Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023

Official Report 931KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical question time. In order to get in as many questions as possible, short and succinct questions and answers to match would be helpful.

---

Heating in Homes (Decarbonisation)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to a report by WWF Scotland that states that Scotland will fall “significantly short” of its target for decarbonising heating in homes. (S6T-01182)

The WWF Scotland report is both welcome and challenging. It supports the main policies in our “Heat in Buildings Strategy”, which are designed to meet our objective for emissions reduction by 2045. Since that strategy was published, we have been developing more detailed proposals on supply chain capacity, delivery programmes, advice and funding.

On the key issue of regulation that the report identifies, we will consult very soon on proposals for a heat in buildings bill that is designed to give a very clear signal on how and when climate-friendly heating systems and improved energy efficiency measures will need to be installed.

I thank the minister for that answer, which was an oddly positive response on the Scottish Government’s role, given that a recent freedom of information request revealed that the Government has only one heat pump in its entire estate and has no idea how many it might need to install.

In any event, the Construction Industry Training Board reported in March 2021 that, by 2028, an additional 4,300 plumbers and HVAC—heating, ventilation and air conditioning—workers will be required in Scotland, primarily for the installation of heat pumps. What did the minister do in response to that report, which is now two years old, and will we have 4,300 such workers by 2028?

As I said in my first answer, we have continued to develop an ambitious programme of work, including on the supply chain delivery plan, and to work with stakeholders, including businesses right across the sector. Incredible innovation is happening in the area of heat decarbonisation, as well as there being strong enthusiasm in the sector to retrain and reskill people so that we will have the capacity that we need. In recent years, we have been reaching the level of a few thousand installations per year, but we need to reach significantly more than that—perhaps 100,000 installations or more by the end of the decade. An extraordinary scale of expansion is therefore required. We are clear that the ambition is matched by the actions that we are taking.

I would also question whether the Conservatives are being entirely consistent on some of these issues. As the net zero spokesperson for his party, Mr Kerr told the Daily Mail—that notable champion of climate action—that the Government’s

“stated intention to ban the replacement of fossil fuel boilers from 2025 is unrealistic and will alarm”

people—

Briefly, minister.

—and that it is

“irresponsible to impose huge demands”.

The Conservatives therefore need to make up their minds: are we doing too much or too little here?

I am not sure that in the minister’s answer I heard a commitment on the 4,300 additional workers. In any event, he questioned people’s commitment and ambition. This weekend saw huge swathes of Aberdeen city and Aberdeenshire left without electricity for extended periods due to storms. If the minister were to be successful in moving everyone on to heat pumps, how would he suggest that the people of the north-east heat their homes during a power cut? Does he concede that putting all his eggs in the electricity basket, with a one-size-fits-all approach, is as naive as it is misguided?

I am sure that Mr Kerr is aware that combi boilers also require an electrical power supply in order to operate, so power cuts would be disruptive whichever heating system was used.

Scaling up our ambition on zero-emissions heating is not only a positive opportunity to create jobs and skills in this country and to support businesses that are innovating. It also presents a challenge that is simply unavoidable: there is no path to achieving Scotland’s emission reduction targets without decarbonising heating, including in a million homes in this decade.

The Scottish Government has expanded capacity—for example, through warmer homes Scotland, support for small and medium-sized enterprises through Business Energy Scotland, and a host of other programmes. It is really encouraging to see the innovation that is happening—for example, through the much more affordable low-cost heat pumps that are being produced by British Gas and Octopus, supported by the flexible grant and loan systems that Scotland has available.

The WWF report is clear that the Government will fall short of its target for decarbonising a million homes by 2030. Concerns also remain about the costs to households of making the changes that we need to see happen. Does the minister accept that, if we are serious about achieving a just transition, more needs to be done to ensure that the cost of such changes does not land on the shoulders of the people who can least afford them—not least given that we are still facing a cost of living crisis?

Unlike some other members, Mr Smyth is serious about wanting to see such a transition happen—and happen fairly. I mentioned the innovation that is happening in having more affordable, lower-cost heat pumps coming on to the market from providers such as British Gas and Octopus. We will see more of that happening, and it fits well with the Scottish Government’s more generous and more flexible grant and loan package of £7,500 for both energy efficiency and zero-emission heating systems, with additional uplifts for rural and remote areas. That means that the installations that we need to see in both of those sectors will gradually and continually become more affordable.

We also need to put pressure on the current United Kingdom Government if there is to be any hope of that happening. Mr Smyth might have colleagues in that Government before too long anyway, and he will need to put pressure on them to do what the UK Government has not done so far by rebalancing energy prices so that electricity and zero-emission heating systems are more affordable for people to run. I am sure that he shares the Scottish Government’s ambition on that point.

---

Teachers (Pay Negotiations)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on pay negotiations between teaching unions and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, in light of the Educational Institute of Scotland rejecting the most recent offer and reports that industrial action is set to continue. (S6T-01181)

It is very disappointing that the EIS has rejected outright our latest pay offer without consulting its members. That was the fifth offer to the unions and would have meant an 11.5 per cent increase—or £5,000—in April for most teachers, and a cumulative increase of almost 30 per cent since January 2018.

We will continue to work closely with our union and local government partners to resolve the dispute and to deliver a fair and sustainable settlement for teachers. It is deeply regrettable that the EIS is pressing ahead with industrial action while further discussions take place this week. I continue to urge the unions to suspend the industrial action while the talks are on-going.

