 I問, we start this morning with general questions. Question 1 of the session is of NHS Workforce Moral. The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland recognise the importance of an engaged, valued and motivated workforce and that better staff experience can also lead to better patient care. Following continuous partnership dialogue over the past 18 months, we agreed gyda'r Unions Traged that, through the I-Matter continuous improvement model, our approach to measuring staff experience will be greatly improved. This will allow us to better understand and take action on issues that matter to staff. Full implementation is due to be completed by the end of the year and we anticipate that the 2017 NHS Scotland national staff experience report will be available in early 2018. Reports of previous NHS Scotland staff surveys are published online. That's our work. The Government has overseen a workforce crisis with 2,500 nursing vacancies in the NHS. That represents a 300 per cent increase in long-term vacancies. Now nurses tell us that only one in three of them believe that there's enough of them to do their jobs properly. Nine out of 10 nurses say that their workload has got worse. Now the cabinet secretary has imposed a 1 per cent pay cap, which the Royal College of Nursing tells us means that, after seven years of pay restraint, a 14 per cent real-terms pay cut represents. Why does the cabinet secretary think that it's okay for MSPs and MPs to get an inflationary pay rise, while NHS nurses get a real-terms pay cut? First of all, I'll start by saying to Anna Sarwar that we have record levels of staff in the NHS in Scotland. Given the number of posts that have been created, there are some challenging vacancy levels. We are working very hard with boards to address that and, indeed, to address issues such as the use of agency nurses and reducing that in order to fill some of those substantive posts. A lot of work is going on, but we have record levels of staff, particularly nursing staff, in our NHS. On pay, we recognise that pay restraint has been difficult. However, it was the unions, particularly the Royal College of Nursing, who wanted an independent pay review body to set pay. That has been the case for a number of years now. The independent pay review body recommended 1 per cent, which the Scottish Government has accepted. In fact, we have accepted the independent pay review body recommendations when other parts of the UK have not. That has led to the current situation where Scottish nurses in band 5, for example, are currently paid between £227,312 per year more than their English counterparts. In Scotland, we have a no compulsory redundancy commitment, which other parts of the islands do not have. We are absolutely determined to continue to engage with the RCN and others about pay as we go forward. What I did not hear from Labour during the budget process, of course, was any recommendations or representations about pay within that. They come here and say one thing and say nothing during the budget process. Fulton MacGregor To ask the cabinet secretary how staff representatives like the RCN have been involved in the development of the new iMatter system for assessing staff experience. I would like to note to the chamber that I am the PLO to the cabinet secretary for health. Our new approach to staff experience has been developed over a number of years and informed by staff as well as the trade union representatives. That was to ensure that measurement of staff experience is meaningful with staff having ownership of the actions from that. The RCN Scotland's associate director Norman Provin said recently that our approach has strengthened the process by which staff can have their say. We take those matters forward in partnership with the unions. They have been fully involved with that. I am happy to keep Fulton MacGregor informed of the progress on iMatter. Ross Thomson To ask the Scottish Government what contingencies are in place to mitigate the impact on students, particularly those with upcoming exams, of reported planned strikes by college lecturers. Shirley-Anne Somerville I am pleased to note today's news that the employers association and the EISFILA have jointly decided to refer their dispute to the conciliation service ACAS. I hope that that will encourage both sides to work constructively to reach a resolution to this dispute. While the union has a mandate for strike action, I hope that it will consider postponing this while the ACAS process is in train. In the event of strike action going ahead, the Collegy Scotland employers association has issued comprehensive guidance on the practical steps that colleges should take to mitigate against the risk of disruption to students. That includes what colleges can do to ensure that no student has an exam diet disrupted. Ross Thomson I thank the minister for that answer and welcome that good news and that good progress. Would the minister acknowledge that there are still serious concerns within the sector around college funding and sustainability, as well as a genuine concern around the 54 per cent reduction of part-time inflexible courses between 2007 and 2016, and that those need to be addressed properly? In challenging financial times, the 2017-18 budget for colleges will increase resource and capital funding by £41.4 million—that is a 7.4 per cent increase in cash terms. We have increased our college capital spending in this budget, too. I recognise that the member says that these are challenging times and that we are delivering for the college sector at that time. He refers to the types of college places that we have. We fund part-time and full-time college courses. That is to do with the courses being focused on those that receive a recognised qualification, enhancing the prospect of people going directly into jobs and successfully into