Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-03150)
Given that today, yet again, parts of the country face severe weather and a renewed risk of flooding, it is appropriate to thank all those in our emergency services—not exclusively but particularly the police and fire services—as well as the utility companies, transport operators, local authorities and individuals and businesses in local communities who are all working hard to respond. I and other ministers will be updated on the weather impacts throughout the day and we will work to ensure that all appropriate actions are taken.
Later today, I will also have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
I send my best wishes to those who are affected by the floods and thank all the emergency services for their tireless work to protect people and keep them safe.
In her new year message, the First Minister said that 2016 would be the year of ambition. I could not agree more. That is why I kicked off this election year by setting out a plan to help young people to realise their ambitions and aspirations. For many young Scots, owning their home is a key ambition, but for thousands of people of my generation, it is just a pipe dream. Thousands are stuck in a cycle from which there is little escape: they rent to save a deposit for a first home, but rents are so high that they simply cannot put enough money aside, which means that they end up paying high rents for years with no realistic prospect of buying.
Can the First Minister tell us what proportion of young people in Scotland today live in the private rented sector?
A significant proportion of young people—indeed, of people across all age groups—rely on the private rented sector for their housing needs. That is why one of the focuses of this Government, through a variety of measures and legislation, has been on ensuring that we have a high-quality and affordable private rented sector. I know very well from experience in my constituency that the quality of the private rented sector is just as important as its affordability. Kezia Dugdale will be aware of the Government’s plans to introduce new measures relating to rent controls in rent-pressured areas, which is vital if we are to ensure affordability. I hope that we can work together on those issues across the chamber.
Young people’s aspiration of home ownership is something that I, like every member across the chamber, understand and want to support. That is why, from the moment that we were elected, the Government has focused on trying to help people into home ownership. Since we were elected, we have helped 20,000 people into home ownership through our shared equity schemes and the help-to-buy scheme, and three quarters of the people whom we have helped are under the age of 35. Secondly and, arguably, more important, the Government is focusing on increasing housing supply. I am proud that we have exceeded our target of building 30,000 new affordable homes in the current Parliament, and we are now looking to our ambition of building 50,000 new affordable homes across the next session of Parliament.
I welcome the sincerity of much of that response, but it was not an answer to the question that I asked. In among all of that, the First Minister failed to face up to the reality of life for many people of my generation. In 1999, just 13 per cent of people aged between 16 and 34 lived in private rented accommodation; today, the figure is 41 per cent. That is a threefold increase, meaning that thousands of young people in Scotland are paying high rents to private landlords rather than owning their homes. This is generation rent.
What the First Minister’s generation almost took for granted is now too often out of reach for people of my generation. When Nicola Sturgeon was first elected to the Parliament, almost half of those aged 16 to 34 owned their home. Can the First Minister tell us what the figure is today, under the Scottish National Party Government?
I tried to respond to Kezia Dugdale’s first question by being serious about the scale of the challenge that is faced. More people across all age groups are now living in the private rented sector, and some people—I am not for a second suggesting that it is everybody or even a majority—make a positive choice to rent rather than buy a house. That is why we should also focus on ensuring that people have quality options.
The housing crisis is part of the overall financial and economic crisis that we have all lived through over recent years—[Interruption.]
Order. There is too much chuntering.
That has posed real challenges for home ownership but, in recent times, there have been increases in the number of first-time buyers. I think that there has been a 4 per cent increase over the past quarter and a higher, more significant increase over the past year. That, again, is going in the right direction.
The Government has made a deliberate choice to focus on what it considers to be the things that really matter in housing. First, we are making sure that the right number of houses is being provided. That is why the 30,000 homes target for this session of Parliament has been so important and why the 50,000 homes target for the next session is so important. I have to say that I have not heard Labour make any commitment to housing supply in the next session of Parliament. Secondly, we are focusing on ensuring that whatever tenure of housing people have, they have access to high-quality houses. My Government will remain focused on that.
