Official Report 993KB pdf
Justice and Veterans
Good afternoon, colleagues. I remind members of the Covid-related measures that are in place. Face masks should be worn when moving around the chamber and across the Holyrood campus.
The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is justice and veterans. If a member wishes to ask a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button or put the letter R in the chat function during the relevant question.
Question 1 was not lodged.
Technology-assisted Human Trafficking
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe report, “Policy responses to technology-facilitated trafficking in human beings, and accompanying recommendations on action areas for parliaments”. (S6O-00863)
The recent OSCE report raises important questions about technology-facilitated human trafficking. The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 provided police and prosecutors with greater powers to detect and prosecute perpetrators, including when offences are committed online. However, we keep the criminal law under continual review to ensure that it is effective.
The regulation of internet and online service providers remains a reserved matter and we are continuing to liaise closely with the United Kingdom Government on its forthcoming online safety bill.
Recognising the horrific scale of the problem of online technology being used to lure, groom and exploit children and adults through exploitative images and threats, and that 2021 was the worst year on record for online child abuse, does the minister see any devolved capacity for the Scottish Government to take forward recommendations in policy or legislative change in, for example, empowering law enforcement to efficiently investigate technology-facilitated trafficking or tackling the demand that fosters trafficking of women and children, such as by banning pornography?
We will continue to explore all available options to reduce the prevalence of exploitation, including online. In Scotland, we will look specifically at whether we can do more on that. I would like to have a meeting with the member to discuss the matter further.
On 4 February 2022, the UK Government announced additional priority offences to be written into the UK draft online safety bill. We understand that that will include offences involving sexual exploitation. In principle, we think that that is a welcome move that aims to make the internet hostile to pimps and human traffickers. Once we have more details on that bill, we will consider it carefully, especially in relation to the scope of the domestic model that we are developing to challenge men’s demand for prostitution.
Christian Action, Research and Education has warned that processing a large number of Ukrainian refugee visas might mean that some of the red flags that are usually used in vetting are missed. What discussions has the cabinet secretary had with UK Government officials, the National Crime Agency or Police Scotland to ensure that no refugee who comes from Ukraine to Scotland becomes a victim of exploitation, via serious organised criminal gangs or otherwise?
The member is absolutely right to raise that point. We know that that could be a risk and a number of immediate measures have been taken to respond to the crisis, including the monitoring of online searches. A spike in searches for Ukrainian women for sex and marriage has already been recorded. Translated information is being provided to fleeing Ukrainian nationals in country that informs them of their rights and options. The temporary protection mechanism that the European Union established also includes a temporary residence permit and access to the employment market.
On 13 March, the OSCE’s special representative co-ordinator for combating trafficking visited the Polish reception centres, looking to inform policy makers on how best we can support those who are displaced and prevent the risk of trafficking.
Once refugees come into Scotland, we will need to look at risks and safeguarding.
It is great that so many Scots will potentially open up their homes as part of the UK Government’s sponsorship scheme, but we have some concerns about the matching process. We are seeking further information on the approach that will be taken to safeguarding, and I will update the chamber when we have more information on that.
Trafficking gangs are motivated purely by profit. To end their cruel trade, we must disrupt the market. When will the Scottish Government take action in that regard by making it a criminal offence to enable or profit from the prostitution of another person, ending male demand by criminalising paying for sex, so that Scotland will no longer be a place where such criminal gangs can operate in plain sight on so-called adult services websites?
Police Scotland will actively investigate all reports of sexual exploitation, including reports of online sexual exploitation. Procuring for the purposes of prostitution is still an offence if it is committed online.
However, we know that more needs to be done with the powers that are available to us to disrupt that activity and to shut down the routes to exploiting people. We are committed to the development of a model for Scotland that effectively tackles and challenges men’s demand for prostitution. The multi-agency working group that is considering the principles to underpin that model held its penultimate meeting yesterday.
An emerging theme from its work, which I know that Ruth Maguire understands very well, is that, on this issue, online advertising cannot be seen in isolation. It is synonymous with human trafficking, and it intersects with many other forms of gendered violence. We will take that into account as we design the model in consultation with stakeholders. We welcome the views of the cross-party group on commercial sexual exploitation as part of that process.
