Scottish Parliament, 2 October 2013

273 contributions from 53 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good afternoon. Before I call the first item of business, I would like to advise members that I have selected an emergency question from Neil Findlay on the information technology problems at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. This question will be taken after portfolio question time.

Educational Psychologists

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

1. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the availability of educational psychologists. (S4O-02442)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Educational psychology services are provided by education authorities in Scotland as a statutory requirement under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, and educational psychologists are employed directly by authorities to fulfil those duties. We are working in partnership with the national Scottish steering group for educational psychologists to look at appropriate workforce planning at a national level.

David Stewart (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

A few short weeks ago, I met a student from Elgin who told me that she had just started a two-year master of science course in educational psychology at the University of Strathclyde but had to pay the full £9,365 yearly tuition fees even though, last year, no fees were applicable on the course. I will, of course, write to the minister about her case, but how will the introduction of tuition fees for this course widen access to higher education and tackle the shortage of educational psychologists across Scotland?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I am more than happy to correspond with the member on individual constituents.

I point out that the costs of tuition for these courses must be seen in the context that they are postgraduate courses. Were we to follow the practice elsewhere of charging tuition fees for first degrees, things would obviously be different, but we do not: we provide first degrees free. With regard to the postgraduate course in question, a loan is provided to cover the costs of tuition.

I do not underestimate the task faced by any student in taking on postgraduate study but it is important to point out that 38 students are currently training as educational psychologists and that that meets the demand that has been set out. However, as I have said, I am more than happy to correspond with the member on any individual.

Second-language Learning

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

2. To ask the Scottish Government what the educational benefits are of learning a second language. (S4O-02443)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The educational benefits of learning a second language are well documented and include personal, cognitive, economic and societal benefits. Young people develop increased confidence and better skills in, for example, talking and listening and a greater understanding of how language works.

The Scottish Government recognises those benefits, which is why we have a manifesto commitment to create the conditions in which all young people can learn two languages in addition to their mother tongue—in other words, the one-plus-two model—by 2020. We are taking that forward in many ways, including through additional funding and support for local authorities.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the minister for that very full reply. Mindful of the fact that a large body of evidence demonstrates that the benefits of a second language extend to subjects across the curriculum, I wonder whether the minister can give me further detail on the Scottish Government’s plans to increase the provision of second-language learning in our schools.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

The member makes the good point that the benefits of learning languages extend to other subjects. For that reason, we are working with local authorities to increase the provision of that learning to ensure that by 2020 pupils start their second language in primary 1 rather than primary 6, which is what generally happens at the minute, and that we make steady progress towards that aim. We also plan to introduce a third language in primary 5 in all schools by 2020.

In taking that forward, local authorities have been requested to audit their current language provision and we have committed £4 million in 2013-14 to help them to do that. This provision will not simply appear overnight in 2020; instead, it will require a change in attitude and practice in schools across Scotland. Schools and local authorities are enthusiastic about making that change.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given the educational benefits stated by the minister and given the future proposals that he has outlined, why has the number of foreign-language assistants fallen from 284 in 2006 to only 59 in 2012? In fact, even though our population is much bigger, Scotland has fewer language assistants than Wales or Northern Ireland.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I understand that the number has gone up to 74 this year from the 59 that Mary Scanlon mentioned.

We would like to see more assistants, which is why we work with and support the British Council and others. However, it is open to local authorities to decide how to use the additional funding that is being provided for languages. If they use some of that for foreign language assistants, that is a cost-effective way of doing things. I am satisfied that we are doing a lot and that the numbers have stabilised and are going up.

Scottish Universities (Poll Rankings)

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

3. To ask the Scottish Government what it considers the benefits are of the performance of Scottish universities in recent polls for students domiciled in Scotland. (S4O-02444)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The rankings confirm what we already know about the strengths of our world-class system of higher education. Students who study here—let us not forget that a record number of Scottish students were accepted into our universities this year—can be confident in the quality of what our universities offer, which is precisely why more than 90 per cent of graduates find themselves in positive destinations six months after they complete their degrees.

Nigel Don (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

One consequence of the high standing of Scottish universities is that they attract the best foreign students. The recent “Richer for it” report commented on the number of international students who come here. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry recently warned that its biggest concern for the future of research in Scotland is the United Kingdom Government’s visa policy. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about that?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Absolutely. Such concerns are shared across the higher education sector; university principals will make that point. At a recent event on the future of higher education that I took part in at the University of Dundee, every panel member—including Opposition spokespeople on education—agreed that the policy of successive UK Governments has been negative.

The result has been a detrimental impact on the international competitiveness of Scottish education. The policy adds burdens for our institutions and students and it deters students. I have to say—I am sure that members will not be surprised—that independence will provide the clearest and best way of giving us the opportunity to manage immigration so that we can meet our nation’s economic, social and demographic priorities.

Supply Teachers

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

4. To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting local authorities in relation to the availability of supply teachers. (S4O-02445)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government undertakes annual teacher workforce planning discussions with local authorities, as represented by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education, together with the professional associations, universities, the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council, the General Teaching Council for Scotland and Education Scotland. The exercise includes provision for supply teachers.

The Scottish Government plays an active role through the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers in discussions on pay. An SNCT pay offer is on the table that will improve pay for those who undertake supply work, and I hope that the teacher unions will accept that offer. It is of course each local authority’s responsibility to manage its teacher workforce in a way that ensures that it has sufficient staff to meet local needs.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the recent staffing difficulties in the English department at Marr college, where he received a self-evidently excellent education. Will he assure me and my constituents that a lack of appropriately qualified supply teaching staff in that department is now resolved? If not, what help can the Scottish Government give South Ayrshire Council in what is and has been a difficult situation?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am glad that the quality of the education at Marr college shows so obviously to the member—it was indeed of high quality.

I stress that the matter is for South Ayrshire Council, and I do not want to diminish its responsibility. As the member knows, I have asked the council what progress it is making and whether assistance can be given. The council is resolving the matter and is taking steps to do so. Those steps appear to be bearing fruit, including appointments to new posts. The council hopes that the matter will be resolved in the next week or two. I encourage John Scott to come back to me on whether more help can be given if that is required.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that recent figures show that teacher unemployment is at its lowest level for eight years. I am sure that, like me and others, he very much welcomes that. Will he explain the reasons for that wonderful success?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I welcome the recent figures that show that teacher unemployment is at its lowest level in eight years. The jobseekers allowance claimant count has fallen by 29 per cent in the past year to the lowest August figure since the current time series began in 2005, which endorses the actions that we have taken. We have achieved the drop by cutting student teacher numbers, moderating the supply side of the equation and securing a shared commitment with local authorities to maintain teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers, which ensures a continuing demand for teachers.

The figures also show a far lower level of teacher unemployment in Scotland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Of course, we can adjust those figures as needed, and I know that subsequent questions might enable me to go into more detail about how we do so.

Teacher Employment

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

5. To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with local authorities about teacher employment issues. (S4O-02446)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government discusses a wide range of issues with local authorities—including issues relating to teacher employment—on an individual and a collective basis.

In addition to ad hoc bilateral discussions with individual local authorities, we engage more formally with them about teacher employment issues in three ways: we regularly attend the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland’s personnel network; we have a key involvement, as I have said, in the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers; and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland are represented with us on the teacher workforce planning advisory group.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. Notwithstanding the SNCT offer that is on the table, which is obviously designed to improve the attractiveness of supply teaching, can the cabinet secretary tell us what measures he believes are being put in place by the local authorities to ensure that it is qualified supply teachers who are employed, rather than other employees in local authorities, who may be seen as lower cost?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There is an obligation to provide teachers to teach in schools—that has been an issue of some contention on other occasions, but I would not expect teachers to be substituted for.

We need to ensure that there is an adequate number of teachers to meet most of the anticipated circumstances. Obviously, there cannot be a system that deals with every single circumstance of every absence in every Scottish school and there will be times when that has to be borne with, but, for most of the time, there should be sufficient teachers to be able to cope in those circumstances.

The difficulties with teacher employment are historical; they arise from an oversupply up to 2007, which had to be adjusted. It was unsustainable in the circumstances. We have now brought the numbers broadly into balance and we need to continue to keep them in balance. The teacher workforce planning exercise includes an element for supply. The new arrangements that are on the table with regard to salaries adjust the agreement that we reached two years ago. That agreement was accepted by the unions and the local authorities. It was not imposed—it was an accepted agreement—but it has required to be looked at again and it is being looked at again.

I also say to the member that one of the surest guarantees of success in this matter is to accept that we should keep essentially the ratio of teachers to pupils that we have at the moment. It is a very good measure to continue with. It is there, it is being used, it is part of our agreement with COSLA, and I do not think that we should go into a situation in which anybody questions the effectiveness of that measure. We should keep it in place.

Joan McAlpine (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

What does the cabinet secretary see as the main benefits of Scotland’s unique offer of a year of probation, which is offered to all those who qualify?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The year of probation is a unique offer and it is an offer that is extremely well thought of worldwide. Prior to the introduction of Scotland’s unique teacher induction scheme, many teachers spent their probationary period working on a piecemeal basis in a variety of schools with little or no continuity of experience or support. It was very much a sink or swim experience.

Now all new teachers who are eligible to join the scheme are offered a year-long contract with one local authority in one school. They enjoy a four-hour weekly reduction in class contact time compared with experienced teachers, continuity as regards the class or classes that they plan for and work with, dedicated time with their mentor, and a structured programme of professional development that is provided by their school and local authority.

That is part of the growing and developing arrangements for teacher employment. I spoke yesterday morning at an event that was organised by the teacher employment group that is working with the Scottish Government to look at how teacher employment and training issues develop through probation into whole-career assistance.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as long ago as 2007, said that Scotland’s approach to teacher induction was world class. It remains world class and will go on being world class.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

7. At the risk of continuing the theme, to ask the Scottish Government what recent action it has taken to improve teacher employment. (S4O-02448)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

There is even more that I can say on this theme, but the Presiding Officer does not look that enthusiastic that I do so.

Post-probation employment prospects for new teachers are better than in each of the past four years and I have given the figures. We achieved that by taking difficult decisions to limit the supply of new teachers—we cut student teacher intake numbers in 2009, cut them more severely in 2010 and then pegged them at that level in 2011.

We have also addressed the demand side of the equation. Despite the financial constraints, we have secured a shared commitment with local authorities to maintain teacher numbers in line with pupil numbers. However, given the lead time that is required to bring new teachers into the profession, we are gradually increasing student teacher intakes again by 300 in 2012 and by a further 370 in 2013 to ensure that we meet future demand without reverting to the boom-and-bust situation of the past. I will be looking at the situation again later this year.

Angus MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that reply and acknowledge his answers to questions 4 and 5.

I am aware that the Scottish negotiating committee for teachers has been monitoring supply issues and that the Scottish Government has been assisting with that monitoring. In light of the recent reports on supply teacher numbers, what steps can the cabinet secretary take to increase the number of available supply teachers in Scotland?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I should probably say that I refer the member to the answers that I gave earlier, but I assure him that we look at such matters very seriously. I think that the current SNCT pay offer—I urge teachers to accept it—will make a difference and should bring in some who have opted out of supply work. However, the surest guarantee is maintaining the number of teachers.

Young People (Internet Use)

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

8. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to protect young people using the internet. (S4O-02449)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Although regulation of the internet is a reserved matter, we have established a stakeholder group on child internet safety that includes representation from a wide range of sectors. The group is a means of identifying emerging new concerns and is a way of highlighting and taking forward any necessary national action to address those concerns. We will continue to work within our powers with partners such as Police Scotland and the child exploitation and online protection centre to improve the online safety of Scotland’s children. We will announce further steps in this area shortly.

Christina McKelvie (Scottish National Party, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

The minister will be aware of the parliamentary debate that I led a few weeks ago that raised awareness about revenge porn and its devastating impact on people affected. We now have a frightening emerging situation of young people being groomed, threatened and bullied into performing sexual acts or dangerous self-harming on the internet. These images and videos are then being used to blackmail young people into doing more extreme acts, which is driving some young people to consider and even attempt suicide. Does the minister agree that this is a very alarming situation indeed? Does she welcome the advice that the child exploitation and online protection centre released this week saying, “Please tell someone. You are not to blame”?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Absolutely. I am very well aware of Christina McKelvie’s parliamentary debate last month. In her response to that debate, my colleague Shona Robison outlined the strategies that she is taking forward to end violence against women. I also endorse what Christina McKelvie said about the CEOP advice and I recognise that Police Scotland has issued advice to child victims of online sexual exploitation, to potential victims and to parents and carers on how to keep safe online. That is a message that we cannot afford not to reiterate time and again. As I said in my original answer to Ms McKelvie, we will announce more steps in this area very shortly.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Can the minister tell me how much of her strategy is focused on peer-led cyberbullying, which she will be aware is a significant problem? In the 70 pages of the Government’s “Behaviour in Scottish Schools 2012” report, cyberbullying is mentioned in only one paragraph. Is she doing enough to tackle cyberbullying in schools?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

Online safety in Scotland is monitored by a stakeholder group on child internet safety, which is looking at the issue of cyberbullying. As Christina McKelvie mentioned—and as I think Christina McKelvie is trying to bring to our attention—we cannot do enough on this issue, which is growing and growing. We owe it to all children across Scotland that they should be kept free and safe from harm. As I said in my original answer to Christina McKelvie, we intend to announce more work on this area very shortly.