I notice that Iain Gray is sitting next to Kezia Dugdale. It was, of course, he who said in an admirable moment of honesty for the Labour Party that the problem for the last Labour Administration was that it passed world-leading housing legislation but just forgot to build the houses to make it possible to implement it.
We moved from consensus to mudslinging in one question there. Once again—[Interruption.]
Order.
Once again, there was no answer to the question—[Interruption.]
Order.
There was no answer to the question that I asked, so I will give the First Minister the answer. In 1999, 48 per cent of Scots under 35 owned their own home. That figure stands at just 28 per cent today. Is it really the scale of the Government’s ambition for just over a quarter of young Scots to have the security that comes from owning their own home? [Interruption.]
Order.
Today, it takes a young couple who are both on an average wage 10 years to save enough for a typical deposit to buy their first home. Therefore, Labour would help young people to get their first deposit by adding to their savings. We would encourage people to put money away if they could and, in return, would help them to get on the property ladder.
We know that the First Minister cannot bring herself to back that plan, but we also know that her proposals do not address the scale of the challenge, so what will she do to help people in Scotland to buy their first home?
I have outlined a number of things and will come back to the Government’s plans. However, Kezia Dugdale is right to mention the fact that there has been a challenge with getting people into home ownership. There has been a recession and a financial crisis that have contributed to a housing crisis. That is why the numbers that she cites are as they are. However, she chooses to ignore the fact that, in the past quarter, we have seen an increase in the number of first-time buyers and that, over the past year, there has been an increase of 16 per cent in first-time buyers.
That—helping more people into home ownership—is what I want to focus on. That is why we have our open market shared equity scheme, which, incidentally, gives first-time buyers much more help when it comes to buying a house than the proposal that Labour has made would do. It helps people by giving them up to, I think, 40 per cent of the cost of buying a house. We will continue to focus on schemes such as that to help people with the aspiration to own their own home, but we will also address housing supply. I notice that so far Kezia Dugdale has chosen to dodge around supply in our discussion, so I hope that she will address it in her final question to me. It is at the root of many of the issues that we are talking about.
I quoted Iain Gray earlier; let me give Kezia Dugdale another view from someone who is, perhaps, more current and topical in the Labour Party than even Iain Gray—the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell. I do not know whether she is one of the people in Labour who supports him, but we will leave that to one side for today. He said:
“We”—
as in Labour—
“inherited a housing crisis from the Tories which we then exacerbated by not building”
houses.
That is the issue, and that is why, in this session of Parliament, we have already exceeded our target of 30,000 new affordable homes and why we are determined that, if we are re-elected in May, we will build 50,000 new affordable homes. Labour has made no commitment on supply whatsoever. Perhaps that is because, as we know, in the election, Labour is not aspiring to be the Government but fighting to hold on to second place.
The First Minister cannot escape the reality that home ownership among the young is at its lowest level since the Scottish Parliament was delivered in 1999. Young people in Scotland are getting a raw deal from the SNP Government: they are bearing the brunt of an austerity agenda that the First Minister is content to manage rather than to change. Young Scots are less likely to own their own home and more likely to be stuck in private rented accommodation, their hard-earned cash boosting the profits of private landlords rather than investing in their own future. We want to spend the money helping young people to buy their first home, but Nicola Sturgeon would rather spend the money on giving airlines a tax cut. [Interruption.]
Order.
Is it not the case that the First Minister is on the side of the big airlines, while Scottish Labour is on the side of young families who are just trying to get on in life?
Of course, Presiding Officer, that is not the first or even the second use, but is the third use of air passenger duty money by the Labour Party. Let me remind Kezia Dugdale, yet again, of her own words from 30 October 2015, when she said that Labour would “scrap the APD measure” and spend that money “for education”. So, first it was education, then it became tax credits and now it is housing. That is not the behaviour of a credible Opposition, let alone a credible alternative Government.
