Official Report 980KB pdf
Fuel Poverty
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of cold temperatures and the first snowfall, whether it will provide an update regarding the steps it is taking to support any households at risk of fuel poverty. (S6T-02759)
In an energy-rich nation such as Scotland, nobody should be struggling to pay their bills; however, that continues to be the reality for far too many, as successive United Kingdom Governments fail to get a grip on spiralling energy costs. Indeed, the Labour Government came to power promising to reduce average bills by £300, but in just over a year they have risen by nearly £200 more.
We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to introduce a social tariff to address unaffordable bills at source. Our proposals for targeted discounts would see estimated fuel bills reduce by an average of £700 and lift around 135,000 households out of fuel poverty. In the meantime, the Scottish Government continues to use the powers that are available to us to raise incomes and to improve energy efficiency, including by increasing funding for Warmer Homes Scotland, investing around £196 million in our suite of winter heating payments this year and providing a further £1 million to support advice services to help people who are struggling with energy debt. That spending is part of a package of nearly £17 million.
I thank the cabinet secretary for that update.
I want to concentrate on pensioners. The Scottish Government’s pension age winter heating payment will provide vital support to older people in Scotland. The context is that Labour slashed the winter heating support for pensioners last year, which led to the Scottish National Party stepping in to ensure that pensioners in Scotland do not lose out this winter. Although I note Labour’s eventual U-turn on the issue, can I have assurances from the cabinet secretary that those matters in Scotland are on track, now that winter is approaching?
Can the cabinet secretary also provide any update on the roll-out of the Scottish Government’s winter heating payment? How many older people is it anticipated that that payment will support to heat their homes this winter?
Payments have now commenced and will be made in batches over the coming weeks, with the first pension age winter heating payments having reached bank accounts last week. Through that programme, we are delivering real support to pensioners across Scotland, to the tune of about £157 million, which is helping approximately 880,000 pensioners to stay warm in the coldest months.
It is worth noting that, unlike in the rest of the UK, eligible low-income households across Scotland, including pensioner households, are also guaranteed support through our winter heating payment. We expect those payments to begin in early December.
I thank the cabinet secretary for the assurance that those payments to pensioners are on track. That support will be more necessary than ever this winter, given that energy bills have spiralled by an average of £200, despite the fact that Labour promised to cut bills by £300. It is scandalous that pensioners in Scotland pay some of the highest bills in Europe, despite having a huge wealth of natural energy resources on their doorsteps.
The cabinet secretary mentioned the possibility of a social tariff for energy. That is absolutely the strategic approach that we need in order to tackle pensioner poverty and fuel poverty more generally. Can the cabinet secretary outline the steps that the Scottish Government has already taken to develop a social tariff that could benefit pensioners who are suffering from fuel poverty? How could that be delivered, either within a UK context or with the fresh start that independence would offer us?
We have consistently and repeatedly called on the UK Government to deliver a social tariff. I am very proud of the work that the Scottish Government has done to develop proposals for a social tariff, which we have done in concert with experts. The tariff would take the form of an automatic and targeted discount on energy bills, to address the chronic issue of the unaffordability of bills at the source.
As Mr Doris pointed out, the UK Government’s continued failure to address the issue and recognise the harm that bills and the associated debt are causing households is just another indication that we ought to have control over our own energy resources for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
Scottish Government Core Operating Costs
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that its core operating costs have increased by £53 million between 2023-24 and 2024-25. (S6T-02762)
The Scottish Government recognises the importance of ensuring that funds are aligned to support front-line services. That is at the core of our public service reform programme, which will shift an annualised £1 billion to the front line over the next five years.
The changes to Scottish Government operating costs in 2024-25 were driven by a change in practice—primarily, reducing the use of expensive contingent workers and taking those roles in-house, where appropriate. The financial practice for recording the costs of many contingent workers ordinarily lies outwith the core operating costs. When such roles are moved in-house, that is reflected in what is presented in the accounts. In 2024-25, the number of contingent workers was reduced by more than 200, and the combined reduction across directly employed staff and contractors totalled more than 160. Those reductions in headcount will accelerate as new recruitment controls take effect, and budget controls on Scottish Government operating costs will deliver real-terms reductions in costs.
