Scottish Parliament, 18 June 2025

335 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands. I advise members that there is quite a bit of interest in supplementary questions, so I will require brevity in questions and responses as far as possible.

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

To ask the Scottish Government how its marine fund Scotland 2025-26 will support businesses and organisations in coastal communities. (S6O-04800)

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

The marine fund Scotland is now open for this year’s applications, with £14 million of support available. I urge all those who have ideas for projects that will help marine industries to evolve and flourish to apply.

Since 2021, the marine fund Scotland has awarded more than £55 million in grants to 330 projects, facilitating £121 million of investment. With that funding, the Scottish Government is backing our marine economy, which is crucial to the economic, social and cultural fabric of our rural, coastal and island communities.

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

By how much have Scotland’s coastal communities been short-changed since Brexit, when we left the European Union? Is there any indication that the current United Kingdom Government is interested in giving Scotland its rightful share of marine funding?

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

We can look at nations that are in the EU right now to see what we could be getting if we were still in the EU. For example, Denmark is receiving funding through the EU’s new European maritime fisheries and aquaculture fund. Denmark has a smaller sea area and marine sector than Scotland, yet it is receiving multiyear funding that is the equivalent of about £25 million per year. We can compare that with the £14 million-worth of funding that we currently receive from the UK Government.

The UK Government recently announced a new £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund. We are calling for a rightful share of that budget to be devolved and allocated to Scotland. I have pressed the UK Government for confirmation of that, but I have not yet received a reply. I share stakeholders’ frustrations that the UK Government did not engage with devolved nations or industry before announcing that new fund. If it is not devolved, it risks duplicating current funding programmes, causing confusion for stakeholders and diluting its intended benefits.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Will the cabinet secretary set out how she could use the marine fund Scotland 2025-26 to support the sustainable management and potential reopening of the Solway cockle fishery? Will she also set out how she expects projects to be successful and to deliver long-term value when applicants may not receive confirmation of funding until late October, yet all work must be completed and expended by the end of March? That is a window of just five months, which makes a summer survey this year without other support impossible. Will the cabinet secretary agree to meet me and stakeholders?

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

I encourage anyone with an interest to apply to the fund. I know that officials will be working at pace to process the applications to ensure that there is a good chance of the money being fully utilised. On Finlay Carson’s last point, I am more than happy to have a meeting. I will be in touch to make those arrangements.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I apologise for my late arrival to the chamber.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether policies such as culling livestock and promoting less meat consumption could have a detrimental impact on the rural economy. (S6O-04801)

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

The Scottish Government does not have any policy on culling livestock or mandating reductions in meat consumption. We recognise the vital role that livestock farming plays in supporting rural economies, food security and Scotland’s cultural and natural heritage. Our approach is to support farmers and crofters to produce high-quality food sustainably. Meat is a good source of protein with a number of micronutrients and can be enjoyed as part of a healthy, balanced diet.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I seek further confirmation from the minister on the policy position that he just mentioned. The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee has said that nearly half of the emissions reductions in Scotland by 2035 will come from cutting livestock numbers by 26 per cent.

We are already seeing the impact of such measures and that direction of travel with the closure of the Scotbeef abattoir in Inverurie, which is costing 90 jobs. At this rate, it will not be net zero emissions by 2045; it will be net zero jobs.

Will the minister confirm—yes or no—whether the livestock cuts that the Climate Change Committee mentions are official Government policy?

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

No, they are not official Government policy. The CCC’s advice is exactly that: advice. We will be setting out our response to that advice imminently. However, let me be crystal clear: we intend to meet our net zero commitments in a way that supports our vital agricultural sector and our wider rural economy. Our livestock sector is a critical part of that, and this Government has no policy to reduce livestock.

We provide direct support to livestock farmers—and are the only part of the UK to do so. An example of that is the Scottish suckler beef calf scheme, which pays £40 million a year directly into farmers’ pockets.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with agricultural organisations regarding any increases in production costs as a result of new transmission infrastructure. (S6O-04802)

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

The Scottish Government has not had any discussions with agricultural organisations on potential changes to production costs as a result of new transmission infrastructure.

Applications for new transmission infrastructure are made under the Electricity Act 1989, which includes provisions to ensure that landowners receive fair compensation where land, or rights over land, are acquired by compulsion for the development of energy infrastructure, with established legal frameworks and dispute resolution mechanisms available through the court system.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

That is deeply disappointing for farmers. Following my question in April on the loss of agricultural land to the development of overhead transmission lines, Jim Fairlie had to write to the Presiding Officer admitting that he had got his answer badly wrong. It is painfully clear that the Scottish National Party Government does not understand the impact of energy consenting decisions on rural communities. Farmers will be listening with despair.

