Plenary,

Meeting date: Thursday, May 31, 2007

Official Report 642KB pdf

---

Question Time

---

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE

---

General Questions

---

Environment (Ministerial Responsibility)

To ask the Scottish Executive how reducing carbon emissions to protect Scotland's environment can be achieved when responsibilities for climate change and the environment have been allocated to separate ministerial portfolios. (S3O-52)

The finance and sustainable growth portfolio covers the policy areas responsible for most—some 75 per cent—of Scotland's emissions. Bringing together climate change, energy, transport, infrastructure, business, planning and building standards, as the portfolio does, will help to join up efforts to reduce emissions in those key areas and to move Scotland towards a low-carbon economy.

Climate change is clearly of major environmental significance—in fact, it represents the most significant threat to the world's environment—but for Scotland to demonstrate its commitment to tackling that threat, every ministerial portfolio needs to take action. By considering climate change alongside the core building blocks of our economy, we will drive that action.

It is clear that one of the Executive's main challenges is to identify and implement production from energy sources that will bridge the 40 per cent gap in our energy supply that is currently filled by nuclear power. The Hunterston station alone currently produces 8TWh of energy. Once it ceases production, the equivalent of thousands of onshore wind farms throughout Scotland will be required to fill the resulting energy gap.

Ask a question, please.

The Scottish National Party manifesto included a commitment on community energy plans. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that will slow down the implementation of wind farms, which are required to secure Scotland's future energy supply?

I think that Mr Kelly has convinced himself of something that is not the case. As Mr Mather will adequately demonstrate in this afternoon's ministerial statement on energy, there is no prospect of an energy gap in Scotland. Mr Kelly would be well advised to listen carefully to what Mr Mather says about how the Government intends to deal with forward planning on energy matters.

There is a planning process that must be gone through to determine the outcome of wind farm applications and it would be inappropriate of me to comment on individual elements of that process, but, in general, the Government is absolutely determined to pursue a broadly based energy strategy that will involve encouragement for a wide range of energy sources. Mr Mather will have many interesting and substantial things to say about that this afternoon.

We might just as well ask ourselves how the previous Executive thought it could tackle climate change by separating responsibility for transport from responsibility for emissions. Now that responsibility for transport and responsibility for climate change have been joined up, does the cabinet secretary remain committed to the SNP policy of carbon offsetting for transport infrastructure projects? Does he accept the limitations of many commercial offset schemes? If he is to pursue a policy of carbon offsetting, does he agree that offset schemes, as well as infrastructure, should be independently assessed for carbon emissions?

Mr Harvie is aware that the Government has made a commitment to introduce a climate change bill, which will include ambitious targets for carbon reduction by 2050—the targets will be more ambitious than those of the previous Administration. We must take a range of measures to ensure that we can achieve those objectives, which is why, as I made clear in my answer to Mr Kelly, we have brought together a number of policy areas in which difficulties are created—I am thinking in particular of transport's relationship with climate change. The Government will put forward a programme, which will include an approach to carbon offset and a range of other measures, to ensure that we can achieve our objectives.

The Government is committed to independent verification of its approach to carbon reduction. Independent verification will feature in announcements that are made in the context of the proposed climate change bill.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Tullis Russell biomass project in my constituency will reduce Scotland's carbon emissions by 20 per cent and contribute 6 per cent towards Scotland's renewable energy targets? Is he aware that the previous Liberal-Labour Executive refused to support the project? Will he encourage the First Minister and ministers who will meet Tullis Russell today to give the company the financial support it needs to help the environment and save 550 jobs?

It is a particular pleasure to respond to a question from Tricia Marwick in her capacity as the member for Central Fife in the governing party's seats. I wish her well and congratulate her on her achievement in the election.

The Government supports initiatives such as the one that Tullis Russell has developed. There is enormous capacity in Scotland for the development of biomass activity. In my constituency I have experience of the pace of such developments under the previous Administration, and I reassure Tricia Marwick that the Government will give priority to biomass initiatives.

Tricia Marwick knows that I am a prudent and careful man when it comes to spending public money. Decisions on finance will be taken appropriately by the Government, and the Parliament will be kept informed of such matters.

