Scottish Parliament, 13 November 2024

313 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. Colleagues will be aware of some issues with the corporate wi-fi in the Parliament, and efforts are on-going to stabilise it. We will do what we can to connect members who are joining us remotely, so that they are able to participate.

I advise members in the chamber that, if they plug in their devices, that should allow them to operate as normal. It is simply the wi-fi that is affected, but, as I have said, we are doing what we can to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. Members who wish to ask a supplementary question should press their request-to-speak buttons during the relevant question.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to encourage library usage in the Mid Scotland and Fife region. (S6O-03941)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Public libraries are devolved to local authorities, which have a statutory duty to secure the provision of adequate library facilities in their area.

We encourage library usage through our support for the Scottish Library and Information Council. That includes £450,000 for the public library improvement fund. The funding supports creative, sustainable and innovative public library projects throughout Scotland and is on top of our general revenue funding to local authorities.

Examples of that work in the Mid Scotland and Fife region include the evidencing the social impact of libraries in Stirling project and the sustainable communities project in Perth and Kinross.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Library closures, such as those proposed in Perth and Kinross, are a direct consequence of budget decisions that are made at Holyrood but which primarily impact rural communities. Those communities have already lost their banks, post offices, police stations, public toilets and other vital local services, and the loss of libraries would be yet another significant blow to the communities that they serve.

Given the uplift in the Scottish Government’s budget, will the cabinet secretary commit to making more resources available to local authorities so that they can retain those rural community assets?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As Roz McCall knows, I used to represent a rural constituency, so I very much understand the point that she makes about local services. The community hub role that libraries serve in many rural areas is changing and developing and is hugely important. I watch with great concern wherever there are local authority decisions in relation to library closures.

The member obviously feels strongly about that, too, so I have no doubt that she will have taken part in the consultation that was conducted by Perth and Kinross Council. If she is happy to share the details with me, I will look closely at them.

As for the budget process, I am delighted that the member is looking for a rise in provision for culture and the arts in Scotland, and I look forward to her voting for the Scottish National Party budget in due course.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is clear that libraries are about much more than borrowing books. When I met the community in Scone on Saturday, I heard moving testimony from local people who have been impacted by the closures. The closure of Scone library would result in the loss of services in their community for young people with additional support needs, vulnerable families and older people with dementia.

What further support can the Government give to councils that are struggling with financial decisions? Could part of the mix be a tourism levy to support culture and library facilities across Scotland?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I respectfully and generously accept the point that has been made across the chamber about the importance of libraries—there is cross-party agreement on that. The point that Mark Ruskell makes about the provision of services through local libraries to communities is one that I discussed with the Scottish Library and Information Council only last week, so I am up to speed on the case that it is making for the protection of the provision of local libraries.

It is the case that the provision of funding will determine the future of those local libraries. The Scottish Government is very committed to the preservation of those services, but at the end of the day, the decision is for local councils to take. I will add my voice to the call from colleagues across the parties for the maintenance of library services. Through the Scottish Library and Information Council, the public library improvement fund and the provision of funding for local government, we will do as much as we can to make sure that that is the case.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I am aware that, in Edinburgh and Perth, there are dog-friendly library days to help increase footfall without the need for extra money. Does the cabinet secretary consider that such diversification could be done elsewhere?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I should declare an interest as the owner of three dogs. Were it to be the case that I could take my dogs to the library, I am sure that it would make any visit all the more welcome.

Libraries and library managers across Scotland are looking at new ways of making libraries open and welcoming and of providing online support in addition to their fantastic range of books. Being imaginative about how one can provide the services that are required by communities, families and individuals in 2024 will be the best way of assuring the provision of library services across the country.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that young people across Scotland have access to facilities that can support their involvement in arts and culture. (S6O-03942)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government’s long-standing investment in the youth music initiative helps young people throughout Scotland to access music-making opportunities. In 2021-22, that funding reached more than 360,000 children and young people across all of Scotland’s local authority areas.

We provide Creative Scotland with £500,000 annually to administer the youth arts open fund. In 2023-24, the fund supported 73 community-focused projects across 27 local authority areas, delivering to more than 6,000 children and young people.

Since 2012, the Scottish Government has provided funding to Sistema Scotland to deliver its Big Noise projects, which offer children and young people access to music making.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary will agree that involvement in activities such as the arts and culture can have a positive influence on young minds that will go a long way with them through their life. However, the truth is that, whether it be in schools or in our communities, access to those outlets is in sharp decline, and the cuts will be picked up in the budgets for other portfolios, such as health and education. What will the cabinet secretary do to reverse that decline?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I do not recognise the decline that has been outlined, but I would share a concern if there were to be any reduction in the provision of music tuition and access to musical instruments. If Brian Whittle is aware of examples of that, I am keen to hear from him.

I benefited from an education that included music provision at Broughton high school, and it stood me and all my peers in good stead. It is important that children of all backgrounds have the opportunity to learn music. I make that offer to Brian Whittle, and I will look at what he sends to me with great interest.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

It was disappointing to see Labour make a cut to the United Kingdom Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s revenue budget. Given that towns such as Paisley are looking at using cultural activities as a regeneration tool, is the cabinet secretary disappointed about that, too? Will he set out the Scottish Government’s contrasting approach to supporting people’s involvement in arts and culture?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

George Adam is correct: the UK Government has cut revenue funding to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which is responsible for culture and the arts in England. By contrast, Scottish ministers have this financial year increased culture sector funding as a first step to achieving the First Minister’s commitment to investing at least £100 million more annually in culture and the arts by 2028-29. That means that programmes such as the YMI, Sistema Scotland and the youth arts open fund, which I have just spoken about, are able to operate and ensure that Scotland’s young people have access to the arts and culture. Details of the 2025-26 budget will be published later this year.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 3 was not lodged.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what conversations it has had with its international development partners regarding building resilience to increasing humanitarian crises. (S6O-03944)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Our humanitarian emergency fund is activated on the advice of a panel of eight non-governmental organisations. Through that mechanism, and in collaboration with their partners in country, expert guidance is provided on how best to respond to communities in urgent need. That includes building resilience to future humanitarian crises.

We will continue to seek the sector’s views on how we can improve the fund’s responsiveness and resilience through the upcoming HEF review, which is due to begin in early 2025.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

At a time when climate impact is both rapid and slow, and increasing global inequality and horrific violence are combining to produce unprecedented humanitarian crises, the compassionate solidarity of Scotland’s civil society is more vital than ever.

The Dundee International Women’s Centre does phenomenal work supporting people who have made their way to Scotland from places bearing the heaviest burdens of these crises, including Yemen and Palestine. Will the cabinet secretary outline how the Scottish Government is supporting organisations such as the DIWC that carry out life-saving work in difficult circumstances, beyond the conversations that he is having with external partners?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The eight leading humanitarian organisations based in Scotland that form part of the humanitarian fund panel are the British Red Cross, Christian Aid, Islamic Relief, Mercy Corps, Oxfam, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Tearfund and Save the Children. It is, however, excellent to hear about the work that is happening on the ground in communities. If Maggie Chapman wishes to highlight the good efforts of the organisation that she mentioned and to raise any specific elements of the important work that it is delivering on the ground, I will look very closely at that.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 5 was not lodged.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

To ask the Scottish Government what it anticipates the impact of the recent United Kingdom budget will be on funding for Creative Scotland. (S6O-03946)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The additional funding that was announced in the UK autumn statement is welcome and, along with the savings that were announced in the fiscal statement on 3 September, it will support the cost of pay deals and other pressures. However, the budget still leaves us facing significant cost pressures. We are now considering the full implications of the UK budget.

I appreciate that the culture sector needs certainty regarding future funding in order to fulfil its potential, and I look forward to providing that certainty when the Scottish Government budget is published on 4 December.

Michelle Thomson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk East)

Creative Scotland supports small businesses across the arts sector—they are often considered as simply artists and individuals, but they are, in fact, small businesses. Given the UK Government’s decision to increase national insurance contributions for employers, is the Scottish Government concerned that the funds that are dedicated to supporting Scotland’s arts and culture will now not go as far as they did previously in helping those businesses to grow and in promoting the arts sector?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Michelle Thomson makes an important point. The Scottish Government is considering the implications for our public finances and the culture sector of the actions that were announced by the UK chancellor on 30 October.

Despite the challenging budget situation, the Scottish Government remains committed to providing £100 million additional funding for the culture sector by 2028-29. We are already increasing funding to the sector by £15.8 million this financial year, bringing it to £196.6 million. In 2025-26, we aim to provide additional funding to the sector and, in line with normal budgetary procedure, the Scottish Government will publish a draft budget for 2025-26 on 4 December. I invite members right across the chamber to support culture by voting for that budget.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We have a number of supplementaries. They will need to be brief, as will the responses.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Over the past two years, culture funding has been subjected to repeated in-year cuts and U-turns. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give the sector that it will not be placed in a precarious position due to last-minute cuts in this financial year?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The first thing that I would say to Alexander Stewart is that I already addressed that point in my previous answer, when I said that we are increasing spending this year for culture and the arts towards the £100 million annual increase to which the Scottish Government is committed. I am making the case vigorously within Government that we should do that as quickly as possible. If Mr Stewart and his colleagues want to support that increase in culture funding as much as I do, they will join me in voting for the budget after it is shared with Parliament at the beginning of December.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I know that panto season is coming up, but people do not want to hear continuing excuses from the cabinet secretary who has overseen a crisis in Scotland’s culture sector. The facts are that the Scottish budget is going up by £1.5 billion this year and £3.4 billion next year, thanks to the UK Labour Government’s budget decisions. There is now no good reason why the Scottish Government cannot give certainty to the culture sector and meet its commitment to deliver at least £25 million extra next year, and to give councils a fair deal so that they can protect local cultural provision. Given that, will the cabinet secretary make a cast-iron guarantee today to fulfil his already stated promises, or will the uncertainty in the sector continue?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Panto season would be making budgetary announcements before the budget, as Mr Bibby well knows.

The Scottish Government is already increasing culture spending while the member’s Government in the UK is cutting it. I stand on the record of this Government increasing spending while his Government is decreasing it. The revenue budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is going down. I look forward to Labour members listening intently to the budget at the beginning of December, when, I am confident, we will continue to increase culture spending in Scotland while the member’s party in government in England is cutting it.

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

Given the controversy surrounding Creative Scotland’s funding of the explicit Rein project, what assurances can the Scottish Government provide to the public that substantive measures have now been taken to address governance failures in the public funding model of allocation and oversight? Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether that happens directly or via the charity Inspiring Scotland?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I will have to write to Ash Regan about the second part of her question.

In answer to the first part, Creative Scotland senior managers gave detailed evidence to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee about Government procedures in relation to the case that she has raised. I know that she is not a member of that committee, but I invite her to look closely at that evidence. I have looked closely at the assurances that Creative Scotland has given. The issue matters to me, and I am sure that it matters to her.

This is particularly important because we look forward to the rolling out of multiyear funding across the culture sector next year, which will be a step change in supporting culture and the arts. Ash Regan is right to highlight the fact that it is important that we have governance procedures that are fit for purpose. Creative Scotland has given me and the relevant committee in the Scottish Parliament those guarantees.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question 7 is from James Dornan, who joins us remotely.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its funding for humanitarian assistance in Gaza. (S6O-03947)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

In response to the deteriorating situation in the middle east, the Scottish Government has committed £250,000 for Gaza from our humanitarian emergency fund, which includes £200,000 to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s humanitarian appeal. That money will provide food, water, medical assistance and shelter to displaced people in the region.