University of the Highlands and Islands (Meetings)

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

9. To ask the Scottish Government when the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning last met the board of the University of the Highlands and Islands and what issues were discussed. (S4O-02450)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As universities are autonomous and independent bodies, board meetings are a matter for individual universities and are not generally attended by Scottish ministers, nor do ministers often have meetings with boards. However, ministers meet regularly with a wide range of university chairs and principals. I have met the principal of UHI formally and informally in recent months—also in the absence of a chair.

Jean Urquhart (Independent, Highlands and Islands)

Regarding the agenda for any of those meetings, would the cabinet secretary agree with me that, if UHI is to flourish by attracting students on to its courses, more appropriate residential accommodation will become a necessity at some of the partner colleges? Given the geography and structure of UHI, private development may be less attractive. Does the cabinet secretary accept that there might be a requirement for public funds to allow this necessary development to take place? Would he be interested in discussing the matter with UHI?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

UHI is of course a unique institution, consisting of 13 colleges and other bodies. Representatives of one or two of the colleges have raised issues with me—in particular during my summer tour this year—about accommodation and the difficulty of attracting accommodation. In raising her question with me, the member will probably be mindful of the position in Shetland, as the issue was raised with me by members of the board of Shetland College, one or two of whom I met when I was visiting Shetland.

The issue of how the university or the colleges invest in accommodation is an important one, and I am always happy to have discussions on the matter. Universities are often able to fund student accommodation through commercial arrangements, but if colleges are having difficulty, and if it is proved that the accommodation is needed—the University of the Highlands and Islands is also a distributed university, with a distributed studentship, many of whom are online—those discussions can take place. Of course, that is in a context of very great pressure on public finances.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that some of the funding for further education colleges in the Highlands and Islands comes through UHI, with its overhead costs of £15 million, some colleges are asking: how much will be taken out of the funding for colleges as it is filtered down through UHI?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

That has been a long-term issue. As the member will know having participated in the discussions on the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Bill and having met other MSPs and me on this specific issue, the Post-16 Education (Scotland) Act 2013 contains provisions that should ensure that an agreed amount of money is taken and that there is a role for the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council.

The real solution to the problem, which has been a matter of grievance in the past, as the member knows, is to ensure that the positioning of the further education board within the University of the Highlands and Islands is strong and that there is mutual respect between the board, its component parts and the university as a whole. I believe that the recent change to the university’s articles of association will help to achieve that. The legislation guarantees that and builds that in. Were there to be any question of that not being the case, the Scottish funding council has a role. There is a triple lock on that. The Parliament, and Highland members in particular—I pay tribute to all the Highland members involved—have helped to secure that. There were also representations from a range of colleges.

Glow Network Replacement

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

10. To ask the Scottish Government whether the replacement for the Glow network will be operational by December 2013. (S4O-02451)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I can give the member a positive no. We are not waiting until December. New Glow services are being rolled out now, and they will continue to be introduced and to come on stream in the coming months. That includes services to support the migration of information into Office 365 as well as the introduction of agile, open, best-of-breed systems that will enhance learning for children, young people and practitioners in Scotland.

I can announce today that Bill Maxwell, chief executive of Education Scotland, will be writing to all directors of education later this week about the next level of support that we will be giving to local authorities to help them to manage the change as they move from the decade-old SharePoint 2003 portal into a SharePoint 2013 environment.

Migration has proved technically challenging, as I know from my conversation last week at the Scottish learning festival with representatives of the contractor, RM Education, but they and I are confident that it will be successfully completed.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I find that answer very surprising. The ICT group that the cabinet secretary mentions has described the project as being in chaos, and Education Scotland told Dumfries and Galloway Council that it would not be ready until October 2014. The cabinet secretary spent £5.5 million extending the contract, and he has already spent £80 million on the Glow network, which is not working. Thousands of hours of teachers’ work have been lost, and thousands more are required to rebuild the network. Will the cabinet secretary tell teachers and pupils what they have got for the £80 million that he has spent on Glow?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would advise the member to be careful about some of the rhetoric surrounding the issue from one or two individuals. It is not borne out by the teacher membership of some of the significant groups, and it was not borne out by a number of people to whom I spoke at the learning festival, or indeed by some of the traffic at the learning festival.

Let me be clear about what is happening. The move from the current Glow to Glow in Office 365 started in April 2013, with the migration of the email system, which is now complete. There were significant technical issues associated with the migration of the data from the current Glow portal to the new SharePoint 2013 environment, which we have worked with our partner organisations RM and Microsoft to overcome. The migration of the content is now well under way. To date, about two thirds of the content has been migrated and 20 local authorities have access to all the new services in Office 365. The remaining 12 local authorities will have their portal content migrated by December 2013, which will include access to the Office 365 environment.

The data is being transferred from SharePoint 2003 to SharePoint 2013, but the unpacking of the data into the new SharePoint 2013 environment is proving difficult for some local authorities to manage. On-going work with key Glow contacts in local authorities continues to support them during this period of change. That includes an adoption support site that is available in Office 365, with some bespoke materials. [Laughter.] I am glad that Jackie Baillie is enjoying this, because, being very switched on, she will be entirely familiar with the technical matters that I am talking about.

The materials are being developed by teachers for teachers. The Office 365 support materials have been made available by dual running of the current Glow and Office 365 for a period of six months. That will give local authorities more time to carefully consider and consult on what content they want and need to populate the new environment and on creating the best possible experiences for children and young people and other users of their Glow service. [Laughter.] I am glad that members are enjoying this. I have a great deal more, if they wish to hear it. [Interruption.]

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Spare us!

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I think that I heard a no there from some members, so clearly they are fully satisfied with what is taking place.

Glow has been and continues to be a remarkable success, but of course it will change. It has an average of 55,000 users weekly and there were 1.3 million Glow logons in May and June this year.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

It does not work.

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

If the member wishes to have access to Glow by means of her own password, I am willing to arrange that. Then she will see how it operates, which will give her huge confidence in what is taking place and in the work of so many people to make it work.

Looked-after Children

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

11. To ask the Scottish Government what action it will take to ensure that looked-after children who have been in multiple placements have access to a stable education. (S4O-02452)

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

The Scottish Government will continue to make sure that the needs of looked-after children, young people and care leavers who have experienced multiple placements are embedded in its wider work to improve outcomes, such as getting it right for every child, curriculum for excellence, additional support for learning and more choices, more chances.

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill will improve the way in which services work to support children, young people and families by ensuring that there is a single planning approach for children who need additional support from services; creating a single point of contact around every child or young person; ensuring co-ordinated planning and delivery of services with a focus on outcomes; and providing a holistic and shared understanding of a child’s or young person’s wellbeing. The bill also places a duty on corporate parents to collaborate with each other when exercising their duties in relation to looked-after children, young people and care leavers.

Mary Fee (Labour, West Scotland)

GIRFEC and a stable home life are indeed important factors in stability for looked-after children. However, we know that looked-after children are significantly more likely to use our colleges than to use our universities. Does the minister agree that, with college budgets being cut, we must do more to support looked-after young people with their second-chance education?

Aileen Campbell (Scottish National Party, Clydesdale)

We are doing an enormous amount of work to support children who are looked after. I could list a number of things that we are doing on that. We have created the centre for excellence for looked after children in Scotland, or CELCIS, we have strengthened additional support for learning legislation and we are doing much to ensure that practitioners are empowered and given the appropriate training materials. However, the issue persists that the attainment of looked-after children needs to be supported more fully and they need to be given the opportunities that every other child in the country has.

We will absolutely ensure that the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill helps us to move the agenda forward. I know that not just in my portfolio but across the education brief and the Government, we intend to ensure that we take our corporate parenting responsibilities seriously to ensure that these children go on to succeed.

Female College Student Enrolment

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

12. To ask the Scottish Government how many female students were enrolled in colleges in 2007 and 2012. (S4O-02453)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council figures show that the majority of college learners are female. According to the funding council, the figure for female full-time equivalent students was 68,724 in academic year 2006-07, and 68,642 in 2011-12, which was a change of 0.1 per cent. I am pleased to say that that means that overall learning activity for female learners has been broadly maintained.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. He gave the answer very quickly so it was quite difficult to catch the detail, but is not it the case that there has been a sharp decline in the number of part-time students in further education colleges and that the majority of those students are women? What gender impact assessment did he apply before changing college policy and reducing the part-time places available?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We have been clear all along that it is, and was, important at a time of considerable pressure on youth unemployment to move as quickly and as radically as we could to ensure longer and more focused learning opportunities to take account of employment needs. That has been challenging, but it has been successful.

We have more than met our targets for full-time equivalent student numbers, which are virtually unchanged since 2006-07. That focus on full-time equivalent numbers has been important, but I accept the point that it is also important to continue to focus on women learners, and particularly on disadvantaged women learners. For example, we have asked colleges to deliver more for women. We have invested an extra £10 million in the academic year 2013-14 to target additional places for women returning to education, and those learners will be supported with record levels of student support—£97 million, including an additional £1.9 million this year for childcare and improved bursaries. Actions are being taken, and those actions will help in terms of employment and access.

Careers Guidance

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

13. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to improve the quality of careers guidance provision in schools. (S4O-02454)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The careers information advice and guidance strategy was published in March 2011. It sets the framework for the redesign and improvement of careers guidance for all, and Skills Development Scotland has been modernising its offer to schools and carrying out a series of reviews to ensure that it is meeting the needs of today’s young people. The focus is on developing the career management skills of individuals in order to equip them to seek and grasp career opportunities and to have the agility to cope when their circumstances change throughout their working lives.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

In a recent study of the my world of work website, University of Edinburgh academics Cathy Howieson and Sheila Semple confirmed that web-based services should never replace face-to-face contact, because face-to-face contact is most valued by the majority of young people. Given the recent Skills Development Scotland research, in which only 859 pupils out of 200,000 who are registered responded to the survey, does the minister accept that conclusions that are drawn about the value of my world of work from such a small survey should be treated with extreme caution?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

My understanding of the Skills Development Scotland customer satisfaction survey is that between 800 and 900 people replied and that the research that Mr Findlay mentioned was based on interviews with about 1,000 young people. I will take the evidence in the round, because the evidence in the round from that research and from previous research demonstrates what we have always said as a Government—that we have not and will not replace front-line careers advisers with web-based services.

The modernisation process is about having various channels of delivery. In the modern world, we want to use web-based facilities, but we also want to retain face-to-face contact. Last year, Skills Development Scotland delivered to all secondary 4, S5 and S6 students group sessions and face-to-face contact in relation to my world of work and vital career management skills. We are delivering our careers information, advice and guidance strategy through a variety of methods, and we will continue to do so.

School Internet Connections

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

14. To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that all schools have adequate internet connections. (S4O-02455)

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

At a cost of £2.1 million in 2013-14, the Scottish Government funds interconnect 2.0, a high-speed broadband network that provides an internet connection to all 32 Scottish local authorities, which is intended for use by education establishments.

Although interconnect delivers broadband to the local authority, connectivity to the individual education establishments remains the responsibility of the authority. Over £410 million of public and private sector funding is being invested in two of the largest and most complex next generation broadband infrastructure projects anywhere in Europe. Within that, investment in the Highlands and Islands amounts to £146 million, with £264 million invested in the rest of Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The minister will be aware that connectivity in remote and rural areas provides schools with the ability to offer a wider curriculum. As the Scottish Government is delivering interconnect to 32 local authorities, he will be well aware that it proves a challenge to the authorities in the Highlands and Islands to deliver it to schools because they have the biggest geographical spread—more schools and greater distances to travel. What support is the minister giving them to ensure that we have a level playing field and that children in Barra gain from the service as well as children in Baillieston?

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

As an island member, I have an interest in that as well. I am never done with being in touch with Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other agencies about some of the issues around rural broadband in the Highlands and Islands.

I should say that, from a national point of view, after this year, the Scotland-wide area network for schools—SWAN—will replace much of what is currently in place through interconnect. It is worth stressing that a truly enormous sum of public money is going into broadband in the Highlands and Islands. As I said, £146 million will be invested to bring fibre optic cable to many parts of Scotland that do not have it.

I entirely agree with the sentiment that every school in Scotland deserves that right to connectivity.

School Closure Procedures

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

15. To ask the Scottish Government what procedure local authorities should follow when taking decisions to close schools. (S4O-02456)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

It is important that local authorities are open and transparent in their consultation with parents, children and communities on school closure proposals. The Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 sets out a clear process for statutory consultation on proposed changes to the school estate, and ministers expect councils to comply fully with those statutory duties.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of Labour-led Fife Council’s plans to close a number of primary schools, notwithstanding the fact that parents’ views have not been taken into account and that the proposals do not make financial sense. Is there anything that the parents of, for example, Crombie, Wellwood and Pitcorthie primary schools can do to ensure that their voices are heard?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I am aware that, on 16 September, Fife Council commenced a phased consultation under the Schools (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 on a series of school closure proposals. Those consultations will run over the next three weeks. Full details can be found on Fife Council’s website.