---

Roads (Haudagain Roundabout)

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will make improvements at the Haudagain roundabout in Aberdeen to reduce traffic congestion. (S3O-33)

The north-east Scotland transport partnership is working with Transport Scotland and Aberdeen City Council on a second, more detailed, appraisal through Scottish transport appraisal guidance—STAG—to identify improvements to the A90 and A96 Haudagain junction. The work is closely linked to the regeneration of Middlefield and will include in-depth economic and environmental assessment of options. The aim is to produce a full business case, to enable Transport Scotland—the trunk roads authority—to make a decision on implementation. We expect the appraisal to be complete by the autumn.

I am sure that the minister is aware that I and other members pressed his predecessor on the urgent need for improvements at the Haudagain roundabout. The proposals for improvements to reduce the severe congestion in the area are welcome, but does he agree that we need a timetable for their implementation? Might further options for improvement be considered? Given that time is crucial, when can we expect the improvements to be in place?

The second STAG appraisal is going on and disruption of that activity might lead to further delays, which the member's question makes clear he is anxious to avoid. The Haudagain roundabout in Aberdeen is important and represents a major constriction on traffic flows in the city, so we are anxious to make best speed in resolving the problem. We must address the issue well in advance of the coming into operation of the Aberdeen western peripheral route.

---

Moving Water (Rescue Arrangements)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether consideration will be given to reviewing the current arrangements for the rescue of persons from moving water. (S3O-3)

Responsibility for the co-ordination of land-based and inland water search and rescue rests with the police, given their duty to protect life and property. That responsibility is undertaken in partnership with others, such as the fire and rescue services and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.

The situation that the minister describes is not borne out in practice. The phrase, "persons trapped in moving water" is used by the fire service to describe drowning incidents, of which there are an increasing number, including in the River Tay at Perth.

Is the minister aware that no emergency service is specifically charged with the duty to carry out such rescues, which has resulted in inconsistent practice in Scotland and the threat of disciplinary action against officers who carry out rescues? In the circumstances, will he agree that that situation cannot continue, for the sake of community and individual safety, and in fairness to fire officers who carry out those rescues?

The police are ultimately responsible for search and rescue activity and work with fire and rescue services. The Fire (Additional Function) (Scotland) Order 2005 passed to fire and rescue services responsibility for serious flooding incidents.

I think that Roseanna Cunningham's question was triggered by an act of bravery by a firefighter who rescued a 20-year-old woman from drowning in the River Tay. We want to record the courage of Tam Brown, who put his life at risk and rescued the young lady, saving her life. However, from my experience as a former mountain rescue team member, I know that it is ultimately the responsibility of everyone involved in rescue activity first to consider their personal safety.

I am pleased to report that £550,000 has been allocated to the provision of equipment that firefighters need to secure their personal safety when carrying out rescues in water.

---

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (Acute Services Review)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it agrees with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's review group that anaesthetic and unscheduled medical care services should be withdrawn from the Vale of Leven hospital and instead provided at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. (S3O-24)

As Ross Finnie knows, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has made a commitment to review service needs throughout the Clyde area. He also knows that no decision has been taken on what services should be provided in future at the Vale of Leven hospital. The board is pursuing a programme of work that will lead to formal proposals for the future delivery of health services to the people in West Dunbartonshire. If the proposals imply material changes to existing services, they will need to be subject to full public consultation. In addition, I have made it clear that I will insist on independent scrutiny of the proposals. I am considering the form that such independent scrutiny will take and I will make an announcement on the matter soon.

If, after public consultation, an NHS board makes proposals for significant service change, the proposals will come to me for a final decision. I have made it clear that in considering such proposals I will operate a presumption against centralisation of services. That does not mean that there will be no changes to health services; it means that NHS boards that propose changes will have to persuade me that their case is robust and that they have considered all possible alternatives and given due weight to patient need and public opinion.

That answer might loosely be interpreted as a maybe.

I accept that independent scrutiny could play a role in designing the type of service to be provided, but no independent scrutiny seems required to reach the conclusion that a proposal to move services to Paisley would be in any way acceptable to people in the Vale of Leven, given the geography of the area and the lack of public transport.