Let us get back to the important issue for people across the country, which is housing. I talked about our support over the years for shared equity and the help-to-buy scheme. Let me remind Kezia Dugdale of something else that we have done to help people, particularly first-time buyers: we have removed stamp duty, now land and buildings transaction tax, on all property transactions under £145,000, which helps people to buy starter homes. We will continue to help first-time buyers, but we will do so in a sensible way, rather than in a way that does not give them any help until they have saved for three years and just pushes up house prices.
We will also continue to ensure that we see rising quality and greater affordability in private rented housing. To go back to the point that Kezia Dugdale—after four questions—has still not addressed, we will focus on building more houses. It is by building more houses that the cost of houses comes down, allowing more people to get them. That is what we will do. We have been successful over this session and we will be even more so in the next one.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-03146)
I have no current plans.
I associate myself with the First Minister’s comments on emergency and local authority workers. The flooding that we have seen across Britain in the last few weeks has been devastating for thousands of families, and we know that it is continuing to affect people across Scotland. We need to know how those people are going to be supported.
On 29 December, the UK Government announced an extra £50 million in immediate support for homes and businesses that are affected by flooding. Of that money, £5 million was handed to the Scottish Government and it is entirely up to the Scottish Government how it is spent. However, as my colleague, Alex Fergusson, said in the chamber on Tuesday, he is still receiving phone calls from people in Newton Stewart who are wondering why people in Cumbria are already receiving support when they are not. I know that other members will be receiving similar calls.
Ministers have had this new money for nearly a fortnight. Why are they dragging their feet?
Ruth Davidson is right to raise an important issue. However, she is unfair in her characterisation. She will recall—as will members across the chamber—that when the Deputy First Minister announced the budget just before we broke for the Christmas recess, he allocated £4 million to the local authority areas that had been most affected by the flooding that had been caused by storm Desmond in early December in order to help local authorities to support flood-hit households and businesses. That money is to provide flat-rate grants of £1,500 to individuals, businesses or community groups that have been directly affected by flooding.
Last week, when I was visiting the communities in Newton Stewart and John Swinney was visiting Ballater, he said that we will shortly make another announcement about an additional allocation to deal specifically with the impact of storm Frank and its aftermath. John Swinney is taking care to discuss with local authorities what the appropriate amount for that allocation will be. That is the action that we are taking, which I think is right and proper, and is focused on helping people who have been so hard hit.
Of course, in addition to that, we have activated the Bellwin scheme, which gives local authorities the ability to apply for help to deal with the immediate impact of flooding, and we continue to invest—as people expect us to do—to ensure that local authorities can put in place appropriate flood protection and flood defence schemes.
We will continue to remain focused. I hope that, as we do so, we have the support of members across the chamber.
I thank the First Minister for that answer, but the £4 million that she talked about is a previous allocation that has nothing to do with the subsequent £5 million that I asked about. People who are currently affected want to know how the Government is going to spend that £5 million and how that will help them. I await further details on that.
The First Minister says that she is getting on with addressing the issues and that she is matching support from across the UK, but just this week we have heard local authorities say that they are “bemused” by claims that future flood defences are being fully funded. Farmers and crofters who are bearing the brunt of the floods are still waiting for the support payments that they were promised months ago because of what the National Farmers Union Scotland calls the Scottish National Party Government’s “lumbered approach”, and we know that people are beginning to ask why firms and families here cannot get the support that firms and families elsewhere in the UK are getting.
I will give one other example. Before Christmas, the UK Government set up an emergency recovery fund in flood-affected regions that was designed to help to restore soils, to rebuild tracks and to repair flood channels. Scottish farmers are now asking the Scottish Government to mirror that scheme north of the border. Will the First Minister do so?
