Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic
Good afternoon. The first item of business today is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio this afternoon is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic.
I remind members that questions 1 and 7 are grouped together and that I will take any supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered. Otherwise, members who wish to request a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.
Fornethy House Survivors
To ask the Scottish Government whether its decision not to make survivors of abuse at Fornethy house eligible for Scotland’s redress scheme was due to budgetary pressures. (S6O-03653)
No, and I want to push back very robustly on any suggestion that it was. The decision was not made lightly.
The existing eligibility criteria reflect the core purpose of Scotland’s redress scheme, as approved by Parliament, which was designed primarily for those vulnerable children who were in long-term care, who were often isolated and who had limited or no contact with their families. Inquiries conducted by an independent researcher indicate that that was not the position of Fornethy survivors, although that in no way diminishes the abhorrent experiences of those survivors. I will meet members of the Fornethy survivors group next week to discuss their concerns directly.
The abuse that the Fornethy women endured as children is utterly appalling. Anyone who has met them cannot help but feel a sense of fury at what they suffered and admiration for their brave fight for justice. They now face the further injustice of being excluded from a scheme that exists to compensate people like them who were abused in care as children. Why? Fundamentally, they face that further injustice because they were not abused for long enough.
Last year, John Swinney said that he believed that it was
“possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 12 January 2023; c 14.]
It is clear that that position has changed. Does the Deputy First Minister recognise that, by excluding the Fornethy women from the redress scheme, she has denied them not just access to compensation but official recognition by the state and, ultimately, their quest for justice?
I completely refute that characterisation of the decision. I am deeply sorry to hear what Fornethy survivors had to endure as children, the impact that that abuse has had on their lives and the abhorrent experiences that they had, and I commend their courage in sharing those experiences.
These are extremely weighty and difficult matters that we have tried to balance carefully. As I have already said to members, I will meet the Fornethy survivors group, and we will work to see what else can be done to support those survivors.
Fornethy House Survivors (Redress Scheme)
To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it decided that survivors of abuse at Fornethy house should not be eligible to access Scotland’s redress scheme. (S6O-03659)
I determined not to amend the eligibility criteria for Scotland’s redress scheme after deep and careful consideration because I believe that it continues to reflect the core purpose, as approved by Parliament following a public consultation and the taking on board of the views of survivors, which is paramount. That core purpose was to provide redress for vulnerable children who were in long-term care, who were often isolated and who had limited or no contact with their families.
Decisions on individual applications are rightfully a matter for Redress Scotland.
Fornethy house survivors say that they are shocked, disgusted and angry. The unanimous view of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee was that the Fornethy survivors should be included in the scheme.
On 12 January 2023, the then Deputy First Minister John Swinney told my committee:
“I do not believe that, as things stand, there is an inherent impediment to applications to the redress scheme coming forward from people who spent time at Fornethy ... To put it slightly more bluntly, I reject the idea that the scheme is not for Fornethy survivors; I think that it is possible for Fornethy survivors to be successful in applying under the scheme.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 12 January 2023; c 14.]
What has changed? What will the Deputy First Minister say to the women—who are now starting a billboard campaign in their fight for compensation—when she meets them next week?
What I will say to them is, quite rightly, to be said to them first, because they are the ones who have come forward, in courage, have shared their experiences and have had to endure abhorrent abuse.
As the member will know, the previous Deputy First Minister met representatives of the Fornethy survivors group to discuss the findings of the independent research report that was commissioned to consider those matters quite directly. Although it in no way diminishes the experiences of those survivors, it was recognised during the passage of the original legislation that eligibility was to reflect those people in long-term care with limited or no contact with their families.
As I have said, I will meet the Fornethy survivors group, and I look forward to engaging directly with it.
The Deputy First Minister will know of the particular interest of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in this matter. We have taken extensive evidence—over many years, in fact—from the Fornethy survivors.
We have received the Deputy First Minister’s letter, and we will still have an opportunity to consider it formally. However, I can say, informally, that the committee is unanimously still of the view, as we expressed it, that those women are entitled to compensation. We are therefore bitterly disappointed, and I serve notice to the Deputy First Minister that the committee will seek debating time to give the chamber the opportunity to express its view as to whether the Government should change its position.
I commend the petitions committee for the way in which it has taken evidence on the matter in a compassionate, caring but robust manner, which is totally in keeping with the weighty matters that are under discussion. I am obviously willing to engage with the committee as appropriate, and to engage with Parliament, if it comes to that.
These are not matters that I have concluded lightly. I have engaged extensively with survivors involved with the redress scheme, as I know that the convener will have, and I will, of course, engage directly with the survivors in the coming days.