As the crisis in Gaza enters its second year and hostilities spread into Lebanon, the Scottish Government reiterates calls for a ceasefire, the immediate provision of humanitarian aid and progress towards a two-state solution through which all people in the middle east can live in peace and security.

James Dornan (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Cathcart)

Scotland has played a vital part in trying to provide aid to the people of Palestine who are caught in Israel’s genocidal actions. Any further aid that we can provide to Gaza would be very welcome in the effort to mitigate the effects of the deliberate ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.

Can the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament what steps it has taken to encourage Governments, including the United Kingdom and Israeli Governments, towards a speedy ceasefire and to ensure that aid reaches the beleaguered people of Gaza?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish Government ministers have repeatedly called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire by all sides and for unimpeded humanitarian access. We have demanded the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. We wrote to the UK Government asking it to ensure that all potential breaches of international law are investigated and that Israeli and Hamas leaders are held accountable. We have called for an end to UK arms sales to Israel and for the UK Government to recognise a sovereign Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution to secure lasting peace in the region.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

The new UK Government reinstated funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East in July. Now the Israeli Parliament has voted to ban it from operating within Israel. That decision means less life-saving aid getting into Palestine.

When the cabinet secretary met the deputy ambassador of Israel, did he raise the importance of UNRWA? Will he join me in condemning the Israeli Parliament’s decision?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I do join Foysol Choudhury in condemning the decision. The role of the UNRWA, which I had the honour of covering when it was headquartered in Vienna, is absolutely critical to the provision of humanitarian supplies to people in Gaza. I call on the Israeli Government to revisit the decision that has been taken. We need to support the United Nations and the provision of humanitarian assistance. If Foysol Choudhury thinks that anything more needs to be done to persuade the United Kingdom Government to make that case at the United Nations, I would be happy to join him in doing so.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Government announcing the largest funding settlement in real terms since devolution, how it will use any increase in funding to ensure that Glasgow’s arts and culture sector is able to thrive. (S6O-03948)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Details of the 2025-26 budget will be published later this year. However, Scottish ministers have already increased culture sector funding in this financial year as the first step to achieving the First Minister’s commitment to invest at least £100 million more annually in culture and the arts by 2028-29. The Scottish Government wants to ensure that the public money that is invested in the arts and culture benefits those right across Scotland and, as part of that, the Government continues to provide support to Glasgow’s arts and culture sector.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the past couple of years have been very hard for Glasgow’s arts and culture sector. Funding cuts to Creative Scotland, as well as the inflationary impacts of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine and so on have led to some of Glasgow’s iconic cultural institutions being pushed to the brink. Local authorities have also faced pressure and have taken steps to raise extra revenue, such as removing the rates relief on empty listed buildings.

That has had an unintended consequence. For example, the Govanhill Baths Community Trust has already raised nearly £10 million to restore that historic building in Govanhill but still faces a £6.5 million shortfall. It is unable to use the building, which is in the midst of restoration, but it now faces a rates bill from Glasgow City Council, which threatens the viability of the restoration project.

Will the cabinet secretary undertake to engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to see whether there can be amelioration or mitigation of the rates burdens that are faced by not-for-profits that are trying to restore listed buildings so that they are not undermined by those burdens?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I very much agree with Paul Sweeney about the importance of the provision of culture and the arts in Glasgow. That was a subject of discussion that I had with Glasgow Life a number of months ago.

He is right to raise community-based projects. I would be grateful if he could forward the details of the situation that he has outlined. I will look at any way in which I can use my good offices to support the sort of local community arts projects that he has raised.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next portfolio is justice and home affairs. If members wish to request a supplementary question, they should press their request-to-speak button during the relevant question.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what action Police Scotland can take to ensure the safe and legal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. (S6O-03949)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government recognises the harm endured by communities that is caused by dangerous and antisocial vehicle nuisance. Use of e-scooters on public roads, footpaths and cycle lanes is illegal, and likewise for e-bikes that exceed permitted criteria.

Police Scotland, in partnership with local authorities, has a critical role in ensuring safe roads through various activities. Enforcement of all traffic offences is for Police Scotland, which operates independently of ministers. We support Police Scotland in tackling misuse of such vehicles and ensuring safety where legal use is permitted. Local policing teams identify misuse of vehicles and ensure that areas are prioritised for action. Police Scotland, including local policing divisions, raises awareness of the dangers of misuse and promotes safety.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I have been approached by a number of constituents raising their concerns regarding e-bike and e-scooter use on roads and pavements across my constituency, which is often linked to antisocial behaviour. The legislation that covers the registration of those vehicles is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. However, will the minister outline what discussions, if any, have taken place with the UK Government regarding the surge in their illegal use and how best to tackle it, such as by introducing tighter legislation on ownership and registration?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We are aware that the Home Office has said that it is not planning to introduce a registration scheme or other new requirements concerning ownership, but that it will be looking at other proactive approaches, such as increased powers to seize vehicles, which we already have as an option.

We regularly engage with the UK Government, and that engagement includes the sharing of best practice. The Minister of State for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, the Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson MP, spoke to the UK tackling antisocial behaviour conference in October about developing technology to safely stop e-scooters and e-bikes, and to enhance the ability of the police to prevent them from being used to commit criminal acts. We aim to be involved with any on-going work or proposals, especially where improvements can be made in Scotland.

Graham Simpson (Conservative, Central Scotland)

As the minister said, the use of e-scooters is illegal. However, they are being sold and used here, and in quite big numbers in some parts of the country. The minister will be aware that there have been some trials in parts of England; the nearest one to Scotland is, I think, in Newcastle. Would she be minded to consider trialling a scheme somewhere in Scotland?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I am not aware of the specific scheme that Mr Simpson refers to, but I am happy for him to write to me about it. The issue of vehicles is covered between my portfolio and Mr Fairlie’s and we are happy to look at anything that could make things better.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to its handling of malicious and vexatious criminal complaints. (S6O-03950)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government has had no discussions with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service on those matters. The handling of malicious and vexatious criminal complaints is an independent prosecutorial matter for the Crown Office and the Lord Advocate.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I of course recognise the operational independence of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. However, as we saw in the case of the Rangers Football Club prosecutions, errors that are made can come at a high cost to the taxpayer—in that case, it is already nearly £60 million.

Last year, my constituent Dame Ann Gloag and three members of her family were charged with human trafficking offences following malicious and vexatious complaints against them. Those allegations had a devastating effect on Dame Ann, who is 81 years old and is not only a leading business figure but also renowned for her philanthropy and charitable work, both here and overseas. Now, nearly two years later, she and her family members have been told that there will be no proceedings. However, that does not make up for what she and her family describe as a “Kafkaesque nightmare” or the enormous damage to her personal reputation.

Surely the cabinet secretary agrees that there is something far wrong with a system that allows innocent people to be treated in that way.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I say to Mr Fraser that there can be no acceptance in the criminal justice system of complaints that are made with the intent to harm a person who has done nothing wrong. That is of course a burden to the person who is subjected to those complaints, and to the justice system.

I am grateful that he appreciates that I cannot get into the specifics of any case of that nature. I encourage him to use his office as an MSP to represent his constituent and engage with the Crown Office or other players in the justice system as appropriate.

With regard to the financial costs arising from the matters that Mr Fraser mentioned, the fact is that—as the Crown Office has indicated—the incurring of that expenditure at any time, and especially now, given the pressures on the public finances, is highly and deeply regrettable.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to address unnecessary court citations for police officers, in light of reports that over 500 officers are summoned to court each day, with only 10 per cent required to give evidence, leading to an estimated £22.5 million per annum in lost productivity for Police Scotland. (S6O-03951)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The citation of witnesses is a matter for the independent Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The Scottish Government is, however, supporting justice partners to drive reforms to improve our criminal justice system to make it more efficient and ensure that it works better for everyone. That will include reducing the number of police witnesses who are required to attend court and reducing the length of time that cases take. It will also mean enabling more cases to be concluded earlier, and fewer victims and civil witnesses needing to come to court. Two key programmes are the summary case management programme, which provides a new approach to summary criminal cases, and the digital evidence sharing capability programme, which allows digital evidence to be shared at the earliest opportunity.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer, which I find quite encouraging. Would she agree that what matters is not just how many police we have in this country but how we use them? The Finance and Public Administration Committee is constantly hearing about how we need to increase productivity in Scotland across the board. It seems to me, and I hope that the cabinet secretary would agree, that the courts also need to update their procedures and improve productivity.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes—I agree with the member’s point that how we use our resources matters. That is true for the deployment of front-line personnel resources as well as our finances. I hope that he will be reassured by some of the work in the case management pilot, which is judicially led. Its recent evaluation report demonstrated really positive benefits. For example, as a result of summary case management, an estimated 18,000 witnesses were not cited or re-cited, and a proportion of those—11,000—were police witnesses who were not required to attend court. If that pilot was in place at a national level, it would mean that nearly 90,000 witnesses, 50,000 of them police officers, would not require to be cited to attend court.

There is wide support for summary case management, and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has said that the ambition is to roll it out as soon as possible, but that is subject to agreement and will be determined by the project team, which is judicially led.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

Needless appearances at court are not just inefficient; they put a strain on police officers, with many being forced to return from holiday or to abandon rest days, often just to be told that the case is not going ahead. Although the current pilot scheme has been welcomed by many, Police Scotland wants further improvements, and the Scottish Police Federation has described the changes as a “drop in the ocean”. Can the cabinet secretary offer reassurances to officers that the model will be widened and improved, so that they will be less likely to face disruption in the future?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We all want to see further improvements, for many of the reasons that Ms Dowey outlines. I hope that she can be reassured that, for example, the digital evidence sharing capability scheme will be rolled out, as was announced during the summer. It is a world-leading project that has benefited from £33 million of Scottish Government investment, and it is being rolled out between the summer gone by and next autumn. The roll-out of DESC is, in many ways, a precursor that will help to enable the roll-out of summary case management, which will have huge benefits for both civil and professional witnesses.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of the reduction in police numbers since 2010 on Police Scotland’s ability to respond to all incidents of crime, including antisocial behaviour, within its responsibilities. (S6O-03952)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Scottish policing has been completely transformed since the formation of Police Scotland, with a more strategic and consistent approach to policing across the country. Scotland continues to be a safe place in which to live, with recorded crime down by 40 per cent since 2006-07. We have increased police funding year on year since 2016-17 and have invested more than £13.2 billion since the establishment of Police Scotland.

Last week, the chief constable confirmed that the number of police officers in Police Scotland would reach 16,600. Throughout 2024-25, Police Scotland is undertaking the largest recruitment of officers since its establishment in 2013, and it has already recruited more than 940 officers since March.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In many rural and island communities across my Highlands and Islands region, there is concern that reduced police numbers mean that more low-level crimes and incidents of antisocial behaviour are not being investigated. As a result, some individuals are less likely to report such incidents. Despite the best efforts of officers, many of my constituents who live in more remote communities feel further away from policing cover than ever. What concerns does the cabinet secretary have about the number of crimes and incidents of antisocial behaviour that are simply not being reported across rural Scotland? What would she say to my constituents about what they believe is a reduced police presence in their communities?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I hope that the member will be reassured by the recently published revised model for policing, which has a specific and central focus on the importance of front-line policing. The chief constable and others are on the record as saying that they want front-line policing to be on its strongest possible footing. That, of course, applies to our rural areas as well as to our city areas.

