Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 8, 2022

Official Report 1011KB pdf

---

Topical Question Time

The next item of business is topical question time. I would be grateful for short and succinct questions and answers in order to get in as many members as possible.

---

Fire Brigades Union (Discussions)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Fire Brigades Union on its plans to remove the bottom of classroom doors. (S6T-00499)

The Scottish Government meets the Fire Brigades Union regularly and will continue to have constructive dialogue on any matters of concern.

However, as Tess White will be aware, the Scottish Government has no plans such as she mentioned. Contributions in the chamber last week were based on a wilful misunderstanding of examples of mitigations that local authorities may implement, under certain circumstances, to improve ventilation in problematic spaces in schools. Those examples, which included use of air-cleaning devices, installation of small mechanical vents and adjustment of doors, were used as means to generate the overall costs for the up to £5 million top-up fund that has been made available to local authorities to improve ventilation in schools. That was set out in a letter to the Education, Children and Young People Committee, stating:

“the precise remedial measures used in each problematic space should be informed by local circumstances and expert assessment by local authority teams.”

Our guidance on reducing risks in schools supports expert local authority teams and makes it clear that local authorities must consider legal health and safety obligations, including on fire safety. Officials have spoken with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service regarding that matter, and it has confirmed that it understands the Scottish Government’s approach in seeking to improve ventilation in schools. In line with its usual practice, it is happy to provide advice and support to local authorities regarding any changes to structures that might have an impact on fire-risk assessments.

The cabinet secretary said, “a wilful misunderstanding”? In recent days, we have had two significant interventions on, or “misunderstandings” of, the plan. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service said that it would strongly advise those who are responsible for making the changes—I am talking about the “misunderstandings”—to contact its fire safety enforcement teams before doing so. Given that, can the cabinet secretary say whether those proposals are definitely “misunderstandings”?

The interpretation by Opposition parties is absolutely a deliberate misunderstanding. I have already said what the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has said, and I absolutely concur with its view—as I concur with its views on all aspects of fire safety—that the discussions on those specific examples should continue at a very local level.

However, the absolute truth of the matter is that the reports that Tess White mentioned are misleading. When the Covid-19 ventilation short-life working group was asked to look at media reporting, following misinterpretation in the chamber, it confirmed that adjusting the undercut of a non-fire door can be necessary if, for example, the installation of a small mechanical vent system changes the air pressure in a room in a way that makes a door difficult to open, which could, in itself, present a hazard. That is exactly why that specific measure was included as an element of the example scenario.

Ventilation must be viewed systematically. Introduction of changes such as mechanical ventilation can have knock-on impacts on other aspects of ventilation and of health and safety. That is exactly why the examples were given as they were—as part of a specific scenario.

The cabinet secretary talks about “deliberate misunderstandings”. Parents the length and breadth of Scotland are looking at the plans—or, as she says, they are misunderstanding them—with consternation and concern. Even securely closed non-fire doors can help to slow the spread of fire and prevent smoke inhalation. That is common sense.

The Scottish Government has had two years to sort out the “misunderstandings”, as she calls them, yet it is still making proposals that should have been considered in 2020—not in 2022. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that spending £300,000 on chopping off the bottom of doors is not going to happen?

Again, I will get into the absolute specifics of a scenario in which that would happen. The example scenario had three elements: use of an air-cleaning device as a temporary mitigation; installation of a small mechanical vent; and adjustment of the door, through undercutting, to improve airflow. The latter element is absolutely required because, as I have already said, installation of mechanical ventilation can change the air pressure in a room, which can lead to the door being harder to open, which is, potentially, a health and safety issue.

With the greatest respect, I say to Tess White—who has, I am afraid, joined her colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives in adding deliberate misunderstanding of the issue—that we will continue to listen to the experts on health and safety. Local authorities, which are responsible for making changes that are specific to the requirement of each room, will, of course, continue to have discussions at a very local level, specific to local examples. That is exactly what I think parents, young people and, indeed, teachers would expect.