Those were wee girls—hundreds, maybe even thousands—who were sent to Fornethy by the state and abused at its hands physically, mentally and, in some cases, sexually. Yet the state—the Government and Glasgow City Council—is utterly failing to take any responsibility. If the Deputy First Minister does not believe that extending the redress scheme is the way for the state to take responsibility, what does she think is the way?
When I and the Fornethy survivors meet the Deputy First Minister next week, some of the women will not be there, because they have died since they were abused. How much longer do these survivors have to wait?
I say up front that, having read and listened carefully to some of the experiences that have been shared, I am in absolutely no doubt about the appalling, disgraceful and disgusting abuse that those individuals have suffered. That is why it is so important that we get this right and that we navigate the issues, recognising the debate when the legislation was first passed and the views of survivors then.
I look forward to meeting Colin Smyth and the survivors next week. The decision that the Government has come to does not in any way diminish the experiences that the women at Fornethy suffered.
Shared Prosperity and Levelling Up Funds
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with United Kingdom Government counterparts regarding future plans for the shared prosperity and levelling up funds. (S6O-03654)
We are in regular contact with the UK Government on a range of issues, including the shared prosperity and levelling up funds. We continue to seek clarity on the future of those programmes, which I do not have as yet.
Let us remember that the funds emerged as a replacement for European funding, which we had full engagement with and scrutiny of. With these funds, there is none of that and no attempt to even engage with our local councils on whether they share the priorities that were set for them by the previous UK Government.
Is there any hope that the Labour Government will reverse that nonsense and refocus the policy intention of the funds so that what is ultimately delivered for local people reflects local needs and priorities, and that the Scottish Parliament will have a role in scrutinising the effectiveness of how that public money is spent?
I am encouraged by the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment to
“restore decision-making over the allocation of structural funds”
to the devolved nations. Taking it at its word, I therefore expect to work with the UK Government on the design and implementation of any future funds, and I only await the invitation to do so.
Can I say how much I welcome the new-found enthusiasm on the Scottish National Party benches for the shared prosperity and levelling up funds? I do not remember hearing that in the recent past, but it is good to know that the funds are welcome. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that many communities across Scotland have benefited from those funds and that we all want to see them continue?
We certainly used to benefit from all the funds that we got from the European Union, which we had more power over, control over and say in the allocation of. My new-found enthusiasm is in the hope that the decisions might be less politicised than they were under the regime that was operated by Murdo Fraser’s colleagues.
There has been deep frustration in Glasgow in recent months due to the closure of the regeneration capital grant fund at Scottish Government level and the suspension of funds such as the community ownership fund at UK Government level. Will the Deputy First Minister look to engage rapidly with the Treasury and her colleagues in Government to ensure that, with the budget forthcoming in October, we can rapidly reopen those funds if capital funding is unlocked?
The member can rest assured that my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government is engaging extensively with the UK Government to ensure that there is adequate capital to reopen those funds.
Unfortunately, we are not feeling overly optimistic, considering the words of the Prime Minister about things getting worse before they get better and the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments that this might be the hardest budget. Therefore, we will keep up our engagement, but it would be great if all members in the chamber recognised the fact that if there is more capital at source, we can do more.
I recently met STEP Scotland in my constituency, and it raised the issue of a lack of clarity on the future of the shared prosperity fund and its impact on investment. Does the Deputy First Minister share those concerns?
I completely recognise the uncertainty that organisations such as STEP face regarding the future of the shared prosperity fund. We need clarity from the UK Government on its plans so that organisations can indeed plan ahead. My officials and Shona Robison’s officials will continue to press for more financial clarity.
Wood-burning Stoves
To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding support for any businesses impacted by the ban on wood-burning stoves in new-build homes. (S6O-03655)
Although the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Gaelic has had no meetings with colleagues on the topic, I want to make it clear that there is no ban on wood-burning stoves. Under the new build heat standard, wood-burning stoves can continue to be installed as emergency heating in new buildings.
However, we acknowledge that stoves are often installed for more frequent use, and we are currently undertaking a review of the standard. That has involved both official and ministerial engagement with stove industry stakeholders. The Acting Minister for Climate Action is overseeing the review and will update Parliament when it reaches its conclusions shortly.
As it happens, some years ago, I purchased a wood stove from an excellent small business in Inverness, which is called Bonk & Co. Does the minister agree that the failure to lift the ban on companies such as Bonk & Co selling their stoves for new homes is utterly—wait for it—bonkers? Is it also a hangover from the Green deal, which, like the contents of a wood stove, should surely now be no more than smouldering ashes?