Misogyny and Criminal Justice
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the report on misogyny and criminal justice in Scotland, published on international women’s day, which calls for a misogyny bill for Scotland. (S6O-00864)
Along with the First Minister, who addressed the Parliament on international women’s day, I welcome the recommendations in the report and have thanked Baroness Helena Kennedy and the working group for their efforts over the past year. Their work is pivotal in challenging society’s tolerance of misogyny and sending a clear message that male attitudes that emanate from prejudice and misogyny have no place in a modern, equal Scotland.
We will now consider the recommendations and will provide our response in due course, once we have had the benefit of time to examine them further. It is now incumbent on the Scottish Government to examine the recommendations with a view to ensuring that any provisions that are recommended to Parliament are workable and can meet the expectations of and intentions behind the working group’s report.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to closely consider the report’s recommendations.
This week, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, launched a campaign that calls for men to take more responsibility for their actions and avoid acting as bystanders when their peers behave inappropriately towards women. Baroness Kennedy’s report refers to women having to carry out “safety work” to protect themselves from the harmful behaviours of men, and the recommendations for new laws would still leave the onus on women to report and evidence male behaviour.
Does the Scottish Government have any plans to run a similar campaign? Will it take any further action to reduce the burden of responsibility that is placed on women in the fight against misogyny?
The member is absolutely right to say that it is men who need to change their behaviour. Perhaps she can take some comfort from the fact that we worked with the police to ensure that, when they came up with a protocol after the Sarah Everard case, it was designed to take the onus to change behaviour away from women and to put it on police officers.
The process will take some time, because, as the member will be aware, the new legislation that is proposed represents a new departure for legislation, in that it specifies women. We have not done that before—we did not do it in the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018. Throughout the process, wherever we end up, we will consistently point to the fact that it is men who must change their behaviour.
As regards campaigns, we will consider that as time goes on. We would want to run any campaign in conjunction with legislation, where that was necessary. The message, which I am sure that the member agrees with, will remain the same—it is men who need to change. If we get to the stage of having the proposed legislation on the statute book, it will have a practical effect in that misogyny will be an offence, but it will also have a symbolic effect in saying, “These things should not be permitted.”
With regard to the member’s point about bystanders, men should step up and say that such behaviour—especially what might be termed “low-level misogyny”, which can often lead to other things—is wrong. The law can be symbolic of that change, and that is what we intend.
What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that misogyny in politics will not negatively affect or delay policy making in the area?
The member raises a very important point. There is a need for caution for any Government in prescribing how political debates and discourse are conducted, but we are all, in Government and not in Government, public representatives and we all have an individual duty to watch our behaviour in relation to the issue. We need to try and make sure that, as stated in the point that was made previously, when certain things are done they are called out.
For our part, the Government is considering the working group’s recommendations, which have garnered a lot of support in principle from the public, stakeholders and politicians. As I have said, that work is pivotal to challenging society’s tolerance of misogyny—in particular, men’s tolerance of misogyny—and I hope that the Parliament will work with the Government to meet the expectations of and the intention behind the working group’s report.
Does the Scottish Government consider that, in light of the recommendations from Baroness Kennedy’s working group, a cross-party commission on the prevention of violence against women and girls has merit as it would ensure that misogyny and violence against women are addressed holistically?
We always want to keep an open mind. The member has made that suggestion before, but there is a substantial degree of activity going on currently—for example, the Minister for Community Safety has an overarching responsibility within Government to take forward issues in relation to violence against women and girls. We have a number of pieces of legislation that will address the issue directly, which has led to the establishment of other working groups. We will keep the suggestion in mind, but I do not think that there is any way that the Government could be described as not taking the issue seriously. If work on the issue can be bolstered by innovations such as the one that the member suggests, I am happy to consider them further.
Railways (Antisocial Behaviour)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour on Scotland’s railways. (S6O-00865)
The pandemic presented unprecedented challenges across Scotland’s railways, including increased antisocial behaviour. As we recover, British Transport Police data shows that offences of this nature have been reducing since last October. British Transport Police works closely with partners on joint initiatives to deter crime on the railway. For example, operation safer shores and operation ballaton safely manage high volumes of passengers to Balloch and Ayrshire during holiday periods. The transport minister discussed those concerns in recent meetings with trade unions and her officials liaise with the safer transport strategic group, which is led by British Transport Police.
I note the transport minister’s comments to the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee today that legislation may be required to tackle antisocial behaviour. It is clear that we have to deal with the problem that is in front of us. In my West Scotland region, there has been a concerning and consistent trend of extreme violence, particularly between teenage girls, on the railway. It is clear that staff need better support and we must ensure that ticket officers are protected and staffing is increased to ensure safe railways.
