eadie, could you please speak through the chair and not directly to the First Minister? Thank you.
I apologise. First Minister, please state for the record what consultations you will have with your vital staff—I will start again. I apologise.
What consultation has the First Minister had with trade unions, the staff he regards as being vital and the Scottish Trades Union Congress? Will more than or fewer than 500 voluntary redundancies take place? Has he consulted on which ministers he proposes to make redundant first? Does he have ambitions to make Stewart Maxwell redundant?
As Helen Eadie well knows, but has forgotten momentarily, we have—by a substantial margin—fewer ministers, fewer special advisers and fewer Cabinet ministers in this supremely effective Government than the previous disoriented Government had.
Consultation with trade unions and stakeholders has been extensive. I had a discussion with key union figures this morning to explain the course of our reforms. That discussion, which followed an excellent general meeting with the STUC, emphasised how much our staff appreciate the commitment that there will be no compulsory redundancies. That commitment is vital in encouraging people to engage in the reform process. As Helen Eadie well knows, that is in sharp contrast to what is happening in some departments south of the border.
I am sure that the First Minister will agree that the test is not so much today's statement as what happens in practice. Can he clarify whether the £25 million in savings to which he referred is a one-year or three-year figure? How much of it relates to savings from the Scottish Enterprise reforms, of which we have heard very little of late?
The figure does not refer to the Scottish Enterprise reforms, for the reasons that I have already given. It is the three-year figure to achieve the 6 per cent efficiency target on the administrative and bureaucratic costs of the agencies that we have specified today.
I agree with Derek Brownlee that the proof will be in the system of effective government. However, I re-emphasise to him the point that I emphasised to Annabel Goldie: I regard the key potential for efficiency savings to be in how the whole range of our public agencies and our Government react with other partners in Scottish life. I am sure that the complaint that he hears—as I do—when he meets various organisations is about their frustration at delays. Often, the delay is caused not by the examination but by the fact that a number of agencies must cross-examine the same proposal.
The big efficiency savings that we are looking for—which we will get through the reforms—will come not from within the organisations themselves, although such savings are important, but from much more rapid decision making throughout Scottish society. I am certain that Derek Brownlee and Annabel Goldie share that objective.
I ask the First Minister—in a fairly supportive fashion, I hope—whether he is alive to the law of unintended consequences and the risks of an oversimplistic and superficial approach. Does he accept that 60-odd organisations that he proposes to do away with, out of about 79 that he proposes to deal with, were set up by the previous so-called disorganised Government? Will he take the sensible step of widening the limited consultation that was suggested in his statement so that everybody who will be affected by the proposals will be able to point out any issues to do with them and how they can go forward with them in an effective manner, which is what we all want? Does he accept that, for example, the amalgamation of the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland into a broader transport group risks losing that committee's specific focus on disability issues? Will he answer the question that Nicol Stephen asked him about the set-up costs of some of the new organisations, not least the £16 million for the skills agency? Will he let us have a full statement of both sides of the equation?
I am glad that Robert Brown is so supportive. I will explain to him why people with disability and mobility issues in respect of public transport will benefit from the change. There is a difference between the two bodies at present. The body that is related to disability transport issues has no powers to make recommendations to ministers—it has only an advisory role. The public transport users committee for Scotland, however, has recommendation powers. Bringing the disabled interest groups into one organisation will enable them to recommend to ministers, not just advise them. That is why the change will enhance their position.
I have tried to specify what I think the advantages of the proposals are in administrative savings, in their impacts on wider society and even in the savings that are to be made through not having to advertise another round of appointments. I think that those are good answers.
Of course we will consult: we have already consulted, and the reaction from stakeholders and organisations has been favourable. I would not say that it has been universally favourable because some people are going to lose their posts. I understand that. Nicol Stephen was concerned about an example of that only a few weeks ago. Nonetheless, the reaction has been pretty favourable.
On whether I understand the law of unintended consequences, I regard the entire record of the previous Administration as being an unintended consequence for Scottish society.
I am pleased to see that the First Minister has taken action that eluded previous First Ministers and has lit the bonfire of the quangos. I ask the First Minister how the package of measures that he has announced compares to the efforts of the previous Executive to reduce the number of public bodies in Scotland.
It is not too difficult for me to answer that question, as a comparison has just come into my hands.
Last October we published a list of national public bodies in Scotland so that everyone would have a reference point. The difference between what we have done and what the previous Administration did in 2001 is that it decided to redesignate a number of public bodies in order to count them in the so-called bonfire of the quangos. However, I have managed to make a like-for-like comparison between 2000 and what we will have if all the proposals in my statement are implemented. Like for like, there were 192 organisations in 2000; if our proposals are successful, by 2011 that number will be reduced to 89. If that is not a bonfire, it is certainly a good-going blaze.
The First Minister has chosen his definition of organisations on the basis that it will allow him to streamline by using the one-out-one-in principle.
I will pursue another bit of the First Minister's logic. He referred to simplification's potential to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society. How is abolishing the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland, which has a disabled convener and must have a majority of disabled people among its membership, and replacing it with a composite body, which must include only three people who have knowledge of mobility and disability issues, in line with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? How will that advance the interests of disabled people, particularly those who have something to contribute to the future of Scotland's transport?
I do not know whether Des McNulty was listening to the answer that I gave Robert Brown. It will do so because the disabled interest groups in that wider group will have considerably enhanced influence. They will have the power to make recommendations to ministers as opposed to the power merely to advise ministers, as they have at the moment. That will enhance protection for disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our society.
I was looking at some research recently. I am sure that the figures are wrong—they will have to be checked and rechecked—but Des McNulty seems to be responsible for almost one quarter of all written parliamentary questions.
What about Jackie Baillie?