I commend Fergus Ewing for assiduously representing local businesses in his constituency. I suggest that new members who are elected in 2026 and who are looking for some instruction on how to represent businesses in their constituencies have no finer example to turn to than Mr Ewing.
The points that he raised are why we are undertaking the review. As I said, the Minister for Climate Action is overseeing that work and leading on it, and he will report to Parliament to provide an update. As a minister whose work is within the economy portfolio, I stand ready and willing to engage with any member of the Parliament on any concerns that they have about how Government regulation impacts on businesses in their constituency.
In the consultation for its new heat in buildings bill, the Scottish Government proposes
“to introduce a new law which will: Require those purchasing a property to comply with the prohibition on polluting heating within a specified amount of time following completion of the sale.”
I understand that Fergus Ewing’s question related to the impact of the new build heat standard and the ban on wood burners in new-build properties. Can the minister assure me that his Government is not about to get itself into another mess by trying to ban wood burners and other forms of direct heating from homes? If it is, what analysis has it undertaken of the further economic impact that that will have on businesses?
I assure the member that, as with all legislation and regulation, the Government will closely engage with business and will engage in close analysis of all of the particular economic impacts that could arise locally or nationally. I hope that that provides some reassurance for the member. I am more than happy to engage with him further if he wishes to discuss more.
Trade Links with Russia
To ask the Scottish Government what action it has taken to implement the policy announced in March 2022 in regard to companies maintaining trade links with Russia following the invasion of Ukraine. (S6O-03656)
In March 2022, we called on businesses in Scotland to sever their links with Russia. That policy reflects the specific circumstances of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine and is additional to the United Kingdom Government’s regime of sanctions against Russia. We subsequently issued guidance for the Scottish Government and our economic agencies when entering into a significant relationship with companies. That sets out checks to undertake on companies to identify links with Russia and steps that they have taken to withdraw from them, while recognising that severing links may not always be feasible in exceptional circumstances.
The Deputy First Minister may be aware of the Glasgow-based company Seapeak, which has been the subject of reports by investigative journalists and has continued to run vessels trading in Russian liquefied natural gas. The fact that a firm based in Glasgow is continuing to prop up the Putin regime by trading in fossil fuels regardless of either the invasion of Ukraine or the climate emergency will shock and disgust many people. However, no action is currently being taken to shut down that extraordinarily unethical business.
Will the Deputy First Minister write to the new Foreign Secretary highlighting this scandal and urging the UK Government to ensure that firms that are profiteering from a business that fuels climate change and helps to fund Putin’s illegal war are shut down?
As Patrick Harvie suggested, sanctions are a reserved matter. We have made very clear what our views are in relation to Russia, and we expect businesses and organisations that are operating in Scotland to reflect that. We have called on the UK Government to put in place the strongest possible sanctions regime against Russia. I will write to the Foreign Secretary to make our position on those matters clear and to encourage the UK Government to continue to increase pressure on the Russian regime.
House Building
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the contribution that house building makes to the Scottish economy. (S6O-03657)
Our statistics estimate that, in 2023, investment in dwellings—house building and repairs and maintenance—totalled around £6.9 billion, directly contributing 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product. As our long-term strategy “Housing to 2040” sets out, housing makes a crucial contribution to our vision of an economy that delivers sustainable and inclusive growth for the people of Scotland.
As well as providing benefits to the wider economy, housing plays a critical role in relation to economic opportunity for individuals and their families, and the impact that quality housing has on health and education is also well understood. With that in mind, will the Deputy First Minister provide an update on the work of the housing investment task force and the actions that are being taken to unlock housing investment that will bring economic and social benefit to our communities?
I met the housing minister a matter of hours ago to discuss progress on the housing investment task force and to consider how we can work together to ensure that there is a flow of investment and that homes are being built.
We recognise that housing is one of the most pressing economic issues of our day, but it is also one of the biggest opportunities if we can support people to live in warm, secure and affordable homes. In the programme for government that will be announced later today, Parliament will see the actions that we are taking that take account of some of the early outputs from the task force. The task force is due to report by the end of March 2025.
During the summer, I met a number of developers who have highlighted the total collapse in the mid-market rent sector in Scotland following its inclusion in the Scottish National Party-Green rent controls policy. I am sorry to say that those developers are saying that Scotland is not open for business and we are seeing those developments and investments going to the north of England. Will the Scottish Government now agree to remove mid-market rent developments from the rent controls so that we can make sure that those homes are actually built?