Does the minister agree that net zero should not be achieved at the expense of farmers’ livelihoods and—[ Interruption .]—the SNP Government must urgently establish the impact that new transmission infrastructure will have on the agricultural sector?

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

I lost the second part of Tess White’s question because of the noise from her colleagues. If I heard some of that correctly, I think that her main point is that the Scottish Government favours net zero over farming. That is simply not the case. We have shown time and again that we are working with our farming community, and we want to ensure that we achieve net zero by it working with us.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

To ask the Scottish Government how many licences for gull management were awarded in Eyemouth for 2025. (S6O-04803)

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

NatureScot has received four applications to manage gulls to protect public health and safety in Eyemouth this year, and three licences have been issued. One licence was refused, and NatureScot has met that applicant and is working with them on the details of their application.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Despite acknowledging that aggressive seagulls are a health and safety issue, NatureScot originally refused to grant any gull management licences to businesses in Eyemouth. Instead, it told my constituents to use dogs. However, within 24 hours, NatureScot U-turned and granted two of the licence applications, apologising for the way in which those applications were handled. Will the minister, too, apologise to my constituents, who have described the gull licensing process as “soul destroying”? Does he endorse NatureScot’s ridiculous suggestion to use dogs in a rooftop seagull sniffer pawtrol? If so, should my constituents be training spaniels to scale scaffolding, attaching Labradors to drones or giving parachutes to poodles?

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

We recognise that it is an issue for people, so the tone in which Rachael Hamilton has just approached that question is rather disappointing. We also recognise that, when NatureScot has got it wrong, it has rectified that, which the member has clearly demonstrated. If NatureScot is going to apologise to her constituents, that is up to NatureScot to do.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will you?

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

If NatureScot is going to apologise to her constituents, that is up to it to do.

On what we are doing with regard to licences for seagull management, I have had conversations with Douglas Ross, Fergus Ewing and many others on the issue, and we accept that there are issues with seagulls that are causing problems for people living in certain areas. That is why I am hosting a seagull summit later in the year, in the north. It will be in Inverness or Nairn, or somewhere in that area, but that has not been decided yet. When we have that summit, we will discuss what happens with seagulls in urban populations right across the country.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

From Eyemouth to Elgin, people are being attacked by gulls, but NatureScot does not record any of those instances. Does the minister believe that NatureScot should record that information and take cognisance of it when it approves or rejects licence applications?

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

That is a fair point. If Mr Ross wants me to put that on the record with NatureScot, I will certainly do so when I have discussions with it. The purpose of getting a licence is to deal with seagulls that are causing health and safety issues—that is already in the licensing application process. I am happy to take on board Mr Ross’s point. When we discuss further how to protect people from marauding seagulls, we will take that into account.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the latest export statistics for Scotland’s food and drink sector. (S6O-04804)

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

Scottish food and drink exports remain a cornerstone of the economy and were valued at £7.5 billion in 2024. The latest figures from HM Revenue and Customs, which are for the first quarter of 2025, highlight a positive outlook, with a rise of 5.1 per cent compared with the same period last year.

The Scottish Government is committed to helping the sector with its exporting ambitions. Since 2014, we have invested more than £7 million in the food and drink industry export plan and in supporting market growth through a network of global specialists. A new six-point export plan has recently been announced to further support businesses, including those in the food and drink sector, in expanding their international reach.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Although the Scottish food and drink sector undoubtedly punches above its weight—I welcome the latest figures on that—there must nonetheless be opportunities to grow the export market. In that regard, one clear structural barrier is the lack of a direct ferry for freight to continental Europe. Given the cabinet secretary’s interest as champion of Scotland’s food and drink sector, will she raise the issue with the Deputy First Minister, whom I have already met on the matter, and with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, with whom I have corresponded on it, to finally get the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry proposal over the line?

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

Annabelle Ewing raises a really important point. Scottish ministers of course want Scotland’s sea connections with Europe to be enhanced. I know that the Deputy First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport have met the project sponsors regarding the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry proposal to highlight that support and to offer more practical advice.