Will the cabinet secretary give a commitment to rule out any suggestion that the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley is an alternative location for services to the Vale of Leven? Will she also assure us that she will insist that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde's consideration include proposals for a north-of-the-river solution for the provision of scheduled services in the Vale of Leven, as members of all parties have requested?

I am tempted to say that it is amazing how the transition to opposition has changed the member's mind. I am mindful of my formal role in the process: the final decision will be mine, so I will not comment in detail at this stage on what the board's final proposals might be. I can and absolutely will make clear what tests I expect any board to pass before I will approve proposals for significant service changes. Those tests are full and meaningful public consultation, independent scrutiny and a clear presumption against centralisation. Such a course is in the interests of patients and the wider public, and I think that it is the right one to take.

I welcome all converts to a north-of-the-river solution. The cabinet secretary will be aware of the community engagement group that has been formed by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and tasked with considering the future of services at the Vale of Leven hospital. Is she aware that the group believes that it was not allowed to participate fully, that its views were ignored and that information was deliberately withheld from it? Does she agree that that is an appalling example of community engagement, and will she ensure that that forms part of her process of independent scrutiny of the health board's proposals?

I thank Jackie Baillie for her question and look forward to meeting her next month to discuss the issues in more detail. I assure her absolutely that I will take the quality of community engagement and the quality of public consultation into account in reaching a final decision on any board proposal for health service change.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that, given the plethora of SNP literature with which the Vale of Leven hospital community was awash during the election campaign—all of it positively brimming with pledges to reverse any damaging decisions that were reached—this all seems a bit thin? People locally are looking for a more robust response. Will she give a commitment that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde will be directed now to retain these key services locally?

I understand and appreciate the strength of feeling about the issue in West Dunbartonshire. I pay great tribute to my colleagues—particularly those who now lead the council in that area—for standing up for services there. I say again that I will operate a presumption against centralisation. It would be irresponsible for any minister to rule out any change to health services in any circumstances, but any board that comes to me for approval for significant service changes will have to pass very strict tests, and I have laid out today what those tests are.

---

Non-domestic Rates

To ask the Scottish Executive when it will instigate a tiered reduction in non-domestic rates. (S3O-11)

We will make clear our proposals for removing and reducing business rates for small businesses in Scotland following the comprehensive spending review.

If the target that the cabinet secretary set out yesterday is not met—let us say that the process takes longer to implement than we were advised yesterday—will the minister commit to backdating the rate reductions?

We go forward with optimism. Backdating proposals when systems are in place is unlikely. We will bring forward the proposals and seek consensus. The chamber must recognise the importance of building consensus here, as there is consensus in the business world that this measure should be implemented. It is important for Scotland. UK interest rates are heading towards 6 per cent and beyond, and the impact that that will have on consumer spending could be grave. The rate of growth here has been perennially low, so I am looking to members to help us give the boost that is needed, conscious of the need to level the playing field and put Scotland in a more competitive place.

If we can have a brief answer, we have just got time for question 7.

---

Remploy

To ask the Scottish Executive what discussions it has had with management and unions at Remploy regarding the company's future plans in Aberdeen and elsewhere in Scotland. (S3O-60)

Remploy and its future plans are a matter for the UK Government, which has lead responsibility for the employment of disabled people.

I understand the nature of that answer and do not dispute the point that Jim Mather correctly makes, but the Scottish ministers and the agencies that are accountable to them place a significant number of contracts for the type of work that is undertaken by Remploy factories. I urge the minister to agree that ministers will meet the management and unions at Remploy to discuss what the agencies that are accountable to the Scottish ministers can do to keep open the option for disabled people of access to supported, as well as mainstream, employment.

I share the member's concern, but it would be wrong to buffet the Parliament for the fact that the employment of disabled people is reserved to the UK Government. The Department for Work and Pensions has particular responsibility for the issue.

However, Scottish Enterprise, acting on behalf of ministers, has agreed to meet Remploy's Scottish restructuring project manager to offer advice and assistance, as appropriate.

Before we begin First Minister's question time, I am sure the whole Parliament will join me in expressing our sadness at the death of the first lady of Malawi, Mrs Ethel Mutharika, who died last Monday. With the Parliament's permission, I intend to write to President Mutharika to offer our condolences.