Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02465)
I have engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Can the First Minister tell us whether fuel poverty has gone up or down in the past year?’
Jackie Baillie will have read the same report that I read earlier in the week, which shows that fuel poverty has increased to levels that are, in my opinion, completely unacceptable. The report is clear that the increase is being driven by an increase in fuel prices. It is quite instructive to consider the fact that, if fuel prices had simply risen in line with inflation rather than by 7 per cent, the fuel poverty rate for 2013 would have been only 11 per cent. Fuel prices are behind the increase, which demonstrates a fundamental failure of the United Kingdom-regulated energy market.
Jackie Baillie will also be aware of the fact that the report is clear that energy efficiency measures for which this Government has a responsibility have operated to mitigate the increase in fuel poverty. The increase, unacceptable though it is, would have been even higher but for the energy efficiency measures that we have taken. We will continue to focus on that as well as continuing to argue strongly for measures that are under the control of the United Kingdom Government to be used to mitigate the increases for people who are finding energy bills difficult to deal with.
There may be a different First Minister, but we hear the same tired old tune about who is to blame. It is always someone else’s fault.
Let me be helpful to the First Minister. Margaret Burgess changed the methodology in an attempt to mask the scale of the increase. It is not a 100,000-household increase, as the Government has claimed. By the Scottish Government’s own figures, the number of households living in fuel poverty in Scotland increased by almost 300,000. That is the size of the populations of Livingston, Hamilton, Cumbernauld, Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Ayr put together.
Today, the number in fuel poverty is nearly 1 million households. The reality is that that is more than 2 million men, women and children in Scotland who will be freezing this winter. Those are real people: pensioners, disabled people and children whose parents are having to make the choice between heating and eating. Nicola Sturgeon should be ashamed. Can she tell us what her Government has done to tackle fuel poverty in Scotland?
I will begin on a note of agreement with Jackie Baillie: we are talking about real people. That is important to say, because that puts more of a burden on all of us to deal in accurate statistics, and not in politically motivated distortion.
I will take one point that Jackie Baillie made. She said—I think that this is a direct quote—that the change in methodology has masked the increase. Actually, the reverse is true. The change in methodology has increased the scale of the increase in fuel poverty. However, as the report shows—I trust that Jackie Baillie has read the report in as much detail as I have—when we compare like with like, we see that there has been a 4 per cent increase in fuel poverty. That takes the figure to more than 900,000, and Jackie Baillie is absolutely right that there are many people who think that, if that survey were done today, the figure would be closer to, or perhaps more than, 1 million. However, let us not try to distort the figures. In an energy-rich country, those figures are appalling, and we should all unite in making that clear.
The report is also absolutely abundantly and explicitly clear that responsibility for the increase lies with increases in fuel prices—the 7 per cent rise in fuel prices has driven the increase in fuel poverty. It also makes it clear that that increase would have been higher but for the energy efficiency measures for which this Government has been partly responsible.
Jackie Baillie asked me what the Government has been doing, so I will give her some specific information. Since 2009, we have invested more than £300 million on a raft of fuel poverty and energy efficiency programmes, and we will spend a further £94 million this year and a further £94 million next year. Nearly one in three households—about 700,000 households in Scotland—has now received energy efficiency support. Experts in the field acknowledge that the Scottish Government is providing more publicly funded support for energy efficiency than any of our counterparts anywhere else in these islands are providing.
I am in no way complacent about the matter. It is shameful—for all of us—that we live in an energy-rich country where nearly 1 million people are living in fuel poverty. Perhaps we can all, therefore, unite in calling on the UK Government to do more about fuel prices. Jackie Baillie has previously called for a freeze in energy prices. Will she join me today in calling on the UK Government to go further than that and to restructure energy bills so that we take the burden of energy efficiency off energy bills and deliver a cut?
I listened very carefully to what the First Minister said. She claimed that independent experts think that she is doing a tremendous job, but those independent experts tell a different story. Energy Action Scotland says that the Scottish Government
“can and should ... do more”,
and that the levels of funding that are being provided mean that the promise to abolish fuel poverty by 2016 “will not be met”. The Existing Homes Alliance says that the current budget is “well below” what is needed “to tackle fuel poverty”. Yet, last year, the SNP’s own budget for fuel poverty was underspent by £10 million at a time when the need to spend it was self-evident. The First Minister is shaking her head, but that is the truth. I suggest that she go away and check what her budget was.