The recently announced sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, which the Scottish Government had long been calling for, is expected to remove some of the barriers that our exporters have faced since Brexit and that have compromised the viability of projects such as the Rosyth to Dunkirk ferry. The ball is now in the UK Government’s court to get the SPS agreement over the line, but I assure the member that engagement between our officials is still very much on-going.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is, of course, great to see Scotland’s wonderful produce doing so well in export markets. The sector is a major employer that accounts for 10 per cent of jobs in areas such as the Highlands and Islands. However, there are recruitment challenges in the sector. Although short-term factors are undoubtedly involved in that, we must also plan for the future. The Royal Highland Show is just round the corner, and it will surely have a focus on rural skills and jobs. What more can the cabinet secretary do to promote jobs in the food and drink sector as a career choice?

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

Tim Eagle raises an important point. We want a thriving food and drink sector, because it is important for our economy. Not that long ago, we had a session in Parliament with our wider food and drink industry, which was focused specifically on skills and seeing what more we can do on that. Some really great programmes are being undertaken in our agriculture sector. For example, there is the work that Ringlink Scotland and the machinery rings are doing to get younger people into the industry. A whole host of work is going on.

I am more than happy to have further discussions with Tim Eagle. I look forward to catching up with him at the Royal Highland Show, as I no doubt will, and engaging in more such discussions in the next few days.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

To ask the Scottish Government when it anticipates that NatureScot will complete its review of the bird species in schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. (S6O-04805)

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

The review of species that are listed in schedule 2 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has been completed by NatureScot. The Scottish Government is currently considering the findings from the review and will provide an update on the next steps in due course.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Our approach to environmental issues has changed enormously since 1981, and it is only right that legislation is considered periodically to determine whether it needs to be replaced or amended. The Scottish Government has the powers to prohibit the hunting of ptarmigan while a lengthy process takes its course. Will the minister clarify whether that approach has been considered?

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

I appreciate the concerns that David Torrance has raised about the review’s timescales. However, good governance requires that consideration be given to the full range of evidence that relates to all red and amber-listed species that are listed in schedule 2 to the 1981 act. Land management practices such as habitat improvement and predator control can have benefits for red-listed bird species in certain circumstances, and we want to ensure that the schedule 2 changes do not lead to unintended consequences.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

When the minister considers the review, will he also commit to considering full cost recovery from licence applicants so that the public no longer subsidise private interests when licences are granted for the killing of protected species?

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

As I have outlined to members, we are reviewing the piece of work that has been done and we will publish the review when the time comes.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I have been made aware of a potential release of non-native game birds in Shetland. Islands are more sensitive to the establishment of non-native species, which can impact the environment and compete with native species. Will the minister work with NatureScot to increase awareness of the importance of not bringing in or releasing non-native species in islands? Will he also consider legislative measures to restrict non-native game bird releases?

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

Beatrice Wishart has raised a very specific point, which I do not have access to information on. If she writes to me, I will be more than happy to look at the issue and get back to her.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on any progress with the provisions in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, including how they may affect farming and food production in Ayrshire. (S6O-04806)

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

The Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 will commence on 16 June, which will provide the powers to introduce the future support framework that was consulted on and enable payments to be made under the four tiers. We remain committed to direct payments, and the act provides flexibility to deliver them throughout changing circumstances while realising our vision for agriculture and delivering on our commitment to support agriculture and rural communities. As the act requires, the rural support plan will set out how support will deliver on the act’s objectives and the Scottish Government’s wider priorities over a five-year period starting from 2026.

Willie Coffey (Scottish National Party, Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley)

As the minister knows, we are very proud of the wonderful food offerings that we have across Ayrshire, many of which I have mentioned in the chamber before. One of our hopes is to see such products on local supermarket shelves much more often, so that local people can easily identify and buy locally produced food in order to support our producers. Will the 2024 act help to encourage that? Will the minister update Parliament on how he is engaging with the sector to improve the position on that?

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

I absolutely take on board Willie Coffey’s point. He has been a very strong advocate for his constituency. We have committed £15 million over 2023 to 2026 to support the delivery of Scotland’s food and drink strategy, which is sustaining Scotland and supplying the world. That funding facilitates a range of activities and direct engagement with grocery retailers in order to help to increase the volume of Scottish food and drink on our retail shelves. Additionally, we work closely with the Scottish Grocers Federation and support its go local campaign, which is helping to transform convenience stores with dedicated display spaces for local produce.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of its policies on managing deer numbers, how it is supporting public bodies such as local authorities and national health service boards to use more Scottish venison in any catering that they are responsible for. (S6O-04807)

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

I thank Roz McCall for that question because it allows me to put on the record that, although menu content will be decided locally, much Scottish Government work is under way to facilitate the uptake of venison across the public sector. That includes a successful pilot with Wild Jura Venison, Argyll and Bute Council and Food for Life to supply venison in six primary schools. Officials are working collaboratively to explore opportunities to increase demand for venison and develop options to increase supply by helping the sector to make the most of the various routes to market through approaches such as wholesale and framework agreements, which are widely used across the public sector.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I listened intently to the minister’s answer, but data following a freedom of information request indicates that public bodies tend not to include venison in pupil and patient meals. The nutritional benefits of venison have been emphasised by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which teaches schoolchildren about venison at its hill-to-grill educational events. In an effort to improve deer management and make good use of quality meat, Perthshire-based Glenkilrie Larder participates in a project that involves venison being donated to local schools and food banks.