I have great concerns about some of the nonsense and scaremongering that Opposition colleagues in the chamber have been engaging in with regard to the safety of pupils and staff in schools. For the benefit of pupils and teachers alike, can the cabinet secretary set out how the Scottish Government is supporting local authorities to ensure that our classrooms are well ventilated and that our schools are as safe as possible?

Throughout the pandemic, we have worked closely with colleagues in local authorities to ensure that the safety of children and all educational staff remains our overriding priority, while minimising further disruption to learning. We have been very clear that Covid mitigations will need to stay in place no longer than is absolutely necessary. We absolutely must balance that with appropriate caution and will remove mitigations as soon as possible.

Our specific support on ventilation includes the additional capital funding of £5 million that the First Minister announced on 11 January. That is on top of the £10 million of funding for ventilation and CO2 monitoring in schools, and on top of the previous £90 million of Covid logistics funding that could be used for purposes that included ventilation.

As always, our guidance continues to be informed by expert advice.

It should be a matter of considerable regret that the Government’s handling of the issue has descended into a matter of ridicule and concern such as we see in newspapers across Scotland. I have raised the matter with the cabinet secretary on no fewer than 12 occasions in the chamber and in committee. It is vital, in order to rebuild confidence among teachers, families and pupils and to ensure good ventilation in Scottish schools, that the Scottish Government finally backs Labour’s plan to install two air filters in every classroom. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that that plan could sort out the problem?

With the greatest respect, I say to Michael Marra that he continues to come back with the same plan and my answer continues to be the same. That plan is not based on expert advice. We listen to what the ventilation experts suggest we do; I will base my advice and the guidance that the Government produces on that.

I will continue to listen to what Michael Marra has to say, but I am sorry to say that if he continues to come back with the same proposal, which is not based on evidence, on advice or on what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom, my answer will continue to be that I will listen to the experts and our guidance will be based on what they say.

I have read the cabinet secretary’s letter. The proposal was not an example: it was costed. It was costed for 2,000 classrooms at £150 a time, which is £300,000. The cabinet secretary is now being laughed at across the country for her proposals. She should ditch them and, as Michael Marra said, invest in air filters. If they are good enough for 2,000 classes, they should be good enough for 50,000. She should invest in air filters and stop the nonsense about cutting the bottoms off doors.

There is no such plan in the Scottish Government guidance. The letter gave an example scenario that I have gone into in detail. [Interruption.]

Could we please have some quiet when the cabinet secretary responds?

I am afraid, Presiding Officer, that those members are just not interested in the detail of the answer or in how the guidance has come about.

We have moved quickly with local authorities on discussion about the need for remedial work in schools. They have identified some problematic spaces. As I set out in an earlier letter to the committee, many of those spaces have required exceptionally small-scale repairs. The Government has still ensured that there is an additional £5 million to ensure that, if other mitigation measures are required, there is no funding barrier.

We will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that they have adequate resources to provide reassurance. However, problematic spaces are being addressed. We have recently had feedback from officials from one of our larger local authorities who have been continually assessing spaces—in their case, about 4,500—who said that, during January, only three were found to be problematic.

Remedial work is already being undertaken; as I said, we will continue to provide funding to ensure that there is no barrier to any improvements that any local authority requires to make.

---

Life Expectancy

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent National Records of Scotland report, “Healthy Life Expectancy in Scotland”, showing that healthy life expectancy has decreased in each of the last four years for females, and in each of the last three years for males. (S6T-00500)

Increasing life expectancy and reducing health inequalities across Scotland remains a clear ambition for the Government and is at the heart of our Covid recovery strategy.

We need to support people in our most deprived areas, where healthy life expectancy is 24 years lower than it is in our least deprived areas. By targeting our actions to areas and communities that are most in need, we will seek to ensure equity in our approach, to avoid widening inequalities further.

We are committed to providing £9 million a year for smoking cessation services and £5.7 million for weight-management services. However, socioeconomic inequalities drive health inequalities, so our public health efforts are complemented by wide-ranging cross-Government action, including the provision of free school meals and increasing the number of hours of free childcare.