I will briefly set the context. Since 2007, we have supported the delivery of more than 131,000 affordable homes, with more than 93,000 of those being for social rent. We will continue to build on that record with almost £600 million of investment in the affordable housing supply programme this year.
We are focused on delivering 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, and we have brought forward to 2024 the review that was scheduled for 2026 in order to concentrate on deliverability. I see an opportunity here to ensure that the regulatory framework allows us to deliver investment, to build homes and to ensure that everyone has access to secure and affordable housing. We will work with investors as well as representatives of the housing market and, critically, tenants in order to get it right.
During the summer, I met a number of workers in the house-building industry, such as roofers, joiners and other trades workers. Young people and industry experts told me about the challenges that they face in finding training places and skilled workers and recruiting into the industry. I met a young apprentice who required to travel to London to gain a qualification to allow him to work in his chosen trade, and that is not unusual.
Given how important house building and, indeed, home improvement are to the Scottish economy, will the Deputy First Minister agree to encourage better cross-portfolio working to ensure that the sector can bridge that gap in locally accessible training places? Also, will she consider meeting industry experts, who have some solutions to help with those skills gaps?
In short, I am happy to meet and work with businesses, organisations and workers that are helping to deliver our pipeline of housing. The skills that the member references are relevant not only to housing but to the wider construction industry. We know how critical construction is to our overall economic performance, as well as to supporting some of the perhaps more deprived communities in Scotland. Through investment in infrastructure, we can regenerate different parts of Scotland, so there is a big opportunity here. That is a long way of saying that I am very happy to work with those groups.
Harland & Wolff
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with Harland & Wolff regarding any potential job losses at its yards in Methil in the Kirkcaldy constituency and Arnish on the Isle of Lewis. (S6O-03658)
The Scottish Government has held regular discussions with the management team and unions at Harland & Wolff. The Deputy First Minister spoke to the executive chairman on Monday 2 September and I visited the Methil site in July, when I was able to confirm our commitment to working with the company to secure the future for the vitally important jobs that it provides at both sites.
The workforce at both yards is passionate, dedicated and highly skilled. In recent years, the Methil site has seen a resurgence in shipbuilding. In addition, it has continued its presence in the renewables sector. Does the minister share my view that every avenue must be explored in order to safeguard the future of the site and ensure that jobs and apprenticeship opportunities exist for future generations for many years to come?
I do. I assure David Torrance that the Scottish Government is engaging with the United Kingdom Government and the business at a senior level and a local level. Ultimately, it is up to the management teams and investors in the business to work through the commercial options to provide a sustainable future for the organisation and the workforce. The business is fully aware of the interest from both Governments, and the management team is working closely with the UK and Scottish Governments.
As Mr Torrance has recognised, the site at Methil has a highly skilled and committed workforce who are keen to contribute to a just transition. I understand that the Methil and Arnish sites have progressed to phase 2 of the Scottish offshore wind energy council’s strategic investment model, which is an important fund that supports businesses that will help us to realise a just transition.
When will a decision on investment be made? Does the minister recognise the importance of there being a swift decision in order to protect jobs in Methil and support the yard to secure contracts?
I am not in a position to confirm when a decision will be made, but I recognise the points that the member has raised.
Green Industrial Strategy
To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the development of its green industrial strategy and its commitment to leverage up to £500 million over the next five years for Scotland’s offshore wind supply chain. (S6O-03660)
The Scottish Government will publish its green industrial strategy shortly. We are kick-starting our commitment to invest up to £500 million to anchor our offshore wind supply chain in Scotland with an investment of £67 million in the sector in this financial year. That will support market certainty and help to create a highly productive, competitive offshore wind sector that provides thousands of new jobs, embeds innovation and boosts skills. We are working across the public sector to ensure that funding is delivered to projects as quickly as possible, subject to rigorous due diligence and value for money assurance processes.
Last year, the floating offshore wind task force made it clear that a minimum of three to five Scottish ports needed to be urgently transformed into new industrial hubs in order to enable the required roll-out of floating offshore wind. Without major downstream infrastructure investment in our offshore wind sector, there is little prospect of Scotland meeting our net zero goals or realising our energy potential.
Given the Cabinet Secretary for Finance’s confirmation yesterday that ScotWind’s revenues will be diverted away from tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, can the Deputy First Minister provide a cast-iron assurance that the Government remains committed to leveraging in the £500 million over the next five years for the offshore wind sector alongside a 10-year, £500 million just transition fund?