Despite that bluster, it is crystal clear that a £53 million surge in the Scottish National Party Government’s operating costs in a single year—which comes at a time when front-line services are struggling and people are paying more in tax—is not a sign that the Government is in control of costs within the Government machine. The response to a freedom of information request that we received over the summer shows that the rise exceeds the Government’s forecasts and confirms that the cost of government has almost doubled since 2018. Is that not concrete evidence that the Government has completely lost its grip on spending? How can anyone believe that the SNP Government can run Scotland’s finances and reform Scotland’s public services when the Minister for Public Finance, who is meant to be bringing down the cost of government, cannot even control the costs of the core Government machine?
As I have indicated, total headcount in the Scottish Government continues to reduce. Much of that is down to significant numbers of expensive contractors being replaced with in-house staff, which I am sure Mr Hoy will welcome. The number of in-house staff is also reducing.
Clear targets on headcount and budgets have been set for each of the next five years. There will be real-terms reductions in the Scottish Government’s operating costs in each of the next five years, and there will be about a 4 per cent reduction in the Scottish Government’s total headcount in each of those years. That work is being done. We have control of the recruitment and budgeting processes, which are driving the savings that will allow us to redirect £1 billion to the front line.
Only in the SNP’s la-la world can headcount fall while the salary bill soars. Is not the truth of the matter even worse? Internal documents that were released by Mr McKee’s officials confirm that there is no “fully costed plan” to deliver £1 billion in savings, which—let us not forget—includes a 20 per cent reduction in staffing costs. Will the minister confirm whether that means that there will be a 20 per cent reduction in staff numbers over the next four years? Another memo confirms that Mr McKee does
“not expect to be able to provide a full, costed plan”,
and another memo insists that ministers
“do not have a specific plan for each pound of savings”.
Six months on from that bold £1 billion announcement, does Mr McKee actually have a plan, or is he just playing for time to get this failing Government and its fragile finances through the next election?
There absolutely is a plan. Last year, we published the corporate costs, which total £5 billion, 20 per cent of which—Mr Hoy can do the maths—is obviously £1 billion. It is very clear across which public bodies and portfolios the savings will fall, how much of the figure relates to headcount, how much of it relates to estates and how much of it relates to procurement. That is clearly articulated as 20 per cent of the £5 billion. We have published all that data, which Mr Hoy will find online if he cares to look for it.
The headcount targets that have been set for portfolios for next year and each of the years after that are very clear and are dependent on the ratio of front-line staff to back-office staff in each portfolio. The corporate cost reductions are clear, and are rolled out across all the public bodies.
The data is there. The Government and the public sector are working to that data and that is what will deliver headcount reductions of 4 per cent per year. That will be a reduction in total headcount of 20 per cent by the end of the five-year period. That is within the attrition rate that currently applies to the Government.
University of Edinburgh (Redundancies)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that the University of Edinburgh plans to reduce jobs by up to 1,800 as part of £140 million in budget reductions by 2026-27, including what action it will take to protect staff and students from the impact of any such redundancies. (S6T-02757)
The university sector across the United Kingdom continues to face financial challenges from a number of factors, including the impact of increases to national insurance contributions and migration policies.
The University of Edinburgh is an autonomous institution, but the Scottish Government expects staff and trade unions to be consulted meaningfully and constructively on the potential impact of any cost-saving measures in line with fair work principles. Ministers cannot compel universities to commit to no compulsory redundancies, but our clear expectation is that they are considered only as a last resort after all other cost-saving measures have been fully explored.
Students at the University of Edinburgh are already seeing the impact of those cuts. Courses are being reduced, support services are being scaled back, and staff do not know whether they will be employed next year. Scotland prides itself on its world-class higher education, but that is not what the students are experiencing.
Staff have overwhelmingly supported on-going action in a re-ballot and, as Jo Grady, the general secretary of the University and College Union, said:
“Before this dispute escalates further, university senior managers need to reflect on where their actions are taking the university and engage urgently and seriously with the union.”
Does the minister agree that, at the very least, the Government’s convening power should be used to bring the parties together to ensure that students are not the ones who pay the price for decisions that have been driven by underfunding and financial instability?
I thank Martin Whitfield for bringing the issue to the chamber and I start by emphasising that my thoughts are with those students and staff who are affected, including constituents who have been in touch with me in recent days.