The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations says that
“fuel poverty is at crisis levels”,
and even the Minister for Housing and Welfare has called the situation “scandalous”. I could not agree more with her. Why is the First Minister letting down poor people in Scotland?
I question whether Jackie Baillie really did, as she claims, listen to my answer. In an attempt—again—to find some consensus, I do not dispute the experts’ analysis of the problem. I do not want to live in an energy-rich country that has so many people living in fuel poverty, and I hope that we all agree on that. Nor do I take issue with those who put pressure on the Scottish Government to do more. That is exactly what they should be doing, and I accept the responsibility for doing as much as we possibly can. I undertake to Parliament and the public out there that we will strive to do as much as we can within our resources and within our powers.
Jackie Baillie mentioned Energy Action Scotland. I readily concede that Energy Action Scotland will be among the organisations that are pushing the Scottish Government to do more. However, I will quote Norman Kerr of Energy Action Scotland speaking on BBC Radio Scotland on 6 November. He said:
“there is a marked difference ... between Scotland and England. Scotland ... still retains energy efficiency fuel poverty programmes paid for out of the public purse. ... We are certainly streets ahead of what is happening in England.”
I accept the responsibility constantly to challenge the Government to do more. However, surely Jackie Baillie can accept two things. First, unlike the UK Government, we continue to fund energy efficiency measures out of the public purse. That is why one in three households has now received energy efficiency support. Secondly, surely Jackie Baillie can accept that, much as I wish it were different, I do not have powers over regulation of the energy market or powers over fuel prices. Let us come together to ask the UK Government to do more to deal with the issue. I note that she did not join me in calling on the UK Government to take the cost of the energy companies obligation out of energy bills so that we can deliver a cut in people’s energy bills, so I give her another opportunity to do so. Will she join me in making that call?
Do you know, what I cannot get over is that the First Minister is content—[Interruption.]
Order.
The First Minister is content in her ambition simply to compare fuel poverty in Scotland with fuel poverty in England and to say, “It’s so much better here”, when we are heading for fuel poverty in Scotland in 1 million households and for 2 million people. What a lack of ambition that represents.
I can honestly say—-[Interruption.]
Order.
I can honestly say that, although it is wonderful to hear the First Minister call for consensus, she and her Government have, over the past seven years, rejected all the suggestions that members on the Labour side of the chamber have made on fuel poverty.
I know that the First Minister does not like to hear the truth, but she was responsible for tackling fuel poverty for the past two years, and in each of those years, on her watch, fuel poverty levels went up. That is happening in Scotland today, because of decisions that her Government made.
The buck stops—[Interruption.]
Order.
The buck stops with the First Minister. For the second week running, I remind her that it was she who said that
“a party that is now in its second term of office cannot avoid taking responsibility for its own failings”—[Official Report, 12 December 2001; c 4711.]
Politics has always been about difficult choices. Labour will freeze gas and electricity bills, reform the energy market and improve housing stock in order to tackle fuel poverty. The First Minister and her party want to give the energy companies a massive tax cut. That is the difference.
The truth is that, as winter begins to bite, fuel poverty is up and millions of people throughout Scotland will be freezing. When the fuel poverty forum meets this afternoon, will the First Minister be there to apologise for abandoning the poor people in Scotland this winter?
Right, okay. I will try to take that step by step. First, I welcome Labour’s commitment to reform of the energy market. I merely point out that it was Labour that established the current energy market.
Secondly, I welcome the commitment to an energy price freeze, but I do not think that a freeze goes far enough. We should be coming up with action to reduce people’s energy bills, not to freeze them.
Thirdly, I think that it is a bit rich, on the day that Ed Miliband is plastered over the front of The Independent newspaper saying that he is about to “wield the axe” on public spending, for Jackie Baillie to come to the chamber and lecture me about public spending.
I have just a few more facts—[Interruption.]
Order.
I have just a few more facts, which might be uncomfortable for Jackie Baillie to hear, but I hope that she will bear with me.
Between 2002 and 2007, under a Lib Dem-Labour Administration, the fuel poverty rate in Scotland more than doubled. I expect that Jackie Baillie would have said then much of what I am saying right now: we have had to concentrate on energy efficiency, but we need action on fuel prices.
Jackie Baillie comes to the chamber and calls for more money on the day that Miliband is wielding the axe on public spending, but not once has Labour come to John Swinney in a budget negotiation and asked for more money for fuel poverty. It is fine for Jackie Baillie to come here—[Interruption.]
