Good morning and welcome to general questions. Question 1 is in the name of Richard Simpson, who I note is not here. I have had no explanation for why he has not turned up; I expect to receive an explanation very soon.
National Museums Scotland (Industrial Dispute)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to resolve the industrial dispute at National Museums Scotland. (S4O-04265)
Although pay negotiations are a matter for the board of National Museums Scotland, I as the employer have met the chair and the director of NMS and representatives of the unions, and I strongly encouraged both sides to develop a more productive working relationship to resolve the dispute.
The cabinet secretary blames NMS, and NMS seems to blame the Scottish Government. The dispute is not complicated: people are working side by side, doing the same job, and earning different rates of pay.
It has been 18 months, so why is the dispute still going on? What action will the cabinet secretary take from today to get some resolution to the situation? Will she indicate how much money it would cost simply to equalise the rates of pay so that staff employed after 2011 receive the same weekend allowance as the staff who have been employed at NMS for longer?
The changes do not affect staff who already received the allowance; they relate to new staff employed after 2011. It took longer than 18 months for the concern to be raised.
On the rates of pay, the information from National Museums Scotland is that the cost would be almost £400,000 a year, which would amount to £1.2 million over the spending review period. As Drew Smith is aware, both the Labour Party and the Conservatives have indicated that further public sector cuts will come after the Westminster elections. Unless the member can tell me otherwise, it would certainly be a challenge to identify £1.2 million over that period.
This is the cabinet secretary’s responsibility. What has she personally done to bring the dispute to an end? It has been going on for 18 months. Every time she is asked questions about it, she blames someone else. She blames Westminster, the management of the museum—
Do you have a question, Mr Findlay?
Will the cabinet secretary take responsibility and bring the dispute to an end?
As the member knows, and as I just indicated, I have met the unions on a number of occasions. I have facilitated better working relationships with NMS and we have achieved progress on a number of issues. However, the weekend allowance is still under dispute.
I encourage all sides to engage. That is not possible if the trade unions say that they will talk to management only if the full weekend allowance is reintroduced immediately, as that is not possible. We need both sides to talk. I have personally spoken to both sides and encouraged them. I hope that they can continue a dialogue, as they have done over recent months, to get some resolution.
I take the matter seriously. I have given as much information as possible to all members who have contacted me.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (Public Services Impact)
To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to protect public services from the impact of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. (S4O-04266)
Since March last year, the Scottish Government has been raising concerns with the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission about the impact of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations on the national health service and other public services. We are continuing to press the case for an explicit exemption from TTIP for the NHS and other vital public services. As the First Minister has said, there are no ifs, no buts—there must be explicit protection for the NHS in the agreement.
Last week, at the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the following text was adopted:
“The UK reserves the right to adopt or maintain any measure with regard to the organization, the funding and the provision of the National Health Service in the UK as well as with regard to the public and/or the non-for-profit character of the National Health Service in the UK, where services may be provided by different companies and/or public or private entities involving competitive elements which are thus not services carried out exclusively in the exercise of governmental authority.”
Will the cabinet secretary reassure members and the many people who are interested in the TTIP agreement that he will take that text to the next intergovernmental meeting?
The wording that Christina McKelvie read out is a welcome contribution from the Scottish Trades Union Congress. It represents work that has been undertaken to define the legal terms that would provide necessary exemption and ensure that the national health service and other public services are exempt from TTIP.
As the Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Europe and External Affairs made clear in the debate yesterday, and as I made clear in the Government’s written response to the European and External Relations Committee on its helpful and informative report on the subject, the Government is determined to ensure that we have wording that is sufficiently tight that it will address our and the public’s concerns and put it beyond doubt that TTIP will have no effect on the Government’s ability to determine how and by whom the national health service and other public services are provided.
Assault Injury Surveillance (NHS Lanarkshire)
To ask the Scottish Government what the findings were from its pilot project to monitor assault injury surveillance in NHS Lanarkshire. (S4O-04267)
As part of building safer communities, we are continuing to work with partners at national and local levels to reduce violence. The pilot project helped to improve our understanding of violence in our communities. The views of key individuals involved in the pilot project were sought, and recommendations were identified to improve the project’s structure and governance, staff involvement and the collation of data. All that has helped to inform further developments in our overall approach to violence reduction initiatives.
The Scottish public health network report entitled “Violence prevention: a public health priority”, which was published in December last year, outlined recommendations to roll out injury surveillance across all health board areas. At present, three health boards—NHS Fife, NHS Lanarkshire and NHS Lothian—are capturing injury surveillance data.
The cabinet secretary may be aware that I have been pursuing the issue since 2006. I hope to see progress soon to implement a policy that I believe will help to reduce knife crime across Scotland.