It is also clear that—
Ask a question, please, Mr O’Kane.
Will the minister provide assurance that there will be consultation with British Transport Police, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and other trade unions about how we can get the solutions that we need?
Verbal or physical assaults on staff are completely acceptable. Although it is no consolation to those staff who the member has rightly suggested are impacted by such behaviour in Scotland, it makes up about 3.6 per cent of the total number of staff assaults on the United Kingdom rail network. The number of physical assaults on staff members has remained consistent throughout the year with only slight fluctuations month by month. The offending is sporadic and follows no pattern in terms of location, offenders or timings. However, as I mentioned in my previous answers, there is multiagency working going on to address this type of offending and put resource into the right areas.
The member mentioned work about particular passengers being problematic time after time and whether that can be looked at. My understanding is that that option will be explored further as part of the work on safety on public transport, but I ask my colleague the Minister for Transport to speak to the member directly on the issue.
The minister will be aware that I have brought partners together to discuss the issue and try to get solutions in place to help on one of the lines in Inverclyde. The issue of the number of British Transport Police officers came up; has consideration been given to increasing the number of British Transport Police officers on Scotland’s railways to help to prevent antisocial behaviour?
I thank the member for raising the issue and for the work that he has been doing to address it.
We are aware of concerns—particularly on the part of the rail unions and employees, who often experience such behaviour directly—about an increase in criminal behaviour on trains. We need to ensure that there are appropriate ways of preventing and addressing such behaviour.
However, policing on the railways is a reserved matter. As such, resources for it are governed by the British Transport Police Authority, with ScotRail contributing towards the costs and Scottish interests being fed in through the Scottish railways policing committee. ScotRail has a police service agreement with British Transport Police to secure its services on the railway in Scotland.
Scottish ministers regularly meet the British Transport Police Authority and the British Transport Police to raise issues of interest such as women’s safety and how to tackle antisocial behaviour.
Will the minister talk about potential legislation to deal with antisocial behaviour on the railways? When are we likely to see proposals? Will they form part of a wider bill?
My understanding is that that option is at the early stages of being explored and is part of wider work on safety on public transport that the Minister for Transport is taking forward. I will ask the minister to speak to the member; she might be able to give him an updated timetable.
Police Officers
To ask the Scottish Government how many front-line police officers are currently serving in Police Scotland. (S6O-00866)
The recruitment of police officers is a matter for the chief constable, who considers the size and shape of the policing workforce in light of changing demand. The latest figures show that there were 17,117 police officers in Police Scotland as at 31 December 2021. The current Scottish Government statistics show that we currently have around 32 officers per 10,000 population, compared with around 23 per 10,000 population in England and Wales.
In January, I asked the cabinet secretary what the police officer base level in Forth Valley is, and he responded that he did not know. The base level is the minimum level of police who are available to respond to calls in an area. I asked the same question in a freedom of information request to Police Scotland. I asked when base operational levels were last reviewed and how many times policing fell below the safe level. The request was refused on the grounds of the responses being expensive or unsafe to publish.
If the cabinet secretary does not know and Police Scotland will not tell, how can we have any assurance that the number of police who are available to respond to calls on the front line is adequate? What is the cabinet secretary doing to make sure that there are enough police to respond to emergency and non-emergency calls?
One thing that we are doing is sticking with the idea that the police are independent of Government and should be the ones who determine the configuration of police officers to respond to the threats that the member talked about—unless he is looking for direct Government control of policing, which of course is quite possible in the case of the Conservatives—[Interruption.]
It might well be that Stephen Kerr is embarrassed by the example of Tories in government on policing, when the Tories failed to fund police numbers—[Interruption.] I know that he does not want to hear that. He does not want to hear about how the Tories have treated police pay or about the Tory Prime Minister who does not think that fraud is a real crime—[Interruption.]
May we please have a bit more decorum? We listened to the question in silence, so let us listen to the answer, by and large, in silence.
It might be that there is embarrassment because, where there is an example of the Conservatives having control in government, their record on policing is lamentable, whether we are talking about police numbers, police pay or even the Conservatives’ attitude to crime; their Prime Minister says that fraud is not really a crime and should not count as part of the figures. It is embarrassment that led to the member’s question. He should ask the police, and he should allow the police to do their job.
Will the cabinet secretary say how many schools in Scotland have a campus police officer?