However, the 2010 act requires the council to inform relevant consultees—which includes parents of any pupils at any affected school—of the proposals and how they may respond to the consultation. That includes attending a public meeting or responding in writing to the consultation. I strongly encourage all parents and any other interested parties to take those opportunities to ensure that their voices are heard.

Under the 2010 act, the Scottish ministers may call in and subsequently determine a closure decision. It is inappropriate to comment further at this stage on Fife Council’s plans in case that is seen to prejudice any decisions that must be taken. However, as the 2010 act clearly requires, I expect educational benefits for the affected children to be central to all school closure proposals that any council makes.

UK Student Visa Rules

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

16. To ask the Scottish Government what it considers the impact is of United Kingdom student visa rules on Scotland’s universities and colleges. (S4O-02457)

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I indicated earlier, we welcome talented people to live, learn, work and remain in Scotland. However, the negative message that is sent to prospective students by the UK Government’s student visa policies is a significant concern. Those policies threaten a detrimental impact on the international competitiveness of Scottish education, create additional burdens on institutions and students, and could well deter prospective students from applying to study in the UK. The Government has made clear its concerns to successive UK ministers of various hues on several occasions.

An independent Scotland would manage immigration in a way that effectively meets our nation’s economic, social and demographic priorities for a sector that is one of the largest in our economy.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I thank the minister for that reply and his earlier reply. Is he also aware of the problems facing many students from so-called blacklisted countries in opening bank accounts in Scotland, which mean that many are unable to continue studying and, ultimately, are forced to return home?

Michael Russell (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I understand that the UK immigration bill is expected to be introduced during the second week in October. That bill will propose that banks should no longer be permitted to operate bank accounts for certain migrants. I also understand that the Home Office intends to consult on additional powers to compel banks to close bank accounts for certain illegal migrants. My understanding is that that should not affect the bank accounts of those who are studying legitimately in Scotland, but I stress that the Scottish Government has not seen the draft legislation, and we will monitor it closely.

I cannot imagine that any legislation of that nature will draw people to study in Scotland, and that is the issue. If those actions are deterring people from studying in Scotland, they are deeply undesirable. The Scottish Government should have a responsibility there, and I do not think that any Scottish Government of any hue would act in that way.

Emergency Question

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is an emergency question from Neil Findlay on the information technology problems at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde (IT)

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the information technology problem at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has informed us that, as a result of a failure in its IT infrastructure yesterday morning, a number of out-patient appointments, in-patient procedures, day surgery cases and chemotherapy appointments have had to be postponed. Despite national health service staff working overnight to resolve the issue, it has continued into today. I stress right away that maternity and emergency services have been maintained throughout.

I understand that the failure is related to network servers that serve a number of the board’s systems and sites. That meant that clinicians were unable to access some services, including some patient records and imaging. In addition, the recognised standby process did not kick in.

There has been minimal impact on day cases and in-patient procedures. Only those procedures that require live access to images and theatres have been affected today. There has been an impact on out-patient appointments where the consultant is seeing a patient for the first time or requires access to electronic patient records. However, early indications are that, up to now, fewer than 10 per cent of out-patient appointments have been affected by the incident, and there has been minimal impact on day cases and in-patient appointments. That said, I express my concern for all those patients whose treatment was affected yesterday and today.

This morning, I spoke to the chair of the board, and the director general for health and social care in the Scottish Government has spoken to the board’s chief executive. I can report that NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has now been able to resolve the problem with the server and is incrementally reloading users back on to the system. No data appear to have been lost. Around 50 per cent of users now have access to the system, and the remainder should have access by later this evening. The system is being closely monitored to ensure that it remains robust.

NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde is contacting all patients who have been affected by the incident to ensure that they receive their treatment as soon as possible and that appointments are rescheduled as quickly as possible. I have asked that the board keep in close contact with my officials to ensure that we are fully apprised of the situation going forward. In addition, my officials will work closely with the board to establish the root cause of the incident and share the lessons with other NHS boards.

Finally, I thank all staff in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for their efforts over the past two days in working to resolve the issue.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

Obviously, the situation is very worrying. Many people have had their appointments cancelled. Will the cabinet secretary advise what will happen to patients who have missed appointments and cannot get another one immediately? What reassurance can he give patients who are waiting for treatment over the next few days? It is my understanding that similar systems are used in other health board areas. Will the cabinet secretary instruct an independent review of all IT systems that are being used to ensure that robust contingency plans are in place across Scotland?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On the last point, I have already instructed a robust review right across the NHS in Scotland with all the NHS boards to ensure that the IT systems, including the back-up systems, are robust.

Before I came to the chamber, I was updated on the figures for the people who are affected, as members would expect. Over the past two days until midday today, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has postponed 500 out-patient appointments, 14 planned in-patient procedures, 43 day cases and 48 chemotherapy patient treatments. However, in the same period, 7,400 patients have had their procedures and appointments maintained.

On the first point that Mr Findlay raised, every effort will be made to ensure that those affected by the problem will be treated at the earliest possible opportunity. It will be a matter of urgency to ensure that all those affected by the crashing of the IT system will receive their appointments as soon as possible in the near future.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

The cabinet secretary said that emergency services have not been affected. Can he confirm that and say whether he expects there to be any problems at all with emergency services?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I can guarantee that no one requiring emergency or maternity services has been affected, nor is there any anticipation whatsoever that that would happen even if the problem was not resolved this evening. The essential impact of the IT failure has been to deny access to certain aspects of the IT systems. I can give the member a list of the systems affected if she desires that level of detail. The impact has been on planned appointments and planned procedures, and there has been no impact on emergency or maternity services, I am delighted to say.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, West Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that what happened was not a failure of policy or management, but the failure of a system? Will he accept the support of everybody on the Conservative side of the chamber for the work that has been done to resolve the problem as speedily—it turns out—as it has been?

Alex Neil referred to lessons being learned and potentially passed on to other health boards. In resolving the issue, has the health board isolated now what the problem was and does it have any reason to believe that it may be something that other health boards need to know about urgently in case such an incident were to occur elsewhere, or was it more unexpected in nature?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, I thank Mr Carlaw for the tone of his remarks, which are much appreciated here and which I am sure will be much appreciated by the staff who are working so hard to resolve the issue.

It is too early yet to be absolutely sure why the problem happened and why the back-up system was not more resilient. The two software companies concerned—Microsoft and Charteris—are involved full time with our staff as well as with the staff of NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde in trying to get to the root cause of the problem.

I am obviously cautious, but it now looks as though we have broken the back of the problem in terms of the system being successfully rebooted and back up. We will know definitively how robust that is by later this evening. However, the top priority is to get to the root of the problem so that we can be absolutely sure that it does not happen again in Glasgow or in any other part of the national health service in Scotland.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to ensuring that those who have missed appointments are seen as quickly as possible. Will that be done on the basis of one offer or as many offers as it takes? Clearly, people need to plan and sometimes to rearrange their lives in order to attend hospital appointments. In the event that someone is offered a new appointment quickly, as the cabinet secretary suggested, but is unable to take it up, will they be able to continue to liaise with the health board to get the appointment as soon as possible, rather than be put at the back of the queue?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Under the circumstances, every effort will be made to accommodate patients who have been affected by the impact of the IT system crash. We will be totally flexible in trying to ensure that people get appointments as quickly as possible. Inevitably, that will involve some people working longer hours for a short period, and extension of the hours for appointments to ensure that everybody who has been affected by the problem is treated within a reasonable period. I have had the total assurance of the chair of the board that absolutely every stop will be pulled out to ensure that patients get their postponed treatment or appointment at the earliest possible opportunity, which I hope in every case will be well within a month, or even a week or days.

Jim Hume (Liberal Democrat, South Scotland)

I, too, recognise that the Government has acted very speedily on the issue, so it is not a matter of criticising any policy.

However, can the cabinet secretary say how many patients he anticipates will now fail to be treated within their treatment time guarantee periods? Can he confirm that all those who have been affected who are awaiting chemotherapy and who have missed appointments will receive their scheduled treatment by the end of the week?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

First, on chemotherapy, I should say that the chemotherapy services are working fairly normally today. Yesterday’s chemotherapy appointments were affected, however.

Again, I thank Jim Hume for the tone of his remarks. Until the IT system is up and running, I cannot give him any statistics or information on the numbers who have been affected in terms of the treatment time guarantee. Once I am in a position to do so, I will be more than happy to supply members with that information. I am sure that, when the formal TTG statistics for the period come out, members will be understanding of any breaches in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Although I welcome the IT review across all health boards that the cabinet secretary mentioned, no IT system will ever be foolproof. Does he believe that health boards have contingencies in place to ensure that, when computer systems stop working, patient care of the most vulnerable patients, including cancer patients, is not compromised?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Absolutely. There are two contingencies, one of which is the back-up IT system, which for some reason did not, as I said earlier, work in this case. That is particularly worrying and it is one reason why we are placing so much emphasis on getting to the root of the problem—the problem being not only the original malfunction but why the back-up system did not work when it should have done. We are testing that elsewhere.

There are other back-up systems for, for example, chemotherapy, in order to ensure that patients are treated as they would normally be treated. Where necessary, paper exercises have been undertaken to minimise impacts, in particular on chemotherapy and patients who require very serious treatment.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his answers so far. He has covered the incident in a lot of detail.

I ask the cabinet secretary not to underestimate the scale of the incident, although I am sure that he does not. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde books 20,000 appointments a week, and a large number of people have missed appointments, although many others have not.

In the interest of not wasting a crisis, I ask the cabinet secretary whether lessons can be learned. I am sure that he has had representations from staff about the introduction of TrakCare and their concerns about it. The redeployment and scaling down of secretarial staff has had an impact, and there have been issues and problems on the ground with the promised hardware.

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will take those issues on board while the full scale of the incident is investigated, and that he will ensure that resources are put in place to resolve the issues that have arisen for many of my constituents and others in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s area.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Duncan McNeil has made a number of reasonable points. I point out that 10 hospitals across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have been affected, but some of the patients come from further afield, including from Ayrshire and parts of Lanarkshire, and in particular for chemotherapy services, for example.

I emphasise to Duncan McNeil that the problem is not with any particular software but with the server. Although TrakCare has been adversely affected, that was not a result of a problem with TrakCare but a result of the problem with the server. So that Parliament is fully informed, I confirm that the systems that have been adversely affected are TrakCare—as I said, not because of a problem with that system but because of a problem with the server—Portal, Ascribe and PACS, plus other diagnostic systems, laboratory systems, chemotherapy systems and the contact centre.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

The cabinet secretary is well aware that NHS Ayrshire and Arran depends on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for provision of services, as do many other adjoining health boards. What effect has the loss of IT capacity had specifically on service provision in NHS Ayrshire and Arran?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Once the IT systems are up and running again, I will ask for an analysis of the home areas of the patients who have been affected, if we can do such an analysis, so that we can find out how many patients from Ayrshire and Arran, Lanarkshire and other health board areas have been affected. Because of the problem itself, I am not in a position to give reliable statistics at the moment, but I will be more than happy to supply members with reliable analysis when it becomes available.

Cost of Living

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-07872, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on the cost of living.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that times are tough, but times are much, much tougher for some people than they are for others. I am not often given to quoting David Cameron, but this will not be the first time that I have done so and I am sure that it will not be the last. I remind all members that at a previous Tory conference he said, while talking about the recession and the United Kingdom plan for recovery,

“it’s fair that those with broader shoulders should bear a greater load.”

What a shame it is that he did not believe his own rhetoric. It took him less than a month to forget his promise and embark on swingeing public sector cuts of £81 billion, including £18 billion of cuts to benefits—all that while the most affluent avoid paying taxes to the tune of £120 billion.

The reality of the Tory-Lib Dem coalition Government is tax cuts for millionaires—of which at least eight sit around the Cabinet table—and hedge funds and the ultimate scandal of Tory ministers scurrying to Brussels to protect bankers’ bonuses.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

No. We have heard enough from you. [Interruption.]

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

A simple “No, thank you” would suffice, Ms Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

The last time I looked, it was millionaires and bankers who had the broadest shoulders, but members should not kid themselves that those people are feeling the pinch or bearing a greater load. It is families in my constituency and throughout Scotland who are bearing the burden and struggling to make ends meet. Those are the people who are increasingly out of pocket, while David Cameron is increasingly out of touch.

People who are paid weekly do not have enough money to get them through the final couple of days. People who are paid monthly struggle to have enough money to make it through the final week. I am talking not just about people who are unemployed and families who are on benefits but about working families. Many people who work hard but are on low wages are appearing at food banks so that they can feed their children, seeking out payday lenders, which they cannot afford to pay back, and running up rent arrears and defaulting on mortgages as they make decisions about priorities for their families.