All members in the chamber should send a very strong message that people should report antisocial behaviour in their communities. Some antisocial behaviour is criminal and some is not, which is why the partnerships between local authorities and Police Scotland, as well as local policing plans, remain so important.

Ben Macpherson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Northern and Leith)

I know that the cabinet secretary is aware of the significant growth in Edinburgh’s population and of the serious issues that there have been this year, in my constituency and across the capital more widely, regarding a small minority of youths engaging in very concerning antisocial behaviour, including theft and violence. What is the Scottish Government’s response to those concerning trends and to the pressures in Edinburgh?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We all take very seriously the impacts of antisocial behaviour and crime. Everyone has the right to be safe and to feel safe in their community. Under the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, every local authority and police partner must periodically prepare, publish and review a strategy for preventing and tackling antisocial behaviour in their local authority area, thereby building safer communities.

The member will be aware that decisions on how to deploy resources are, of course, for the chief constable, but I can confirm that, at 30 September, E division, which covers Edinburgh, had 1,103 officers deployed across the city. In addition, it is important to recognise that all divisions can call on resources outwith their core officer base, should that be required.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

This week, I will try again to get a straight answer from the cabinet secretary. Are the Scottish Government figures correct in saying that crime has increased by 4 per cent, or is John Swinney correct to say that crime is at a 40-year low?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Having looked at the record to see the specifics of what the First Minister said, I think that he was correct, but the statistics are also correct. As I often say to members, it is important to look at year-on-year changes, some of which are going in the wrong direction, but the fact of the matter remains that this country remains a safer place under the Scottish National Party.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure appropriate oversight of the police use of facial recognition technology. (S6O-03953)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

We are committed to the legal, ethical and proportionate use of new technologies in policing that take account of ethical and human rights obligations and secure public confidence. Any decision to deploy facial recognition technology is an operational matter for the chief constable under the scrutiny of the Scottish Police Authority. I wrote to the authorities seeking assurance that a transparent and robust process will be adopted in considering and scrutinising any plans for the future deployment of the technology. The authority has confirmed its joint commitment with Police Scotland to taking forward a broad and transparent public discussion at the earliest opportunity to better inform the decision making on future deployment.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

In 2018, so-called cyber kiosk technology was introduced by Police Scotland on an ambiguous legal basis and with limited prior engagement or consultation. An independent review in 2023 said that lessons would be learned and that any new technologies would be fully compliant with human rights. However, although the cabinet secretary is correct in saying that oversight of operational matters is, of course, for the Scottish Police Authority, given the evidence and the legal challenges in England and Wales that point to the risks of live facial recognition technology misidentifying people, particularly those from ethnic minorities, what specific steps can the Government take to ensure that any decision to roll out the live tracking of citizens is properly regulated and managed?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I appreciate the member’s long-standing interest in the matter. It is imperative that any lessons from the past and, indeed, from across the UK and beyond are learned. I recognise the member’s in-depth interest in the matter, bearing in mind the fact that he has recently lodged 37 written parliamentary questions on the matter.

The safeguards relate to data protection and the European convention on human rights, and I know that the member is familiar with the role of the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner, because I think that he played a part in the establishment of that role. There is a statutory code of practice, which is based on human rights and says that any practice must be non-discriminatory. I am open to doing anything that I can with members or other partners to ensure that we have a proper and well-informed debate on the matter.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Will the cabinet secretary say whether the use of the technology has a place in combating crime, as long as it is used properly and has the oversight that was noted in her previous answer?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I agree with the balanced view that Ms Nicoll has presented. We must recognise that technological advances can bring benefits to the police and, indeed, other justice agencies in detecting, preventing and prosecuting crime. It is important that Police Scotland officers are provided with technology to keep our communities safe, while ensuring that it is robust, fit for purpose and non-discriminatory. I note that the chief constable confirmed to the Criminal Justice Committee on 30 October that she is closely following the lessons learned from how technology is being used by police forces elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Scottish Police Authority has also confirmed to me the importance of the principle or proportionality between human rights and the requirement to strike a balance between the privacy of individuals and the safety of our communities.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its work to reform the victim notification scheme in the coming year, to ensure that it operates in a more trauma-informed way. (S6O-03954)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

As outlined in our response, we accepted the majority of the recommendations of the independent review of the victim notification scheme, including the central proposal of creating a victim contact team to provide personalised trauma-informed support. That will be based on the individual needs of victims, who will automatically be referred to the team for a discussion about their options and an explanation of their rights.

We are taking the opportunity of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is currently before Parliament, to prioritise the necessary changes to primary legislation. We will work with justice partners and victim support organisations in the coming months to deliver the reforms to ensure that the legislation operates in a more trauma-informed way.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

The independent review of the victim notification scheme heard directly from victims and their families about their experience of the justice system and the scheme itself. Does the minister share my gratitude for their participation and strength, and does she agree that we must continue to listen to their voices as we progress with these reforms?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I, too, extend my thanks to the victims and their families who contributed their experiences of the justice system as part of the review. We know from the report that that engagement came at a personal cost. I reiterate my whole-hearted respect and admiration for the courage of the people who came forward to talk about their personal experience.

We absolutely must listen to the voices of victims and their families as we progress the reforms to the scheme. Indeed, that is vital if we are to take a victim-centred and trauma-informed approach to the changes that we need in the victim notification scheme. As well as engaging with victim support organisations and our justice partners, we will engage through the victims task force and other means to collaborate appropriately for victims.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

In September, it was reported that, after the release of 477 prisoners under the emergency release scheme, a mere 1 per cent of victims were notified. Given that the cabinet secretary has stated that emergency release might need to be used again, and given the upcoming legislation that proposes that more prisoners be released earlier in their sentence, what is the minister doing to ensure that as many victims of crime as possible are properly supported and notified if the Scottish Government proceeds with more releases?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Should the proposed changes be agreed by the Parliament in due course, we will continue that engagement.

I will give a bit of historical background to the early release in the summer. Victims of only 11 of the 700 prisoners who were considered for emergency release had registered an interest in the victim notification scheme. That reflects the fact that offender groups such as prisoners serving longer sentences were automatically excluded. The cabinet secretary ensured that, out of those 11 cases, only six prisoners were permitted early release.

As part of that scheme, the cabinet secretary ensured that, through the preparations for the recent emergency release, two new ways for victims to receive information were added. Victims were able to go through one of the four victim support organisations. Alternatively, they could contact the Scottish Prison Service directly to receive information on any potential release. We learned lessons from that and we will continue to do so.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

How much money has been allocated to the contact centre that has been set up to manage victims who sign up to the victim notification scheme? Can the minister confirm that that is new money that will not come from funds for victim support organisations or other third sector partners?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I do not have the exact figures here, but I will write to the member with those details.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs has had with ministerial colleagues regarding police action to tackle raptor persecution, in light of reports of a dead golden eagle being found recently in the Stirling constituency. (S6O-03955)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Wildlife crime and the persecution of raptors are unacceptable. I am aware of the case to which the member refers, but it would, of course, be inappropriate to comment on an on-going investigation.

Wildlife crime is a matter for the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, and I know that he will be following the case closely. In recent years, the Scottish Government has taken action to tackle wildlife crime through increased penalties for the most serious offences and a new licensing scheme for grouse shooting. I encourage anyone with information relating to any wildlife crime to report it to Police Scotland.

Evelyn Tweed (Scottish National Party, Stirling)

This was clearly a wildlife crime, given the terrible condition in which the golden eagle was found. What steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that the public are aware of what constitutes a wildlife crime and of the steps that should be taken to report dead or injured raptors?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The Scottish Government works with a number of partners, including Police Scotland, land managers and conservation groups, to raise awareness of, and to take steps to tackle, wildlife crime. That is predominantly done through the partnership for action against wildlife crime in Scotland. This summer, the partnership attended the Royal Highland Show and the Scottish Game Fair, where partnership members raised awareness and provided education on how to spot and report wildlife crime.

In addition, Police Scotland has a number of dedicated wildlife crime officers located across Scotland. They work closely with the National Wildlife Crime Unit on projects to prevent and detect wildlife crime, which regularly include public engagement.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is becoming clear that the way in which land is defined through the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 has severely compromised the most important legal deterrent to wildlife crime that we have. Will the cabinet secretary discuss the issue with other Cabinet colleagues, with a view to introducing an amendment to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill to close the vast loophole that now exists? The illegal persecution of birds of prey clearly must end.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I will ask ministers and the cabinet secretary responsible for issues in and around land reform to engage directly with the member.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes portfolio questions.

Parliamentary Bureau Motions

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-15425, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Winter Heating Assistance (Pension Age) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Jeremy Balfour, who has up to three minutes.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

Politicians have a duty to think about the consequences of the decisions that we make, both intended and unintended. The decision that was made by the Labour Government down south will be directly responsible for thousands of pensioners being cold this year. The decision to cut the winter heating payment was made with no meaningful consultation, and the UK Government has clearly not thought through the devastating consequences.

It is equally unfortunate that the Scottish Government has also decided that it is uninterested in supporting vulnerable pensioners—

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

I will just finish this point. The Scottish Government will throw up its hands and say that it is not its fault and that it does not have the money—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Balfour.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

That is a pretty hard pill to swallow after it has wasted hundreds of millions of pounds over the years on a variety of disastrous projects, not least the two ferries that islanders are still waiting for.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

I suspect that the member has wasted money over the years, as we all probably have to some extent. We are where we are, and we do not have the money right now. If we borrowed it to pay out this winter, we would have to pay it back next year, and that would make things even worse.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

That is very cold comfort to the vulnerable pensioners who are being discriminated against today. If the Government paused the many past projects that have still not happened, the money would be available.

We, on the Conservative benches, will abstain from the vote because we want to ensure that even more people do not miss out on the payment. However, I make it clear that we stand totally opposed to both Governments turning their backs on pensioners, many of whom will be forced to choose between eating and heating this winter. We believe that it is the duty of Government to support the most vulnerable, not to punish them. That is what this party is about—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Balfour.

Jeremy Balfour (Conservative, Lothian)

It is a shame that parties on the other side of the chamber are not.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Shirley-Anne Somerville to respond.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the draft regulations, which will introduce our 16th Scottish benefit—the pension-age winter heating payment. Mirroring the United Kingdom Government’s winter fuel payment, our pension-age winter heating payment will provide targeted support to those of pension age who are in receipt of relevant benefits in Scotland.

We have faced significant challenges to get to this point. As members well know, on 29 July, the UK Government announced its decision to restrict entitlement to the winter fuel payment from this winter to those in receipt of pension credit and other means-tested benefits. The chancellor’s decision was taken without notice and will reduce this year’s block grant adjustment funding by £147 million, which is more than 80 per cent of the cost of our previously proposed universal payment.

We have repeatedly urged the UK Government to reverse that decision. Indeed, the Parliament has supported us in doing so, but our representations have not met with success. Given the budgetary implications of such a significant reduction in funding from the UK Government, we have taken the difficult decision to mirror that approach in our pension-age winter heating payment.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Scottish Greens do not support the means testing of the winter fuel payment. We know that fuel poverty is very high among older people, especially in some pockets across the country. What actions will the cabinet secretary take to address that specifically, given that we cannot rely on the fuel insecurity payment this year, because it no longer exists?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Maggie Chapman raises an important point. I assure her that discussions are on-going about what we can do in this situation. Once again, the Scottish Government is having discussions about how to mitigate a decision of a UK Government, but this time it is a Labour Government rather than a Tory Government.