As the member helpfully and constructively suggested, and as the Parliament would expect, ministers will consider how we can assist meaningfully in this situation, including, potentially, using our convening power, while being mindful of the fact that the University of Edinburgh is an autonomous institution. I had a good meeting with representatives from the UCU on a number of matters recently, and I would be happy to receive further correspondence from it on the matter.
Answers maybe next year, but the questions are being asked this year.
The crisis is not confined to Edinburgh. We now have up to 1,800 jobs at risk there, 600 redundancies proposed at Dundee and 70 at Napier, and a £14 million deficit at the University of the West of Scotland. The Scottish Funding Council reports that nine universities are already in deficit and that that figure will rise to 11 next year. Universities Scotland has said that the latest funding allocation does not give the sector what it needs.
Does the Scottish Government accept that those real-terms cuts to university funding and increasing reliance on volatile international income have helped to create the conditions for mass redundancies and pain across the sector? What is the plan to prevent institutions from sliding further into crisis?
As I stated in my first answer, the university sector across the UK is facing multiple challenges. In Scotland, many of those challenges are external. For example, there is the estimated cost of more than £48 million to Scottish universities because of the increase in national insurance contributions that the UK Government implemented in its budget for this financial year.
We are all waiting to see what the Chancellor of the Exchequer will do in her budget on Wednesday 26 November. The real question for us all, and the question that the university sector will be asking at this moment, is, what will the UK Government do to support those important economic institutions as well as centres of educational excellence?
As for what the Scottish Government is doing in the face of the challenge and in consideration of our budgets—not just in the financial year ahead but thereafter—we continue to engage with the universities sector to ensure long-term sustainability of funding and success for Scottish universities from the very clear starting point that this Government will not reintroduce tuition fees.
We are currently scoping and shaping a framework for the future sustainability of the sector, and we have been engaging with key stakeholders, including sector leaders, staff, student representatives and MSPs across parties, to discuss how they can be involved and to ensure that they have the appropriate input into the various ideas. I will update Parliament on that in due course.
The minister might have just answered my question. I have been contacted by constituents who have mentioned the issue of tuition fees. Both Labour and the Conservatives have implemented them—and they might be talked about in the future, to address the pressures. What is the minister’s view on tuition fees being used going forward?
There has been some discussion regarding tuition fees in the context of the wider challenge that we all face of the financial sustainability of our excellent universities. If tuition fees were a solution in this scenario, why are institutions in England and Wales facing financial challenges as well? Clearly, tuition fees from undergraduate students would not be a solution to the sustainability challenges.
It would be helpful to have appropriate investment in universities—which are not just educational institutions; they are also massive economic drivers in our economy—by the UK Government in its budget, through revenue and capital, to help to create the economic growth that we all want to see.
The minister will recall that I invited Sir Peter Mathieson here to meet a group of Edinburgh MSPs in the early summer. He suggested that the University of Edinburgh would be out of breach of covenant within three years, irrespective of voluntary or mandatory redundancies. What meetings has the minister had with the principal?
Secondly, given the volatility that Martin Whitfield described in relation to the international student cohort that we depend on, does the minister recognise that his predecessor, Graeme Dey, told the Parliament that the funding system for higher education is fundamentally broken? What plans does the minister have to fix it?
On the latter point, I spoke in a previous answer about the work that is going on to scope and shape the framework for the future sustainability of the sector—work that the Scottish Government is taking forward with Universities Scotland. I would be pleased to have engagement from the Liberal Democrats in that process. As I said, we are seeking to have representatives from MSPs across parties. I will update Parliament on that work in due course, as soon as possible. That work will be important to ensure that, collectively, we embrace the challenge of having a university sector and wider tertiary system that is well positioned to respond over the next 20 years to demographics, the needs of students and the changes in the economy that will occur throughout the next quarter of the century.
Whether at events that I attended last week, when visiting campuses or when engaging with Universities Scotland, over the nearly two months that I have been in this post, I have sought to engage with university principals as much as possible. In my capacity as a constituency MSP, I have had engagement with the principal of the University of Edinburgh for many years. As is appropriate, I will engage with him going forward.
That concludes topical questions.
Previous
Business Motions