The reason why the problem is so acute is that the cost of living is rising at the same time as income is declining in real terms, and people cannot afford to make ends meet. Let me illustrate that. Since 2010, wages in Scotland have fallen in real terms by £27.30 a week. That is £1,420 a year, which is a lot of money for someone who is low paid. In fact, wages have fallen in 36 of the 37 months in which David Cameron has been Prime Minister.

The Low Pay Commission has noted that the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and the real value is lower than the increase in the consumer prices index and the retail prices index. The commission suggested that the value of the national minimum wage at October 2012 was at a level that had not been experienced since 2004, some eight years ago.

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Jackie Baillie agree that if the national minimum wage had been introduced at the rate of £5 per hour, which unions asked for at the time, we would not be in the current situation, with the minimum wage falling far behind the Scottish living wage?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That was an interesting intervention from John Wilson. Aside from the fact that Labour ensured that the minimum wage was uprated adequately, I recall that the Scottish National Party slept through the debate and the vote on bringing in the national minimum wage. I will take no lessons from John Wilson now.

The Tories have squeezed the minimum wage and reduced its value in real terms. In contrast, Labour would strengthen the minimum wage and end the scandal of the abuse of zero-hours contracts.

The real-terms reduction in public sector pay is in its fourth year, which is taking its toll on staff and their families. There is no doubt that there is a real squeeze on incomes among people who are low paid—never mind the cuts to benefits, which I will come on to.

That is bad enough, but people who are struggling to make ends meet face a double whammy, because prices are rising at the same time as incomes stagnate.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report “A minimum income standard for the UK in 2013” highlighted the fact that the cost of a basket of essential goods and services has increased by nearly 25 per cent in the past five years. That is staggering. The cost of bread is up, the cost of milk is up and the costs of electricity and gas are up. Over the past three years, since the Tories came to office, prices have risen faster in the United Kingdom than in any other G7 country. We face a cost of living crisis of enormous proportions with really harsh consequences for people and families on low incomes.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I appreciate what the member says and believe that she and I would be in agreement on a lot of things. However, how does she square that circle with her desire and her party’s desire for those same low-income families to pay more in council tax?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

That is just ridiculous. If we examine the SNP’s record, we can see that it is the SNP that is taking money away from low-income families by not targeting their needs.

We have also seen cuts in benefits including the bedroom tax and the shift from disability living allowance to personal independence payments, assuming a reduction of 20 per cent in the budget at the outset. Perhaps the most concerning cut is the reduction in children’s benefits. There is a freeze on child benefit and tax credits are soon to be rolled up as the universal credit, but children’s benefits are, overall, falling in real terms because the cost of bringing up a child is increasing. A decade of progress on reducing child poverty and family deprivation is being steadily reversed.

Donald Hirsch, a director of the centre for research in social policy at Loughborough University, who leads the work on the minimum income standard, had this to say:

“This trend differs from anything seen in my lifetime—including in the 1980s, when the poor were standing still as the rich progressed. Now, absolute living standards have declined over a sustained period, including for those who started out with least, for the first time since the 1930s. It’s the first time since that decade that basic safety-net benefits have been cut in real terms.”

If we have to go back more than 80 years to experience anything as bad, that must surely be a wake-up call for all of us.

Let me turn to the Scottish Government. I know that the SNP’s take on this will be that it is Westminster’s fault and that the only way out of the situation is to vote for independence, but that is lazy and sloppy thinking. It is not the fault of an institution; it is the fault of the Tories. If the people disagree with what the Tories are doing, there is a clear choice: they can vote Labour at the general election. There are things that the SNP Government can do if it so chooses—things that are well within the Government’s and the Scottish Parliament’s powers. However, instead of focusing on what matters to hard-pressed families and communities, SNP members have only one focus, one obsession and one thing that commands all their attention: independence. The SNP is guilty of putting Scotland on pause and doing little to tackle the most acute cost of living crisis in more than 80 years.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I have not got time.

I campaigned for a Scottish Parliament because I realised the Parliament’s potential to help people at times such as this. Just as the late, lamented Strathclyde Regional Council had a social policy that prioritised and targeted support at many of those struggling in our communities, so a Scottish Parliament could take action. I am, therefore, disappointed and ashamed that little is being done.

The SNP stands accused of being so cynical and shameless that it will prey on people’s misery to get them to vote yes in the referendum rather than take action to help now. Let us look at some of the areas that the SNP could tackle, starting with childcare. The most recent Scottish childcare report by Children in Scotland reported that nursery costs for a child under two are now more than £100 a week, which is a lot of money for someone on a low income. Childcare costs for the over-fives see parents paying an average of £50 a week for an after-school club, and those costs are rising by more than the rate of inflation. Childcare in Scotland is the least affordable in the UK aside from that in the south-east of England.

Save the Children is also clear in its belief that childcare has a key role to play in tackling early inequalities between children and reducing child poverty. Quality, affordable childcare is key to helping parents to access and sustain employment and training. However, Save the Children had this to say about the provisions of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which seek to extend childcare:

“they represent baby steps compared to what needs to change to ensure that every child and family can access suitable childcare.”

Last week, Ed Miliband pledged that childcare would be extended to 25 hours a week for every three and four-year-old of working parents and that childcare would be guaranteed for all primary school children from 8 am to 6 pm. That is what Labour would also deliver in Scotland. Will the SNP match that or is it content to leave Scotland on pause?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I genuinely do not have enough time.

What about food banks? The Trussell Trust reported in April this year that the number of people in Scotland using food banks has risen by 150 per cent to a staggering 14,318, of whom one third are children and one fifth are in full-time employment. The latest research from Debt Advisory Services (Scotland) shows that one in 10 Scots—500,000 Scots—borrowed money to pay for food in July. If members need any more evidence of a cost of living crisis, there it is.

We are all grateful for the work of the volunteers in communities across Scotland, but what a damning indictment it is of us all that food banks even exist. It appears from anecdotal evidence that some local authorities have sent people to food banks rather than provide a crisis grant. Crisis grants and community care grants are part of the Scottish welfare fund, which is hugely underspent. Only half of what could have been allocated has gone out the door at a time when the need is self-evident. It is astonishing that after a direct transfer of power to the SNP, which it wanted, it cannot even spend the money. That is another example of Scotland on pause when ministers are not interested in getting their day jobs right.

The pledge made by Labour and agreed by the Parliament was that we would abolish fuel poverty by 2016, yet when I ask ministers whether we are on track to do so I do not even get an answer. Let me try again: will the Scottish Government succeed in realising our collective ambition to end fuel poverty in three years’ time? The ministers’ heads are down and there is no response.

Using the Government’s own measures, Energy Action Scotland estimates that the number in fuel poverty stands at some 900,000 people. Over the past five years, energy costs have increased by 39 per cent and average household spend on fuel has reached a high of 14 per cent. If members need any further idea of the scale of the cost of living crisis they need look no further. What does the Government do? It has a £79 million budget and relies on £120 million coming from energy company obligations to make that up. That budget is underspent this year—yet another example of the SNP not getting the money out the door to the people who need it the most.

Last week, Ed Miliband proposed to tackle rising energy bills by pledging that the next Labour Government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017. That will provide real relief for hard-pressed families and older people, and it is time that the Tories stopped laughing and took action to protect people. Does the SNP support that proposal? I listened to SNP MP Mike Weir a few nights ago when he said that it does not. Is the SNP really not prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with families who are struggling? The SNP should not blame somebody else. Its own fuel poverty forum has told it that it needs to do more. That is another case of Scotland on pause while the SNP plays constitutional politics.

I can see that I am rapidly running out of time.

Members: Hear, hear.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

It is depressing the SNP chooses to play constitutional politics instead of thinking about the real issues affecting people in Scotland.

I have already said enough to this SNP Government about the bedroom tax. I hope that it does not make a deliberate decision not to use the powers it has to protect people from the bedroom tax now.

I will conclude on child poverty. I am very proud of the progress that the Parliament made. We saw the lowest level of relative and absolute poverty in the first years of the Parliament, up to 2007. Sadly, under the SNP, progress has stalled.

The SNP needs to wake up. Many families in communities across Scotland have a real cost of living crisis. Those families need and deserve our help now, but the SNP puts Scotland on pause. It is guilty of the most shameless politics that puts the referendum first, before the interests of the people of this country.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the decline in real wages for people in Scotland at a time when living costs are rising; understands that the cost of essentials such as food, childcare and energy has risen and the report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, A Minimum Income Standard for the UK in 2013, shows that, over the last five years, the cost of essential goods and services has increased by nearly 25%; is concerned at the increases in the number of people in fuel poverty and using food banks; notes that, in 2011-12, there were 950,000 people living in absolute poverty in Scotland, 220,000 of whom were children, and believes that both the UK and Scottish governments must act urgently to tackle these issues.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I very much welcome the debate, which gives the Parliament an important opportunity to continue to make its distinctive voice heard on such vital matters.

I begin by making it clear that, as a Scottish Government, we are absolutely determined to address the root causes of poverty. Scotland is a wealthy nation. We would be the eighth-richest nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development by gross domestic product per head. We are energy rich, our workforce is highly skilled and our reputation for innovation is long established. We have world-class universities and Scottish businesses are competing at the highest level worldwide. It is therefore a social, economic and moral disgrace that, in a resource-rich nation such as ours, tens of thousands of children live in poverty. It is also a disgrace that tens of thousands of older people live in poverty. Perhaps more than anything, it is a disgrace that that has been true for generation after generation.

It is time to change all that, and I believe that Scotland has what it takes to make that change. That is why, as a Government, we have invested so much in supporting household incomes and tackling poverty. Others in this Parliament may call that “something for nothing”; we call it our social wage. It is our contract with the people of Scotland.

Our amendment picks out just a few of the initiatives of this Government and, indeed, previous Administrations. I am proud to say that we have frozen the council tax, which will have saved the average band D household in Fife more than £1,600 by 2016-17.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In a minute.

The bus pass for Scotland’s older citizens saves cardholders around £250 a year and the scrapping of bridge tolls saves a regular commuter £233 a year.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In a moment.

Nursery care is being expanded, which will save families £707 per child per year.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I am grateful to the minister for coming back to me.

There is something that I would like the minister to help me with. I thought that the position of the Scottish National Party was that the council tax was a regressive tax. How does freezing a regressive tax make it progressive?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Unlike David Cameron, I believe in a Scotland in which those with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden, but to allow that to happen we need to have a social contract that benefits everyone. Knowing that everyone gets something makes our society more cohesive. I understand why people might want to debate how many universal services we can afford when we are in the grips of Westminster austerity, but what I object to most is the attack on the principle of universal benefits and the notion of a social contract. We are a cohesive society. Through the powers of independence, we want to protect and develop the social wage. We do not want it to be knocked down as a result of Labour’s regressive party politics or Westminster austerity.

Let us not forget that we have free prescriptions that save the sick and infirm £104 per year and free university tuition that saves students £9,000 a year, or that free personal care for the elderly, which was introduced under a previous Administration, is funded and maintained by us. Those and other initiatives form our social wage. We are protecting incomes, delivering services and mitigating Westminster’s misguided austerity. We are doing so not simply because we believe that those are the right things to do for the benefit of everyone in Scotland, but because they are the fair things to do, and because international evidence shows that countries with greater equality perform better in economic terms.

However, we are doing so in the teeth of Westminster cuts, which will take hundreds of millions of pounds from households on low incomes. The cumulative reductions in Scotland will total an estimated £4.5 billion by 2015, around £1 billion of which will impact directly on children. We will not be able to mitigate the impact of all the changes, but we must continue to act when and where we can.

We have therefore pledged £23 million to mitigate the cut in council tax benefit funding and have established in partnership with councils the Scottish welfare fund, which amounts to £33 million for crisis grants and community care grants. We are also spending nearly a quarter of a billion pounds over the spending review period on fuel poverty and energy efficiency.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the minister give way?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In a moment. As John Swinney has made clear, this Government will not walk by on the other side.

I give way briefly to Jackie Baillie.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I will indeed be brief. Does the minister support Ed Miliband’s energy price freeze?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I think that Ed Miliband’s energy price freeze is very well intended. It is a scandal that in a resource-rich country such as Scotland we have fuel poverty. However, I would like Ed Miliband to publish the full analysis of the research that underpins the policy. I also note that we have a very important energy commission that is looking at fuel poverty and pricing as well as the sustainability and supply of energy in an independent Scotland.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

But does the minister support the principle?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I want to see the details. However, I have to say that I would have had more confidence in Ed Miliband had I not looked at his record in government as energy minister, during which time energy company profits rocketed and household bills went up by more than 33 per cent.

This Government has pledged to find £20 million to help those struggling most with the costs of the bedroom tax. However, although that help is absolutely vital and has been widely welcomed, it does not hide the harsh truth that mitigation will not and cannot be enough. That is the very point that the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations made forcefully this week in its report, “A better state: inclusive principles for Scottish welfare”, which makes it clear that what we need are the powers to deliver Scotland’s own welfare and taxation systems.