That is a matter for the police, as I said to the previous member, and such information is not held centrally by the Scottish Government. The funding and use of campus officers, who can make a fantastic difference in schools, is a decision for Police Scotland and the local authority.
Will the cabinet secretary advise members of the increase in police numbers since 2007 and how that compares with south of the border, where Mr Kerr’s party has been in office for 12 years?
For goodness’ sake!
Again, I fear that there is some unwillingness to hear the answer.
The answer is that Scotland has a higher number of officers—[Interruption.] Scotland has a higher number of officers than was the case at any time under the previous Administration. In England and Wales, officer numbers had fallen by almost 20,000 by 2017 and remain more than 4,000 lower than they were in 2007—that is the Tories for you.
Questions 6 and 7 have been withdrawn.
Courts (Backlog of Cases)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the most recent Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service court backlog figures. (S6O-00869)
I meet the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service regularly to discuss its monthly and quarterly official statistics on criminal case activity in Scotland and how we can continue to tackle the backlog that has built up as a consequence of the pandemic. The statistics reaffirm that the pandemic has had a significant impact on our justice sector, just as it has on every other sector in Scotland. The important point is that we have a plan and strategy in place—including an extra £53.2 million for a justice recovery fund in 2022-23—to move matters forward, recognising that unnecessary delays are not in the best interests of victims, witnesses or the accused.
Stats that were released last month show that there was a backlog of 43,606 trials in Scotland—the highest on record. David Fraser of the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service told the Criminal Justice Committee that that backlog could take until 2026 to clear. That means that victims of crime are waiting years for the opportunity to seek justice.
I absolutely understand the pressure that the courts have been under as a result of the pandemic, but the stats show that the situation is now spiralling out of control. We have heard from Keith Brown how the Government intends to tackle the backlog. While it does that, what specific measures are being put in place to support victims of crime while they endure an unprecedented wait for a trial as a result of the Government’s inability to get a grip of the situation?
Given the seriousness of the situation that has just been outlined, I would think that the United Kingdom Government would recognise it in the grant settlement for the Scottish Government, but no, it says that Covid is over. We know, and the member’s question suggests that she knows, that Covid is not over.
We have allocated £53.2 million to tackling the backlog. That includes measures such as providing 16 additional courts. We are taking the necessary measures but, unlike the Tories, we know that, especially in relation to health and justice, the pandemic and its effects are not over. We are tackling the situation.
I have mentioned before in the chamber the additional funding that we have provided to victims organisations to help victims and I am happy to provide more information to Rachael Hamilton on it. It is a shame that the only people who do not seem to recognise how bad the situation is—of course, it is substantially worse in England and Wales—are the Tory Government to which she is allied.
What funding has been made available to tackle the court backlog?
I mentioned the £50 million that was made available last year and the £53 million that was made available this year. That included setting up 16 additional solemn and summary courts from September. We have also established the justice recovery fund of £53.2 million for the next financial year. That is being provided to help to recover, renew and transform activity across the justice system as we emerge from the pandemic.
I will correct a point that was made previously. Of course there are delays that the courts service has told us could take up to 2026 to resolve, but that does not mean that cases that are currently being called will wait till that time. It means that the pandemic has an effect that will continue through to 2025 and, in some cases, 2026. It is only a shame that the UK Government did not recognise that in the grant settlement.
Will the cabinet secretary explain why Scotland has the highest proportion of prisoners and people on remand in western Europe?
Katy Clark, her party and other parties in the Parliament have acknowledged the extent to which the pandemic has led to substantially increased numbers of people being on remand. However, the point that lies behind her question is that Scotland has had more people on remand in the past and more people in prison in the past.
I refer Ms Clark to the recently produced justice vision, which seeks to address that, and the forthcoming legislation that will seek to address the point that she rightly made about the numbers of people on remand. The Liberal Democrats have made that point as well, as have others in the chamber, and we seek to address it. I hope that Ms Clark and her party will be able to support those measures, because we have to drive down the numbers of people on remand and in prison.
That concludes justice portfolio questions.
Finance and the Economy
The next portfolio is finance and the economy. I remind members who wish to ask a supplementary question—I know that a number of colleagues do—to press their request-to-speak buttons or place an R in the chat function. To get through the questions and supplementaries, it would be helpful if the questions and responses would be as brief as possible.