He did.—[Interruption.]
Order.
Who is Jackie Baillie pointing at? Is it Patrick Harvie?
Aye, he did, but not her.
Order.
Jackie Baillie is apparently defending herself by saying that someone in another party did ask for more money, while Labour did not—[Interruption.]
Order.
The real point that I want to make is this. I have now been in this job for almost a month, and already I have come to the conclusion that it does not actually matter what the Scottish National Party does or says: Labour will oppose it, because Labour has stopped being the Labour Party and has become the anti-SNP party. That is probably why one of the candidates for Labour’s deputy leadership emailed all of us last week, looking for our votes, and said that nobody trusts Labour anymore.
I will tell members what I am going to do: I will leave to Labour the job of opposition, and I will continue with the job of governing in the interests of this country and doing everything that we can to tackle the scandal of fuel poverty.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02463)
I will meet the Prime Minister on Monday.
Five weeks ago, the then First Minister was asked about a fall in the number of teachers in our schools. His excuse was that the number did not matter because the pupil-teacher ratio was the same and, anyway, it was all Westminster’s fault.
Yesterday, the Scottish Government’s own figures showed that teacher numbers have fallen by more than 4,000 since the Scottish National Party came into office and that the pupil-teacher ratio is going up.
I ask this First Minister: what is the Government’s excuse this time?
I am not here to make excuses. I am disappointed—[Interruption.]
Order.
The Opposition wants serious questions to be given serious answers. Ruth Davidson has asked me a serious question, and I will seek to give her a serious answer.
I am disappointed in the drop in teacher numbers. It was a relatively small drop; nevertheless, it has taken place against the background of a rising number of pupils in our schools. I want that to continue to be—as it is right now—a matter of on-going dialogue between us and local authorities, which are the teachers’ employers.
I make it very clear that although the pupil-teacher ratio is not the only measure of success in our schools, it is important to maintain teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers. The headline figure—which itself has to be seen in the context of a 10 per cent cut in the Scottish Government’s budget—does not tell the whole story.
I know that Ruth Davidson will have studied the report in as much detail as I have, but she should look at primary education, for example, where there has been a slight deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio. Teacher numbers in primary education have increased; they have simply not increased fast enough to take account of the rise in pupil numbers. [Interruption.] Ruth Davidson is shouting “secondary” at me. In secondary schools, teacher numbers have fallen, but the pupil-teacher ratio has actually improved because pupil numbers have fallen faster than the drop in the number of teachers.
I simply make the point that although the headline figure is disappointing, if members do what I hope that all of us would do and delve into the detail of the statistics, they will see that there is a more complex picture.
There is work to be done—I readily accept that—and of course there are challenges. How could it be otherwise when our budget has been cut by 10 per cent since 2010? This Government’s record on education—where there is no room for complacency—is good and strong. I want it to improve even further. It stands very strong comparison with the records of our predecessors.
The First Minister said that it is just a small drop this year and that we need to look at the figures in more detail, so let us do that. In the SNP’s first year in government—2008—the numbers went down. In its second year—2009—the numbers went down. In its third year—2010—the numbers went down. In its fourth year—2011—the numbers went down. In its fifth year, the numbers went down. In its sixth year, the numbers went down. This year—for the seventh consecutive year—the numbers have gone down.
The First Minister responded again with the stock response about Westminster budget cuts, which she put at 10 per cent. However, the issue is about political choices. Here is the thing that neither the First Minister nor the education minister will admit: budgets have been restrained right across the United Kingdom and yet elsewhere teacher numbers are going up. Figures that I have here from the Department for Education show that teacher numbers down south have gone up by 12,000 since 2007 and are now at their highest level ever.
There is a reason for that. When headteachers are given the power to run their own school and are freed from the dead hand of central control, they make better decisions for their school, better decisions about staffing and better decisions for their pupils. This SNP Government is failing our children, even by its own measures, because teacher numbers are down, class sizes are up and we are struggling in the international league tables.
If the First Minister looked around the world, she would see that school reform is the answer, so why is her Government so against it?
In all seriousness, Ruth Davidson cannot say that the Government that has just introduced the biggest reform in school education that I can remember in the form of curriculum for excellence is somehow against reform. However, it might not be precisely the kind of reform that Ruth Davidson is arguing for. We will continue to have those debates across the chamber and elsewhere.