I have a letter dated May 2013 from the cabinet secretary’s predecessor, Kenny MacAskill, in which Mr MacAskill stated:
“I agree that injury surveillance can be very useful to both the police and the NHS and my officials are continuing to work with partners in NHS Lanarkshire, Police Scotland and the Violence Reduction Unit to learn from their experiences in piloting this approach in Lanarkshire ... Once we have a picture of what work is taking place across Scotland we will look to see what assistance we can give in rolling this out further.”
In light of that response, can the cabinet secretary tell me when an injury surveillance system is likely to be rolled out across the country?
I am aware of the member’s long-standing interest in the matter, which I believe he first raised back in 2006. A key recommendation of the public health report that I referred to was that each of our boards should identify a public health lead, who will be responsible for taking forward the work.
Alongside that, the report makes recommendations on the priorities that those lead officials should take forward in their board areas to capture the information and ensure that they have the right system in place. The report also recommends that each lead should establish an emergency department violence surveillance programme in their board area by January 2016.
We will continue to work with boards on the matter, along with the violence reduction unit and Police Scotland, to ensure that we make progress.
Question 5, in the name of Richard Baker, has not been lodged. The explanation is less than satisfactory.
As for Richard Simpson, who just missed question 1, he made the best effort that he could to get here. I hope that he is recovering.
Housing and Commercial Developments (Infrastructure Upgrades)
To ask the Scottish Government what help is available to local authorities to upgrade infrastructure to support new housing and commercial developments. (S4O-04269)
Between 2014 and 2016, the Scottish Government expects to secure infrastructure investment of more than £8 billion, which will help to support economic activity and the delivery of public services in communities across Scotland. Through the use of innovative financial models such as tax increment financing and the growth accelerator model, the Scottish Government, together with the Scottish Futures Trust, is working closely with a number of local authorities and other partners to deliver local investment that supports regeneration and growth.
Exactly who is responsible for infrastructure upgrades to accommodate any new development?
A key principle of the planning system is that the impact of new development on existing infrastructure should be mitigated. When there is an impact, a planning obligation can be used under section 75 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997. That sets out what the developer is legally required to provide and may include the requirement for a financial contribution. That is one of many sources of financial contributions, and it is important for members to know that this year the Scottish Government is providing £856 million of capital funding to local authorities, which has maintained their total share of the capital budget.
We have recently commissioned a significant research project that is focusing particularly on cumulative contributions to strategic investment. The work is led by Ryden, which will report in June. By the end of the year, we intend to publish planning advice based on that.
Does the Scottish Government consider that investment in infrastructure should be made in anticipation of population growth, rather than in reaction to it?
There is space for both approaches. The important process to mitigate the effect of population changes is the development planning process. It is important that that process is effective and not only takes into account the current situation but anticipates future demand and delivers as appropriate to the timescales for that.
Public Transport (Air Pollution)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to encourage individuals to use public transportation in order to reduce air pollution. (S4O-04270)
The Scottish Government has a range of policies and programmes to make public transport better, more accessible and more affordable, and to encourage people to use it. For example, we are investing £5 billion to 2019 to continue improving our rail network and services and up to £246 million for the modernisation of the Glasgow subway, and £250 million a year supports the bus network across Scotland and provides free bus travel to around 1.3 million elderly and disabled concession card holders.
We support Traveline Scotland to help people plan their journeys and are working with transport operators to deliver smart, cashless ticketing across modes, which will help to make public transport simpler and more attractive to use. Through initiatives such as our greener Scotland campaign and smarter choices, smarter places, we encourage individuals to make more sustainable travel choices.
I thank the minister for his detailed response. Yesterday, the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled that the current plans to reduce levels of air pollution were insufficient and that the UK Government—and, I presume, the Scottish Government—must take immediate action to reduce air pollution in cities that are found to have illegal levels of air pollution. It is not just cities that have high levels of air pollution; we have high pollution levels in certain villages in North Lanarkshire, such as Chapelhall. What steps will the Scottish Government take to reduce air pollution in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday?
In addition to the climate change policies that have been set out—we have the most ambitious climate change targets in the world—we have a low-emissions strategy consultation. The public consultation on the draft strategy closed on 10 April and we received 67 responses, which are being reviewed. We will finalise and publish the strategy at the end of 2015 and it will include proposals on things such as low-emissions zones. I am sure that John Wilson will welcome that news.
Educational Attainment (North Ayrshire)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to raise educational attainment in North Ayrshire. (S4O-04271)
Ensuring that every child reaches their full potential, whatever their background, is at the heart of our ambition for education, which is why we launched the Scottish attainment challenge, backed up by the £100 million Scottish attainment fund. North Ayrshire is one of the seven local authority areas that have been identified as the first beneficiaries of the fund, which will allow for substantial financial support to put in place effective interventions.