Low-carbon Economy (Workforce)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that Scotland’s economy has a workforce ready to make the most of opportunities that the transition to net zero and the wider low-carbon economy can offer. (S6O-00870)
The Scottish Government is undertaking significant action through the climate emergency skills action plan to equip individuals with the skills and training to meet the needs of a net zero economy. In August 2021, we launched the green jobs workforce academy to support the retraining and upskilling that is needed for the transition to net zero, and we have provided nearly £900,000 through our national transition training fund for energy efficiency retrofit skills. We will also establish a green jobs and skills hub that will cascade into the skills system intelligence on the numbers and types of green jobs that will be needed over the next 25 years.
To hit its targets on heating homes, the Government will have to install 1 million domestic heat pumps and 50,000 business heat pumps between 2025 and 2030. How is the Scottish Government ensuring that Scotland has enough trained engineers to hit those targets, and how will the estimated cost of £33 billion be met?
As I outlined in my previous answer, there are four significant pathways under way to upskill workers in Scotland to provide the green jobs that we need. Our green jobs fund is a five-year £100 million capital fund that will support businesses and their supply chains to help them to transition better to a low-carbon economy. So far, more than 50 projects have been approved for funding. That amounts to £12.3 million of funding, which will create and safeguard 850 full-time jobs. Such schemes will be working towards providing the workforce that is necessary to upgrade Scotland’s homes and buildings.
The reality is something different. The Government has known for years that the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind farm was coming, but only eight of the 54 jackets are being built here, and the majority of the workers on those jackets are not even from Scotland. Why was the Government not ready? Why on earth did it not train enough workers to build the jackets?
Having worked in the offshore industry, I know the challenges of getting skilled workers, and getting them in the right place at the right time to deliver advanced manufacturing projects. We will work towards improving the situation with the national transition training fund. In one year, the fund has already succeeded in helping people by providing support for more than 9,000 individuals. The systems that we are putting in place now will ensure that we have skilled workers in the future.
Rona Mackay joins us remotely.
Covid Economic Recovery Fund (East Dunbartonshire Council)
To ask the Scottish Government how much of, and through what application process, the Covid economic recovery fund will be allocated to East Dunbartonshire Council. (S6O-00871)
Tom Arthur joins us remotely.
As part of our £80 million Covid economic recovery fund, East Dunbartonshire Council will receive £1.63 million, which will be transferred as a general revenue grant in the last two weeks of March. The fund is intended for interventions that work towards local economic recovery and for targeted support for low-income and vulnerable households. Councils, including East Dunbartonshire, will have full discretion over how to target that support to maximise economic recovery in their areas and consider the needs of local businesses, communities and households.
Last month, it was announced that the Tory-Lib Dem coalition at East Dunbartonshire Council was the only council in Scotland that applied late for funding to support older and disabled residents to meet the cost of new fire alarms. Can the minister confirm that guidance will be produced on use of the Covid economic recovery fund, to ensure that it is used to help with Covid recovery?
I reassure Rona Mackay that funding will be transferred to local authorities as a general revenue grant, and that it is for councils to decide how to use the funding to help with local economic recovery from the pandemic.
However, our officials have worked with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to agree a set of guiding principles for use of the fund, which will ensure that it supports businesses, communities and low-income households. East Dunbartonshire will have full discretion over how to target that support to maximise economic recovery and meet local needs. The fund’s flexibility ensures that councils can provide support where they know that the need is greatest. That has been welcomed by COSLA.
I welcome the allocation of Covid recovery funds to East Dunbartonshire Council. However, the Accounts Commission reports that councils have, when Covid funding is excluded, experienced 4.2 per cent real-terms cuts between 2013-14 and 2020-21. The long-term funding position for councils remains uncertain. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that, when Covid funding ends, local government can meet increasing demand from service users?
We have had to set our budget in this financial year in the context of what the Scottish Fiscal Commission has correctly identified as a 5.2 per cent real-terms cut to our budget from the United Kingdom Government. In that context, we have still provided a real-terms increase for local government, and we will continue to ensure that local government receives a fair settlement, as part of the budget process.
The next two questions are grouped.
Cost of Living Consequentials
To ask the Scottish Government what the impact will be on the Scottish budget, in light of reports that United Kingdom Government funding consequentials relating to the cost of living may not be provided in addition to provisional allocations. (S6O-00872)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that we would receive £296 million of consequentials in relation to the cost of living crisis. Following confirmation of the final 2021-22 UK supplementary estimate figures, we were informed that that was being funded out of a reduction in the previously expected uplift in health expenditure. Clearly, the net effect of that will be that we will have less money overall than we were expecting, following the announcement of the measures to support the cost of living.