At a critical point in the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill’s passage through the Parliament, what additional steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that this healthy, low-fat meat appears on school and hospital menus across the nation?

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

Roz McCall raises a very good point. I would like to correct her on one issue—I think that Finlay Carson has said to me previously that his local authority supplies venison. However, she is absolutely right to make her point. We need to stop looking at deer management as a problem; we should embrace it and add venison to our natural larder. The Scottish Government is committed to doing that.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

As a high-protein sustainable food source, Scottish venison should be available to everyone. However, I have heard reports of land managers burying deer rather than allowing them to be processed to feed the nation. What action is the Scottish Government taking to prevent wealthy landowners from blocking venison for the many?

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

I do not accept the premise of that question. We are going through vital deer management processes to allow us to restore nature and reduce damage to habitats. As I said, deer are not a problem species; they are part of our natural heritage. We should be able to put venison into our public food processing and our larders so that we can all enjoy it.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government what proportion of care home providers have reported recruitment difficulties since the United Kingdom left the European Union. (S6O-04808)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

In 2018, the Scottish Government published a report on the contribution of EU workers in the social care workforce, and that process was repeated for comparison in 2022. In 2018, 37.9 per cent of care home provider respondents reported experiencing difficulty in recruiting staff. That figure increased to 75 per cent in the 2022 report. Compounding those difficulties, in 2022, respondents across all services reported a drop in the number of applications from EU nationals. Although it is difficult to disentangle the impact of Brexit from other pressures on the social care labour market, the 2022 report found that Brexit is among the factors that are resulting in the sector having less flexibility to respond to on-going labour supply challenges.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Labour Government’s changes to visa regulations, including those relating to salary thresholds, visa fees and sponsor licences, have created chronic staff shortages. What discussions have Scottish Government ministers had with their UK counterparts regarding caring roles being added to the shortage occupation list in order to ease visa restrictions?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Gordon MacDonald is correct that the UK Labour Government’s plans to end international recruitment of care workers will have a profoundly negative and potentially catastrophic impact on the social care sector. We have tried to engage with the UK Government by providing clear evidence-based proposals outlining workable adjustments that would better support Scotland’s labour market without compromising the UK Government’s broader objectives. However, Labour’s immigration white paper shows no substantive recognition of the policy proposals that the Scottish Government submitted.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 2 is from Kevin Stewart, who joins us remotely.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what action it has taken to support NHS Grampian since it was escalated to stage 4 of NHS Scotland’s national performance framework for finance, leadership and governance. (S6O-04809)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

My officials continue to work closely with NHS Grampian daily, and the Government remains committed to providing the health board with the support that it needs to stabilise and sustainably improve.

One of the initial stages of the escalation is the whole-system diagnostic that we have commissioned, which involves KPMG reviewing key areas of NHS Grampian activity. We expect the initial findings of the review to be available by mid-July. In turn, that will inform a tailored package of support and the agreement of an improvement plan for NHS Grampian, with detailed actions and timescales.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

A key thing that I have concerns about is the additional bureaucracies that NHS Grampian has put in place. One way of solving difficulties and getting the board back on track is to listen to the front-line staff who feel ignored. Will the work that is being undertaken involve communicating with and, more importantly, listening to front-line staff, who often have the ability to resolve some of the difficulties that exist?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

Yes, it absolutely will. I acknowledge, welcome and appreciate the work that Mr Stewart has consistently done to represent the interests of local staff, as well as patients. I agree that meaningful partnership working will be key in the successful development and implementation of NHS Grampian’s improvement plan.

The board must work closely with its staff and trade union and professional organisation representatives in its area partnership forum. It must ensure that it listens and responds to concerns that staff raise and that staff views inform future activity. Similarly, we expect the meaningful engagement of local clinical views, not least through the health board’s area clinical forum.