We will take, as we have done, all appropriate action to help people who are affected by flooding. Ruth Davidson says that we have not yet announced the additional allocation, and she is right—we have been very open about that. The reason for that is simple and understandable: we are still dealing with an on-going situation. I very much hope that it is not the case that we will see communities being affected by flooding again today, but it is entirely possible that we will.
Therefore, we need to ensure that we take time to assess the full impact so that we know what the appropriate allocation of funding will be. We might need to allocate more than £5 million to address the impacts that people are facing. Just as we did in response to storm Desmond, we will take the appropriate action in response to storm Frank, the flooding that hit in the days after it, and the flooding that we may well see in parts of the country today.
On Ruth Davidson’s comment about flood protection and flood defences, we have funded all eligible schemes that have met the criteria for flood defence systems. As a result of the 14 flood-risk management strategies that are in place across Scotland, there are schemes planned over the remainder of this decade that are worth more than £200 million. Through the commitment that we have given to local government to guarantee the provision of 26 per cent of our capital budget right through to 2020, we have provided the financial certainty that those schemes can be funded.
That is the action that we are taking. It is responsible and right, and it will be proportionate to the scale of the impacts that people are dealing with. I and the ministers in my Government who have one or more responsibilities in this area remain absolutely focused on doing everything we can and everything that we need to do to help individuals, businesses and communities who have been so hard hit in recent weeks.
Pay Inequality and In-work Poverty
To ask the First Minister what impact the introduction of an upper band of the minimum wage for workers over 25 will have on pay inequality and in-work poverty in Scotland. (S4F-03144)
A higher wage level for over-25s will clearly be of benefit to some low-paid workers, but we have concerns about the United Kingdom Government’s approach to pay, because it is not—as this week’s Resolution Foundation report makes clear—a real living wage. The rise does not support young people under 25, who are one of the groups most affected by the recession, and the introduction of the new rate will not compensate workers for the annual £12 billion of reductions to welfare, given that it will be introduced alongside a withdrawal of support through universal credit and proposed tax credit cuts for families with more than two children.
We want to encourage employers to develop fair work policies that can promote equality and tackle poverty. The real living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living, and that is what the Scottish Government will continue to focus its efforts on.
I agree with much of that assessment. Combined with welfare changes, the measure will not abolish in-work poverty and, by leaving younger workers further behind, it risks deepening their exploitation by the most unscrupulous employers. The First Minister knows that the Greens welcome the fair work agenda, and we think that it can be bolder. So far, it has emphasised support for those employers who are willing rather than a more robust approach to the employers who are less willing.
Is it not now time for the First Minister to consider ensuring that taxpayer-funded business support services will be available only to those employers who treat the upper band of the minimum wage for over-25s as the minimum for workers of all ages, in order to ensure that we do not just have an all-carrot-and-no-stick approach, which may work for some employers but not for the worst?
Patrick Harvie had an exchange with John Swinney during the debate on that very issue the other day. I absolutely appreciate where Patrick Harvie is coming from on the matter. I want our fair work agenda to be real and meaningful, and it is that. We are, I think, the only Government in the UK that has a Cabinet-level minister who is dedicated to promoting fair work.
What we have tried to do, through both the living wage accreditation scheme and the fair work convention, is to say to businesses that they should be employing fair work practices not as some kind of favour to Government or as something that they feel they have to do but as something that is beneficial to them and the prosperity of their businesses and to their employees. That is the ethos that we are trying to encourage, and it is bearing success.
We are now the part of the UK outside the south-east of England with the highest percentage of people who are paid the real living wage. We have seen the number of accredited living wage employers rise considerably, and we are also seeing a growing number of companies signing up to the business pledge. We will continue to focus on all that work, but of course we will continue to consider, and to discuss with others who have an interest in the matter, how we can accelerate progress. I look forward, in the remainder of the current session of Parliament and in the next session, to discussing these issues and to hearing the ideas and suggestions of Patrick Harvie and his colleagues.