Once again, the UK Government has made a great fanfare of announcing additional consequential funding for Scotland, then has quietly conceded later that there will not be any additional money, after all. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about the considerable difficulty that that creates for the Scottish Government in managing a fixed budget? Does she agree that that is an utterly irresponsible way to manage public finances?
Jackie Dunbar has talked about the impact on the Scottish Government; she should also talk about the impact on the Scottish Parliament. As members will be aware, the funding position moved on an almost daily basis in January, with figures not being formally confirmed until supplementary estimates were published on 22 February—just over five weeks from the end of the financial year. During that time, I quite rightly updated the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the financial position so that Parliament could have all the facts and figures to scrutinise that, only for that position to become out of date due to the on-going volatility.
The issue should be of concern to Parliament as much as it is of concern to the Government, because it significantly undermines our ability to plan ahead.
Cost of Living Consequentials
To ask the Scottish Government whether it has received an additional £290 million from the United Kingdom Government to support households facing financial difficulties as a result of the reported cost of living crisis. (S6O-00875)
I will keep this answer brief. As I said in my previous answer, we have received the net amount, which is less than we would have received had the £296 million had been additional.
I thank the cabinet secretary for repeating the answer.
I know that the cabinet secretary and her ministers meet Westminster ministers and officials regularly. Does the cabinet secretary think that Westminster is taking on board our concern that it should, when it makes an announcement, tell us whether or not it is new money?
I will again meet my counterpart, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on Monday. As I always do, I look forward to that meeting. This is a persistent and pervasive problem that we have raised with the Treasury on numerous occasions in the past. Treasury officials do their best to provide us with estimates, but there is an inherent volatility in the figures until they are formally confirmed.
The difficulty comes, of course, when funding is announced by the UK Government. There are then immediate calls, from across Opposition parties in this chamber in particular, for us to spend it immediately. Although I recognise the importance of getting money out the door quickly, we have to ensure that the funding is actually additional and new, and that there is more money in the bank to pay out, which is a core part of our prudent management of Scotland’s finances.
The UK Government’s failure to follow through on its promise of additional funding and the mitigations that were then provided by the Scottish Government highlight the Scottish Government’s commitment to providing the additional support that people need.
However, we know that that will go only so far, so does the cabinet secretary agree that this Tory cost of living crisis is hugely concerning and that the position of our political Opposition—which is either to tell Scotland to eat its cereal or to ask for increases in spending without stating where there should be cuts—is simply not sustainable and that, in fact, the only rational decision is for Scotland to be a normal independent country? [Interruption.]
The member is right to point to the fact that other normal independent Governments are able to respond without one arm being tied behind their back. [Interruption.] If we look at what is driving the cost of living crisis in terms of inflation, energy prices and so on, we see that those are all reserved powers, over which we have minimal control.
Where we can go further, we have gone further—for example, by doubling the Scottish child payment. However, we can only ever do that within a fixed budget that has, under the UK Government, been subjected to a decade of austerity.
Thank you. I encourage members not to shout their own questions and answers across the chamber while the cabinet secretary is speaking—members on both sides of the chamber, Ms Grahame.
With that, I call question 4, from Christine Grahame.
VAT on Fuel
Accused, but not guilty I plead.
To ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the United Kingdom Government regarding reducing VAT on fuel to help mitigate increases in the cost of living for households in Scotland. (S6O-00873)
You were pointing when the music stopped, Ms Grahame.
I call the cabinet secretary.
We are acutely aware of the very serious cost of living pressures that are affecting so many in Scotland and beyond. My Cabinet colleague Mr Matheson wrote to the UK Government on 10 January asking for a reduction in VAT on household energy bills to provide some form of short-term relief, but to no avail. Since then, the horrific events in Ukraine and Russia’s unprovoked aggression have caused fuel prices to rise exponentially and have added to the pressures facing households. Although VAT policy control is reserved to the UK Government, we will do whatever we can to urge that all policy levers are considered and, as I have said, I have another meeting with the chief secretary on Monday to press that case.