the jobs market following that degree qualification. Pauline McNeill To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to automating some benefits such as school clothing grants, free-school meals and the educational maintenance allowance to increase the uptake by those that are most in need. John Swinney The automation of benefits is a matter for local authorities to decide, taking into account local needs and priorities. The Scottish Government is always keen to see improvements in the delivery and take-up of passport to benefits that are handled by local authorities or other public bodies. The poorest in Scotland are missing out on £2 billion of unclaimed benefits each year. Last year, Glasgow City Council had a scheme to automate the school clothing grant, which meant that it could send £52 per child to each family. The financial inclusion team at Glasgow site is some of the biggest reasons why people do not claim as being complex forum, language difficulties or people are worried about losing other benefits. Notwithstanding what the cabinet secretary has said, it is the responsibility of local authorities. Will the cabinet secretary commit to talking to authorities such as Glasgow to get a better understanding of how successful that has been? Does he consider that there is quite a compelling case for the Government to place a duty or to look at it in the context of the child poverty bill? If we can get more people to claim their benefits that they are entitled to, and if we look at the reasons why people are not claiming, we can take more people out of poverty. The substance and the purpose of Pauline Neill's question is one that I am happy to associate with myself and the Government. It is important that, in all circumstances, individuals are able to receive the benefits to which they are properly and fully entitled. I am aware of the fact that, in some circumstances, individuals are not claiming benefits to which they are entitled, and those could make a material difference in their lives. I am certainly very happy to talk to Glasgow City Council and other authorities about how we strengthen and improve the take-up of individual benefits. We are going into a period now in which there is a greater ability to exercise responsibility over a range of integrated benefits in the competence that the Scottish Government now has. With those comments, I am happy to engage with Pauline Neill and others on the question, because it is clear to me from the exercises that we look at, for example, in connection with the cost of the school day, that those are significant financial burdens for families, and the more we can do to support individuals, the better. Question 4 has not been lodged. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update regarding Glasgow Kelvin College's request to retain £3 million from the sale of the Stowe College building. The Board of Glasgow Kelvin College achieved £6 million from the sale of the former Stowe College building. There was an initial agreement to retain £3 million of those proceeds to support the capital estate requirements in the Glasgow Kelvin board area. Following a consultation between the Scottish Government and Glasgow Kelvin College Board of Management, a further £1 million has been retained by the college, bringing the total retained proceeds to £4 million. Adam Tomkins I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Glasgow Kelvin College serves some of the most disadvantaged communities in Scotland. 65 per cent of its learners come from the 20 per cent most deprived communities in Glasgow, or in the Glasgow region. That £3 million could and should have been invested in its own estate and capital equipment to meet the needs of existing learners and, crucially, to increase levels of participation from deprived areas. Instead, the Scottish Government disregarded decision makers on the ground and cross-subsidised another educational institution in a different part of Scotland altogether. Will the minister reconsider that decision, and can she advise if this transfer of resources is now set to become common practice in Scotland? Adam Tomkins might be aware of what is going up in Glasgow Kelvin College, but he has been rather disingenuous with some of the detail. Can I quote to him a letter that I received from the chair of the board of management on 24 March? He welcomes the Scottish Government recognising and supporting the work of the college by allocating those resources, which will enable learners to access to industry standard equipment to provide them with the skills needed for sustainable employment in STEM-related industries. I have visited the college myself and I have seen the fantastic work that it does with the learners that Mr Tomkins discusses. I will be more than happy to continue that dialogue with the college over the years ahead. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Of course, Mr Tomkins' party is responsible for much of that deprivation. Unlike myself, Mr Tomkins has had no discussions with the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College. I thank the minister for responding positively to my concerns about the issue for Glasgow Kelvin College and working with me and the college to resolve the matter successfully, with an additional £1 million being secured for the college. The college has welcomed the outcome, but can the minister advise what the statutory arrangements are for the treatment of such capital receipts in the college sector more generally? Has such treatment been applied to other sectors and can she further advise how much this Government has invested in recent years in improving the estates within Glasgow colleges? I recognise the on-going work that Bob Dorris has had with me and the college over the issue, and I welcome the discussions that I have had with him. The statutory arrangements