The First Minister will be aware that support for industries such as retail, hospitality and the care sector to pay the real living wage will reap significant benefits for those employees, many of whom are under 25. What action is the Scottish Government taking to target those sectors specifically to pay the real living wage?
Jackie Baillie is right about that. There are a small number of sectors that employ large numbers of people in which we need to make most progress if we are going to lift the overall number of those who are paid a living wage. Relatively recently, we had a living wage summit—which Roseanna Cunningham and I both attended—that was very much focused on the retail and care sectors. As I said in the debate on Tuesday, we will bring forward in the next few months more proposals of our own on how we can extend payment of the living wage further.
There is no doubt in my mind that, if we get more and more people on to the living wage, we will help to raise the quality of work, which is why it is so much in the interests of businesses and employers, and go a great way towards helping to deal with the inequality and poverty challenges that we face. I hope that this is an area that, notwithstanding whatever disagreements we might have, we can find areas on which to agree.
This week’s research by the Resolution Foundation states that 500,000 low-paid workers in Scotland will benefit from the new national living wage by 2020. The Resolution Foundation has said:
“The welcome new national living wage will have a huge impact on low pay”.
Instead of being so carping about the policy, should the First Minister not be more welcoming?
I repeat to Murdo Fraser the first line of my first answer to Patrick Harvie:
“A higher wage level for over-25s will clearly be of benefit to some low-paid workers”.
Nobody quibbles with that, but it does not go far enough. A lot of people outside this Government have put a lot of work in over many years to calculate what the real living wage should be, and it is calculated very deliberately according to the basic cost of living. That is why I think that the real living wage is the figure that we should be aspiring to getting people paid. That is what I will continue to focus on. Anything that takes us in that direction is of course to be welcomed, but I will not limit myself to the paucity of ambition that characterises the Tory party on this issue: I will continue to aim much higher than that.
European Union Membership (Referendum)
To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the proposed referendum on European Union membership. (S4F-03149)
The Scottish Government has proactively engaged with the UK Government at ministerial and official levels to influence the form of the referendum and the UK Government’s agenda for EU renegotiation in order to protect Scotland’s interests. The Prime Minister and I spoke about the issue at our meeting in December. The Scottish Government believes that EU membership is in the best interests of Scotland and we are concerned that the people of Scotland could be taken out of the European Union against our will. We have also sought and will continue to seek engagement in the UK’s renegotiation process, but to date the UK Government has not provided us with sufficient detail or opportunity to meaningfully influence those proposals. However, we will continue to attempt to do so.
How can we trust the Prime Minister on Europe when he cannot even get members of his own Cabinet to agree with him? What can the First Minister and her Government do to ensure that Scotland is not hauled out of the EU against its will?
I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has been forced to allow a free vote among his Cabinet colleagues on the referendum. The Tories have always been split from top to bottom on Europe and so far the referendum, far from healing those splits, only seems to be making them worse.
I am not even sure whether the Scottish Tories have a position on the EU referendum. I think that it is a complete free-for-all among the Scottish Tories—I have no idea how many positions will be represented by members on those benches. However, that is for the Tories to worry about. I am concerned about the prospect of Scotland being taken out of the EU. I take nothing for granted in any vote, but if Scotland voted to stay in the EU and the vote across the UK led to us being taken out, that would be a democratic outrage. That is a cause of real concern.
I will be campaigning to seek to persuade people not just in Scotland but, I hope, across the UK to choose to stay in the EU because, notwithstanding its imperfections, I think that our interests are best served by being in the EU.
Flood Defences (Review)
To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will conduct a review of flood defences in conjunction with local authorities in light of this winter’s flooding incidents. (S4F-03153)
As I have already commented on today, the scale of the flooding that we have seen in recent days has been exceptional and the impact has been devastating for many, many people across the country. The response from our emergency services, volunteers, members of the public, councils and others, who have been working together to keep communities safe and minimise damage and disruption, has been heroic. However, we all know that there is a long road to recovery ahead for some of the people who have been most affected.