The Government’s assurance board will look for evidence of meaningful partnership working in the development and implementation of NHS Grampian’s improvement plan, so that we can benefit from front-line staff’s ability to see a way to navigate through the challenges, as Mr Stewart has rightly pointed out.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Swingeing cuts in NHS Grampian will decimate as many as 79 services for patients, including a vital X-ray facility at Kincardine community hospital. In a bid to cut down overtime pay, face-to-face appointments that are deemed unnecessary could soon stop. That is a crisis of the Scottish National Party’s making, due to years of underfunding. It is clear that balance sheets are being prioritised over vulnerable patients. Will the cabinet secretary tell my constituents how long this dire situation will go on?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I expect NHS Grampian and all boards to take proportionate decisions that ensure that service delivery is financially sustainable, as well as sustainable in relation to what patients can expect to receive from those who provide services.

NHS Grampian is in a particularly acute position, which is why it has been escalated through the framework—not in a punitive way but in a way that provides support. The work that the Government and KPMG will provide to the board is expected to ensure that options are available to protect patient-facing services and to enhance the performance of NHS Grampian so that its patients can feel the benefit.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Ambulances are a lifeline at a time of desperate need, but figures show that, so far in 2025, more than half of all ambulances in Scotland have been stuck on hospital forecourts for more than 45 minutes. In one of those was my constituent, who, after having had a stroke, spent seven hours overnight in a sweltering ambulance, with no food or drink, waiting for a bed in the Aberdeen royal infirmary. A spokesperson for NHS Grampian said that that was regrettable and apologised, but the fact remains that it is an institution at stage 4 that is facing sustained pressure and has the lowest number of beds per head of population in the country. What is the minister doing to support NHS Grampian to increase capacity?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The situation that Mercedes Villalba recounts is not only regrettable but unacceptable. That is an example of why we have escalated NHS Grampian to stage 4 of the escalation framework, so that we can provide additional assistance for it to improve its unscheduled care pathway. We recognise the difficulty in ambulance turnaround times at Aberdeen royal infirmary, which was part of the reason for the critical incident that took place before Christmas.

Everything that we are doing is to support a better flow of patients through the system, including through enhanced frailty services in the ARI, the call before convey work that the Scottish Ambulance Service is doing and an escalation in hospital-at-home services. The work in all those areas is to alleviate pressure on unscheduled care pathways so that the experience of Mercedes Villalba’s constituent does not happen to others.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that residents in Eskdale can access patient transport for hospital appointments. (S6O-04810)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

In October 2024, the Scottish Government published the transport to health delivery plan, which sets out commitments in relation to transport and healthcare across the work of the health and social care directorate and Transport Scotland. Through that plan, we will continue to work with national health service boards to re-emphasise the need for them to consider patient access as part of the care pathway. The plan also recognises that collaborative working among NHS boards, regional transport partnerships and other partners, such as community transport providers, is absolutely necessary in service planning and decision making, and that it helps to address patients having to travel longer distances to access healthcare.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

Langholm is one of the places that the Scottish Government should start with. A recent public meeting saw more than 300 people crowd into the Buccleuch centre there, and one of the top issues that they raised was their difficulty in getting to Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary in Dumfries. In a best-case scenario, the journey involves a round trip of six buses and takes more than four hours. That is not realistic for the elderly, the sick and those who are unable to drive. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, does he recognise that that is an unfair ask? Will he raise these concerns with the health board and ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place? For example, could the use of technology be increased, could some clinics be re-established at Thomas Hope hospital, and could more use be made of services at Carlisle hospital, as was the case in the past?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I very much appreciate Oliver Mundell raising this issue on behalf of his constituents and his tenor in doing so. As I come from an island community, I recognise that travelling for healthcare and other services is a challenge and is often necessary, but we want to minimise the level of challenge and make services as accessible as possible. Following Oliver Mundell’s representation, I will, of course, raise that concern with NHS Dumfries and Galloway and explore the alternative options that he has set out.

Yesterday, the Scottish Government set out the service renewal framework, which is about shifting the balance of care and using innovation and technology to provide people with more equitable access to services. The points that Oliver Mundell raises therefore very much align with our policy direction.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that nearly 40 per cent of adults in Dumfries and Galloway are not registered with a national health service dentist. (S6O-04811)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In recognition of the particularly challenging circumstances in Dumfries and Galloway, the Scottish Government will continue to provide additional financial assistance to the local health board in 2025-26, including to deliver additional evening clinics for unregistered priority patients. My officials also continue to work closely with the health board, and they meet the director of dentistry regularly.