After the pandemic, young people cannot afford any more lost days of education. I want to understand what went wrong. I assume that the new offer was made to teachers only when the cabinet secretary was confident that it would be accepted. The cabinet secretary waited weeks for that moment. Can she explain what went wrong and why the situation was so badly misjudged?

Along with our colleagues in local government, we have worked to try to find a new offer that is fair and sustainable—and affordable for the Government. We set ourselves and everyone else a challenge to find a compromise and a new way forward. That is what we have tried to do to improve the offer for 2022-23 and to suggest a way of working over a two-year period.

I am very disappointed that the offer was not taken to members. I recognise that some of the other unions did take the offer to members and I await with interest what happens when the result comes back.

We all have to compromise in situations such as this pay dispute. The Government has attempted to do so, but it is unfortunate that we will not hear the voice of EIS members at this time.

The relationship with the EIS trade union seems to be deteriorating. There is no doubt that when the revised pay offer was made to the EIS, the BBC was told first. Why was that allowed to happen? Secondly, the cabinet secretary criticised the EIS for not putting the latest pay offer to members. Is it the cabinet secretary’s job to tell union leaders how to do their job?

It is very difficult when it comes to members of the media knowing what is happening in disputes, given that it was not just the Scottish Government, but local government, COSLA and all the council leaders who knew what was happening in the negotiation. It was deeply disappointing that some of that material came into the public domain. I do not think that it coming into the public domain in the way that it did helped anyone.

We will continue to work carefully with the trade unions. I would not dream of telling trade union leadership or union members what to do. I highly respect the mandate of the trade unions and the right of a trade union to carry out industrial action. However, at this point, when the dispute has gone on for as long as it has and is impacting on children and young people, particularly in the run-up to exams, it is disappointing that the union has taken that decision. It is the EIS’s right to take that decision but it is disappointing because it would have helped everyone if it had gauged the feeling on that offer.

Please be brief.

As I said in my original reply, the talks are continuing this week to see whether we can reach a resolution.

The industrial action is impacting pupils and their families. Is it not funny that when the EIS targeted the constituencies of Nicola Sturgeon, John Swinney and Shirley-Anne Somerville, more money appeared? In this chamber, four times on 7 February, once on 17 January, twice on 10 January, and once on 22 November—eight times in less than three months—the cabinet secretary said that there was no new money for teachers’ pay. However, here we are: £153 million of new money on the table for a new pay deal. Where did the cabinet secretary find this new money? Why did it take so long for any offer to be put on the table for negotiation?

Once again, and not for the first time, Mr Kerr seems to not grasp the detail of the issue. We took those decisions because we rose to the challenge and because of the fact that we needed to compromise. That is not without its consequences. We have tried exceptionally hard for the 2022-23 offer.

The money that Mr Kerr refers to is over two years, and again, we have tried exceptionally hard for 2023-24 to find funding for a fair and additional settlement. I could be wrong, Presiding Officer, but I am not aware that Mr Kerr or anyone else has approached the Deputy First Minister as he has gone through the budget process to suggest another way forward or where more money could be found. If he has not done that, I suggest that this is yet another vacuous attempt by Mr Kerr that does not raise the debate whatsoever.

With this year’s exam diet due to begin in just two months, will the cabinet secretary intervene on behalf of those pupils who are set to miss an additional six days at this crucial point in the academic year? Will the cabinet secretary ensure that the Scottish Qualifications Authority makes adequate provisions for the young people who are adversely affected by strike action? To be blunt, what is the cabinet secretary doing to ensure that she helps rather than harms the education of young people, particularly in targeted constituencies such as Dunfermline?

Mr Marra raised a very important point about the build-up to exams, and I hope that we in all parts of the dispute agree that we need to resolve that. It is clear that the SQA has already made modifications to the national qualifications for 2023, and that is very important. It is also working on exam support, but more important, and in addition to that, is the work of Education Scotland, the national e-learning offer and the work of the regional improvement collaboratives. That is all there to assist young people in the build-up to their exams and during the exam diet.

We will ensure that all that information is there for pupils, so that they know that the support is out there for them. I absolutely recognise that this must be an exceptionally worrying time, particularly when learning is being further disrupted. That is why support has been put in place, not just through the SQA or Education Scotland but through regional improvement collaboratives, local authorities and the Scottish Government working together to support our young people at this difficult time.

Surveys of members by the EIS have exposed the extent to which many teachers no longer find the job rewarding. Some teachers report that they are using food banks and working second jobs, and some are considering leaving the profession for supermarket roles that pay only 50p an hour less. Does the cabinet secretary accept that there is no sustainable plan for teacher retention and that there is an urgent need for a real-terms increase in pay?

That is why we are working very hard to find a solution to the issue. I again make the point that I made to Mr Kerr. Unless colleagues in the Labour Party came forward during the budget process and suggested where that new money would come from to support that real-terms increase, we are again seeing grandstanding but no solutions.

On the pay offer for teachers, we worked with local government to suggest a differentiated offer that would help those on the lowest grades—yes, that meant slightly less for those at the highest grades—but that has been roundly rejected by all unions, who want to see a flat-rate increase across the board regardless of grade. We would have liked to have worked on a progressive differentiated offer, but that is not what the unions want, and if that is not what the unions want, we will need to try to find a way through that.

That concludes topical questions.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my answer to question 1, I intended to refer to a figure of 200,000 installations per year by the end of the decade. I believe that I may have used the wrong figure, and I want to very quickly draw attention to what was an inadvertent slip of the tongue.

Thank you, Mr Harvie. That comment is now on the record.