The fact that we have already spent £67 million as part of that £500 million illustrates that we are serious about delivering the investment. We are taking a commercial-first approach to investment to leverage private funding in the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that are critical to our world-leading offshore wind sector. Although investments are likely to have a specific geographical focus—perhaps even Orkney—the wider economic value will benefit all of Scotland in the process.
That concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next portfolio to allow members to change positions should they so wish. It would be helpful if members could do that quickly.
Finance and Local Government
The next portfolio is finance and local government. Again, if a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.
North Lanarkshire Council (Meetings)
To ask the Scottish Government when it last met North Lanarkshire Council and what was discussed. (S6O-03661)
Scottish ministers and Scottish Government officials regularly meet representatives from all local authorities to discuss a range of issues of mutual interest.
Pupils in primary 1 to 5 receive free school meals thanks to Scottish Government investment. Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council reportedly charges primary 6 and 7 pupils some of the highest prices for school meals in the country, and we know the extent of in-work poverty in that area. A family in my Motherwell and Wishaw constituency could be paying £170 a month, or £1,615 a year. What action can be taken to ensure that my constituents are able to access affordable school meals amid rising bills?
The Scottish Government has made clear its commitment to supporting families and eradicating child poverty. We have the most extensive provision of free school meals in the United Kingdom, and our free school meals programme is a key element in meeting those aims. We continue to expand our programme, with the next phase covering families in receipt of the Scottish child payment with children in primary 6 or 7.
I note that, as of 31 March 2023, North Lanarkshire Council had general fund reserves of £250 million, which is the latest available audited figure, but I think that that will have increased in the provisional outturn figures. General fund reserves need to be taken into account when local authorities make their decisions.
North Lanarkshire Council has recently increased the distance at which secondary school pupils are eligible for school buses, with the roll-out to primary schools proposed for next year. As we head into winter, many parents are concerned about the proposed walking routes, because many are poorly lit. The alternative that has been given to parents is public service buses, but my office has heard several stories of such buses driving past groups of schoolchildren or being too crowded to allow any more on. The local authority cites budget issues as one of the reasons for cutting the routes. Will the cabinet secretary meet me to find a solution and ensure that financial decisions are not put ahead of the wellbeing of children in North Lanarkshire?
I would, of course, be more than happy to meet Gillian Mackay. Such decisions are for local authorities to make but, further to the information that I gave to Clare Adamson, I note that North Lanarkshire Council’s figure for general fund reserves per head of population has now risen to the fourth highest in the country, as of 31 March this year, with a provisional outturn of £747 of reserves per person. As I said, reserves need to be considered when each local authority sets its budget and makes decisions about local priorities.
Local Authority Housing Stock (Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete)
To ask the Scottish Government how much funding it has allocated to local authorities whose housing stock and former housing stock requires demolition and rebuilding due to the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. (S6O-03662)
It is the responsibility of building owners to maintain their properties, and it is for each local authority to decide the appropriate action when RAAC is identified, which is primarily a building maintenance concern. Although no new funding is available to address the issue, when a local authority has decided that demolition is the best solution, we will work with it to explore flexibilities in current funding for it to consider. Local authorities manage their own budgets, but we are committed to working alongside them to ensure that they and any home owners who are affected are supported appropriately.
Underfunded Aberdeen City Council is pressing ahead with knocking down homes in Torry Balnagask, at a cost of £25 million. Reports suggest that rebuilding could cost £130 million and take up to 15 years. All the while, displaced residents, who report that the situation is causing them anxiety and despair, just do not believe that their homes will ever be rebuilt.
Last week, the Scottish Government informed the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee that affected households will see “engagement” in the coming weeks and months. What has the minister done to ensure that Aberdeen City Council will have sufficient funds to rebuild and that it will be able to do so sooner than in 15 years?
The first point to note is that Aberdeen City Council has had a 5.4 per cent increase in its budget—an extra £23.8 million to support day-to-day services. It is also important to recognise that the previous Conservative United Kingdom Government said that it would spend whatever it took to resolve the RAAC issue, including funds coming to Scotland. Of course, it did not deliver on any of that, which is why we are in the position in which we find ourselves.
However, as I have said, we are keen to work with any council that finds itself in this position, to explore the possibilities to work together to resolve this serious issue for the home owners concerned and to support the council to deliver on that.
I have received requests for supplementary questions from four members and I hope to take each of the four, but I will need members to co-operate by asking brief questions.
I have engaged with well over 100 constituents who are affected by RAAC during one of the biggest housing crises that Scotland has ever faced. As council tenants move home, private home owners, many of whom have mortgages, face continued uncertainty.