Colin Smyth (Labour, South Scotland)

The reality is that the registration rate is not just the lowest in the country; it is getting worse. Nearly 3,000 fewer adults are registered than there were at this time last year, so it is pretty clear that the Government’s current approach is simply not working. Does the minister recognise that, had the Government acted on the warnings from NHS Dumfries and Galloway, more than five years ago, that a crisis was looming, my constituents would not have had to go private to get dental healthcare? Given that the actions of the Government are clearly not working, what more does it plan to do, and when will that start to have an impact?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I said in my earlier answer, I recognise that there are issues in Dumfries and Galloway, and the Government is currently working closely with the health board on them. The situation that Mr Smyth describes is occurring not just within Scotland but across the four nations of the United Kingdom. I have been working closely with my counterparts and with the directors of dentistry across each of those nations to ensure that we can reach a four-country solution. We need to improve the pipeline of dentists coming into the country and ensure that those who are in Scotland after training in other countries have the right UK training to allow them to step up to become dentists here. In line with this year’s programme for government, we have increased dentistry funding by 15 per cent, which is the highest-ever proportional increase for the sector. We are also working closely with rural boards to ensure that specific payments that are intended to encourage dentists to move to rural and island locations are more targeted.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Elena Whitham has a supplementary question—hopefully with reference to the question, which of course concerns access to NHS dentistry in Dumfries and Galloway.

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

As the minister has touched on, increasing the dental workforce plays a crucial role in improving access to NHS dentistry, in Dumfries and Galloway and across all our rural areas more widely. Can the minister say more about the steps that the Scottish Government is taking to support the dental workforce pipeline, especially in rural areas, where the need is acute, with far too many of our constituents travelling extensively to secure treatment, oftentimes when they are in pain?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Scottish Government’s operational improvement plan sets out a package of actions to improve the NHS dental workforce now and into the future, in Dumfries and Galloway and across Scotland. As I have said, it is being supported by additional funding in 2025-26. Alongside that, we are working with NHS boards to refine the financial incentives that are in place to support dentists in moving to work in rural areas, thus supporting sustainable access across Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We have a supplementary from Finlay Carson. Again, it should be with reference to Dumfries and Galloway.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Can the minister state whether access to NHS dentists has been getting better or worse since the Government’s additional funding was made available?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I would like to report—if I can find this in my notes—that Public Health Scotland statistics published in May show that more than 4.2 million courses of treatment were delivered to patients in the 2024-25 financial year—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

This is not about Dumfries and Galloway.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

More than 1 million patients were seen by NHS dentists in the quarter ending March 2025. As I have indicated, I recognise that we have—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Is that up or down?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members, could we let the minister respond? I think that she is getting on to Dumfries and Galloway.

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

As I have indicated, I recognise that there are issues in Dumfries and Galloway—

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Is it better or worse?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

—and we are doing what we can to improve access to dentistry across the region.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what urgent action it is taking to address general practitioner waiting times in NHS Grampian, in light of reports of on-going staffing shortages, delayed discharges and critical incidents. (S6O-04812)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I want to make it easier for people to see their GPs, and I am taking steps to address the challenges that general practice faces. That includes ensuring that a greater proportion of new national health service funding goes to primary and community care. GPs play an incredibly important role, and we want to see more of them in Scotland. That is why we are determined to increase the number of GPs by 800 by 2027, with an additional 360 GPs having been added since 2017. As of 11 November 2024, the GP specialty training establishment in Scotland stands at just over 1,200 places, which is a record level.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

A number of constituents have contacted me regarding their inability to get GP appointments within a reasonable timescale. Last week, NHS Grampian announced £23 million-worth of spending cuts, which will mean stopping certain face-to-face appointments and giving routine test results only over the phone or by letter. What steps are being taken to improve long-term workforce planning for medical services in places such as Inverurie, to ensure sustainable staffing levels and continuity of care for local patients?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I reiterate to Douglas Lumsden the point that I made in my first answer: that we have a record GP training establishment in Scotland, which currently sits at 1,200 places. We have more to do to ensure that trainees are able to get into employment, and we are working with the British Medical Association’s general practice committee on finding a sustainable route through the funding pressures, which are hindering the employment of GPs in Scotland.

I point Mr Lumsden to the Scottish graduate entry medicine programme—ScotGEM—which specifically covers rural medical degrees, to ensure that doctors coming through the system have rural medical training so that we can support rural communities that need access to general practitioners here in Scotland.