I agree with Jackie Baillie when she criticises Westminster cuts, and I share her concerns about the most vulnerable in our society. However, I cannot agree with her comment on 3 September that

“I am not saying that ... we cannot develop our own welfare system. I am saying we should not develop our own welfare system.”

It seems to me that Labour is willing to do no more than criticise Westminster cuts to welfare when what Scotland needs is to do is cut Westminster out of welfare.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does the member not agree that it is actually quite progressive to share the risks and rewards across the country and redistribute some of the wealth in the south-east up to Scotland?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is a moot point. Sometimes when I speak to the most vulnerable people in my constituency it feels as if we take all the risk and see very little of the reward.

I also note that earlier this year, in response to the UK Government’s Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, the chief executive of the Children’s Society, Matthew Reed, said that

“a nurse with two children could lose £424 a year by 2015 and an army second lieutenant with three children £552 a year.”

He went on to say:

“Many more will struggle to pay for food, heat their homes, and provide other basics for their children as they find it increasingly difficult to keep up with rising prices.”

That is not the Scotland we seek on these benches; we want a different Scotland. We want the powers to achieve that vision of a more prosperous and fairer Scotland. However, the Labour Party—the so-called party of equality—with its colleagues on the other side of the chamber wishes to relinquish and abandon powers of welfare and taxation.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In my final minute, I want to make it clear that we very much need the ability to ensure that decisions affecting the day-to-day lives and living standards of people in Scotland—decisions around tax and welfare—are taken here in Scotland by the people of Scotland. With those powers—the powers of an independent nation—we can put an end to welfare cuts and abolish the bedroom tax; we can protect household incomes and maintain the social wage; we can build a taxation and welfare system that is a progressive beacon; and we can end the generations of shame that have been caused by child poverty and which have existed under the Labour union as well as the Tory union. More than ever, what we need are the full powers of an independent nation.

I move amendment S4M-07872.3, to leave out from “and believes,” to end and insert:

“welcomes the action taken by the Scottish Government to support household incomes including the council tax freeze, the maintenance of free bus travel for older people, the extension of free nursery provision, the introduction of free personal care for older people, free university tuition and abolition of bridge tolls, and believes that, with independence, including control of taxation and welfare, Scotland can be a beacon of progressive action to tackle poverty and maintain household incomes.”

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I will start with a quote from the BBC political correspondent Ben Wright, who said on 11 August:

“With an economy that now seems to be gathering momentum, one of the key arguments that Labour have been making for the last two years—the government got this wrong, their economic prescription failed—is no longer as powerful a message as it was six months or a year ago.

Which is why we are hearing a lot today about living standards.”

The Conservatives welcome the debate, but it is particularly disappointing that Jackie Baillie’s motion and her speech were heavy on rhetoric but extremely light on solutions, ideas or suggestions for how we might tackle the problems that she has identified. What does Labour want the UK Government to do? Something. What does it want the Scottish Government to do? Something. Labour members want the Scottish and UK Governments to do something; they do not know what that is and have no idea what they want to be done, but they want it to be done urgently.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Perhaps Ken Macintosh has the answer; if so, I am happy to give way.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

Could Mr Brown start by freezing energy prices?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

That is the Labour Party policy that dared not speak its name until 12 and a half minutes into the 14 minutes of Jackie Baillie’s speech. [Interruption.]

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

It was interesting that Jackie Baillie spent several minutes talking about how it is wrong not to target resources. When she was in Strathclyde Regional Council, she believed in targeting resources. When she was in the then Scottish Executive, it believed in targeting resources. She says that it is wrong not to target resources. However, she praises Ed Miliband’s so-called energy policy, which I think—unless I missed a memo—does not target resources at all. It is a blanket freeze across the board.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

If Iain Gray can contradict what I said, I will be happy to take his point.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

The point is clear. We believe that the use of scarce public money should be targeted. As for energy companies that are making outrageous profits, we believe that we should target all of them.

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I am just getting warmed up. Jackie Baillie also praised a childcare policy that Ed Miliband pulled out of the hat last week, which is not targeted but universal. [Interruption.]

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Mark McDonald was right to make the point in an intervention that the council tax freeze is extremely important. We have enthusiastically backed the Government on that since 2008 and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s minimum income standard report says that the council tax freeze is important.

I do not know the Labour Party’s current policy on the council tax freeze. First it was against the freeze and then it was for the freeze. Perhaps it is in favour on Tuesdays and Thursdays but against on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member take an intervention?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

Perhaps Jackie Baillie will tell us the official Labour Party policy on the council tax freeze.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

I would like to ask Gavin Brown a question. How can you stand there when you know that 500,000 people needed a loan to buy food in July? Does that not embarrass you?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I do not think that any Conservative member is complacent about the challenges that we face, but the challenges that we in this country face are harder than those in many other countries because the previous UK Government built up a deficit and an enormous debt in times of plenty. We do not blame everything on the previous Government, but it must take at least a share of the responsibility.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Gavin Brown (Conservative, Lothian)

I have given way several times already and I want to make some progress, so I will not give way right now.

The coalition Government has raised the income tax threshold, which will be £10,000 in April of next year. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that although that does not entirely offset increases to living costs, it partially offsets them. It has made a difference to millions in Scotland and taken more than 200,000 people out of income tax altogether. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report talks about childcare costs being particularly difficult, having risen twice as fast as CPI inflation in the past five years, but in its conclusion it says this:

“plans for more generous support of childcare costs from 2016 will, if implemented in their proposed form, greatly reduce the earnings required by families with children to reach the Minimum Income Standard.”

The UK Government cancelled the rise in fuel duty that was projected. It has been frozen for three and a half years and we heard this week that it will be frozen again up until the general election. That of course impacts on the cost of motoring and has a particular significance in rural areas, but it affects public transport costs too and the cost of goods more generally.

We have the pensions triple lock, which has helped pensioners right across the country, and we now have the council tax freeze south of the border, which will make a difference in the years ahead. The UK Government is not complacent; there is a huge challenge to be faced and it has taken a number of specific measures to tackle it.

I move amendment S4M-07872.4, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“recognises that, as a result of the economic crisis and the consequent need to cut the deficit, there has been a squeeze on living standards, and supports the positive action that the UK Government has taken to ameliorate this squeeze, including increasing the personal allowance to £10,000 by April 2014, which will benefit 2.2 million taxpayers in Scotland and take 224,000 out of tax altogether, keeping mortgage rates low, cutting fuel duty and freezing the current level of fuel duty until 2015, announcing a new scheme to help families with childcare costs and delivering the biggest ever cash rise in the basic state pension in 2012 of £5.30 thanks to the so-called triple lock guarantee.”

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Jackie Baillie’s motion—if not her speech—legitimately illustrates the challenges to us all as policymakers, and particularly to those who are in office north and south of the border.

It is perhaps worth recalling for Jackie Baillie’s benefit that the gap between rich and poor went up under Labour and that the highest earners pay more and will pay more every year under this Government than they did in any year under the previous Labour Government. I will address the Scottish Government’s approach shortly, but my amendment identifies important steps taken by the coalition Government in response to those challenges. Gavin Brown’s amendment highlights many of the same points but, in deleting the original motion, it perhaps risks glossing over the extent of the problems that we are witnessing.

Gavin Brown rightly identifies, of course, the source of many of the problems, which was an economic crash unlike any since the 1930s. That brutal shock to our economic system, combined with unsustainable levels of debt that had been allowed to build up, required addressing. The consequences of not doing so—of ducking those hard choices—should not be underestimated or ignored, as Jackie Baillie and Angela Constance seemed happy to do earlier. The alternative was to find ourselves facing many of the same painful problems that have been endured by European partners such as Greece, Spain, Italy and even Ireland.

Although the need for decisive action to rebalance our economy was, I believe, essential, I welcome the steps that have been taken to mitigate some of the impacts. Low and medium-rate taxpayers, those in receipt of basic state pension and those struggling to meet childcare or fuel costs have all benefited from additional support from the coalition Government.

Of course, the Liberal Democrat commitment during the last UK election campaign to raise the threshold at which people would begin to pay tax to £10,000 was not supported by everyone. I recall David Cameron insisting during the leaders’ debate that it was a laudable aspiration but an unaffordable one and yet, by April 2014, thanks to the Liberal Democrats in Government, 224,000 lower paid taxpayers in Scotland will be taken out of paying income tax altogether. Overall, 2.2 million taxpayers in Scotland will benefit from that significant, progressive change to our tax system.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The member will also be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies did an analysis of the UK Government budget across the board and it showed that the tax changes were in many cases cancelled out, and in some cases negatively so, by the benefits changes that are being pursued.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

It is an interesting point—it is a familiar theme from the SNP and perhaps during Mark McDonald’s own speech he will set out what of the £2.5 billion-worth of welfare spending he is committed to seeing reinstated post-independence, should that come to pass.

On pensions too, the coalition Government has introduced progressive reform. The so-called triple lock, which links pension increases to inflation, wages or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest, has already delivered the highest cash increase to the state pension—a far cry from the 75p increase offered by Gordon Brown, which caused such fury not so long ago. It is a far cry too from the extravagant promises made by the SNP about pensions in a separate Scotland. Backed by no evidence, those assertions offer no response to the concerns raised by many independent experts, including the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

As on pensions and income tax, so too on childcare the coalition Government has acted to provide much-needed support. The package south of the border now includes free provision for 20 per cent of two-year-olds from the most deprived backgrounds—that is, for 130,000 children—and that will rise to 40 per cent next year. From 2015, the UK Government will meet 20 per cent of childcare costs for working families, with the amount that can be claimed per child under 12 rising to £1,200 per year once the scheme has been fully implemented. That will go some way towards meeting the demands that Save the Children and others have made.

There has been welcome confirmation of a further freeze in fuel duty over the next two years.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Sorry, I cannot.

Of course, with every price hike efforts by both Scotland’s Governments to combat fuel poverty are set back, but the only long-term solution is to step up work to improve energy efficiency, notably across our existing housing stock, and to ensure that we meet our renewables target.

That is why Ed Miliband’s proposed price cap is a concern. The price cap would be a costly temporary fix that would draw vital investment away from the sort of measures that are essential as part of a long-term solution to reduce fuel poverty and to achieve emissions reductions. It should also be recalled that, when Ed Miliband became Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in 2008, he said that he would

“press energy firms for price cuts”.

As Angela Constance reminded us, when Ed Miliband left office, energy company profits had soared and average bills were up by more than 30 per cent.

As well as building fairness into the tax and pensions system and providing support to hard-pressed families and individuals struggling with childcare or fuel costs, we also need to prepare the ground for building a stronger economy. That is why my amendment highlights the coalition Government’s work on extending apprenticeship opportunities, supporting science and research and ensuring that investment is made in the new green economy. Of course more needs to be done, but those measures demonstrate a willingness by the Government to address structural problems in our economy in a way that also locks in fairness.

The Scottish Government will argue that it is also taking steps to mitigate the impact of rising costs—I do not disagree with that—but, bizarrely, SNP ministers seem to believe that they are wholly responsible for any money that is spent in Scotland but entirely blameless for any money that is not provided. That is simply not credible, as government is about choices. If SNP ministers choose to spend in one area, that restricts what they can do in other areas. I note that Alex Neil’s amendment mentions a number of policy areas, including the introduction of free personal care that was delivered by the previous Lib Dem-Labour Executive—we see history being rewritten before our very eyes. Predictably, he goes on to argue that it would all be different with independence, but the contortions that the SNP wishes to perform with what economic levers would be left after ceding control of the currency would defy even the most esteemed of Nobel laureates.

In trying to persuade increasingly sceptical voters of the case for separation, the SNP has racked up an impressive and growing list of costly commitments—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

But the only tax commitment that the SNP has made is to reduce corporation tax. The Greens at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that, if we want to spend more, we need to tax and borrow more.

For a further response, we need to look to the long term. However, too often the SNP’s obsession with next year’s referendum has encouraged it to opt for short-term fixes.

I move amendment S4M-07872.1, to insert at end:

“; supports the UK Government’s determination to cut the income tax bills of people on low and middle incomes by raising the threshold for paying tax to £10,000; supports the UK Government’s decision to apply a so-called triple-lock to pensions to ensure that they increase by the highest of inflation, wages or 2.5% and endorses new support for childcare; believes that these steps, combined with support for apprenticeships and young workers, the Green Investment Bank and investment in science and research, will help create a stronger economy and a fairer society, enabling every person in Scotland to get on in life, and, noting that UN International Day for the Eradication of Poverty is on 17 October 2013, supports the commitment of the UK Government to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid to help tackle global poverty.”

John Wilson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Labour Party motion on the cost of living. I realise that today’s debate follows on from a well-developed theme that was unveiled to the public and Labour Party members at the Labour Party conference in Brighton last week. However, today’s debate also comes a day after the latest increase in the national minimum wage, which has increased by 12p an hour—in percentage terms an increase of 1.9 per cent.