Regrettably, my repeated correspondence to the new UK Government on funding has gone unanswered. The decision that Aberdeen City Council made—to demolish and rebuild—limits private home owners’ choices on how to proceed. What options does the Scottish Government have to afford the council the fiscal flexibilities to offer just and equitable funding support to affected home owners?
My colleague the Minister for Housing and his officials have held constructive discussions with Aberdeen City Council throughout their options appraisal process for homes that are impacted by poor-condition RAAC.
As I indicated in my earlier response to Liam Kerr, although there are no additional funds to allocate to the issue, we have supported the exploration of financial flexibility options for the council to consider. Aberdeen City Council has not yet made a formal request for statutory flexibilities, but, as soon as we receive that, we will give it urgent consideration, so that the council can provide early assurance to the people who are affected.
It is good to hear that the Scottish Government is committed to resolving some of the issues around RAAC. The Grenfell report was published today; seven years on, only two buildings have been remediated since that tragic fire. How long does the minister expect residents who are affected by RAAC to wait? Can he make a commitment that it will be less time than the seven years that many residents who are affected by combustible cladding have had to wait?
As I have indicated, my colleague the Minister for Housing, whose portfolio the issue comes under, is working with local authorities across Scotland to understand the extent of the issue and to work with them when they make formal requests for flexibilities, so that we can ensure that, together, we support householders who are affected by RAAC. I am sure that, in due course, my colleague the Minister for Housing will give an update on progress on this important issue.
A group of residents in Tillycoultry were forced to move out of their homes more than a year ago because of deteriorating RAAC, but they still do not have access to their homes to collect personal belongings such as passports, and there are growing fears in the community that those properties will be broken into.
What guidance is the Scottish Government offering councils on residents who might need to re-enter their homes to retrieve essential items during the period in which they are unable to live there?
I recognise the issue that Mark Ruskell raises and I know that that has happened in other places, such as Glasgow, where residents have had to move out of their premises very quickly and at short notice due to safety concerns.
There is a balance to be struck between the safety of those residents who might want to enter potentially dangerous properties and their need to retrieve personal possessions and important documents. I will check with my ministerial colleagues what guidance is available on that and I will respond to the member to make sure that he is aware of the current situation and the guidance that the Government has put in place to deal with those particular situations.
This concrete is not just in domestic dwellings—it is also in public buildings, such as hospitals, schools and libraries. It is now 18 months since I first brought the crisis to the attention of the Government in the chamber, and we are just concluding the identification stage.
First, is the Government now confident that it knows where that concrete is in every building in the public estate?
Secondly, will it extend capital funding to organisations such as NHS Scotland to make sure that our patients are safe in the hospitals where they are?
The requirement for funding will be part of on-going budget discussions with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government at the appropriate time, once we are aware of the impact of RAAC.
As the member will be aware, surveys have been undertaken across the public estate to assess the prevalence of RAAC, the condition of the RAAC that exists and the criticality of the structural issues around that. With that information, we are proceeding to address the issue across the public estate.
Public Sector Pay Policy
To ask the Scottish Government, in line with the agreed procedure, whether it will provide the Scottish Fiscal Commission with a public sector pay policy ahead of its budget for 2025-26. (S6O-03663)
There is an established protocol between the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fiscal Commission that sets out the information sharing that is expected to take place in the lead-up to the Scottish budget. We will continue to engage and work collaboratively with the commission on matters related to public sector pay and workforce, and we will strive to provide timely information related to pay in the lead-up to future fiscal events.
I would be very glad if the finance secretary would actually honour the protocol that was set out in October 2022. For the past two years, she has failed to do so. She told me in committee on 16 January that it “would not be right” to provide that policy. She might well have noted the chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission in front of committee yesterday saying that that policy should be provided.
Given the debacle of her cuts yesterday, due partly to the incompetence around public sector pay, will the finance secretary commit now to producing that policy to the commission ahead of the budget?
In the letter to Michael Marra of 15 January, I said that the reason why we would have to wait to set out public sector pay policy was that there was going to be a United Kingdom spring budget, following the budget in the autumn, that would provide an update on the fiscal outlook and the UK Government’s public spending policy that could impact on devolved funding envelopes.
Michael Marra has the exact problem here that Daniel Johnson—whom I have a lot of respect for—had when he got himself tied up in knots on “Good Morning Scotland” this morning. Daniel Johnson tried to distinguish the impact of Tory cuts in Wales and the Welsh Labour Government having to introduce an emergency budget from the situation in Scotland, where there is no fault on the part of the Tories whatsoever. The Tories are at fault when it comes to Wales, but the Tories are not at fault when it comes to Scottish public finances. It was excruciating to listen to, and Labour really has to come clean in its analysis of the situation.