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

GPs are very much at the heart of our health system, so it is vital that we move forward with work to increase timely access. Can the cabinet secretary advise how the steps that are outlined in the programme for government will build on the Scottish Government’s work to improve GP waiting times in NHS Grampian?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I very much recognise, and am grateful for, Audrey Nicoll’s point about improving access to general practice. I recognise that too many of our constituents are feeling that frustration. The steps that we have outlined in the programme for government include enabling 100,000 enhanced GP appointments for patients who have key risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, high blood sugar, obesity and smoking, and who are not currently being treated. That is a new investment in general practice as we look to shift more care to the community in a more preventative way, which is the subject of the service renewal framework and the population health framework, both of which were published this week.

More investment will help to sustain general practice and ensure that patients can access services locally, and we are working with the BMA to bring that forward. That is alongside the expansion of pharmacy first services, through which, for many ailments, pharmacies are the recommended first port of call for patients.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Campaign groups from NHS Grampian right down to my own South Scotland region believe that there is a shortfall of as many as 1,800 GPs, and that that number is a more realistic target if the Government hopes to meet its ambition of achieving better-quality care that is closer to home.

Our health service is crying out for more GPs, yet a cut in GP funding means that practices are unable to recruit the staff that they desperately need. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that although the training of medical students is important, it does not help matters when students are unable to get employment after graduation?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I very much recognise the view expressed in Carol Mochan’s final point. That is why we are increasing our investment in general practice. We remain committed to increasing the number of GPs in Scotland by 800 by 2027. GP headcount has been consistently at more than 5,000, and the number of GPs has increased by 360 since 2017. This year, we are investing more than £2.6 million in a range of measures to support GPs to remain in the workplace.

We are also making good progress against our GP recruitment and retention plan, and we have established a national framework to support the development of early career fellowships. NHS Education for Scotland has completed its review of the GP retainer scheme, which will be open to new entrants from August this year.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

In my question in response to the cabinet secretary’s statement yesterday, I mentioned the constructive meeting that I had with Dr Robert Lockhart from Elgin and his colleagues. Although the cabinet secretary gave me a positive response yesterday, he did not answer the specific points that I raised. I therefore ask him again: what percentage of the health budget is currently spent on general practice, and what percentage does he believe should be spent on it to allow GPs to deliver all the services that they believe they can?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I recognise that the BMA has set out its position that the percentage of the NHS budget that goes into general practice is not sufficient. That is why we are working with the BMA to increase the investment going into general practice. As I said in response to Carol Mochan, we have already increased general practice funding this year.

Further initiatives have come through the budget and through the programme for government, including the additional cardiovascular enhanced services that we negotiated with the BMA. However, I recognise Douglas Ross’s point that, if we are to truly shift the balance of care, we need to shift the balance of resource. I am currently working with the BMA in order to achieve just that.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it will support NHS Tayside to improve its physical infrastructure to help to deliver better health outcomes. (S6O-04813)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The Scottish Government has increased NHS Tayside’s formula capital by 5 per cent for essential maintenance and equipment replacement. We have also approved projects to progress with multiyear essential maintenance upgrades for electrical and ventilation systems at Ninewells hospital and Perth royal infirmary, which will require more than £60 million of investment.

Over the next two years, we will also provide £12 million of capital funding to take over the lease of four general practitioner practices, which are Comrie medical centre, Stanley medical practice, Arthurstone medical centre and Nethergate medical practice.

We are also working with all health boards to develop a whole-system national health service infrastructure investment plan, and we will shortly be asking NHS Tayside to identify its three strategic capital priorities.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Ninewells hospital has served the people of Dundee for more than 50 years, but the difficulty and costs of maintaining the ageing building are growing. That raises the question whether Tayside would be better served by a new hospital. Will the cabinet secretary conduct a review that compares the cost-effectiveness of continued maintenance versus a new facility?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I refer back to the conclusion of my first answer to Maurice Golden, when I said that we will be asking NHS Tayside to identify its three strategic capital priorities. That is the review that he is asking for, and it will inform the whole-system NHS infrastructure investment plan. We will await its priorities with interest.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the health secretary has had with ministerial colleagues and NHS Lothian regarding the provision of education and tutoring for sick children at the Royal hospital for children and young people in Edinburgh and other national health service facilities and services. (S6O-04814)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Section 14 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 places a statutory duty on local authorities to make special arrangements for any child or young person who is absent from school for a prolonged period, due to ill health, to enable them to continue their education while they are away from their regular school.

I confirm that officials have discussed the matter with the City of Edinburgh Council. NHS Lothian and the City of Edinburgh Council recognise their responsibilities under the statutory duty, and they have set up the Little France teaching centre within the hospital. The centre uses teachers who are employed by the council, and that service is available for all children and young people during their stay in the hospital.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister should be aware of the case involving Lawrence, a constituent of mine who suffers from leukaemia. Lawrence experienced the distress of watching other children on his ward receive education from the City of Edinburgh Council’s hospital schooling service at the sick kids hospital, while he was denied it because he attends a school in the independent sector, and his parents could not pay the £115 an hour that the council charges in such circumstances.