I have a suggestion for the cabinet secretary to take to that meeting. Without disclosing my workings—I will not give members the headache that I gave myself—I have calculated that if we take fuel costs at £1.63 per litre at the pump, a 50-litre tank costs nearly £82. Of that, nearly £29 is fuel duty, with a further £13 or so in VAT, which is levied on the raw cost plus the fuel duty, doubling the pump price. That is £42 in tax that goes straight to the Treasury.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the elephant in the room is fuel duty and that, in these extreme times, it would not be a bad idea for the Treasury to waive fuel duty for a period? That would save our public services—the national health service, the police and so on—from inflationary fuel costs, it would reduce transport costs, which are inflating fuel prices, and it would reduce our increasing energy bills, both commercial and domestic.
I praise Christine Grahame’s mental arithmetic in the chamber this afternoon. I agree that fuel duty significantly contributes to the cost of fuel.
The impact of the cost of living crisis is profound—on households, on businesses and on public services, as Christine Grahame referenced. We need to do all that we can at this moment in time to ease the burden that is being faced by citizens, businesses and public services alike. We absolutely need the UK Government, which is fully responsible for all aspects of energy policy, regulation and taxation, to do what it can, and we certainly need it to do more than it has announced to date.
There is a brief supplementary from Stuart McMillan.
What discussions has the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government had with the UK Government about standardising fuel pump prices so that consumers are not faced with a postcode lottery? Currently, prices differ across the country.
The member raises a really relevant issue. Those of us who represent rural areas of Scotland in particular can see the disproportionate impact on some parts of the country.
I have assured Stuart McMillan’s colleagues and I assure him that I will pursue all avenues to ease the burden on households across Scotland. I will bear that suggestion in mind when I speak to the UK Government next week, because all the levers relating to fuel and energy are reserved.
Question 5 is from Pauline McNeill, who joins us remotely.
Support for Businesses (Glasgow)
To ask the Scottish Government what financial support it provides to Glasgow businesses that have been impacted by a loss of earnings as a result of street closures due to a variety of recent projects. (S6O-00874)
Pauline McNeill has asked an important question. Financial support for businesses that are experiencing a loss of earnings as a result of road closures is a matter for the local authority to consider, because it provides the licences for such projects. I imagine that she will be more specific in her follow-up question, and perhaps I can give a more specific answer.
Roads in Glasgow city centre were closed early this year ahead of the filming of the new “Batgirl” movie. That filming is said to have decimated trade for many businesses, which, as the cabinet secretary will be aware, struggled after lockdown and the quite severe restrictions that were in place over Christmas. One owner of a bar and restaurant said that they had lost up to £10,000-worth of business. Another business—a clothing shop—closed for a week as a result of the low footfall because of the road closures. Those businesses were offered £30 a day from Warner Bros.
The city council offered an incentive to the production company of £150,000. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is wrong to offer financial incentives to production companies without making that conditional on ensuring that businesses are adequately compensated for losses in trade? Surely that will be a very important principle as we try to recover from the pandemic, in order to ensure that those businesses have a chance to recover.
I am very conscious of the impact on businesses, particularly those that Pauline McNeill referenced, on top of everything else that they are contending with post-Covid and given the cost of living.
I am conscious that Glasgow City Council has commented on the matter. I would expect both the council and the production companies to listen carefully to businesses, to engage with them and to determine what more could be done to support them.
There are two mechanisms from which support might be forthcoming to help all businesses that have been affected. Those are the Covid recovery fund, which has been provided to local authorities, and the Glasgow city centre recovery fund, which the council will receive as part of the £6 million that I announced a fortnight ago.
Glasgow’s taxi drivers have also been brutally impacted by lost earnings. The industry is on its knees, with warnings of a cab blackout in Glasgow. Cabbies are now facing further uncertainty with the proposed introduction of the low-emission zones in 2023. Can the Scottish Government reiterate what action it is taking to ensure that essential support is available for Glasgow’s cab drivers?
I fully agree with the member about the impact on taxi drivers throughout the pandemic, as I know that they often feel the brunt of any closure of or impacts on hospitality. We have delivered a third grant to taxi drivers, over and above the previous two grants. I have always been clear that no amount of grant funding compensates for loss of earnings, but it does provide an element of support. Local authorities have been paying that grant, and it would be my sincere hope that all eligible taxi drivers have now received it.
I will take a further supplementary from Rona Mackay, but it needs to be brief, as does the response.
Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to help drive up footfall in our towns and city centres?
The member’s question goes right to the heart of the issue: we need more people in our city centres. We have announced two schemes. The first is the £6 million city centre recovery fund. The second is the £80 million economic recovery fund. It is entirely up to local authorities to spend that money in order to drive up footfall and support local businesses.