The fact that healthy life expectancy is going backwards is nothing short of a scandal. It is a fundamental measure of how our society is progressing. Years of public health failures that predate the pandemic, and mounting pressure on our national health service, are robbing people of their best years.

The two areas that have the lowest number of years spent in good health are both in my West Scotland region—they are Inverclyde for males, where the figure is 54.4 years, and North Ayrshire for females, where the figure is 54 years. Those communities have experienced years of cuts to health services and to council budgets, which provide vital community support, social work and regeneration services. Just a few months ago, the Government cut vital funding to those communities for closing the poverty-related attainment gap. When will the Government act to fund services properly to improve health and wellbeing across Scotland and to tackle the disgraceful health inequalities?

Tackling health inequalities is a major concern for Governments and communities around the world, and Scotland faces the same challenge as many other countries do. We will use all our available powers to address the impact of the current cost of living crisis, which includes introducing legislation—

Fifteen years.

Fifteen years.

From a sedentary position, Conservative colleagues are shouting, “Fifteen years.” We have had 11 years of austerity, welfare reform and disinvestment in policies that protect children. We have had the two-child cap and the benefit freeze. Such things have an impact and a cost. We are fighting health inequalities with one hand tied behind our back. We are spending £600 million a year on mitigating the effect of harsh and brutal Tory policies that impact on the poorest people in our society. I would appreciate it if, just once, Labour members would highlight that issue.

I did not detect in the minister’s answer any recognition that, after 14 years in government, the Scottish National Party should accept that this shameful situation has unfolded under its watch. The gap in respect of premature deaths is at its widest since 2007, when the SNP came to power. The gap of 26 years in life expectancy between the most affluent areas and the least affluent areas is the widest ever.

It is clear that radical solutions are needed, such as those that Professor David Kerr of the University of Oxford has advocated. He has called for implementation of the framework that Professor Sir Michael Marmot devised, which would devolve to local communities powers and funding for education, public health, early years and employment to find solutions that work for our diverse cities, towns and villages.

The Government talks big and does little. Is it not time to take a radical approach to tackling such issues?

We are taking a radical approach. We have invested in 1,140 hours of childcare and we are investing further. We have brought in the Scottish child payment, which is countered by the reduction in universal credit. We are doing what we can to tackle fuel poverty and food insecurity. In the past year, food-parcel use has decreased in Scotland, which is the only country in the United Kingdom where that has happened. Scotland has lower fuel poverty levels than the rest of the UK.

Such things are impossible to tackle fully without all the levers that are available to the UK Government. We do not have responsibility for employment law. We have in Scotland—[Interruption.]

I would be grateful to everyone across the chamber—and certainly to those who are joining in verbally when they should not be—if we could hear from the minister.

The UK is the sixth, or fifth, richest country in the world and, UK-wide, we have the highest levels of poverty and inequality in north-west Europe. We have the highest levels of in-work poverty in Europe, but Paul O’Kane’s party did not enable this Parliament to take power over employment law—his party blocked that.

To reverse the trend of falling healthy life expectancy, we need drastic improvements in Scotland’s public health. A group of nine organisations, including the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK, recently published the briefing paper “Non-Communicable Diseases: Progress Report on Health Harming Product Action”, which is critical of the lack of progress on tackling unhealthy environments.

Does the minister agree that we need to implement bold policies that address the root cause of poor health and tackle unhealthy environments by restricting the promotion and availability of harmful products such as alcohol, unhealthy food and tobacco?

I absolutely agree with that, and we have a programme of work to tackle all those issues. We are restricting promotions on less healthy food and drink; we are working with the UK Government to do that. We are evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing of alcohol—that bold policy that this Parliament brought forward to tackle an issue that has blighted Scotland, and shortened lives here, for so long. We also have a refreshed tobacco action plan, and just this week we are launching a consultation on vaping.

A great deal of work is going on to tackle health inequalities and the unhealthy environment that we live in, but we cannot tackle health inequalities without also tackling income and wealth inequalities—it is absolutely crazy to think that we can.