Well, perhaps Jackie Baillie is rivalling him these days but, in the figures that I have seen, Des McNulty seems to have been responsible over a period of time. My goodness, but we are going to need to strengthen the arms of Government, if only to respond to Des McNulty's questions—never mind take on the range of other activities in Scottish society.
The First Minister made comments about merging the organisations that are responsible for the marine environment. Is that action preliminary to a future marine bill? Will the mergers improve the sustainable future of our seas and, in particular, our fishings?
The main management functions of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, parts of Scottish Government and possibly the Fisheries Research Services will be brought together to form a single Scottish marine management organisation that will be able to work with other organisations, such as SNH and SEPA, to improve integration of existing marine management. Obviously the mergers look forward to the legislation, and the simple answer to the question about the relationship between the proposals and the legislation is yes.
The First Minister has talked about the changes to Scottish Enterprise as a move towards more effective government. One of those changes was to give responsibility for the business gateway to local authorities. The First Minister has also said that he likes like-for-like comparisons, so I will give him one. As a result of the changes in my constituency of Strathkelvin and Bearsden, there have been 88 assisted start-ups since October. For the same period last year, the number was 165. The forecast for this year is 450 new start-ups, compared with 546 in 2006-07. Does the First Minister call that more effective government?
One of the great things that is going to assist start-ups in Scottish economy and business during the next wee while is the substantial reduction in business rates and the fixed cost burden that affects small businesses across Scotland. I suspect that every start-up and small business in David Whitton's constituency will cheer on the Government's proposals. I hope that the member will find it within himself to vote for the budget when it comes before Parliament next week.
For the third time of asking—he has not answered the question—can the First Minister confirm that the budget to which he has just referred gives the set-up costs for his new skills quango as £16 million? Can we have an answer, please?
By far the most effective proposal is to merge the Scottish university for industry, learndirect Scotland, Careers Scotland—which was once part of Scottish Enterprise—and most of the skills and training functions of the enterprise network to create skills development Scotland.
Having had a meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress today—and with many employer organisations previously—I can tell Mike Rumbles that the development of the new organisation that we have announced as part of our skills strategy is recognised as not just the cheapest but the most effective way to proceed. If the Liberal Democrats are arguing against an initiative that carries a consensus across Scottish society, they will find themselves in even more of a minority than usual.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I know that you have no control over the answers that the First Minister gives, but he has been asked for a simple point of information that Parliament needs to know. We have not had an answer.
As Mr Rumbles is fully aware, that is not a point of order. I have no doubt at all that the First Minister heard the question.
In reference to the answer that was given to Mr Brownlee, am I correct in assuming that the First Minister sees the amalgamations as a process as well as a decided policy? If it turns out that some of the announced amalgamations do not produce the required results, will there be some mechanism by which we can return without great upheaval? I am thinking, of course, about the sportscotland decision. I am sure that, when we look at the books properly, we will discover that the proposed merger will cost far too much money for no great change. Might the decision on the organisation's relocation to Glasgow be reversed?
The development of hubs across the country and the relocation of the organisation's headquarters to Glasgow carried fairly substantial support. Margo MacDonald obviously demurred from that, but she knows from other matters that this is a listening Government. We will obviously consult across the range of today's announcements. We consult and listen to our stakeholders and we have, where necessary, changed our minds on certain issues to the benefit of Scotland. That is the way to govern.
On the particular point, I think that Margo MacDonald will find that she does not have majority support across the Parliament in arguing against the location decisions. The development of hubs in Stirling, Aberdeen and Edinburgh as well as the relocation of the headquarters to Glasgow were widely welcomed. That seems to me to be a good way to proceed, as it involves all of Scotland in our single national sports organisation.
In answer to my colleague James Kelly, the First Minister reiterated that the package of measures that he has announced will make a significant contribution of around £25 million to efficiency gains. Can the First Minister quantify how much the Government will save annually by the abolition of the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland, the Scottish Building Standards Advisory Committee, the Scottish Records Advisory Council and the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board? Can he reassure Parliament that the changes will not result in a reduction of independent expert advice to ministers?
We think that a more effective public service profile will provide better and more integrated advice to ministers. Elaine Murray's question perhaps suggests that she does not think that we will achieve substantial savings from merging those organisations. We are opening up the possibility of integrating with similar organisations, those that do not have a huge workload or a huge staff, or which are not called on to give advice regularly, so that they can share the workload and take a more focused approach.
Many Labour members have argued in their questions that this substantial change in the Scottish public sector—this beacon of simplification and more effective government—does not amount to a radical transformation, although that is at odds with other arguments that they have put. If it is so simple, why on earth did the Labour Party and other doubters not do it when they were in government?
My question is about the First Minister's policy of no compulsory redundancies. I understand that his aim is to work with public servants who are involved with the trade unions. Does he appreciate that reducing staff numbers without compulsory redundancies can be extremely disruptive to organisations? Often those who come forward when volunteers for redundancy are sought are good people whom organisations want to retain. If an organisation is slimming down, it does not always make sense for it to rule out compulsory redundancies. Will the First Minister reflect on that?
We will maintain our position that there will be no compulsory redundancies. I want us to have the enthusiastic co-operation of our valuable staff in the Scottish public services. Murdo Fraser should not underrate the degree of enthusiasm for a simplified public sector landscape that exists in the public services. No one likes to work in conditions where many organisations are standing on one another's toes. No one likes the complexity and frustration of delay that people often find when they deal with some public service functions at present. We should not underrate the enthusiastic co-operation that we expect from our vital and valuable public servants as we take through this great reform. Our commitment to the principle of no compulsory redundancies, which is based on our understanding of our public servants, is part of that. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is one of the ingredients that will allow us to take through the reform constructively.