A review of flood defences was conducted in 2007. Since 2008, the Scottish Government has made available funding of £42 million a year to enable local authorities to invest in flood protection schemes. As I have just said to Ruth Davidson, we have in place 14 flood risk management strategies and a number of schemes that will be funded over the years to come.
However, it is absolutely right that when we have experienced flooding such as that which we have seen in recent weeks, we consider carefully any lessons that can be learned from what has been an exceptional situation and consider what further mitigating actions we can take for the future. This Government will certainly do that.
If the First Minister is now committing to a review in the light of recent flood incidents, I whole-heartedly welcome that. The response that we have seen in our communities over the past few days has been inspiring, but communities, businesses and local authorities are clearly concerned about the huge costs that they have already incurred in dealing with this public emergency.
To follow up on the First Minister’s answers to Ruth Davidson, I note that the Deputy First Minister has encouraged councils to reduce business rates and council tax bills for those affected. Beyond the potential money from the Bellwin scheme and the £4 million that has already been promised, can the First Minister clarify that the Scottish Government will fully fund all those local tax reductions?
The cost of flooding is estimated by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to be a quarter of a billion pounds every year. Can we review and have a fresh look at the resilience of our infrastructure, homes, businesses and farming communities? Given the financial pressures on local authorities, not all communities that are at risk of flooding will receive flood defences over the next five years.
As I have said, of course we must ensure that we learn any lessons that need to be learned—it would be completely wrong to take any other approach. However, significant work has been done to get us to the position of having in place 14 flood risk management strategies. I do not want us to involve ourselves in another long-running review when there is planned, detailed work that we need to get on with. For example, at Newton Stewart, which I visited last week, a scheme is planned as part of the Solway flood risk management strategy, and we need to get on with that. Let us focus on that rather than looking again at the issue and having a wide-ranging review.
On the financial support, as I have said during this question session, we will take a decision soon about a further financial allocation to help councils with rates relief, for example, as well as direct financial support to individuals and businesses that have been impacted. As I have said repeatedly, we will take whatever steps we need to take to ensure that we are doing all that is reasonable for us to do to help those who have been so badly hit in recent days.
Free School Meals
To ask the First Minister how many children receive free school meals. (S4F-03152)
Almost exactly a year ago, I went back to my old primary school in Dreghorn to launch the introduction of free school meals for all children in primaries 1 to 3. A year on, the policy is proving to be hugely successful. The latest statistics show that more than 129,000 pupils in P1 to P3 benefit from a free school meal, and more than 192,000 children and young people across primary, secondary and special schools in Scotland took one.
First Minister. Sorry—George Adam.
Thank you for the promotion, Presiding Officer.
I am pleased that the policy is proving to be such a success nationally but disappointed that the take-up in Renfrewshire is lower than the national average. What funding is provided to local authorities to enable more children to benefit from free school meals? What more can local authorities, such as Labour-controlled Renfrewshire Council, do to promote further take-up?
I am sure that your time will come, Mr Adam.
Presiding Officer, I suspect that you may just have sparked celebrations in Paisley at the news that its boy in Parliament has been promoted to the office of First Minister today.
The Government has fully funded the roll-out of free school meals for P1 to P3 children, with £95.3 million of revenue and capital allocation for local authorities across 2014-15 and 2015-16. We have allocated a further £53 million for 2016-17, so that local authorities can continue to provide free school meals for all children in P1 to P3.
That is one of the many ways in which we are putting the tackling of inequality at the heart of our agenda. We are giving children a healthy, nutritious meal at school while saving parents around £380 a year per child. Clearly, we want more children to benefit in every local authority, and we will continue to work with education authorities, schools and teachers to ensure the continued promotion of school meal take-up, so that all children can benefit. All members across the chamber have a role to play in making sure that all children who are entitled take up the option of a free school meal.
Previous
General Question TimeNext
Charlie Hebdo