Cost of Living Payment (Eligibility)
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the number of low-income households that will not be eligible for the £150 payment to help tackle the rising cost of living. (S6O-00876)
The £150 payment is not the only way that we are helping to tackle the rising cost of living, not least given that we have passed a budget that doubled the Scottish child payment.
As I said during the debate on the budget, using the council tax system is the quickest and simplest way to reach those for whom the payment will make a difference, and 73 per cent of all households in Scotland will receive it. Importantly, every household that is in receipt of council tax reduction—this is one way of capturing those who are most in need—will also receive the payment.
A new study from Energy Action Scotland has revealed that as many as 211,000 additional people in Scotland—a 43 per cent rise from 2019—are set to fall victim to fuel poverty this year. Almost all of them are in households that already have low incomes. Is it correct that the system that is proposed by the Scottish Government, which distributes the payment via council tax banding, will spread support too thinly, and that low-income households, who, proportionately, will suffer more as a result, will not receive the targeted support that they need?
The member is right to identify those figures and it is hugely concerning that the rise in the energy cap will plunge more people, who are already classified as fuel poor, into extreme fuel poverty, and those who are not in fuel poverty into fuel poverty.
We have also provided £10 million for those who are at greatest risk of self-disconnection or who are rationing their energy usage more. I remind the member that that support sits alongside the low-income pandemic payment, the Scottish child payment, the bridging payments, continued funding to mitigate the impact of the United Kingdom bedroom tax, the winter support fund and increased support in the Scottish welfare fund, as well as support for debt and welfare advice services across the country. All that is designed to help those who are really struggling right now, and none of those policies should be considered in isolation from the overall package.
The £150 will be a great help to many households, but does the cabinet secretary agree that it would be more helpful to low-income households if the UK Government restored the universal credit increase and cancelled its national insurance contribution increase?
I could not agree more. Ultimately, not only should we provide additional financial help to households in the form that we have set out already, but we should ensure that it is targeted, and one way of more effectively targeting it would be to do so through universal credit. As a result of the UK Government’s failure to do that and in the absence of that option, the Scottish Government has stepped up and is providing additional support from our own budget.
The next question is from Alexander Burnett, who joins us remotely.
Small Businesses Rates Relief
I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of removing rates relief on small businesses after the first quarter of 2022-23. (S6O-00877)
Tom Arthur joins us remotely.
Many thousands of small businesses will continue to benefit from the United Kingdom’s most generous small business bonus scheme, which the Federation of Small Businesses has called “a lifeline” and which takes more than 111,000 properties out of rates altogether.
We are extending retail, hospitality and leisure relief by offering 50 per cent relief for the first three months of 2022-23, which is capped at £27,500 per ratepayer. That follows two years of 100 per cent rates relief, which offered certainty when businesses needed it most. RHL businesses in England started paying rates in July 2021, while their equivalents in Scotland currently do not pay a penny.
The Fraser of Allander Institute was very critical about the information that is held on businesses and said that it was not fit for the purposes of giving support or evaluating results. During Covid, we heard from businesses that have been disadvantaged, due to differences between local authorities. North-east businesses face crippling rates that are significantly higher than those in the central belt.
Can the minister confirm what steps he is taking to ensure that future guidelines on data collection and management, and eligibility criteria, are consistent across local authorities and assessors?
I thank Mr Burnett for that question, and I welcome the thorough report from the Fraser of Allander Institute.
The small business bonus scheme has been a tremendous success and has been welcomed by businesses the length and breadth of Scotland over the past decade and a half. It is important to recognise that the report does not say that the small business bonus scheme did not have any effect, although it does identify data limitations. We are considering and reflecting on that closely, and I will be happy to update Mr Burnett and Parliament in due course.
It is welcome that the Scottish budget maintains the UK’s most generous small business bonus scheme. Can the minister provide an update on the number of properties that the scheme expects to take out of rates altogether?
Over the past 14 years, Scotland’s business community has had to weather a global financial crisis, a decade of UK Government austerity, Brexit, a global pandemic and spiralling energy costs. During that time, we are proud to have supported more than 111,000 small businesses with rates relief of up to 100 per cent, which has saved them thousands of pounds per year. The small business bonus scheme has saved ratepayers more than £2.5 billion since 2008.
That concludes portfolio question time. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business.