This winter, payments of our proposed new benefit will be delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions under an agency agreement with Scottish ministers. That approach seeks to ensure that eligible individuals in Scotland continue to receive support over the winter. Given the timing of the UK announcement, it was not possible for Social Security Scotland to deliver those payments this year.

The Scottish Government acknowledges that there are other pensioners who are likely to face financial difficulty and who would benefit from that support. We will continue to call on the UK Government to reverse its decision to means test winter fuel payments and to reinstate the payment for all pensioners in future years. I am committed to keeping the eligibility and scope of pension-age winter heating payments under review.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I will give way to Christine Grahame.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Are we not seeing abject hypocrisy from the Conservatives, who, during decades in power, failed to provide pensioners with a decent state pension, requiring pensioners instead to rely on pension credit, even though we know that 40 per cent of eligible pensioners do not claim it because the form has 26 pages to read before they get to the end of it?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Christine Grahame raises an important point.

At this stage, I am happy to give way to Jackson Carlaw.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I am genuinely intrigued. The Scottish National Party made a commitment to pay the winter fuel allowance. It did not say that it would pay the winter fuel allowance on the condition of receiving support from Westminster. If the argument now is that that commitment was only ever contingent on support from Westminster, the commitment was hollow all along. The Government cannot make a commitment and then say, “Actually, the commitment was worthless unless we were given the money by somebody else.”

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

You must conclude, cabinet secretary.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am genuinely surprised that Jackson Carlaw, for whom I have a great deal of respect, would come out with a question that represents something out of Liz Truss economics, in which we can spend money even if we do not have it. It is genuinely astounding.

The provisions that are laid out in these regulations are not what I had anticipated we would be delivering, and they are not what I want to be in front of Parliament to talk about today. However, they will ensure that vital support is available to help eligible pensioners with their fuel bills this winter. To be clear, without these regulations there will be no legal framework to make any payment this winter to support pensioners in Scotland.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary is concluding.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

It is a duty of Parliament—I repeat the word “Parliament” for Jeremy Balfour’s benefit—not to take a position of political posturing but to instead ensure that pensioners get what they are entitled to. We may wish to do more, but, if the Tories abstain, they are abstaining on supporting pensioners this winter.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question on that motion will be put at decision time.

The next item of business is consideration of four Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-15426 to S6M-15428, on approval of Scottish statutory instruments, and S6M-15429, on committee membership.

Motions moved,

That the Parliament agrees that the Town and Country Planning (Amendment of National Planning Framework) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Masterplan Consent Area Scheme (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that the Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (Scotland) Regulations 2024 [draft] be approved.

That the Parliament agrees that Gordon MacDonald be appointed to replace Kevin Stewart as a member of the Social Justice and Social Security Committee.—[Jamie Hepburn]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question on those motions will be put at decision time.

Point of Order

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In this afternoon’s debate on inheritance tax, Jim Fairlie accused me of misleading Parliament. I pointed to the fact that, last week, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity had omitted to draw to Parliament’s attention his entry in the voluntary section of the register of interests, before quoting at considerable length the National Farmers Union Scotland.

Today, the minister made a point of order in which he asked me to withdraw my comment. I have no intention of doing so. His entry in the register of interests, which was last updated in May this year, quite clearly states:

“I am a member of the National Farmers Union Scotland.”

Presiding Officer, it is one thing not to register an interest; it is quite another not to know that you have.

Section 1.3(c) of the ministerial code states:

“It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to the Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead the Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the First Minister”.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Leonard. The requirements for a declaration of interest are set out in the code of conduct for members, and whether a declaration should be made is a matter for each member, and not one for the chair to rule on.

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs (Farms)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15400, in the name of Tim Eagle, on reversing the family farm tax. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Tim Eagle to speak to and move the motion. You have up to seven minutes.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a farmer and a former land agent. Those interests are particularly relevant today as we talk about farming and the very future of the industry—the survival of family farms.

On 30 October, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that, from April 2026, Labour will reduce the agricultural property relief and business property relief for farms with combined business and agricultural assets worth more than £1 million. Those long-standing reliefs have been in place since 1992. To put it simply, those reliefs protected working farm businesses following the death of a member of the family and allowed the land to be passed to another family member to carry on working the unit. The change matters because it risks the very future of family farming units across Scotland and the United Kingdom, and, in so doing, it poses a serious risk to the future of our rural communities and national food security.

Today, Labour will—I have no doubt about it—repeat the Treasury’s claim that the changes will impact only a very small number of farms. Labour’s calculations are wrong. The National Farmers Union, along with other organisations, disputes Labour’s calculations, claiming that the move will hit capital-rich, cash-poor family farms. It is a tax raid that has been described as “disastrous”.

I call myself a farmer and I am proud to do so. I love working the land. However, I have always been a small-scale farmer with a few sheep here and there, and sometimes a bit of arable. The change will not affect me personally, but it will affect many people I know in the industry, and it is evident that Labour simply does not understand how the majority of farms work.

In one of my previous roles, I was a Quality Meat Scotland and Scottish Quality Crops farm assurance assessor. I imagine that some members will know the role of farm assurance voluntary schemes, which cover the majority of farmers in Scotland and put in place the highest possible standards for animal welfare, hygiene, transport and so on. Every year, each member of the scheme is visited on their farm by an assessor. The first part of the visit is spent outside, walking around the unit, and the second part often happens inside, over a coffee, looking at record keeping. I never calculated how many farms I visited, but I am pretty sure that it was more than 1,000 across the north-east and the Highlands. I do not remember a single unit that was a large business entity—a branded corporation with legal departments and accounts teams. No, I met fathers, mothers, sons and daughters—proud people running small-time businesses and just trying to get by.

My trick when inspecting was to find a positive quickly, whether it was by pointing out a bonnie cow or a healthy sheep or by complimenting the farmer on how good the crops looked. It would relax the farmer, who would proudly tell me of the years it had taken to get the flock just right for the farm or how one of the cows had been with him for 30 years and a calf had come second in the Royal Highland Show. They would recount stories of their grandfather putting up the now-old cattle shed and the days spent sweeping the grain lofts as children.

Many of these families have served for generations, growing food for us all. They provide a service to their country and they are custodians of the countryside. Years of hard work have gone into making farms what they are, but farming families are not just farmers. When the snow falls heavily in winter, it is the farmers who clear country lanes so that local people can get out and about, and, when the delivery driver gets stuck in the ditch, it is often the farmers who help them to get out. Family members connected to farming can often be found working as care workers, doctors, teachers, shop assistants and more.

Farming families are not just in our rural communities—they are our rural communities. They are the lifeblood of those areas. That is the key point that I want to make. The key reason why the changes made by Labour are devastating is that they will impact those very families. They will force the sale of land, which will make family farms economically unviable and lead to more depopulation in our rural areas.

It is all very well for Labour ministers and civil servants to talk about farmers handing over the farm early or using the inheritance tax allowances, but those suggestions fundamentally miss the point of how these units work. Often, children go away to work in other areas to gain experience before returning home to work the farm. With little profit, farmers tend not to retire but are an active part of the unit for a long time.

Although I would always urge farmers to consider early succession planning, having been part of such discussions with farmers and having monitored the books for them, I know that it is not that simple. Jim Walker, a former president of NFU Scotland, has calculated that a medium-sized, 500-acre farm worth around £5 million that previously had no inheritance tax liability could incur an £800,000 bill, which, if amortised over 25 years at 8 per cent, would mean an annual repayment of £75,000. He asks:

“Who’s going to break the news to the children that want to farm it?”

Farming is already a difficult business, but the changes risk the very future of our family farms. They risk breaking up viable units across Scotland and land being purchased for investment such as carbon credits, and they risk the future of communities and food security. We can talk about land reform, new entrants to farming, succession planning and innovation in farming, and we can put in place plans that would help farming to thrive, but all of that is undone by Labour’s damaging changes. Trust is now broken, because, during the election, Labour gave farmers a cast-iron guarantee that, if it won, it would not tinker with agricultural property relief, and it has broken that promise.

The Scottish Conservatives have launched a petition at stopthefarmtax.com, calling on people to send Rachel Reeves and the Labour Government a clear message that the changes could spell the end of family farms being passed down to future generations. I want rural communities to thrive. I want top-quality food production in Scotland that we are not ashamed to shout about. I do not want our unique family farms to be destroyed. Labour has underestimated how many farms this will affect, and it has underestimated the anger that the changes have created. The Scottish Conservatives urgently call for the family farm tax to be reversed.

I move,

That the Parliament calls on the UK Government to reverse its decision to impose a so-called family farm tax on agricultural businesses.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I welcome the fact that we are having this debate, and I appreciate Tim Eagle’s contribution and his bringing his personal experience to the chamber.

I want to make it clear that this Government wants a tax system that supports rather than hinders orderly succession planning and the transfer of land to the next generation of custodians. However, that is not what the new UK Government has put in place. The UK budget is not just a disappointment; frankly, it is a disgrace. The unnecessary worry, stress and severe concern that it has caused, and is causing, farmers and crofters in Scotland is simply unacceptable.

The UK Government’s decision to change inheritance tax, which is a reserved matter, was taken without consultation with the farming community, its representatives or the Scottish Government. The changes were not included in the Labour manifesto, so we had no warning at any point that they were coming. As Tim Eagle outlined, not only were they not mentioned but Labour stated before the election that it had no plans to change inheritance tax or agricultural property relief. It is an entirely arbitrary decision, and we are left—as farmers and crofters in Scotland are—to try to work out the extent of the impact, as no assessments have been made or published.

And that is not the full extent of the indifference that has been shown to rural Scotland by the new UK Government in its budget. Although I welcome the fact that future funding allocations will be a Scottish Government decision, baselining and removing ring fencing from funding for agriculture—and, indeed, marine—add to the pressures that we are under. Unlike other farming nations, such as Denmark and Ireland, we no longer have any long-term funding certainty. What we have now can only be described as an inadequate settlement. Any move to break the link between the area of land farmed and funding increases for Scotland ignores our on-going commitment to active farming and direct payments, and it risks our efforts to transform our industry for the future.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I am slightly puzzled by the cabinet secretary’s concern about the ring fence being removed. Surely there is nothing to prevent her from putting that ring fence in place for Scottish farmers.

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

My point is that we should not be in this position because of decisions that have been taken by the UK Government. The Scottish Government will continue to do what it always has done—we will stand up for the rights of our farmers and crofters in Scotland and will protect their interests as much as we possibly can. However, the fact is that we have a baselined budget that has not increased in line with inflation during the past six years, so we are already being short changed.

The Barnett formula fails to recognise Scotland’s unique relationship with the land and the contribution that our farmers and crofters make to our nation and, especially, our rural economy. Since Brexit, many promises have been made on funding and they have been broken by successive Westminster Governments. As I have said, by contrast, the Scottish National Party Government is wholly committed to supporting Scottish agriculture and to working with our farmers and crofters to give them certainty and stability and to help them to plan for the future.

It is important to highlight what support is available, because it is vital that families who are reliant on farming can access professional support for business planning and decision making and that generational transition is enabled. That is critical for the next generation, as is increasing the number of women who are leading farming businesses as part of building a more innovative and resilient 21st century agriculture sector.