This is an important debate because it shows that the crisis centred on the cost of living leads to a wider discussion about economic growth and what type of society we want to live in. The growing inequality in our society that has been encouraged over recent decades has had a particular impact on those families and individuals who are on the lowest incomes and who suffer the worst effects of poverty.

I had to pinch myself last week when I realised how times have changed. I remember as part of my previous employment attending meetings of the Trades Union Congress national minimum wage enforcement group, where we discussed with officers from the Inland Revenue and the Department for Work and Pensions how the minimum wage might impact on people’s lives.

I also remember being phoned in 2006 by consultants who asked me who I thought would be the best person as incoming chair of the Low Pay Commission. I suggested Rodney Bickerstaffe—in 2006, the Labour Party was still in power—because I felt that it would be better to have someone with a real commitment to both low-paid families and the national minimum wage. Unfortunately, the then Labour Government decided that Rodney Bickerstaffe was not the person to lead the Low Pay Commission. Instead, the Government once again appointed someone from the private sector to take on the role. The Low Pay Commission has an important role in setting the national minimum wage, but that role has been hampered by business interests, with their dead hand, ensuring that the minimum wage does not rise in line with the commitments that have been given by the Scottish Government to introduce the living wage for every worker in the government service.

I made a genuine intervention during Jackie Baillie’s speech about the setting of the minimum wage. The minimum wage was £3.60 an hour when it was introduced. The trade union movement at the time asked for a rate of £5 an hour, but that was rejected. If we do the calculations using the higher figure, we can see that, if the increases had had the same impact since the minimum wage was introduced, we would now be discussing a minimum wage in excess of £7 an hour. That would have a real impact on people on low incomes.

I find myself more surprised that, according to well-informed commentators, even the present number 10 policy unit realises that any economic growth will not make an impact on all sectors and areas of the economy, particularly for those in low-paid employment. There is even talk of number 10 seriously wanting to examine the possibility of increasing the national minimum wage. As is always the case in British politics, however, the dead hand of the Treasury is apparently resisting such an attempt.

As some members will know, I had a members’ business debate at the start of September on the Oxfam report, “Our Economy”. One of the many striking statistics in that report referred to the past 25 years, when the incomes of the top 1 per cent of earners in the UK increased by up to 117 per cent in real terms, compared with an increase of just 47 per cent for the poorest 10 per cent.

On the issue of energy prices, I have previously stated in the chamber that ordinary consumers have not so far been best served by the current marketplace for energy, particularly electricity. In the period since 2004, there has been an increase of more than 60 per cent in electricity bills. Along with others, I recognised back in May 2011 that the big six energy companies needed to be held to account by the public for their continual price hikes, particularly in light of the impact that they have on low-income households and on tackling fuel poverty. It was important for the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, of which I was a member at the time, to scrutinise that issue and the pricing behaviour of the energy companies.

At present, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets does not have the power to peg energy prices. I welcome Ed Miliband’s commitment to peg those prices if he gets into power, but we have a real opportunity to make changes next year and to set the agenda for the future of Scotland, tackling the real issues of deprivation and poverty and ending once and for all the situation that we have encountered as part of this better together great union that is the United Kingdom. The policies of the past 20 to 30 years have not had a real impact on people living in poverty. When we see fuel poverty increasing today, we must question whether or not there is another way. That other way is a choice for the people of Scotland next year to take real powers into their own hands and get a Government that is prepared to deliver on policies that benefit everyone in society, not just the 1 per cent of top earners.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

The background to the debate is the fact that, in 38 of the past 39 months since the coalition Government was elected, prices have been rising faster than wages. Clearly, some of those factors are beyond the UK Government’s or the Scottish Government’s control, but the background is that the UK Government’s economic policy has failed. That was well summed up by Mark Carney, the new governor of the Bank of England, who obviously is politically independent, when he said:

“fiscal adjustment has been a drag on growth.”

Economic failure is really what underlies the problem and the crisis in the cost of living.

Labour and the SNP have responded differently to the situation. Although many of our policy prescriptions might be similar, the SNP has used the issue as part of its constitutional argument, and we had that again in Angela Constance’s speech. Another thing that the SNP says as part of its referendum strategy is that, really, there is no alternative at UK level because Labour and the Tories are basically the same. Again, that theme came through in Angela Constance’s speech when she said that there was no difference in child poverty under the previous UK Government and the current one. However, that is simply untrue, because child poverty levels fell significantly under the previous Labour Government, as the issue was a priority for it.

If anyone doubted the significant policy differences between Labour and the Conservatives, they were highlighted in the speeches last week by Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and others. The people of the UK will have a clear choice at the next UK election. Angela Constance said that at least she believes that the energy freeze proposal is well intentioned. I welcome that, because it is not what Mike Weir or any other SNP MP or MSP has said in the past few days. Ms Constance said that it would be better if Ed Miliband had had a better record as energy minister, although I point out that, when he was minister, energy bills fell on average by £100. However, he would of course admit that, at that time, he did not make the fundamental changes that he wants to make and that it is through his experience of the operation of the energy market that he realises that he has to reset that market, which is the other key ingredient of the policy, apart from the price freeze.

That example shows something wider, which is that Ed Miliband is willing to challenge vested interests and to take on and question the neo-liberal consensus. He is making a significant break with that consensus on economic policy. SNP members should look at Labour’s economic policy stance at UK level. I would argue that, although it is not traditional socialism, it is radical and it is a left-wing policy that is far to the left of the SNP’s economic policy. In general, the SNP is far more comfortable about cosying up to big business. For example, it proposes big cuts in corporation tax.

The exciting announcements that we had last week were not just on energy. The Scottish Government could look closely at childcare. Of course I support the proposal for 600 hours a year of childcare, but that is put in the shade by the proposals of Labour at UK level—which we have said that we would implement if we were the Government in Scotland—for 25 hours a week for any three or four-year-old whose parent is working, and a massive extension of after-school care.

A third example is housing. At UK level, we have been saying that we have to deal with supply, yet housing supply is a red light in the Scottish Government’s indicators. The SNP should look carefully at what Labour at UK level is proposing and stop spreading the myth that somehow any Government at Westminster will be the same.

I turn my attention to what the Scottish Government is or should be doing. In general, we want to help the many at the expense of the few. That can be seen in the taxation of the ultra-rich that would be part of the energy and childcare policies. My doubt about the SNP’s council tax freeze is that, although it supports the many, it is at the expense of council services, which benefit disproportionately those on lower incomes. That is why the energy policy is fundamentally different from the council tax freeze policy.

Jackie Baillie and others have talked about how the Scottish Government could do more on fuel poverty, food banks and the bedroom tax, which at present is to the fore in public concerns. At the Finance Committee this morning, in a discussion on the Scottish Government’s poverty policy, Jim McCormick of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that Scotland does not appear to have a delivery plan for its child poverty strategy.

Studying the 50 indicators that the Scottish Government has, we find that only two are focused on poverty. We know that growth is not the only factor but that the distribution of wealth is also significant, so why is there not an indicator targeting median household disposable income? That would show a concern for the cost of living for the majority of people.

Why is there nothing about poverty in the guidance on single outcome agreements for community planning partnerships? Again, the poverty strategy is not joined up with what is demanded of local authorities. There is a great deal more that the Government could do to focus on poverty in its policy priorities and in its guidance to local authorities.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am pleased to have been called to speak in this afternoon’s debate on the cost of living and the impact that it has on hard-pressed families and individuals in Scotland.

I start, as the minister did, with the key issue of child poverty. It is absolutely unacceptable that nearly one child in five in Scotland is being brought up in poverty—one in five children in oil-rich Scotland. What a disgrace, and how inexcusable it is for the no parties—Labour and Tories—to campaign happily together to stop Scotland getting the powers that we need to tackle such inequality in our country.

It is quite clear that in order to create the prosperous and socially just country that Scotland can be, we need control over all our resources to ensure that they are put to work for all our people. It is also quite clear that we need the full toolkit of powers that other independent countries take for granted to tackle inequality, and it is worth noting—

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Will the member give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I would like to make a wee bit more progress, but I will bear in mind that Ms Baillie wants to intervene.

Countries such as Denmark and Norway—both independent countries with similar populations to Scotland—have child poverty levels of less than 10 per cent. That is not 0 per cent, which is where I would like to go, but it is certainly much better than being subject to the policies of Westminster, where we see the UK being the fourth most unequal country in the developed world.

I shall take Ms Baillie’s intervention now, if she still wishes to speak.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Does Annabelle Ewing acknowledge that child poverty fell by a greater extent in Scotland in the first two sessions of the Scottish Parliament than it has done since, and that it is therefore not just about powers but about the priorities that Government applies to things?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Ms Baillie for her intervention. Ultimately, it is all to do with power and who controls the resources, which affects the decisions that we are able to make. Of course, it is interesting to note that the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, “Poverty and Inequality in the UK: 2011” found that income inequality rose during the 13 years of Labour Government in Westminster across a range of potential measures, so we should remember history and not seek to rewrite the facts.

With a yes vote in September 2014, ending child poverty is truly one of the big prizes of independence for Scotland. In the meantime, the SNP Scottish Government is doing all that it can within the limited powers currently available to help people through these tough economic times. That can be seen in the continuing commitment to the social wage, which is helping folk who are striving to keep one step ahead, to juggle the household finances and to come out on top week in, week out. That is the challenge that faces them.

We have heard this afternoon about the council tax freeze, which has been in place for the past six years in a row and which makes a big difference to people because it is the one bill that they know will not go up when they look at all their other household bills. It is also a big relief compared with what went before, because when we had Labour and the Liberals in power we saw a staggering 60 per cent-plus increase in council tax bills.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No, thank you.

It is certainly clear to folk that the massive council tax hike under Labour did nothing whatever to help people deal with the increasing costs of living.

Another key aspect of the social wage commitment that the SNP Government has made to the people of Scotland is the abolition of the tax on ill health that was prescription charges. The SNP was proud to go back to the founding principles of our national health service and to make the NHS truly free at the point of need. I have to ask the critics of that help—it is difficult to believe that there are critics of that help for hard-pressed individuals and families who are struggling with the increasing costs of living—what kind of world they live in, where they think that helping people with conditions that require constant prescriptions and who are earning less than £16,000 a year is somehow providing immense subsidy and largesse. What utter nonsense. It shows a lack of real understanding of the challenges that individuals are facing.

Many other aspects of the social wage will be touched on this afternoon, such as free personal nursing care, free NHS eye examinations, education based on the ability to learn not the ability to pay, concessionary bus travel and the abolition of bridge tolls. I could go on. All those measures are in place now and are making an impact on people’s lives. They allow people to keep more of their own money in their pockets. We should not, of course, forget the SNP Government’s commitment to introduce the living wage wherever possible, the no compulsory redundancies policy or the efforts that we are making to mitigate the Westminster Government’s welfare reforms.

It is clear that, although the Government is straining every sinew to help people through difficult times with the powers that it has, we need the powers that every other country takes for granted. Who would be content simply to mitigate the decisions of others? Rather, we should take those decisions ourselves. Since 1945, 140 countries have chosen independence and not one of them has ever asked to give it up again. That is the way forward for Scotland. It is the way to create a prosperous and fair society. It is the better future for Scotland, and all we have to do is say yes.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I will make a few remarks about child poverty and childcare.

The key to decent childcare is the fact that it addresses child poverty. It is key to economic growth and gender equality. I say to Angela Constance and Annabelle Ewing that they need to go back and look at the independent statistics. Child poverty fell under Labour between 1999 and 2005. It then stabilised, and then the SNP came into power and child poverty went up. Child poverty has only ever gone down under Labour and up under the SNP. I am afraid that that is a fact that they cannot deny.

I encourage the Government to take a moment to look at Save the Children’s recent report “Give Us a Hand with Childcare”, which contains 10 key messages from parents throughout Scotland about what childcare means to them and how it must be best delivered to benefit their lives. Four key points from that report stood out for me: the cost of childcare is too high, particularly for low-income parents; parents have a strong desire to work but feel trapped by the cost of childcare; flexibility is key; and childcare is a particular challenge for parents who wish to study.

I will take those clear messages to the scrutiny of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. There are 100 voices in the Save the Children report, all clearly stating what they want from the childcare provision that the Government is introducing. The Government has, of course, said that it will extend childcare to 600 hours for looked-after two-year-olds and for all three and four-year-olds. The Scottish Labour Party supports that move, presuming that it is properly funded.

The SNP made that promise in 2007. Six years on, we are still waiting for that to happen. The Government tells us that we now need a bill to make it happen, which is why we are legislating, so I was a bit surprised to see the SNP tweeting this morning an infographic, no doubt connected to the Dunfermline by-election, in which it says that it has saved families £701 a year—the minister used the same figure in her opening speech—by delivering 600 hours of free childcare. I would love to hear from the minister how come, six years on, with the bill to deliver 600 hours still going through the Parliament, she is putting out leaflets saying that it has already happened.