I give Ruth Davidson this undertaking: the education of our children is so fundamentally important to every aspect of our society that I and the education secretary will continue to have an open mind about and a focus on what works best to improve attainment in our schools. I will listen to ideas from wherever they come, in the interests of ensuring that we discharge our responsibility to continue to improve our education system.
I return to some of the detail that Ruth Davidson put to me. She talked about the years over which we have been in office, having begun by posing a question about the pupil-teacher ratio. In the first years that she cited, pupil numbers were declining. That is part of the reason why teacher numbers were declining. I said that I was concerned about the latest statistics because we are no longer in a time of declining pupil numbers—pupil numbers are rising. That is why the discussions that I referred to with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities are so important. We need to make sure that we have the right number of teachers in our schools for the number of pupils who are being taught.
I do not for a second move away from saying that work needs to be done, but if we look at 2006, we find that the number of primary 1 pupils in classes of more than 26 was 16,845. Today, the number of primary 1 pupils in classes of more than 26 is 451. That is a 97 per cent reduction, so although there is more to do, considerable progress has been made. If we look at the school estate, in which we have invested significantly, we find that, in 2007, only 61 per cent of school buildings were classed as good or satisfactory, whereas today the figure is 83 per cent.
In the interests of consensus, I accept that we have work to do. We will always have work to do in a service as important as education, but surely Ruth Davidson can acknowledge that, against the background of a 10 per cent cut in our budget—which I cite as context, not as an excuse—the progress that I have outlined is to be celebrated.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02462)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
This morning, in his press release on Revenue Scotland, John Swinney said that the Scottish Government was doing “excellent work” that had been “widely praised”, but the Audit Scotland report on Revenue Scotland jars with that and paints a completely different picture. It talks about contingency plans being made and says that a decision on whether to implement them is to be made in December. Can the First Minister tell the chamber what those contingency plans are?
I can do better than that, I hope—I can give the chamber a full update on the issue.
This morning, I spoke to the head of Revenue Scotland. I am glad that Willie Rennie has raised the issue, because it gives me the opportunity to assure not just Parliament but the public that Revenue Scotland is on track to manage the collection of the new devolved taxes from 1 April.
It is important to note, by way of context, that Audit Scotland said:
“The Scottish Government established clear structures for managing the set-up of Revenue Scotland and there are now well-developed project plans for implementing the devolved taxes.”
As far as the criticisms that the Audit Scotland report made are concerned, I will be as brief as possible, Presiding Officer, but this is important. [Laughter.]
Order.
On staffing, Audit Scotland’s criticism was that staff were not in place early enough. It said that, as of the end of October, offers had been made in 10 out of the 40 posts. As of this morning, in 16 out of those 40 posts, offers have been accepted. In another five, offers of employment have been made and the human resources processes are under way; five are going through normal Scottish Government recruitment processes; and the remaining 14 posts will be advertised, as planned, in January. The most critical specialist posts—those in accountancy, legal, tax and statistics—are among the 16 that have already been filled and the five in relation to which offers have been made to people from other Government departments.
On information technology, there was a delay earlier this year, because a decision was taken—I think, for the right reasons—to move from developing an in-house IT system to going to an external supplier. Internal testing of the IT system is under way and external testing will take place in January.
I hope that Willie Rennie appreciates that update. Of course there are contingency plans in place, but there is no intention to activate any of them.
I am sure that, in the discussion that she had this morning, the First Minister will have discussed the contingency plans in detail. I know that she wants the process to go well—everyone wants it to go well—but I am sure that the chamber would welcome some description of those contingency plans. Do they involve HM Revenue and Customs continuing to have a role? Will the new taxes be delayed? Will the contingency plans involve moving to a paper-based system?
I know that the First Minister wants the process to go well, but we have a right to know what the contingency plans are; £441 million is at stake, so we deserve answers from her.
I have been trying to give Willie Rennie some fairly detailed answers. I am more than happy to correspond with him and to provide as much detail on the matter as possible.
In any exercise such as this, contingency plans would be in place. What Willie Rennie said about HMRC continuing to have a role or taxes being delayed is not the case. Some paper processes will continue to be used, because some users will want to use paper processes.