That is why the Scottish Government is supporting agribusinesses to plan for the future through succession planning. That support is provided by the Farm Advisory Service, which helps them to access up to £1,000-worth of Government funding for specialist succession planning advice. Such planning is critical for everyone, and, regardless of approaches that are taken elsewhere, we are continuing to increase fairness by modernising assignation and succession and by improving the legal framework for agricultural tenancies through the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which was introduced to the Parliament earlier this year.

My officials continue to work closely with all members of the tenant farming advisory forum and the tenant farming commissioner on the bill proposals and to explore solutions to any concerns that they have identified. Scottish tenant farmers are different from those in England, as more than half of our tenancies are secure, heritable tenancies that pass through the generations, unlike those south of the border. The tax changes could directly impact some of our tenant farmers, including those with larger farms on higher-quality land.

Although agriculture is a policy area that has long been devolved to Scotland, this tax change, which is a reserved matter, will have a clear impact on our farming industry. We believe that, as a priority, the Scottish Government must be engaged on reserved tax changes that will impact directly on devolved policy. It is vital that we, and our farmers and crofters, see the details of the proposed changes and that more engagement and consultation take place with affected Scottish rural businesses, to ensure that people are not inadvertently harmed—especially when, as a result of the changes, Scottish farmers will be paying more into Treasury coffers with no guarantee of getting any of that money back in future funding settlements.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

(Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) rose—

Mairi Gougeon (Scottish National Party, Angus North and Mearns)

I am drawing to a close.

The UK Government must acknowledge that its handling of the matter has been a boorach. It should recognise the need to review the changes, to engage with the agriculture sector and devolved Governments and to either fully assess the impacts or publish any information that it already has. Scotland’s farmers and crofters deserve and need nothing less.

I move amendment S6M-15400.2, to insert at end:

“and urgently commit to undertake and publish impact assessments on the cumulative impact of its budget proposals on farmers and crofters in Scotland.”

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot believe the brass neck of the Tories. They trash the economy and leave others to clean up the mess, and then they shamelessly complain. From Liz Truss’s budget to the Covid cronies’ handouts; they have no shame. I wonder what people who are struggling to feed their families, living day to day from food banks, which became a necessity under the Tories’ watch, think when they hear the Conservatives crying foul over policies that protect people from paying tax on assets worth up to £3 million in certain areas.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

What would Rhoda Grant say to my constituent Kenny Campbell, who has just invested over £1 million in a new dairy but is a cancer survivor? If he were to die in the next seven years, he would leave his son with a tax bill of over £1 million, meaning that his son would have repayments of over £100,000 year on year. That would be a family business going down the drain. What would she say to Mr Campbell?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can give you back your time, Ms Grant.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I would say to Mr Campbell that he needs to put his affairs in order to make sure—[Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members!

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

He needs to make sure that, if his son is investing time in the business, he is getting the fruits of his labour. [Interruption.] If the son is working in the business, and I will come to that, he should be paid, because we have heard way too often of situations where a member of the family who is working on a farm loses out at the time of succession to other members of the family who have done nothing if there has not been succession planning.

Let me be clear, Presiding Officer: very few family farms are worth in excess—[ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Grant, please resume your seat for a second.

I say to the members on the Conservative benches that, when a member has the floor, they have the floor and members who are in a sedentary position do not, unless they wish to seek to make an intervention.

Please resume, Ms Grant.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Let me be clear that very few family farms are worth in excess of several million pounds. Indeed, the latest figures show that, across the UK, the top 7 per cent—the largest 117 claims—account for 40 per cent of the total value of agricultural property relief. That shows that it is not all farms; it is the minority.

The Labour Party will put the public finances on a secure footing and that means tough decisions. The £22 billion black hole left in this year’s budget alone has had devastating consequences for the country.

We also need to recoup some of the billions of pounds given to the Tory cronies during Covid. [ Interruption .] While citizens followed the rules, the Tories splurged, lining the pockets of their pals, and partied into the night. [ Interruption .] Their arrogance is breathtaking.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I have already taken an intervention.

Farming communities tell us of their concerns that good agricultural land is changing hands at excessive prices for tax avoidance and also to be used for carbon trading. Polluters are allowed to pollute and then to ease their conscience by planting trees in the wrong place, preventing new entrants from getting into farming at all. That increases the value of farms beyond the reach of the farming community—something that the last Conservative Government did nothing at all about. The Conservative Government also had an underspend for agriculture funding of £358 million over the last three years, withholding support from farmers in England. Things are not much better in Scotland, where the SNP is raiding agricultural funding.

Although the Conservative Party withheld money from all farmers, it is now picking up the cudgels to fight for the very few who have millions of pounds in assets. Those are often large estates, owned by the privileged few.

If this policy has an outcome of ensuring that land holdings are smaller, giving people access to farming, it will have a wider benefit for society as a whole. It will also ensure that those living and working on the land have their fair share of the investment.

Let us be honest—it is the Conservatives who are trying to stir up strife, trying to get those who have modest assets to fight for the privileged few—

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is bringing her remarks to a close.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

What is very clear is that none of the tough decisions that have been taken in the budget would have been required at all had it not been for the Conservatives, who ran the country into the ground. They should be hanging their heads in shame rather than playing politics.

I move amendment S6M-15400.1, to leave out from “calls” to end and insert:

“agrees that the Conservative Party should apologise to the country for its fiscal recklessness, which left the public finances in a dire state and required the Autumn Budget to put the country back on a sound footing, and recognises that, despite this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has continued to put in place inheritance tax reliefs for family farms potentially worth up to £3 million and increased the Scottish devolved budget by £3.4 billion in 2025-26.”

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

The agricultural property relief changes that were announced in the UK budget have created a lot of concern in rural areas and the farming community. There is a distinct lack of clarity over whom the UK Government’s plans will actually hit. The Scottish Greens support inheritance tax because it is pre-distributive, and we also believe that land in Scotland should not be in the hands of a small number of individuals, so we must hear more from Westminster about how its changes will impact farms.

As everyone in the chamber will agree, Whitehall must step in immediately if it becomes clear that small, regenerative food producers are being harmed. We must not become more reliant on food imports from countries that have lower environmental and welfare standards.

The UK Government must also intervene if the measure pushes Scotland in the wrong direction on its land reform journey. If, as my Conservative rural affairs counterpart claims, family farms will sell up en masse due to the new rate of inheritance tax, the big question will be who buys the land when it gets sold because people cannot afford the tax. It will not be new entrants or young farmers; instead, it will be agribusinesses. Greater consolidation is in the interests of a very small number of individuals and it is not in the interests of our nation. Half of all of Scotland’s land is owned by just 433 people. That is a shocking statistic—it is bad for climate, nature and communities. Scottish people deserve better.

New rules could also obscure exactly who owns what in Scotland. I have heard concerns that even more landholders will hide behind corporate or trust structures in order to get around inheritance tax. Although that practice is not illegal in our lax UK tax system, it prevents proper scrutiny and denies taxpayers what they are due. If that scenario comes to pass, it will do so at a time when public finances are in a dire state and an unacceptable number of people are in deprivation.

The motion and amendments that we have before us today do not address the actual issues that most of our food producers face. They completely fail to address why farmers and growers face such challenging circumstances. That says to me that other parties would rather play politics than use this platform to raise the problems that our constituents face.

I will remind members of some of the key issues that our growers face. As we discussed last week, Brexit is ravaging the rural economy; farmers and growers are quitting the industry because of labour shortages that have come about as a direct result of leaving the European Union; seed prices have rocketed since 2020, and fewer varieties are available; and the UK Government is choosing to export our carbon emissions by importing food from countries that have poor standards and light-touch regulation. Those are the problems that we need to talk about, because they all pose a greater threat to farming than changes to inheritance tax.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Beatrice Wishart, who is opening the debate on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, joins us remotely.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Scottish Liberal Democrats will support the motion that is before us today, as well as the Scottish Government’s amendment.

The UK Government’s announced changes to the agriculture and business property relief schemes during the autumn budget are a Treasury-driven tax hike with little regard for the affected families or the impact on farming in rural communities. What affects farmers will affect the wider supply chain—vets, agriculture merchants, hauliers, local shops and post offices—in some of the most economically fragile communities in the country. The food and drink sector is a significant contributor to Scotland’s export economy, and it, too, will feel the impact from those changes.

Although farming might be seen as a capital-rich sector, it is also revenue poor, and some farms barely break even. The new rules might force the next generation to sell land in order to retain some of the family farm. The change will certainly have an impact on members of the younger generation who hope to keep the family farm going but are struggling to hold on. The land that is sold might not be dedicated to farming or food production, or to protecting the environment, natural habitats or biodiversity.

We could see smaller plots of that sold-off land bought up by big businesses that have little incentive to be custodians. If we want to be serious about food security and tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, we should support those who are making a tangible difference every day. As the Scottish Government’s amendment presses for, we need to know the assessment of the cumulative impact of the proposals on crofters, farmers and growers in Scotland.

Last week, I met local members of NFU Scotland, who expressed their concerns about the announced changes in the autumn budget on family farms and about the lack of ring-fenced agricultural funds and the obvious impact that that will have on our Scottish agricultural community. With the loss of the ring-fence safety net, which has been part of agriculture funding for decades, there is real concern about how the lump sum from the UK Government will be used by the Scottish Government.

During the passage of the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, I raised the issue of multi-annual funding and the need for certainty for our crofters, farmers and growers. In Shetland, food production costs are already higher than they are on mainland Scotland as a consequence of our island location and the impact of transport costs through the supply chain, along with a shorter growing season. I have written to the cabinet secretary about that, as it would be useful to understand the Scottish Government’s intentions with regard to multi-annual and ring-fenced funding.

In the meantime, I note today’s press release from Martin Kennedy of NFU Scotland, which says:

“Scottish farmers and crofters are continually being asked to do more and more on a support budget that has only half the buying power it had 10 years ago. The blunt fact is that whatever funding now goes towards Scottish agriculture is 100% within the power of Scottish Government.”

During the general election campaign, the Liberal Democrats demanded an extra £1 billion to support farmers. Family farming has become increasingly difficult due to the impact from Brexit—as we debated last week—the impact of climate change and increased competition. That money would have supported our efforts in food security and in tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, and it would have provided investment in our rural economies and communities.

I recognise the tough economic inheritance of the new UK Government, but that should not be used as an excuse to punch down on farming communities. We need to change course.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. There is virtually no time in hand, so any interventions should be absorbed in members’ allocated speaking times.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am delighted to stand up this afternoon and speak about small family farms, which is a subject that is close to my heart. I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I own a small family farm.

I must say that, if I had made Ms Grant’s speech this afternoon, I would hang my head in shame. We should be under no illusions. I am a third-generation farmer. I farm 500 acres, which is not very much in the big scheme of things, and I have seen 25 generations of cows come through in my lifetime. There are 160 of them now, and I am extremely proud of them. I also grow 300 acres of barley and my farm is a winter home to 700 ewes. I let some houses that are part of the original farm, and I have three farm workers, whose wage bill is more than £100,000 a year.

My farm is not dissimilar to other family farms of that size. I am proud that such farms provide local employment and create local expenditure. The farmers have a huge amount of local knowledge through local management, and they take a long-term view of the countryside, their assets and the land that they manage.