Just for the record, I note that there is no response.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Will Kezia Dugdale give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I would love to hear the answer from Mr Gibson.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The 600 hours was a 2011 commitment, not a 2007 commitment. It will be 187.5 hours more than Labour provided in the eight years that it was in power.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I am afraid that Kenneth Gibson is incorrect. If he goes back to his office and looks up his party’s 2007 manifesto, he will see a clear commitment to the 600 hours. It will be seven years on—August 2014—before his Government delivers the 600 hour commitment, so I do not know quite why the SNP is putting out leaflets and tweeting all over Twitter that it has already happened. It is the type of deeply cynical politics about which I talked in the chamber last week.

In that same speech, I brought up the issue of payday loans, and I will do so again today. I make no apology for that, and I will do it again and again until the Government listens and decides to do something about the issue. A recent survey of what people use payday loans for showed that the vast majority of people—more than for any other purpose—used payday loans to buy food and pay bills. That is a shocking statistic. I have thrown hundreds of statistics at the Government on the problem of payday loans and all the things that it could do about it, and they have fallen on deaf ears.

I want to tell the Government briefly a story about one of my constituents, who is a guy called James. If members want to see the full story of James’s experiences, they can go on to my website and see a full 10-minute interview. A year and a half ago, James borrowed £200 to buy extra Christmas presents. He could not keep up with repaying the £200 debt, so he took out another payday loan to pay off the first one. Within a matter of months, he had £5,000-worth of debt to five different payday lenders. Every single penny of his wage—I remind the Government that his wage was not insubstantial—went out to pay payday loan debt. It all disappeared from his bank account through continuous payment authorities. The guy was on the edge of bankruptcy, but the Government has absolutely nothing to say to him. I have put forward dozens of ideas to the Government.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member spell out to us what she thinks should be done?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

I would be delighted to send Mr Mason every speech that I have made on the topic in the chamber. Perhaps he might then listen.

Glasgow City Council’s action is a fantastic example of action that can be taken on payday loans. It has 20 different recommendations on the issue, one of which was released three weeks ago. That recommendation was to slash the rents and business rates of payday loan companies’ alternatives, credit unions. That is just one of 20 things that Glasgow City Council is doing.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

No, thank you.

I ask the Government to do one thing. I see the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing in his place. He spends millions of pounds every year on health warnings. Through the social advertising budget, he tells people, “Don’t drink too much. Don’t eat fatty foods. Eat five fruit and veg a day.” On several occasions, I have put to the Government an idea for wealth warnings. I want to see leadership from the Government. I want it to stand up and say, “Payday loans are bad for you. There are alternatives, and there are debt advice services that you can access.” [Interruption.]

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary can do that with the powers that he has, but time and again, the Government is not willing to act. For far too many families around the country, there is far too much month left at the end of the money, and the Government has nothing to say to them. That is an absolute scandal.

If the Government does one thing in the run-up to Christmas, it should speak out against payday loan companies and give people a chance of a better future that is not built on the debt that the cabinet secretary is quite happy to sit back and watch build up.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

SNP members know, of course, that the powers to really deal with the payday loan companies are reserved to Westminster, and Kezia Dugdale and her colleagues do not want us to have them. In 2010, I lodged a motion that called for the then Labour Government to deal with those high interest charges, and not a single Labour MSP dealt with it. There is nothing but cynical hypocrisy from the Labour member.

Kezia Dugdale talked about child poverty. We have 10.9 per cent less in resources to deal with child poverty than we inherited.

Kezia Dugdale (Labour, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I will let you in, Kezia, because you let me in, but let me make progress first.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The cost of living is a pressing issue for families and individuals. Unemployment is too high; benefits are under attack from the coalition; the UK state pension is one of the worst in Europe relative to wages; fuel costs are among the highest in the world; and many who are in work face real-terms wage cuts and reduced working hours. No one would deny that, since the recession, people across these islands have had to make a lot less go a lot further.

Even before the recession struck, household incomes were under threat from the then UK Labour Government. The “Why do we feel so broke?” report, which was published on 4 February 2008, showed that the average UK disposable family income after tax and housing costs, having declined from £16,544 in 2003 to £16,305 in 2006, plummeted to £15,231 in 2007. The fall of 6.6 per cent in a single year at a time of strong worldwide economic growth shows the economic incompetence of Labour in power. By contrast, despite increasingly difficult Westminster budget settlements, the SNP Government has achieved much since 2007.

The Labour motion rightly points to areas in which costs have soared, of which energy and childcare are two examples. It also says:

“both the UK and Scottish governments must act urgently to tackle these issues.”

Again, there is little to argue with there, but the track records of both Governments are markedly different.

Restrictions that are imposed on the Scottish Government severely limit what we are able to do—a situation that those on the no benches are reluctant to change. Nevertheless, the council tax freeze has saved average households up to £1,600, whereas in England council tax bills have risen year on year. In North Ayrshire, where I am an MSP, Labour raised the council tax by 75 per cent in the decade to 2007, while water and sewerage bills soared by an astonishing 592 per cent.

Lest we forget, fuel duty in the first three years of the Blair Government was increased by 6 per cent each year above the rate of inflation, making our economy increasingly uncompetitive, which is no doubt one of the reasons why Scotland lost 37 per cent of its manufacturing employment while Labour was in power.

Scotland would undoubtedly be hit by further tax hikes were Labour in power, but no one really knows. Indeed, I doubt that many Labour members have a clue as to what their council tax policy is—this week. In 2010, the then Labour leader, lain Gray, said that the council tax freeze was “unsustainable”, but he reversed his position prior to the election, saying that

“now is not the time to increase the burden on household budgets.”

That of course begs the question: when is the right time?

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

I would like to ask what the SNP’s policy on local taxation is. I believe that it is still to introduce the local income tax. Can the member confirm that for me?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

The SNP policy is indeed to introduce, when the time is right, a local income tax—of course it is. We have frozen council tax, but Labour is a yo-yo party on the issue. For example, Glasgow City Council has pledged to freeze the council tax for a year longer than this Government will be in office.

Labour introduced tuition fees, forcing many young people who wanted to go to university to save or go into debt, but the SNP Government reintroduced the proud tradition of access to education based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay. Our commitment to free school meals, a living wage, maintaining the bus pass for older people and the abolition of prescription charges has helped to ease the strain on household budgets at this difficult time. In Johann Lamont’s view, those services are part of a “something for nothing” culture—a phrase used at the Tory conference yesterday by lain Duncan Smith—and all are under the scrutiny of her cuts commission. For Labour to demand that the SNP Government do more to reduce the cost of living, when Labour consistently attacks or threatens to reverse the very measures helping so many Scots, beggars belief.

The real power to reduce the cost of living lies at Westminster. Control over energy policy is key to reducing fuel costs; radical benefit reform would help those struggling to find work; and a decent pension would allow our older people to enjoy later life without worrying about heating their homes or eating properly. If they are serious about addressing the cost of living, why do Opposition MSPs not want the tools for us to do the job here, instead of tinkering around the edges to try to mitigate the impact of UK Governments?

Labour tells us that it will deliver change, but it never does. On Labour’s watch, the UK became one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. Labour’s claim to be progressive is a myth debunked many years ago, as the Iraq war, Trident, retention of the House of Lords, tuition fees and trickle-down economics attest.

Last week, Ed Miliband promised to take action on energy companies. One wonders what his plan is, how effective it will be and, importantly, why he did not address those matters when in power. Ed Miliband was, of course, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change for two years, but to say that it was ineffective does not begin to describe his tenure in office—although on taking up his post, he did, very politely, ask the big six energy companies to take voluntary action to ensure that prices were fair.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Age Concern and National Energy Action slated Labour for failing to protect the poorest and most vulnerable from high energy bills. Ed Miliband’s own department’s figures show that fuel poverty continued to rise, and Westminster’s Energy and Climate Change Committee reported that the Labour Government would miss its own fuel poverty reduction targets. What a record!

Figures from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets show that, during the 13 years of the Labour UK Government, average prices rose by 48 per cent but gas bills increased by 67 per cent and electricity increased by a whopping 139 per cent. It is astonishing that Labour demands action to reduce the cost of living, given its abysmal record in government and opposition.

The SNP Government is doing what it can within the powers that we have, but Scots should vote yes to change that situation. I say to Labour that it is not what its members say in the chamber now that matters but what it did in government. Unless Labour plans to reverse Tory cuts, its words are meaningless; and unless Labour tells us how it will fund that, its rhetoric is empty.

Lewis Macdonald (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

We have Labour speeches, but what about action rather than speeches?

I notice that Lewis Macdonald wanted to come in after my six minutes were up. [Interruption.]

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Let me just apologise to Kezia Dugdale, as I said that I would take an intervention from her but unfortunately I did not manage to do so.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The action that the previous Labour Government took was to reduce child poverty. It is nonsensical of SNP members to pretend that that somehow did not happen.

In recent weeks and months, a number of people have said to me that Scottish politics is dominated by the on-going referendum debate. Indeed, the Scottish Government has used time in the chamber in recent weeks to debate the one-year-to-go point until Scots have their say on that question. No one on the Labour side underestimates the importance of the referendum, but I think that, across the chamber, we would all regret any impression that the Parliament is not focused on the day-to-day issues that affect the lives of people whom we represent. I hope that this Labour debate goes some way towards redressing the balance.

The cost of living crisis that is hitting households across Scotland and the UK is the issue that dominated my surgeries this summer. Lynn is a woman who came to a surgery that I held in Partick, and her story is fairly typical of many people I have met. She was forced to give up her work as a supervisor in a busy shop to care for her elderly mother. Lynn’s mum unfortunately died in January, and since then Lynn has been unable to find another job—and I mean any other job. Lynn did the right thing by caring for her mum herself—she saved the state money—but now she feels that she is being punished, and life is getting harder for her each and every month.

We know that the impact of the global financial crash and recession has been felt the hardest and longest by those who are furthest removed from the questions of financial regulation. It has been bank workers and not bank executives who have felt the most pain. Those who have lost their jobs in banking, manufacturing and retail and the 49,000 people who have lost their jobs in public services have suffered. Those who were already furthest from the labour market have been penalised heavily, and even for those who are in work, exploitation has been the hallmark of the recovery, such as it is. Zero-hours contracts, reduced hours and pay freezes have been the reward for many of those who are in work, while those who are looking for a job have been encouraged or in some cases compelled to provide their labour without pay.

At best, that means people having less money in their purses and wallets, putting off home moves or improvements and missing out on holidays, but at worst it means people struggling to clothe their children for the new school term and to put food on the table. At the same time, we have seen childcare become less and less affordable, and it is now less affordable in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

Prices have risen in the shops and on our household bills. Despite falls in wholesale energy prices, the cost of heating a home this winter will take up a larger and larger proportion of incomes. When it comes to a basket of essentials in the supermarket, the JRF has put the rise in what is paid at the till at some 25 per cent over just five years, as I think Jackie Baillie said. Demand for food banks has risen by 35 per cent in the same period, and a fifth of those who access them are in work.

Since 2010, average wages in Scotland have fallen by £27.30 a week. Public sector workers are emerging from a pay freeze with a 1 per cent increase, or 2 per cent for those who already earn the least, and yet the CPI is at 2.8 per cent and the RPI is at 3.3 per cent. Declining incomes and rising costs add up to a cost-of-living crisis for real people and not just a problem or an opportunity for politicians.

The question for the Scottish Parliament is how we respond and how we use the powers that the people have entrusted to us to act in their interests. All the political parties are thinking about how we will respond to those problems after the referendum or after the next election, but the crisis is not a challenge of tomorrow. It is one for today, and our response should be an urgent one.

That is where I take issue with the Scottish Government’s amendment, because the truth is that the Scottish Government has nothing new to say. What we have heard is a restatement of polices that were debated during the 2007 election or policies that were introduced by the previous Labour-led Government before 2007.

We need to evaluate what is already being done in terms of the regulation of costs, and spending to help people. We must consider whether those things are working or whether some effects of the policies are unintended or contrary to our objectives and whether reprioritisation is possible or needed. We also need to set out what more could and should be done. There are plenty of things that we should be doing, including extending the living wage, taking action on zero-hours contracts and making the case for training that leads to better quality work. Those steps are all vital and I agree with what has already been said about them.

An answer to a parliamentary question that I received, which was published in yesterday’s written answers report, states that no assessment has been made of how extensively zero-hours contracts are being used in colleges and universities, which are some of the biggest employers in the city that I represent. There has been no assessment of whether they are primarily used for teaching and academic staff or whether it is cleaners, technicians, maintenance workers and cooks in canteens who are on them. If we do not even know how many people are being asked to work in a university without knowing how many hours they might get next week, what hope do we have of creating decent employment in other sectors of the economy?

Fuel poverty, which others have mentioned, is significantly the responsibility of the Scottish Government, and its commitment to tackling the issue is regularly extolled. I welcome every penny that is spent on helping the one in three Scots who live in fuel poverty. However, one of the first decisions to be taken after the election that brought me here was to cut the fuel poverty budget and to remove universal provision of the central heating programme—universal provision which SNP members have praised in other areas.

I finish by mentioning a policy that was announced at the Labour conference last week—Labour’s proposal to freeze energy bills. Would the SNP support the next Labour Government on that or would it implement a similar plan in an independent Scotland? That is the key question in this debate.