for capital disposals in the further education sector are covered in the statutory powers under section 185 of the Further and Higher Education Scotland Act 1992. Disposal of assets in other sectors would be dealt with in line with the conditions set out in the Scottish Public Finance Manual. Bob Dorris rightly points out to the investment that this Government has made into the college estate in Glasgow. £272 million in buildings in the college estate, including the Riverside campus, the city campus, Langside college buildings and, of course, £16 million for capital maintenance. This Government has a proud record for delivering to Glasgow and the college estate in Scotland. It is to us, the Scottish Government, what action it has taken to ensure that homes in the private rented sector are energy efficient? We have designated energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority, recognising its key role in tackling fuel poverty and meeting our ambitious climate change targets. Private renting now makes up 14 per cent of Scotland's homes and is an increasingly important housing option for many people in Scotland. The sector has the highest proportion of the least energy efficient stock, and it is only fair that tenants who rent privately have access to a good quality and energy efficient home. Our home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland scheme provide support for householders across all tenures, including private rented sector tenants. We have just published a consultation on proposals that would mean that all privately rented homes in Scotland would be required to meet a minimum standard of energy efficiency. The consultation seeks views on requiring all private rented sector properties to have a minimum energy performance certificate, EPC rating of E, a change in tenancy from 2019, rising to EPC level D from 2022. I thank the minister for that answer. The British Lung Foundation in Scotland has said that cold, damp and mouldy homes can cause and exacerbate illnesses, including lung diseases, which places additional strain on our health and social services. Will the minister be taking into account the health benefits for private sector tenants of the improved energy efficiency of their homes when considering the response to the consultation? The Scottish Government already recognises the importance of energy efficiency measures in helping individuals to feel healthier and to live in warmer homes that are cheaper to heat. I encourage any tenant that has any issue with dampness to report it immediately to their landlord. Both social and private landlords have responsibility to ensure that the homes that their tenants live in are in a good state of repair. Under the statutory minimum tolerable standard for all housing, homes must be substantially free from rising damp or penetrating damp. When it comes to our current consultation, we would be very much welcome views from all stakeholders, including landlords, tenants and other interested parties, including bodies such as the British Lung Foundation Scotland. We will, of course, consider carefully all views in our response to the consultation. Graham Simpson We welcome the consultation on this, although it was a long time coming. Regulations covering the private rented sector have already been introduced in England and Wales by the UK Government. The 2015 energy efficiency regulations make it unlawful for landlords in England and Wales to grant a new lease of property with an EPC rating below E from April next year. Therefore, will the Scottish Government study best practice from elsewhere in the UK before drawing up its own proposals? Michael Matheson The UK Government, as Mr Simpson has said, has set a minimum energy efficiency standard in England and Wales at EPC band E for the private rented sector from April 2018. Our start date of 1 April 2019 will allow landlords, assessors and installers time to prepare for minimum standards, but at the same time ensure that tenants' homes are improved as soon as possible. Our proposals also set out a trajectory to increase the standard over time, going beyond the current standards in England and Wales. Richard Leonard I ask the minister what the Scottish Government's approach will be to rural off-gas grid rented properties, many of which have missed out on successive home energy efficiency schemes. We have certainly taken cognisance of some of the findings of the rural fuel poverty task force. We have said that we will look at those houses that are off-grid. I am very pleased to have received information as well as from the task force itself, but from organisations who are doing on-the-ground work such as in East Sutherland. We will look very closely at what those folks in the on-the-ground are finding in act accordingly. Andy Wightman Can the minister explain why there is such a continuing delay in regulating energy efficiency in the owner-occupied sector? 59 per cent of those in fuel poverty live in that sector. As WWF indicated in its evidence on the draft climate change plan, those powers have been in existence since 2009. It was an enabling measure in RPP-1, it was a concrete proposal in RPP-2, it was developed with stakeholders to detailed pre-consultation phase in the last Parliament. On the current proposals, nothing will happen until at least 2019, a decade after the act. Why is the Government so complacent in that regard? Andy Wightman As Mr Wightman is very well aware, we have set out a timetable of how we will deal with houses in owner occupation as part of the consultation that we published just the other week. We are absolutely adamant to ensure that we get all of those proposals absolutely right. I would encourage folk to look at the current consultation on the private housing sector and respond accordingly. Then we will move on to looking at owner-occupied properties.