My farm is like the hundreds of local farms that I visited across the Highlands when I was a rural surveyor. I absolutely assure you that they are like the farms that belong to the hundreds of farmers who have contacted me regarding the tax. I would like to think that I have prepared—I have had reason to prepare—for when I die. Let me be clear that, if I die tomorrow, the tax will hit me and my family, and it will mean that my family farm will no longer exist.

That is the case because figures indicate—I hope that you are paying attention to this, Ms Grant—that a 200-acre farm with a profit of about £27,000 a year and the normal assets that such a farm has would face an inheritance tax liability of about £400,000. I am happy to sit down in your office and explain the figures to you. That means that the family would have to commit 159 per cent of their profits to pay their tax, having sold about 20 per cent of their land. Those are the real figures that are involved. That is what you and your Government south of the border are going to be destroying, Ms Grant.

As has been made clear, there are other people who will suffer as a result of the situation. There is a massive supply chain. I could mention the hundreds of people who our farm deals with, including Harbro, to whom we pay massive bills for food, and Gleaner, which supplies the farm with oil on a daily basis. If farming and small family farms stop, that will go.

Let me be clear: farmers are asset rich—they have land—but, on the whole, they are cash poor, and this tax will cripple them, as it will cripple many crofters across the Highlands. Members should be under no illusion: crofters will be affected as well.

I have tried to work out in my mind what the reason is for introducing the tax, and I struggled to understand it. However, when I listened to the comments of John McTernan, it became clear that the motivation was spiteful, vindictive and unjustifiable.

Ms Grant, I remind you and your colleagues south of the border that, if you have no farmers, you will have no food. There will be no future for the environment if you destroy the family farms.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I take this opportunity to remind members that they must speak through the chair at all times. References to “you” are references to me, and I do not think that that is what the member intended.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I shall try hard to temper my words in order to obey that instruction, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate to the chamber. I want to lay to rest the notion that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government do not understand rural communities and, at worst, do not represent them. I represented the South of Scotland region for 12 years and I have represented Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale for the past 13 years. Indeed, I lived in rural Galloway for more than a decade. Therefore, like many people here—because, across the chamber, many of us represent wholly or largely rural communities—I hope that I am sufficiently appraised of the varying requirements of rural areas. During those 25 years, I have visited many estates, such as Burncastle and Arniston, and farms in the Borders, such as Baddinsgill, Moorfoot and Eastside. Although I cannot begin to approach the knowledge of Tim Eagle, I am not completely a townie.

The party that appears to have little concept of rurality and, in particular, rural farming communities and landscapes in Scotland is the Labour Party. I do not think that I am being unfair when I say that, because the recent actions of Sir Keir Starmer in respect of inheritance tax and changes to agricultural property relief, on top of changes to farming payments following Brexit, are evidence of it. I add to those actions the additional national insurance obligations, which will also fall on those farmers who are employers, and the pressure on farmers from supermarkets to always keep prices down.

In December 2023, Steve Reed MP—who is now the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and was then the shadow secretary for the department—stated that Labour had no plans to change inheritance tax, including APR. Well, we know what happened there, and what happened with regard to the national insurance contributions of employers, including farmers, who are apparently not “working people.”

There are many farms across Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale that will be affected, because it does not take much for a farm’s assets to cross the £1 million barrier when a high-end combine harvester can cost nearly £750,000. I am therefore grateful to the NFUS for its briefing, which includes working examples of the impact of inheritance tax and APR. It says:

“an IHT qualifying farm with a value of £4 million would mean £1 million will have 100 per cent relief. The remaining £3 million will receive 50 per cent relief, seeing £1.5 million subject to IHT at a 40 per cent rate. That would equate to a £600,000 IHT bill in this example. Although the payments can be spread over 10 years, the first £60,000 will require to be paid within six months. Many farm businesses would not have this amount available which will mean some land would need to be sold thereby bringing into question the future viability of the farm.”

Farming is a family matter for many, as others have said. It is personal, intergenerational and a vocation. It is literally—not to abuse that much-used word—under farmers’ fingernails. Farmers provide not only the quality food on our tables, high animal welfare standards and quality exports, but the landscape that we take for granted. I add in passing that there may well also be an additional punitive levy on exports to the USA.

The levies have been set with no impact assessment or engagement with the sector, and the UK Government has completely failed to respect devolution by engaging with the Scottish Government. There is no rural visa on the horizon, either. What more does the Labour UK Government intend to do to undermine our farming and rural communities, many of which, as Beatrice Wishart said, are reliant on local farms? Those things will affect not just the farms, but all the local businesses.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Much of the language in this debate has been intemperate, inaccurate and deliberately inflammatory. The new Tory rural affairs spokesperson stood up in Parliament last week and accused the UK Labour Government of “taking our land”. The Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, External Affairs and Culture said in response that he was “sympathetic to the criticism”. The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity went even further the day before. He said that ending 100 per cent relief on inheritance tax for farm assets of more than £1 million was

“catastrophic for the farming industry in Scotland”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2024; c 5.]

Omitting to draw our attention to his entry in the register of interests, he went on to read out in Parliament a 140-word statement on the subject by the NFU. He was supposed to be answering MSPs’ questions as a minister of the Government, but I am not sure whether, last Wednesday afternoon, he was setting out the Scottish Government’s position or that of the National Farmers Union.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Leonard, please resume your seat. There is a point of order from the minister, Jim Fairlie.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I would like to draw attention to what Mr Leonard said. He made the accusation against me that I did not declare my register of interests. I do not have an interest. I do not farm and I do not have stock or land. I have absolutely no interest and I have no membership of any organisation. I have been a farmer, and if that requires that I declare an interest, I would apologise to the Parliament. However, I am under the impression that that does not require a declaration of interest, and I ask Mr Leonard to withdraw that comment.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, minister. The matter has been put on the record. Mr Leonard, please resume.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I turn to the Tory rural affairs spokesperson. Writing in a Sunday newspaper at the weekend, he said that he had to admit that he would not be affected by the inheritance tax proposals. He must know that very few of the local farmers across the Highlands and Islands and the crofting counties that he represents in Parliament will be affected either. In fact, the NFU sent out a briefing just yesterday afternoon in which it claimed that the Treasury figures were skewed by the inclusion of smallholdings, so which is it? Are smaller farmers affected or not?

Big landowners will have to start paying inheritance tax. Absentee landlords and those who view farmland as a tax shelter will have to start paying inheritance tax, although I am not sure that the trusts, the limited companies and the offshore interests will not seek to avoid it.

The whole debate reminds us once again that there is no one so militant as the old nobility and the new establishment combining to defend their vested hereditary interests in order to ossify the distribution of wealth from one generation to the next, making absolutely sure that the meek do not inherit the earth. Private wealth has never been so great and private fortunes have never been higher, yet investment in public services—in the common good—has fallen behind. I am not surprised to see the Conservatives posing as arch-defenders of the status quo and backing this revolt, but how telling is it that the SNP is joining them in defence of this ugly inequality?

I finish with a reminder of the tax treatment of farmers as farmers. Under this proposal, there remains 100 per cent inheritance tax relief below £1 million. The inheritance tax threshold for everybody else who leaves property in their estate to children is £500,000. No capital gains tax will be paid. Agricultural land and buildings remain exempt from non-domestic rates. Farmers will still be consuming red diesel, paying a rebated duty that is more than five times lower than that for other users of diesel.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is bringing his remarks to a close.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

There is a zero rating for VAT. Farm income from subsidies and grants is outside the scope of VAT altogether. So, the major tax advantages for farmers as farmers remain in place.

This is about how we equalise the taxation of inherited wealth. That is why this budget proposal should not be reversed. It should be embraced and it should be implemented in full.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

There are three Labour MSPs in the chamber today. I can only assume that all the others are back in their offices, with their heads in their hands, in shame at what they have heard today. Farmers watching Richard Leonard will not be embracing the budget or the changes, and they will not be embracing the support from Scottish Labour. Instead, they will be looking on in dismay at what the Scottish Labour Party and the UK Labour Party are doing to them.

On 30 October, Labour delivered a budget of betrayal. Farmers and other people across Scotland and the United Kingdom had been promised a lot about what an incoming Labour Government would do. We have already heard that, less than a year ago, Steve Reed, when he was shadow rural affairs spokesman, said that Labour had no plans to change inheritance tax, including agricultural property relief. Less than a year later, that change is in the budget, and it is causing so much angst among our farmers and crofters.

It was not just Steve Reed. Sir Keir Starmer, now the Prime Minister, said to the NFU that he knows what losing a farm means. He said:

“Losing a farm is not like losing any other business, you can’t come back.”

Farmers watched that speech and believed and trusted that the leader of the Labour Party understood what they were going through and what they faced as custodians of the countryside. He lied to farmers and crofters across Scotland and the UK, and Labour should pay the price for that.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

How would Douglas Ross fill the £22 billion black hole that was left by the previous UK Government?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am happy to come on to that. The amendment from Labour today does not apologise for what it is doing to farmers, nor does it say sorry for lying and misleading people in the countryside. Labour just says, “Look at what the Tory party did and the £22 billion black hole.” In answer to Rhoda Grant, I go to the Office for Budget Responsibility document that was published on the same day as the budget. Not only could the OBR not substantiate the claims about a £22 billion black hole, but it could not even substantiate the figure of £9.5 billion that Rachel Reeves was talking about.

I will take no lectures from Rhoda Grant. She is someone whom I previously respected and who has represented the same region as me for some time. However, I have to say that hers was one of the most appalling speeches that I have ever listened to in this Parliament. Her response to Finlay Carson, who was speaking on behalf of a constituent suffering from cancer, was, quite frankly, disgusting. To say that that gentleman should get his affairs in order and not worry about the implications of these Labour policies is shameful and something that I hope Rhoda Grant will reflect on and regret.

I will quote from a farmer, Jennifer Struthers, who wrote to The Scottish Farmer this week. She has written to her Labour MP and is encouraging others to do the same. In her letter, Jennifer says:

“Farmers do not view themselves as owners of the land, but merely custodians for the next generation.”

In other words, they invest in their farms to pass on a business in a better condition for the future. She ends her letter by saying:

“I hope common sense can prevail to overturn this ridiculous tax on the food producers of our country.”

I whole-heartedly agree with Jennifer and the many other farmers who are saying the same. We need a U-turn from the UK Labour Government.

The front page of The Scottish Farmer this week is very clear—it says “Fight For Our Future”. That is what the Scottish Conservatives are doing today—fighting for the future of our farmers and crofters and our future farmers and crofters. Tonight, the Scottish Parliament can add its voice to that, unite behind the motion from Tim Eagle and the amendment from the SNP cabinet secretary, and send the strongest possible message to the Labour Government that it needs to listen to Scottish farmers and to people in the countryside here in Scotland and across the UK, and U-turn on this dangerous policy.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Elena Whitham joins us remotely.

Elena Whitham (Scottish National Party, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am extremely grateful to see this important issue raised in the chamber once again, as it affects many of my constituents across rural Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley.

These changes to inheritance tax and agricultural property relief, which have never been consulted on, will be devastating to the vast majority of farms in Scotland. It is not only Opposition politicians saying that; the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and many of my farming constituents, have confirmed the new reality that they are facing.