North Ayrshire also benefits from the universal support that is provided to all authorities through a range of existing and new national programmes that are focused on raising attainment and reducing the equity gap. They include the raising attainment for all programme; attainment advisers in every authority; the read, write, count campaign and the £3 million access to education fund.
I understand that North Ayrshire Council intends to focus on classroom practice, teaching and assisting parents in providing learning support for their children. What impact will that have on educational outcomes throughout North Ayrshire?
Mr Gibson will be pleased to know that on Monday I met representatives of North Ayrshire Council and other local authorities that are among the first to benefit from the Scottish attainment challenge and the Scottish attainment fund. All those local authorities are working hard to develop and implement the plans to take forward that ambitious programme. As Mr Gibson knows, tackling inequality is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, so that every child can succeed in school and gain the skills that they need for life. All the evidence shows that good-quality teachers and teaching are crucial to making a difference, as are programmes that help parents to support their children’s learning at home. I believe that, if North Ayrshire and the other local authorities pursue such evidence-based approaches, they will make a big difference to improving educational outcomes and reducing the attainment gap for children living in the most deprived communities. Given Mr Gibson’s interest in those efforts on behalf of his constituents, I would be happy to share with him the details of the fund and the programme as it develops.
On-road Cycle Training
To ask the Scottish Government what progress it is making toward ensuring that every child has the opportunity to undertake on-road cycle training. (S4O-04272)
With grant funding of £800,000 from Transport Scotland, Cycling Scotland offers all local authorities access to training resources and an instructor training pathway. In 2013-14, 37.4 per cent of primary schools in participating local authorities were providing bikeability Scotland level 2 on-road training, up from 31.5 per cent in 2010-11. During 2014-15, 1,095 candidates trained as bikeability Scotland instructors and an additional 178 schools delivered on-road training. Updated figures for 2014-15 will be reported by local authorities to Cycling Scotland and will be available in September 2015.
There are obviously huge variations in investment and outcomes across the country, but I welcome the progress that has been made. It is a waste if that training cannot be put into practice by our young people because our roads are still too unsafe, too busy, too polluted and too congested. Given the damning verdict of the Supreme Court regarding dangerous levels of air pollution, is it not time for the Scottish Government to take the advice of the Association of Directors of Public Health and invest a tenth of the transport budget in walking and cycling?
On Alison Johnstone’s first point, a range of local authorities are taking up the offer that the Scottish Government has made to them. I particularly commend the councils in East Renfrewshire, where 100 per cent of primary schools are included, and Midlothian, where 87 per cent of primary schools are included. We will continue to support education and a range of other policies to encourage people to get involved in active travel.
On the financial commitments for active travel, we have kept and delivered our manifesto commitment. What is more, as Alison Johnstone is well aware, at the pedal on Parliament event at the weekend, I committed to increase the record amount spent in 2014-15 in the current financial year, 2015-16. That shows that the Government is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to active transport.
Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)
To ask the Scottish Government whether it plans to raise the speed limit on A roads for heavy goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes. (S4O-04273)
There are no current plans to raise the speed limits for HGVs over 7.5 tonnes on single-carriageway or dual-carriageway roads across Scotland.
The minister will know that the United Kingdom Government has increased the speed limit for HGVs on A roads to 50mph. It is estimated that the move will deliver not just economic benefit but a reduction in carbon emissions and improved road safety. The Institute of Advanced Motorists has warned that the Scottish economy could be at an economic disadvantage if we do not follow suit. Clearly, confusion will also be caused for cross-border traffic such as heavy goods vehicles using the A75 Euro route heading for Stranraer. Given all that evidence, why will the Scottish Government not make that sensible move?
The Scottish Government will take an evidence-based approach. Mr Fraser will be well aware that the change was implemented only on 6 April, so it is premature to make any judgments about the impacts. In terms of consistency, we will continue to work with the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and others to ensure that the difference between Scotland and England is highlighted. HGV drivers are professional, and they understand the difference.
Road speed limits are often determined by the characteristics of the road. The reason why the Scottish Government does not support the wholesale, blanket change that is happening south of the border is that a careful judgment has to be made. For the Scottish Government, safety is paramount. Although there might be some economic gain, the same Department for Transport assessment that Murdo Fraser mentions said quite clearly that there is a probability of increased fatalities and incidents in the road network south of the border. Understanding that, it is entirely right that we take an evidence-based approach that puts reliability, safety and the economy at the forefront of our minds, but we will not take a gamble with the lives of the people of Scotland.
Before we move to the next item of business, members will wish to join me in welcoming to the gallery His Excellency Hamzah Thayeb, the ambassador of the Republic of Indonesia.