Chamber and committees

Have I got time, Presiding Officer?

I begin by fully acknowledging that the current cost of living situation is a serious issue for many families across the country, who see their household bills going in one direction, particularly utility bills, fuel and many items of food. I also acknowledge that their anxiety has been heightened by concerns over the direction of some UK and some Scottish Government policies, all of which have come at the same time as increasing political tension between Russia and Ukraine.

As the International Monetary Fund set out so clearly on Monday when analysing the threats to world economic recovery, this is not an easy time for anyone, especially the most vulnerable families, who it is clear are having to face very tough choices. It may be true that the living wage has increased and tax rates have fallen for those on universal credit, but that does not go nearly far enough to help lower earners, who spend 38 per cent of their income on groceries, heating and electricity, compared with the 18 per cent that higher earners pay. For many of the items that are at the sharp end of increasing costs and, therefore, increasing prices, lower income groups are disproportionately affected, and we should be concerned about that. I will say more about that in a minute.

Seldom are economists united in their approach to economic analysis, but they are when it comes to the reasons for the current high level of global inflation, as are producers and suppliers who are involved in international trade, who confirm that much of the current level of inflation is a direct result of sharply rising shipping and transportation costs—that is one of the main reasons behind the chancellor’s cut in fuel duty—the increases in wholesale gas costs and the disruption to many supply chains.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development inflation statistics are grim, as are yesterday’s G7 statistics, but there is another important issue, which relates to shortages in labour markets. I have argued previously in the chamber that I would like the UK Government to do much more to ensure that there is greater flexibility in labour markets. In Fife and Perthshire, for example, unnecessary constraints have restricted the supply of seasonal workers for fruit and vegetable farming.

The other factor is that there is demand-led inflation, because there are pent-up levels of demand, which are rising as the Covid pandemic diminishes in scope. Businesses desperately need that demand; so, too, does the country when it comes to addressing weaker economic growth and investment. However, we all know that the policies to deal with demand-led inflation do not always sit easily with those to control cost-push inflation.

We know, too, that the cost of the pandemic is well over £400 billion and that 6 million people are on NHS waiting lists. Whether we like it or not, it was generally agreed when it was first announced that the national insurance increase needed to be gone ahead with.

I have heard the claims that VAT on fuel bills should be scrapped, but economic history tells us that that is not the best way of assisting those who are most in need, as it is not a progressive measure. Indeed, while it might reduce bills by 5 per cent, it would cost the Treasury billions of pounds, thereby necessitating much more stringent measures across the economy, which, of course, we can ill afford.

Therefore, the UK Government has decided to look at other ways to mitigate the effects of the current situation, whether through a UK Government loan to the energy companies of £5 billion to £6 billion, which would reduce household bills by around £200, an increase in the warm home discount or additional loans through which families can get immediate help and more substantial assistance, which is exactly what consumer groups have demanded.

We recently debated replacements for European Union structural funds, but I remain rather surprised by the tone of the reaction in the Parliament to the levelling up fund and the shared prosperity fund, given the direct support that they will provide to local communities—

I will not, if Ms Robison does not mind.

Local authorities have warmly welcomed that extra support.

As the Scottish Fiscal Commission has stated many times, it is vitally important to focus on where there is economic imbalance and on helping weaker areas to thrive, and I ask the Scottish Government to consider whether it should not be warmly welcoming the shared prosperity fund, as many—

I am sorry, but I gave way to the cabinet secretary. I was simply asking about time.

Let me say clearly that one of the reasons regarding the EU fund is that there is still money coming into Scotland from the EU. The taper effect is not reflected by the statistics that the cabinet secretary has just quoted.

I will also say to the cabinet secretary that many people in local councils, including in SNP-run ones, very much welcome the figure.

I move amendment S6M-04050.1, to leave out from “considers that both” to end and insert:

“recognises the significant economic challenges being faced by households and businesses as a result of the intense pressures from rising global inflation and increased costs of production; believes that the UK and Scottish governments need to work together to address these challenges, most especially for vulnerable groups and those on lower incomes, and welcomes the emphasis being placed by the UK Government on Levelling Up, Shared Prosperity and Community Renewal funds to assist those areas with weak economic growth, weak investment and lower employment levels.”

Will the member give way?

I agree that there should be constructive debate. What constructive suggestions does Mr Harvie have in relation to the principle of economic growth? What policies are the Scottish Greens looking to that would benefit the economy? I have heard several times that the Greens do not approve of economic growth. That is a very serious issue when it comes to the cost of living.

I thank the cabinet secretary for prior sight of her statement. The Parliament will be pleased to have some more information about the STACS initiative.

First, I draw the cabinet secretary’s attention to the following. In 2008, there were 766 teachers of computing science, but, 18 months ago, that number had fallen to 595. In 2001, 28,000 pupils in Scotland were studying computing science, but, by 2020, that number was 9,800. As a result of the subject choice issue, the number of schools that offer the subject has fallen from 2,500 to 425. If the Scottish National Party wants the initiative to take place and be successful, what is it doing to address the subject choice issue?

I am glad to hear that there will be some assessment, because the policing of those changes is a matter for Police Scotland. On account of the concerns that many constituents, especially elderly constituents, have raised that many drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are not properly adhering to the new code, what can be done to raise awareness of the changes and to ensure that those who are flouting the new regulations are properly dealt with?

I thank the minister for the early sight of his statement.

In the first paragraph of his statement, he rightly mentions that the higher education sector is one of the key sectors when it comes to improving a range of economic factors. He is absolutely right about that. However, Universities Scotland has commented that Scotland is not sufficiently competitive when it comes to economic growth, and that was one of the unanimous conclusions of the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee.

I will read a short section of the Universities Scotland comment on that. It says:

“The research excellence grant has declined 18.2% in real terms since 2014/15”.

It continues:

“Over the same time period, Scotland’s universities have won a progressively smaller percentage share of UKRI resources, from a 15.4% share to a 12.9% share.”

What does the minister think is the reason for Scotland not winning so many of those research grant projects, and what is being done to address that?

Secondly, the minister talked about improving the trade environment for Scotland’s businesses. He will know that one of the big asks of the business community—and, indeed, of the Scottish Funding Council—is that much more needs to be done to upskill and reskill our workforce, and to provide a much greater focus on digital skills, data science and leadership and management skills, by making far more resources available through the national transition training fund. Is that going to happen?

Ms Henderson, you said in your opening remarks that there were people on the Leaders Forum who operate the national performance framework and who felt that that was a good thing to do, even if nobody asked them about it. If people are not being asked about it, does something need to happen to ensure that the public are more aware of the framework and what it means? If so, how would you do that? I do not think that people in the street would have a clue what the national performance framework was if you asked them.