Before the election, Labour made lots of promises. It specifically promised that it would not change APR, but now it has announced that 100 per cent relief will apply only to the first £1 million, leaving farmers fearing that they will be unable to pass their farms on to the next generation. Despite what many in Labour seem to think, it does not take much to reach those thresholds, even if spouses join the relief. Farms can be asset rich and cash poor, meaning that we are at real risk of family farms being taxed into oblivion.

Before the election, there was a clear and united voice across the country that farming needed multi-annual ring-fenced funding to be increased from previous levels, along with collective engagement to agree the principles of future intra-UK allocations. That would have ensured the same certainty that we had while part of the EU. Instead, Labour’s approach to farming is worse than before. The removal of ring fencing and the Barnettising of funding were among the biggest fears the very first day after the Brexit vote, but sadly, they have now come to pass under the Labour Party.

We are only a few short months into this Labour Government, and what have we discovered so far? We have discovered that the chancellor, and potentially the rest of the UK Government, has a complete lack of understanding of how agriculture works in Scotland. The chancellor has claimed that the new approach should protect small farms. After meticulous analysis, Johnston Carmichael, tax adviser to the NFUS, has confirmed that, given the value of land, livestock and machinery, and the average size of a commercial farm being around 200 acres, the changes are likely to see a significant number of farm businesses brought within the scope of inheritance tax.

Family farms are being left in an unknown space, not knowing how best to manage succession of the business in an organised fashion while at the same time protecting against exposure to a punitive inheritance tax, charged upon death, that could lead to the breakup of their family farm, and to factory farming and further depopulation.

Scotland’s farmers have already suffered massively as a result of Brexit, with loss of access to the single market and higher supply chain costs, not to mention the impact of continuously rising energy costs. Our farmers need and deserve our support, not more uncertainty and a brutal hammering from a Government that either does not know or—worse still—does not care about the net effects of its budget decisions on farming communities here in Scotland.

I am sure that we were all dismayed to hear a leading Labour voice proclaiming that we do not need small farmers and that they can be done away with, akin to the miners. Whether it be mining or farming, we cannot continue to allow UK Governments, of any colour, to have the deciding say on Scotland’s most critical industries. Our farmers deserve better.

We must all collectively remember—indeed, we forget much to our peril—that the vast majority of farmers own land to feed the nation, not to dodge tax. They work, sometimes for less than minimum wage, to put food on our plates. How can we plan for food security with such folly coming from those who seem to know very little about the farming way of life?

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I have listened closely this afternoon, and I am concerned that what we have heard is not shedding any further light on how the UK Government’s inheritance tax changes will affect our food producers.

I will pick up on a few points. Beatrice Wishart pointed out concerns about small farms being sold off. I appreciate her calling on the UK Government to come forward with more information so that we know about the cumulative impact of those measures.

Richard Leonard talked about the NFUS briefing and the confusion about the scale of farms that will be affected. Again, we need clarity about what will happen to our farmers.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I also appreciate Elena Whitham’s point about the impact of Brexit and the need for farmers to have certainty. I mentioned Brexit in my opening speech, but Brexit is not the only problem that our rural economy faces; there are several other long-term issues that previous UK Governments have allowed to fester for decades, and I hope that that will not continue under the new Government.

One of the biggest of those issues is Westminster’s on-going policy of surrendering responsibility for food to the major supermarkets. Since the 1990s—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the member take an intervention?

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I need to get on.

Since the 1990s, such an approach has led to a race to the bottom on pricing and standards. It has left farmers unable to invest properly in regenerative solutions that will safeguard their futures and bolster our national food security.

Food security has been further endangered by the lack of investment in science, and the UK and Scottish Governments have failed to provide enough resource for agricultural research and development. It means that we do not have the capacity to develop climate-resilient food varieties in the UK. In our increasingly unstable growing climate—

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Could Ariane Burgess please resume her seat for a second? Rachel Hamilton has a point of order.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Presiding Officer, I seek your advice. The motion was a very simple one-liner. I do not believe that Ariane Burgess, on behalf of the Green Party, is speaking to it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank Rachael Hamilton for the point of order. It seems to me that a number of issues have been raised in the debate. When a member follows on from the debate, it is not unreasonable for them, in their closing speech, to reflect on the debate that has taken place.

Please resume, Ms Burgess.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

In our increasingly unstable growing climate, the current approach is exposing our growers to the worst of the climate emergency. Meanwhile, our rural communities are facing depopulation after years of underinvestment.

The Scottish Greens have been working tirelessly to ensure that farmers and growers have the support that they need to keep going in the face of environmental challenges. In the recently passed Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, we secured vital amendments that make it easier to secure direct payments, provide financial support for wool and boost soil health. We are also proud of our progressive reforms to income tax from our time in Government.

To see the SNP and the Conservatives siding with each other on the issues that we are discussing today suggests that they are more inclined to protect vested interests than to give the industry what it really needs. We get the real challenges that farmers face. We know how to help growers thrive and survive in a rapidly changing world. Those concerned farmers, growers, crofters and communities who are watching today can leave the Parliament knowing that the Scottish Greens understand their plight and are working towards a better future.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Colin Smyth to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. You have up to four minutes, Mr Smyth.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

After 14 years of chaos and decline, last month’s UK Government budget started to turn the page on those Tory years. It began to rebuild our broken public finances, jump-started economic growth and ended austerity. It delivered the largest budget settlement in the history of devolution—an extra £1.5 billion this financial year and £3.4 billion more next year—and the highest ever agricultural budget.

The biggest threat to agricultural support does not come from devolving that support in full to a Scottish budget that Labour is committed to growing year after year. The biggest threat comes from the Tories calling for that support to remain as part of a UK budget that they have said today they want to see cut by £40 billion over the next two years.

Speaker after speaker from the Tories and the SNP has said that they oppose changes to inheritance tax and national insurance, but every one of them has failed to say where the cuts will be made. It takes a Liz Truss-level of economic illiteracy to believe that there is only one side of a balance sheet and that we can cut taxes without reducing public spending.

I have seen at first hand the impact of Tory austerity and the SNP’s incompetence on the rural communities that I represent—closed cottage hospitals, dental deserts, mothballed primary schools, banks shut, post offices axed, bus routes dismantled, crumbling road infrastructure and record rural depopulation as young people leave because of a lack of jobs and a lack of affordable housing. Thank goodness that I do not have any Caledonian MacBrayne ferry routes in my region. Tory and SNP MSPs—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Smyth, please resume your seat for a second. I always try to allow a lot of latitude in debates, but I think that getting on to ferries is perhaps not quite where we should be going.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Tory and SNP MSPs should be coming to the chamber to apologise to rural Scotland for the mess that they have left, not to propose cuts to those communities.

There is always a debate to be had about where the threshold should lie with any tax, including the level of agricultural property relief and, indeed, income tax thresholds, which the Tories and the SNP chose to freeze to absolutely hammer ordinary workers. However, there was no mention of thresholds today. At a time when tough decisions are needed to rebuild the country’s public finances, it is not credible to argue that agriculture should be completely exempt from inheritance tax, no matter whether the value of a farm be £1 million or £10 million, but that is what the Tories and the SNP have called for today. Frankly, it makes a mockery of their claim that the debate is about small family farms.

It is also not credible for the Tories and the SNP to pretend that there is not an issue with wealthy landowners buying agricultural land to dodge inheritance tax and, by doing so, driving up the price of land for locals. It is astonishing to hear SNP MSPs arguing in the chamber that an ordinary farm worker in Scotland on £29,000 a year should pay more income tax than their counterpart in England while at the same time being silent about Anders Holch Povlsen being able to buy 89,000 hectares of land in Scotland, thereby avoiding paying hundreds of millions of pounds of inheritance tax and driving up land prices for families in the Highlands.

Today, we could have had a serious debate about how we use the record agriculture budget to support our farmers and crofters, including by returning the millions of pounds that were cut from that budget by the SNP. We could have had a debate about how we back our food producers, who are drowning in the sea of red tape that has been caused by the Tories’ disastrous Brexit deal and sell-out trade deals.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is about to conclude.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

We could have talked about the delays and dithering of the SNP Government, which still does not have a plan for future rural support. We could have debated how we use the record public sector investment from the UK Government’s budget to ensure that more of the food that is purchased across the public sector is locally produced.

Instead, the Tories and the SNP—two peas in a pod—have called for cuts to the agriculture budget. In doing so, they are calling for a return to austerity, which would be devastating for our rural communities.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I very much welcome the fact that Tim Eagle has brought this debate to the chamber. He attacked the Labour Party and disputed the calculations that it has made. Mr Eagle can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the point that he was trying to make is that the policy takes no account of the high value of land against the income that can be derived from that land. For years, the value of capital that is tied up in land has been out of kilter with the income from that land.

As Mr Eagle said, family farms are the glue in many communities. That is the point that Labour has misunderstood; its decision clearly shows that it does not have a proper understanding. That is particularly true if we listen to the likes of Mr John McTernan. Edward Mountain has already mentioned him, but let me remind members that he said that we can do to farmers what

“Thatcher did to the miners ... It is an industry we could do without ... We don’t need the small farmers.”

That is a terrible thing for anyone to say about such a hugely valuable community, which we represent.

Colin Smyth talked about there being record funding for agriculture, but he got that wrong. Funding has flatlined—it is exactly the same as it has been for the past six years.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

How are we for time, Presiding Officer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You have the time that you have, minister. It is up to you whether you take the intervention.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

I will not take the intervention, then.

This morning, I visited AgriScot with the First Minister. I assure members that the palpable anger in the community is very real. People are not only angry but fearful of what the policy will mean when they try to pass on their farms.

The First Minister has given assurances that the Scottish Government will continue to support agriculture as much as we can, but there are complications around the lack of ring fencing and Barnettising, not least the fact that the Scottish Government does not have multiyear certainty. Yet again, Westminster delivers a hammer blow to a sector and then expects the Scottish Government to clean up its mess.

The previous UK Government agreed to the Bew review, which would involve bringing together all four nations to discuss the way forward on funding, but that has been kicked out the door.

Rhoda Grant says that very few farms will be affected. What she clearly does not know is that there are no figures for Scottish farming. The UK Government is as frustrated as the Scottish Government is that there are no clear figures that enable us to do any kind of work. There was no consultation. There was no understanding of what was going to be delivered, because the UK Government did not ask anyone. It did not talk to the farmers. It did not talk to the farming unions. It did not talk to this Government. There is literally nothing.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Is the minister seriously saying that he does not know the value of farms in Scotland and that that is not something that his Government is interested in?

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

The point that the member is missing is that this is a reserved tax. We have no idea how it will affect the family farms that we are talking about.

Ariane Burgess said that she would like to see tax on the big landowners. I go back to the point that I made earlier. The value of the land does not reflect the income that is derived from it, and the UK Government has never tackled that. That is why the UK Government needs to reverse its decision. It needs to do a proper impact assessment on family farms and communities and come back with proposals that will ensure the smooth transition of productive family farms and that the bedrock of our food and drink sector and our rural communities is maintained.

Beatrice Wishart of the Lib Dems called for a £1 billion funding uplift before the election. She is absolutely correct. That was the call from NFU Scotland, and it was the call from the Scottish Government. It is, however, disappointing that she did not mention that, while we were in the EU, we had seven-year multi-annual budgets. That is now gone, as is the Bew review, which would have allowed us to have conversations about what that funding would look like for Scotland’s farmers, who carry a huge weight in terms of what we expect them to do. There was supposed to have been a fair settlement for Scotland’s farmers, but, as I said, that has been binned by the Labour Party.