The key point that I would have thought members would want to hear is the assurance that the taxes will begin to be collected on 1 April and that Revenue Scotland is on track. The other assurance that I give, which members would expect me to give, is that the finance secretary and I will closely monitor progress between now and the go-live day, 1 April. I am satisfied that all the steps that should be being taken at the moment are being taken. I hope that that gives not just Willie Rennie but the entire Parliament the assurance that members seek.
Hunger in the United Kingdom (UK Parliamentary Inquiry)
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to the findings of the all-party UK parliamentary inquiry into hunger in the UK. (S4F-02471)
The report of the findings of the inquiry highlights the scale of food poverty across the UK. As I said about the latest Scottish statistics two weeks ago, the numbers are completely unacceptable.
The report highlights the need for action to improve the welfare system, cut delays in benefit payments, tackle the cost of living and raise household incomes. I support the call that the report makes in that regard and I confirmed in my statement on our programme for Government that we will continue to take action in those areas, through our commitments on the social wage and the living wage.
The report makes horrendous reading. I visited the Trussell Trust food bank in Seaton, in Aberdeen, on Friday. The Trussell Trust alone experienced a 400 per cent increase in the use of its food banks in Scotland between 31 March last year and 1 April this year, during which period 22,387 children had to access three-day emergency food supplies.
Tory Baroness Jenkin believes that the growth in food bank use is down to people being unable to cook. Does the First Minister think that Baroness Jenkin is right, or does she agree with me that the situation is down to the Con-Dem Government’s ill-thought-out, austerity-driven welfare reforms?
I have certainly seen no evidence, from my constituency experience or my wider experience in dealing with food banks, that people are visiting food banks on the basis of their cooking ability. I agree with the member and think that Baroness Jenkin is wrong in that regard.
The Trussell Trust itself pointed out last month that welfare problems account for the highest proportion of those who use its food banks. Contrary to what others might want to say on the matter, the recent report is, sadly, a further indictment of the UK Government’s programme of welfare cuts.
National Waiting Time Guarantees (Gastroenterology)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government is doing to meet its national waiting time guarantees for gastroenterology. (S4F-02461)
NHS Scotland continues to deliver the overarching standard of 90 per cent of patients being seen and treated within 18 weeks of initial referral. It has been made clear to all boards that all parts of the patient pathway should be as swift as possible.
The Scottish Government is working with national health service boards whose performance on gastroenterology has fallen short of our expectations.
On referral, my constituent was told by NHS Tayside that it aimed to see her within 12 weeks. Only when the 12 weeks were up did NHS Tayside tell her that its waiting time for routine referral was actually 28 weeks, or seven months. Does the First Minister think that patients should be told the real waiting time when they are first referred? Does she think that a seven-month wait is acceptable? What is she doing to reduce waiting times?
Yes I do, and no I do not think that that is acceptable. I will not go into details, for reasons of patient confidentiality, but I am familiar with the case that Jenny Marra raises and I understand that her constituent has now been offered an appointment.
NHS Tayside has experienced a high turnover of staff in the specialty and is currently recruiting an additional consultant and an endoscopy nurse, to improve its capacity. The board continues, as it should do, to consider other ways to reduce unacceptably long waits for an appointment to the specialty, and the Government’s access support team is monitoring performance in the area.
We are working with boards to put plans in place to reduce long waits. We take the matter seriously. If the member wants to discuss the matter in more detail, on behalf of her constituent, I know that the health secretary will be more than happy to do so.
Drink-driving Limit
To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government anticipates the lower drink-driving limit will have on driver behaviour this festive season. (S4F-02464)
We believe that the lower drink-drive limit will make Scotland’s roads safer and will save lives. The central message of the festive campaign to publicise the new limit has been
“The best advice is none”,
when it comes to drinking and driving. We hope that the lower limit will reduce the number of drink-drive arrests and of prosecutions by encouraging drivers not to consume any alcohol before driving. I am certainly encouraged by the results in the Republic of Ireland, where drivers adjusted their behaviour to take account of the lower limit that was introduced in October 2011.
According to the World Health Organization, Scotland has some of the safest roads in the industrialised world, but drink driving at this time of year has been a problem for decades. Thus, I commend the Scottish Government for taking action and for the on-going advertising campaign. As well as supporting that campaign’s core message, will the First Minister join me in calling on drivers to abstain from drink altogether on each day that they drive, not only during the festive season but for the months and years beyond?
Certainly, anybody who intends to drive should always refrain from drinking, as alcohol at any level impairs driving. During the festive season and at any other time of year, our central message always has been and always will be: don’t drink and drive.