We will continue to work with the Scottish Fiscal Commission. We will continue to make sure that pay policy is affordable and sustainable, and we will take that forward in due course.
Professor Roy said yesterday that this lack of information is a very serious matter. Does the cabinet secretary accept that, when it comes to parliamentary scrutiny, it would be far preferable for us to have that information to hand?
Absolutely, but I am sure that Liz Smith will also recognise that, when a spring budget emerges straight after the budget that we have just set, and not knowing what the funding envelope for pay will be, I need to wait to see what that funding envelope is. That is absolutely critical—we can only set a pay policy that we can afford.
I have set out in great detail why the pay policy was set as it was. As I said at the time, anything beyond the pay policy would need to be funded either by more UK Government funding or through cuts. That is the simple reality of the situation. We will continue to work with the SFC and with the Finance and Public Administration Committee, but let us be absolutely clear that the Scottish Government’s finances will be dictated in large part by what comes at the budget on 30 October.
Scottish Government Expenditure and Revenue
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recently published Government expenditure and revenue figures, which reportedly show a £2,400 dividend in the last year for every person in Scotland as a result of its continued membership of the United Kingdom. (S6O-03664)
First, we know that 90 per cent of the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” deficit is due to UK Government choices. Secondly, we know that the UK Government retains control of 40 per cent of expenditure and more than 70 per cent of revenues in Scotland. That is set out in the GERS report. As an example, a significant portion of the spending that is allocated to Scotland relates to servicing UK Government debt, which is paid at a higher rate than is paid by our European neighbours.
The Scottish Government is required to balance its budget each year—and it does so; it has always presented a balanced budget to Parliament. In doing so, we have taken difficult decisions on revenue and expenditure in order to target the support to those in greatest need, such as through the Scottish child payment.
Yesterday, when the cabinet secretary was announcing the savage cuts that she is making to public spending across Scotland, thanks to Scottish National Party financial mismanagement, incredibly, she claimed that separation would make things better. Given that her own Government’s figures show the complete opposite—that there would be a massive fiscal deficit of nearly £23 billion—how could she do that with a straight face?
As the Treasury has pointed out in the past few weeks—I assume that Murdo Fraser will accept this figure—the deficit is on the then UK Tory Government not resetting budgets due to inflationary pressures. His UK Government took £15 billion out of public funding. We will take no lectures from the Tories about financial management when they took £15 billion out of public services by not resetting budgets for inflation.
Of course, the UK Labour Government chancellor has outlined a £22 billion black hole in public finances, which will impact Scotland if that Government continues to follow the previous Tory Government’s fiscal rules. Members from those two parties are quite chummy today, so I am sure that, unfortunately, that is what Scotland will experience.
Local Government Pay Increases
To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to fund any pay increases for local government employees. (S6O-03665)
The Scottish Government has taken extraordinary decisions to provide £77.5 million to support a fair pay offer for local government workers. That offer is better than the one made in the rest of the United Kingdom, and most will see a rise of more than 4 per cent. That is at the absolute limit of affordability, and, as I set out to Parliament yesterday, we are taking action across all portfolios to balance our budget. That is made more difficult by the chancellor’s decision not to fully fund pay deals and a lack of clarity on funding ahead of the United Kingdom budget.
Last week, we learned that the Scottish National Party was diverting £5 million from nature restoration to fund pay awards. Earlier this week, Unison members voted to reject the latest offer from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Given that the cabinet secretary has also now slashed £23.4 million from the net zero and energy budget, will she rule out diverting any more funds from climate and nature projects?
We did not want to make any of the decisions that we have had to make, but, in order to resolve some of the pay disputes and to support public expenditure on pay, we have had to make some of those very difficult decisions.
We have committed to restoring the nature restoration budget that Maurice Golden referred to in 2025-26. I am sure that he will want to welcome the fact that the GMB has accepted the pay deal. We will hear what Unite the union has to say tomorrow. The Educational Institute of Scotland has accepted the position for teachers, which, again, is to be welcomed.
We urge COSLA to continue to discuss the position with Unison, because, at the end of the day, the local authorities are the employers. We do not want to see further damaging industrial action, and that is why we have gone above and beyond to help with the funding envelope that COSLA could offer the local government workforce.
It is also worth bearing in mind that no additional funding is coming from the UK Government for the local government workforce, apart from teachers, and that is regrettable.
David Torrance has a brief supplementary question.
