This search includes all content on the Scottish Parliament website, except for Votes and Motions. All Official Reports (what has been said in Parliament) and Questions and Answers are available from 1999. You can refine your search by adding and removing filters.
That is defined at UK level, and the money might be spent somewhere other than Scotland, which means that we would not get more bang for the buck from any extra public funding that we might put in.
We should go for a “let’s improve everybody” approach, with a bit extra for some. An issue with things being local is that when we start talking about localities we start talking about boundaries.
As it has for most new duties that come from legislation, the Government has a general convention that we will provide extra funding. The difficulty with the bill is that we cannot quantify that funding at the moment.
I realise that you do not yet have the tender prices but, whatever the final cost is, will the funding come out of the CalMac group’s current capital programme, or are you getting any extra money from the Scottish Government?
That is part of my point. How are we getting all the extra fertiliser efficiency measures and the 260 kilotonnes when there are currently 50 kilotonnes with the FFBC programme?
So within the £45 million, there is potentially some extra staff cost. We are at the early stages—in the planning process—so we certainly have not decided exactly what the jobs are, who the people are and where they will be.
Have any calculations been done to estimate the extra amount that would be released for spending in the marketplace if there was more of a focus on tackling fuel poverty?
However, the reduction in the hours of paid care that they could then afford—that potential element of extra work—is likely to be picked up by an unpaid carer, which creates stress for the unpaid carer who will need to deliver that extra care.