Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am afraid that that is not what is coming across from the SNP just now. What is coming across is the allegation that UK Government’s economic policy is all in the wrong direction, but the shared prosperity fund is addressing many of the exact issues that the SNP has been complaining about.

On the second point, we know that there are many inside local government—I just quoted one when I intervened on the cabinet secretary—who have felt heavily constrained not only by the weaknesses in their local government financial settlements, which have, year on year, handed down real-term cuts, but by the lack of autonomy that they have had to endure. Again, the shared prosperity fund is designed to provide greater autonomy to local communities—

To ask the First Minister whether she can provide an update on the Scottish Government’s strategy to include libraries in the policy to address the attainment gap. (S6F-00989)

The First Minister set great store by the national strategy for school libraries, which was launched in 2018. However, the Scottish Library and Information Council and the Scottish Parliament information centre have told me that the advisory group met on four occasions in 2018 but there are no records of any recent meetings and no updates on progress made—particularly regarding how effectively the school library fund is being spent. I am also told that a large number of primary schools remain without a library or—just as important—without a librarian.

The strategy was supposed to be a key component in schools addressing the attainment gap, but we know that the curriculum for excellence achievement levels in primary 1 to primary 7 literacy declined between 2018 and 2021. Why has there been no formal parliamentary update on the strategy, and why are primary school literacy levels going backwards, not forwards?

Have I got time, Presiding Officer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not, if Ms Robison does not mind.

Local authorities have warmly welcomed that extra support.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the member give way?

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

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

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