Does the cabinet secretary, like me, welcome the fact that GMB members have agreed overwhelmingly to support the fair pay offer, and does she share my disappointment that Unison members have voted to reject it?
I hope that Unite members will vote to accept the offer and that an agreement can be reached with Unison. Can she advise how the pay offer and levels for Scottish local government employees compare with those in other parts of the UK?
I am pleased that more than three quarters of GMB Scotland members agreed that it is a fair pay offer and voted to accept it. As I said earlier, the pay award that is offered in Scotland is better than the offer that has been made to local government workers across the rest of the UK. More than 60 per cent of workers would receive an increase of more than 4 per cent. Importantly, the lowest-paid workers, including Unison members, would receive an increase of 5.63 per cent. That is a fair offer for all.
The Scottish Government will continue to work constructively with COSLA as efforts continue to secure a deal and divert industrial action, which, as I have said, is in no one’s interest.
Question number 6 was not lodged.
Public Spending (Budget)
To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the finance secretary has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding public spending, in light of the Prime Minister’s remarks that the Labour Administration’s first budget is “going to be painful”. (S6O-03667)
The First Minister and I met the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. We discussed collaboration between the Scottish and UK Governments, but we also pressed the chancellor on the need for public investment across the UK to protect public services, to tackle poverty and to grow the economy.
The Prime Minister’s remarks about the next UK budget are deeply concerning. As I said earlier, that will have a direct impact on our funding. I set out yesterday the difficult decisions that we are already taking on the challenges that the Scottish budget faces. As the chancellor looks to her first budget, it is vital that public services and vulnerable people are protected and that we do not have further austerity impacting on public services in Scotland.
After 14 years of Tory austerity, the Labour Party in Westminster is intensifying the worst of what we saw under the likes of David Torrance—sorry, David Cameron [Laughter.] and Boris Johnson. Labour’s pledge to keep Tory fiscal rules is a huge factor in the £22 billion of cuts that it is now choosing to make.
Labour promised change, but it is delivering the same old failed Westminster economic agenda. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the UK Labour Government must see sense, invest in public services, reverse the cuts to Scotland’s capital budget—
Thank you, Ms Stevenson. I call the cabinet secretary.
The chancellor has a choice to make in her forthcoming budget. She can continue with Tory fiscal rules and Tory austerity or she can change course and invest in public services. Increased funding for infrastructure and public services will—absolutely—be required if we want to take action to lift children out of poverty. There are things that the Labour chancellor could also do to help with that, such as ending the damaging two-child benefit cap.
There is a political choice here. Labour in this Parliament cannot escape the reality that Labour austerity looks and feels to public services exactly the same as Tory austerity does. It is a political choice, and Labour will be held to account for whatever choice it makes.
Nature Restoration Fund
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its reported decision to instruct local authorities to divert money from the nature restoration fund towards local government pay settlements, what discussions the finance secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action that can be taken to mitigate any impact of this decision on projects aimed at reversing nature loss. (S6O-03668)
Within an extremely challenging financial context, the Scottish Government has made difficult decisions in order to deliver fair pay deals and to avoid industrial action across the public sector.
Protecting and restoring our natural environment is key to addressing the twin crises of nature loss and climate change. More than £50 million has already been distributed through the nature restoration fund since 2021. Although capital funding of £5 million from this year’s nature restoration fund has been redirected within local authorities to fund the pay offer, it has been agreed between ministers, as I said earlier, that it will be replaced in 2025-26.
The nature restoration fund has created jobs right across Scotland and has brought benefits to local communities and their economies and environments. The Greens are fully in favour of fair deals for council workers, but, instead of dipping into funding that benefits communities, the Scottish Government could cut back on subsidies and tax cuts to big businesses such as Shell, Ineos and the Acorn partners, which continue to receive millions in public funds while raking in record profits for climate-wrecking fossil fuels. Will the Scottish Government reconsider, retain nature funding and accelerate reform of Scotland’s outdated council funding so that councils can deliver for nature and for workers?
On that last point, we want to make progress on council funding and the way that local taxation works. I chair the joint group with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that aims to do just that, and progress has been made on things such as second homes and empty homes. However, the point about the fair pay deal and the nature restoration fund is that we had to use funding that was available now, in-year. The ideas and issues that Ariane Burgess raised would not release that funding in-year to support the pay deal in the here and now, and that had to be done.
Those choices were difficult, but they were the only ones available in order to make the pay envelope bigger to enable the offer to be made. As I say, the nature restoration money will be restored in 2025-26, because we recognise its importance, and I hope that Ariane Burgess will support that.
That concludes portfolio questions on finance and local government. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.