Christine Grahame’s point about Labour not understanding rural Scotland is absolutely correct. When I recently attended a local NFUS meeting in my constituency, I was joined by Dave Doogan MP and Pete Wishart MP. Dave Doogan said that, when they were in the chamber when the budget was being discussed, when the reaction came—as it rightly did—as the announcements were made, the chancellor looked shocked. She did not understand what was being said. She then went through the same performance when she was on the Laura Kuenssberg show on Sunday. She does not understand what she has done.

Richard Leonard’s contribution absolutely confirmed that Labour does not know what it is talking about, but I will waste no more time trying to educate him, because he is absolutely beyond redemption. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The minister is bringing his remarks to a close.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

There are 21,000 crofts in Scotland and 33,000 people living in crofting households. It is impossible to gauge the impact of the policy on that sector, because we simply do not have the information. The Labour Government is simply wrong on this, and it needs to do something about it. It needs to reconsider its position in the light of the reaction from industry stakeholders and farmers across the UK.

The Scottish Government stands ready to work with the UK Government on these matters. However, the lack of engagement with Scotland on the changes highlights the need for inheritance tax powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament to allow them to be designed and tailored for a Scottish context.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

I welcome the opportunity to close on behalf of my colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives. The role of the Scottish farming community is absolutely immeasurable; we have heard that today. We know that farmers are one of the hardest-working sectors in Scotland. They are the hardest-working people. They work 24/7 to put food on our plates. They are the custodians of our countryside. They protect the environment, they restore nature and they have to face all the challenges of climate change—they are expected to do so by our Governments.

Livelihoods are at risk from Labour’s shameful budget betrayal, which could see more than 12,000 farms affected. Rhoda Grant continues to shake her head. She should be absolutely ashamed of what she said. Douglas Ross was absolutely right. Labour’s mask has dropped over this—it is a terrible trio of high-taxing farmer bashers.

This is nothing short of a betrayal. Rachel Reeves promised not to raise taxes, as we heard from Douglas Ross. Anas Sarwar must be so embarrassed by the budget. When he spoke at the Scottish Land & Estates annual conference, he explained that Labour understood the vital importance of the rural sector and suggested that Labour was determined to do all that was in its power to ensure that vibrant community.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Yes, if it is quick.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

Rachael Hamilton says a lot about the taxes that she is opposed to. She is opposed to inheritance tax and to the change in national insurance. Will she say a bit more about the areas of the budget presented by the UK Government in which she would make cuts? We are talking about £40 billion over two years. Where would she make cuts?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

The UK economy is the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and it has the highest employment.

Furthermore, Anas Sarwar has the gall to suggest that the valid concerns of farmers in Scotland are based on “misinformation”. In reality, it is Labour that is misinformed. It has misinformed the public, and it is now trying to pull the wool over farmers’ eyes. As my colleague Tim Eagle noted, Labour’s calculations are wrong and its figures are strongly disputed by various organisations, including the NFUS and the NFU. I find Labour’s botched calculations, coupled with its socialist ideologies, alarming. It was really alarming to listen to Richard Leonard.

Agriculture is one of the main economic drivers of the Scottish economy. Without our farmers, rural businesses would go to the wall, as would the supply chain, and there would be further rural depopulation. One farmer in my constituency told me:

“Labour have shown themselves to be ignorant and inept.”

He said that most farmers in the Borders are

“living in fear of their financial future”

and that

“future investment is simply not going to happen.”

The impact is deeply dark. There is a risk of depopulation, as I said. My colleague Edward Mountain has already noted that, without farmers, there is no food, and Labour’s policies threaten to put many farms out of business. That will further weaken the fragile national food security that has already been a challenge as a result of the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. Beatrice Wishart rightly asked for a rural impact assessment to be carried out on Labour’s policy.

What I find most alarming is Labour’s refusal to accept and acknowledge the impact that its cruel family farm tax will have. Labour is disconnected from reality. It continues to justify its actions and to blame the situation on Liz Truss, rather than accepting that it was wrong. Anas Sarwar called the tax “proportionate”. Steve Reed has said that farmers will simply have to

“learn to do more with less”.

In response to my colleague Finlay Carson, Rhoda Grant said that farmers should get their affairs in order. That is totally offensive. It speaks volumes about the lack of understanding of the intricacies of the challenges that family farms face. People do not decide when they are going to die, Ms Grant.

Jim Walker, former president of the NFUS, agrees and has stated that the tax increases

“show that agriculture and food production don’t matter to the UK government”.

We have the written comments of the commentariat, who believe that the family farm tax is absolutely wrong.

Labour needs to admit that it was wrong to introduce a family farm tax. It is not often that the SNP and the Conservatives agree on anything to do with rural affairs, but we both recognise that the family farm tax needs to be reversed immediately. We are calling for a U-turn. We are calling for this shameful tax to be ditched.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes the debate on reversing the family farm tax. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow for a changeover of front-bench members.

Housing Emergency

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-15401, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, on Scotland’s housing emergency. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Meghan Gallacher to speak to and move the motion.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The Housing (Scotland) Bill was a golden opportunity to address Scotland’s housing emergency, yet the bill that the Government introduced does not even mention the building of homes. There is a severe lack of spades in the ground at a time when communities right across the country are in desperate need of new housing developments.

The Scottish National Party promised that it would deliver 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, but it is miles off meeting its target. Its anti-house-building agenda has undoubtedly caused the market to stagnate. The SNP has exacerbated the problem through rent controls and by cutting £200 million from the housing budget. It is no wonder that half of Scotland’s population now lives in a local authority area that has declared a housing emergency, including the Minister for Housing’s backyard.

We are in the midst of a deepening housing crisis. More than 15,000 children are homeless; the number of applications from households that are assessed as homeless is at its highest level since 2012; hundreds of thousands of people are stranded on local authority waiting lists; and more than 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation.

The solution to the housing emergency is to build more mixed-tenure homes, but we have a bill that is fundamentally flawed. Parliament is due to debate the bill at stage 1 by the end of November, but given the serious concerns that stakeholders and developers have raised, we are calling for the bill to be rewritten. We do not take that decision lightly, as there are sections of the bill that we support in principle—those around homelessness prevention and the duty to act. However, given the issues that I have just outlined and the number of people, especially children, who are without a safe and secure home, why did the SNP not introduce a stand-alone bill on homelessness? That would have shown that the SNP is serious about ending homelessness for good, instead of attaching the issue to other housing-related matters.

The main reason for my party’s opposition to the bill relates to rent controls. Studies going back decades, from those on New York in the 1980s to more recent ones on Berlin, show that rent controls have serious unintended consequences with reduced supply and increased costs. Rent controls in Scotland have been described as “ruinous” and likely to damage a part of our economy that has suffered at the hands of the Government’s meddling in recent years. They will do much more harm than good.

Recent figures show that around 70 private housing providers are leaving the property market every single month, according to data from the Scottish Landlord Register. That is no coincidence—it is a direct consequence of the SNP’s policy on rent controls.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The member makes a point about property owners selling their property. However, surely that will not destroy the housing stock; it will simply transfer it to different ownership, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It is perhaps about people who own multiple homes simply redistributing that property in a way that might be more efficient for future occupation.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

What we need is mixed-tenure housing to fix the housing emergency that we are currently in, and rent controls will not fix the situation.

Rent controls will result in a shrinkage of available property and a lack of coherence between the supply of and the demand for rental properties. Homes for Scotland has warned that the SNP’s proposed changes to housing legislation will increase the cost of a new home by £30,000 through changes to rent controls. That is an eye-watering amount that will only make it harder for first-time buyers to get on the housing ladder. It makes no sense whatsoever to prevent people—especially young people—from becoming proud home owners.

Regretfully, that will not be the only problem, should the bill continue through stage 1. We have already seen the loss of potential investment in the build-to-rent sector. Hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of potential development has not proceeded due to uncertainty around the Scottish Government’s lack of strategy. The result is that investors will take their money elsewhere, which means less growth in our economy. With the lack of council housing, there is a dependence on the private sector to provide more homes and affordable housing. We simply cannot afford for more private housing providers to leave the market.

I will be fair to the minister. He inherited this disastrous bill and the ideas behind it from a former Green minister. However, he must have known that whatever he would inherit would be economically incoherent.

Despite a year of consultations and significant engagement with the housing industry—particularly the much-referenced housing investment task force—the Government has continued to ignore practical suggestions such as the creation of a balanced framework to protect tenants while offering greater predictability for investors. When we combine that with a lack of common sense and the Government’s obsession with ideologically driven policies, we can see that the bill was always a recipe for disaster.

We have heard a lot of outrage directed at the bill recently from the Greens, no less, who have a question to the First Minister tomorrow on the topic. That is why I cannot understand why they will not support our motion at decision time. Both we and they disagree with the Scottish Government’s approach and how it has taken forward its policy on rent controls, albeit for different reasons. Surely there is common ground to send the Government back to the drawing board to listen to the housing sector and stakeholders and bring back a bill that will not harm the housing sector but will tackle the housing emergency.

The SNP may wish to swing a wrecking ball at the private sector, but in doing so, it is harming our economy and preventing young people from climbing the housing ladder. That is why the bill should be demolished, with rent controls reduced to the pile of rubble that they deserve to be.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that the Scottish Government should redraft the Housing (Scotland) Bill, as it fails to address the key factors that created the housing emergency.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

This is a good opportunity to give another further update on the Housing (Scotland) Bill in the chamber, because although addressing the housing emergency is not confined to measures in primary legislation, they are an important part of that work. Dealing with the housing emergency obviously extends to much more than just legislation.

The Government declared a housing emergency to move past the debating of definitions and move on to focused actions. Since that declaration, we have worked with local authorities to boost the supply of affordable housing. We have worked closely with those who received the biggest share of the additional £40 million that was committed to the affordable housing supply programme to bring into use or acquire existing properties that can be delivered this year. We will utilise this year’s almost £600 million budget by progressing affordable housing approvals and site starts, and we have published a dedicated delivery plan so that planning plays its full part in addressing the housing emergency.

Having listened to representations, we have responded by confirming the rent cap that will underpin our approach to rent control under the Housing (Scotland) Bill, bringing certainty to that sector.

Introduced in March, the bill proposes a reform package to help ensure that people have a safe, secure and affordable place to live. The bill will help to end homelessness and strengthen tenants’ rights. It will also address long-term factors, helping Scotland to address the housing emergency.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Does the cabinet secretary understand that the policies that her Government is trying to push through the Parliament have stalled roughly £3.2 billion-worth of housing developments in Scotland? How does she reconcile that with the housing emergency that we are trying to tackle?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

As a minority Government, we cannot push a bill through Parliament. Stages 2 and 3 of the bill are coming up, and we look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues across the chamber on the changes that they wish to see. That is the productive way to deal with the bill, rather than calling for it to be scrapped.

Our homelessness prevention measures will shift the focus away from crisis intervention and towards prevention. We need to avoid households going through the trauma of homelessness in the first place. Rented sector reforms will make renting a home more affordable for private tenants through stabilising rent levels in rent control areas. We know that a good-quality, affordable and well-regulated housing system can help tackle poverty, including for families with children.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

The cabinet secretary says that the measures will make rents more affordable. Will she explain how rent will be made more affordable by amendments that require the maximum action that could ever be taken in a rent control area to keep rents rising faster than other prices and inflation?