Members know my views and those of other Labour members on the SNP’s plans to cut corporation tax for big businesses. Will the minister tell us, in closing, how the SNP can justify cutting tax for energy companies while taking no action on the bills that they demand of their customers? If the question cannot be answered in this debate, I am afraid that it will become a big issue in the run-up to the referendum on 18 September next year.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the Labour Party for bringing this important subject for debate.

Members received a number of briefings, including one from the Child Poverty Action Group—an organisation that I think very highly of. I agree with the direction of travel in CPAG’s briefing, which talks about the need to maximise income and minimise essential outgoings for families in Scotland.

I was particularly disappointed to read in the briefing that 20 per cent of children still live in poverty and that the number is forecast to rise by 65,000 by 2020. The Child Poverty Act 2010, which I think that all members supported—in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster—was meant to cut child poverty to 10 per cent by 2020. Even that target was unambitious, given that the rate in other European countries is well below 10 per cent. At the time, people warned that Westminster legislation without resources would not eradicate child poverty. That has, I am sad to say, proven to be the case.

On maximising income, the living wage is good but a statutory minimum wage is better. We struggle to get people to sign up to a voluntary living wage, whereas a statutory minimum wage is compulsory in the private and public sectors. People need a minimum to live on—we give that to prisoners and we should give that to everyone else. Part of someone’s income should be unconditional; only income on top of the unconditional element should be conditional. That is why it is so wrong to take money off people who have an extra bedroom, taking their income below the level that they need to live on. It is similarly wrong to make someone attend a job centre five days a week before they can get their benefits.

To members who say that independence is a distraction from the main issues, such as poverty and the cost of living, I respond that I want independence so that we can stop struggling to impose a voluntary living wage and instead increase the statutory minimum wage to a proper level, on which people can actually live.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I am interested in what the member said. Will he say whether that is Scottish National Party policy? At what level would the SNP set the minimum wage?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am happy to argue that the statutory minimum wage should be £7.45, in line with the living wage. I do not think that anyone has fixed a figure for the minimum wage, but when I was at Westminster we repeatedly spoke in favour of a higher statutory minimum wage.

We can hardly talk about reducing people’s outgoings without considering where the extra money is to come from—the issue has already come up. Is a free healthy lunch for rich kids the best use of resources? Where is the money to come from for more childcare?

Let us not forget that good things are happening in relation to energy, albeit sometimes on a small scale. The Commonwealth games village has a district heating system and the new homes have higher insulation levels—members who go to see the new homes will see that they have tiny radiators. That will be the case for some 700 homes, a number of which will be socially rented. That is good news, but on a relatively small scale. It is not yet economically viable to build such homes, which are subsidised by the public purse.

Energy costs are not helped by the profit element. It would have been better if gas and electricity had not been privatised—I did not take any shares when they were privatised. I have reservations about whether Labour can deliver an energy price freeze. There is a fear that a freeze would stifle investment in our future energy requirements and that companies would dramatically raise prices before the freeze came into effect.

The Scottish Government, in partnership with local government, has delivered a council tax freeze. Of course if council tax were raised there would be more money for services, but we should remember that the tax is regressive, as Drew Smith said. Council tax increases hit hardest the people who are on a limited income, such as pensioners, so freezing council tax helps people who are on a fixed income.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

I have already given way to the member.

In the longer term, we want to replace the council tax with something fairer that is based on the ability to pay; nonetheless, in the meantime, a freeze is very welcome.

There are some good points in some of the amendments. For example, the Greens demand waste reduction, and we should definitely go down that route. The Lib Dem amendment mentions overseas aid, which may be slightly off the point of the motion, but every time we talk about poverty we should remember those around the world who are in a much poorer state than we are.

I will make a few comments on the exchange rate. One of the reasons for costs going up is that the value of the pound has been falling, and the value of the pound has fallen because the economy has been badly managed over a number of years. There was much rejoicing when the pound fell from around 70p to the euro to more like 80p as that was meant to boost exports—although I do not think that we have seen much growth in practice, at least at a UK level. However, the falling exchange rate has meant that anything imported now costs more, and for this country that means that quite a lot of things cost more. Although we may accept that some aspects of the increased cost of living are outwith the control of all Governments, we must be clear that the mismanagement of the economy by successive Westminster Governments is a major factor.

John Mason (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Shettleston)

Let us make dealing with poverty a key focus in the Parliament, but if we are to hear new proposals from other parties let us have clear and costed alternatives as we move through the budget process.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Labour is due credit for bringing this debate on the cost of living to the Parliament. It seems that during this conference season the political parties have been tripping over each other to send the message, “In tough economic times, we’re on your side.”

Labour’s policy of the energy price cap is intriguing. It is probably popular and perhaps even achievable, but it will certainly be a short-term measure. The Labour Party is not proposing national ownership; therefore, in a free market competitive arrangement price caps would be a short-term measure only. However, I do not know whether I support that measure yet because I have not seen any of the detail. Even after spending some time searching for an explanation, I still do not know whether it is a retail or wholesale cap. If it is a retail cap, it will freeze out suppliers such as the Co-op, which the Labour Party welcomed when it entered the energy market.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

For Patrick Harvie’s information, I say that it would be a retail freeze, but included in the proposal is major reform of the wholesale market, too. It is, indeed, a temporary measure that will allow time to legislate to replace Ofgem with a regulator that has the power to regulate prices. It is a short-term measure until we can introduce a long-term policy.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I will be interested to learn about the long-term policy when the detail is available. I still wonder, however, what will happen to the retailers that are not also energy generators if a price cap is in place on the retail side and the wholesale price goes up.

The Liberal Democrat amendment talks about increasing tax thresholds, but I am afraid that I cannot agree that that is progressive. Every member of this Parliament is in the top 2 per cent of society by income and will benefit from that.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is Patrick Harvie aware that the threshold for higher-rate tax was reduced to pay for it? Those of us who are higher-rate taxpayers are paying for the increase in the lower-rate tax threshold.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

There was nothing to prevent the Conservatives from taking more from higher earners and approving that measure as well. Only £1 billion of the £17 billion that that policy raised has been spent on removing low earners from tax, and nothing has been gained by the poorest people in society.

SNP members have talked about the social wage, and I welcome many of the measures under that banner heading. Nevertheless, I do not welcome the council tax freeze because, as with other examples of freezing a regressive tax, every member in the chamber has saved money through the council tax freeze. All of us who are well paid and who are in the top fraction of society by income have saved money. That is the problem.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will Patrick Harvie give way?

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I do not have time.

The SNP should acknowledge that the many positive policies under the social wage headline need to be paid for. I would be willing to pay more tax. Every member in the chamber and anybody on a comparable income can afford to pay substantially more tax. I want Scandinavian public services and Scandinavian levels of taxation to pay for them.

The Conservatives seem to be obsessed with the marriage tax break, which will save the handsome sum of £4 a week for around a third of married and civil-partnered couples, but will exclude many of those who are most in need. Its real intention is clearly to underline a mean-spirited and judgmental moral hierarchy rather than to help those who are most in need.

Even where those policies are well-intentioned they all risk achieving only marginal effect. The problem is one of chronic inequality, which has, as other members have mentioned, been growing since the late 1970s. This inequality matters more than GDP because far more people benefit if we share the wealth of our country than if we grow that wealth overall. The problem is also about our having a culture of waste and overconsumption, even by those who can afford it the least but who are left with little choice.

The solutions will often be found in demand reduction, the creation of capacity for self-reliance, and in a change in economic relationships in order to break the stranglehold of multinational companies. I offer food as one example. The dominance of the retail giants may well mean that a few loss leaders are offered, but only when people are bombarded with advertising that tells them to buy overpriced, overprocessed and unhealthy products as well. The decline in food skills in our society, coupled with the decline in the time that many people have available to grow, prepare and cook their own food is another element that results in the change in people’s relationship with food, from its being a form of nourishment and a natural product to a commercial product on which they rely.

Similar dominance by a handful of multinationals and big businesses can be seen in energy, banking and many other sectors of our economy. Often the solutions will be found in government action. I do not have time to talk about the many benefits of land value taxation in reducing housing costs, or about the role that private rented sector rent controls, allied to social housing supply, could and should play.

I end by recalling Jackie Baillie’s condemnation of the SNP and the campaign for independence and her call instead for a change of UK Government. I ask only this: did we not try that already?

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I am at that stage in my family life when I have become a taxi driver for my own kids.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

A people carrier.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I suspect that some people will recognise the description; it is clear that James Dornan does. Other younger parents might view that with a slight sense of foreboding, although I say in mitigation that it is not that bad because it is sometimes the only chance I get to catch up with some members of the family. The big downside is cost; it cost me £98 to fill up the car this weekend. It is a seven-seater—I have a lot of kids. It does not seem so long since I was horrified when a full tank went above £50, but it is now double that.

Families across Scotland are feeling the pinch in this recession. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, research from Shelter and government statistics all tell the same story. I want, however, to highlight another report—the “Asda Income Tracker”—because it is impossible not to notice the rise in the weekly cost of shopping, of heating the house and of getting to work by bus, train or car. As I said in the debate on the economy last week, the Asda study reveals that the average Scottish household is £990 a year worse off than it was five years ago. That is bad enough, but we are considerably poorer than the UK average where the average household is approximately £870 a year worse off.

It is worth highlighting a few of the other findings in the Asda report: transport costs are up £654 a year, compared with 2008, and housing and utility bills are up 25 per cent since 2008. The under-30s have been hardest hit, with discretionary income going down approximately 5 per cent over the past five years. Since 2010, wages have, on average, been growing at half the rate of inflation. Even more worrying is that the study forecasts that the cost of living will continue to rise, and will reach almost 18 per cent higher over the next five years. That means that by 2018, the average UK household could be £1,300 a year worse off.

What can we do about that? The party conferences laid out pretty starkly the political choices that we face. We could accept the reality that unregulated free markets do not serve any of us very well. We could intervene on the side of the consumers, the workers and the citizens of this country with, for example, a price freeze on our home heating bills, a new approach to public transport ownership or regulation, and a decisive statement of intent to support small indigenous businesses over large unaccountable corporations.

Alternatively, we could, of course, listen to what is being said at this week’s Tory conference and try to find some scapegoats—some people to turn on and to blame for our communal misfortunes. We could blame immigrants and send round vans to tell them all to go home. We could blame criminals and threaten to punish them further if they dare to muck up their prison cells. Better still, why not blame the unemployed and treat them like criminals? Let us make them pick up litter or do community service for the misfortune of not being able to find a job. In fact, given that it is all their fault, let us just go the whole hog and take away their human rights. It is, of course, impossible to believe that we would ever need human rights to protect any of us.

Unfortunately, we do not have to wait until the next Conservative election manifesto—the damage is already being done. Child benefit has been frozen and other benefits for families and children are rising by just 1 per cent. The Child Poverty Action Group has pointed out that

“currently, one in five, that’s 200,000 of Scotland’s children, are officially recognised as living in poverty”.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts further massive increases in child poverty—it is estimated that 65,000 more children in Scotland will be living in poverty by 2020.

I have talked previously about how devolution has given Scotland the opportunity to become a beacon for progressive policies. It has allowed us to resist market-driven reforms to our health service, to maintain equity in our education system and to support independence in retirement through free travel and free personal care. Although we spend much of our time disagreeing, we need look only at the most recent Labour and SNP election manifestos to see that there is a lot of common ground, too. I appeal to the Scottish Government to join us on policies that will deliver real and immediate benefits to the Scottish people and which will make a difference to our cost of living today—not in some hypothetical post-2016 world. For example, bus regulation and the awarding of the rail franchise are areas in which ministers have powers at their disposal right now. We could take decisions that would help to keep services running in the interests of passengers, not of shareholders, and which would keep prices down.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I simply say to Mr Macintosh that, given that he lost the finance brief on the basis that he went against the rhetoric of his leader and supported our social wage policies, perhaps he should join us.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will take that as an olive branch from the SNP. It gives me optimism, so I will make another suggestion to Mr McDonald and his colleagues, which relates to community ownership of renewables. Why are there so few examples of community-owned wind farms when on paper, at least, we all support an extension of the policy? Instead of just subsidising a few community initiatives, we have an opportunity to address fuel poverty directly and to take ownership of energy generation, which is responsible for one of the largest cost-of-living increases in recent years. I ask the minister to look at the role that housing associations can play in that area.

What worries me is that, despite our common ground, we seem to be unable to reach common solutions. Just yesterday, the Welfare Reform Committee discussed the bedroom tax.

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

You should be drawing to a close, please.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

I will, Presiding Officer.

The majority of members on the committee and the members of the expert group were united in our condemnation of the policy. My question is this: why do not we do something about it now? We have the powers, and we have the vehicle in my colleague Jackie Baillie’s proposed bill, which would make a real difference to the cost of living of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

Kenneth Macintosh (Labour, Eastwood)

We cannot wait until 2016. By then, it will be too late. People will have been chucked out of their houses, or worse.