Since I raised Lawrence’s case, more parents have been in touch with me—and with bodies that represent independent schools—to highlight similar injustices. Several cases involve children with a disability being refused access to specialist equipment, such as aids for hearing impairment, or having it withdrawn, because they attend independent schools.

Will the minister commit to working urgently with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, councils, the independent schools sector and NHS boards to reach a resolution that ends that unjust discrimination against sick and disabled children in Scotland?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

In response to Mr Hoy’s follow-up question, I was aware of the situation involving his constituent Lawrence. As I believe that Ms Gilruth said when Mr Hoy previously raised the issue, ultimately, the decision is one for her to take. However, I am very happy to work with her to address the situation from a health perspective.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

I have been contacted by constituents who share Mr Hoy’s concern about the issue. Councillors say that the policy regarding learning for sick children who attend independent schools is based on Scottish Government guidance, which places the duty for such tuition on independent schools. It is clear that there has been miscommunication. What effort is the Scottish Government making to inform parents, schools and health boards of that policy?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Foysol Choudhury is right. Although the Scottish Government has provided national guidance on the continued responsibility to provide education while a child or young person is unable to attend school due to ill health, decisions about the fees to be charged for hospital education services are a matter for local authorities and NHS boards to consider, along with independent schools, as appropriate.

As I have just said in response to Mr Hoy, I am very happy to work with Ms Gilruth from a health perspective to ensure that we find a solution to the situation.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the eligibility criteria for rapid cancer diagnostic services, including the rationale for them usually only being available to those over the age of 18, in light of any unique challenges faced by children and young people being diagnosed with cancer. (S6O-04815)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

Rapid cancer diagnostic services provide primary care with access to a fast-track diagnostic pathway for non-specific symptoms suspicious of cancer, such as weight loss and fatigue. All RCDSs and non-specific cancer pathways across the UK have similar, clinically agreed criteria for referral.

There are specific and well-established referral guidelines for children and young people as part of the Scottish referral guidelines for suspected cancer, which have recently been clinically reviewed. The updated guidelines will be published in July. That will be supported by the provision of education resources to support primary care to make the most appropriate referral to the most appropriate pathway.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

Even though cancer is the leading cause of disease-related death in children and young people under the age of 25, members of that group often face significant barriers to a timely cancer diagnosis, either because of misdiagnosis or because they have exhibited vague or non-specific symptoms. They often have to visit their general practitioner or other health providers multiple times before being referred and diagnosed.

Despite those challenges, Scottish Government initiatives to support early diagnosis, such as rapid diagnostic centres, are typically focused on older Scots and adults rather than on children and young people. Given the clear need for earlier and more accurate diagnosis of people in that age group, what action is the Government taking to address that gap?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Miles Briggs for bringing that important issue to the chamber. Clearly, we need a separation between adult and paediatric services. To that end, in September 2021, we launched “Collaborative and Compassionate Cancer Care: The Cancer Strategy for Children and Young People in Scotland 2021-2026”. The strategy emphasises the Scottish Government’s commitment to improving services nationally and supporting a consistent approach to care and treatment across the country. The established managed service network for children and young people with cancer, which is a dedicated network of cancer specialists, will continue to support children and young people with cancer and to deliver on that strategy.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

How are rapid cancer diagnostic services helping to speed up treatment and improve outcomes for people across Scotland?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

A report published by the University of Strathclyde in February 2024 found that the services are achieving what they set out to do, which is to find cancer, while delivering at speed a high standard of quality care, and that the overall median time from RCDS referral to diagnosis was 14 days.

To date, we have established six successful rapid cancer diagnostic services, significantly reducing the time taken from referral to diagnosis for people with non-specific symptoms of cancer. Our sixth RCDS was launched last month in NHS Forth Valley.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on health and social care. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to change position.

Economic Performance (A Better Deal for Taxpayers)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17980, in the name of Craig Hoy, on demanding a better deal for taxpayers in Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Craig Hoy to speak to and move the motion.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Under the Scottish National Party, Scots are being hammered with high taxes while public services continue to decline. That is why the motion that I will move in this Parliament—a Parliament that is paid for by each and every taxpayer—will force every member of the Scottish Parliament to decide whose side they are on: whether they want to be on the side of the bloated SNP state or on the side of delivering a better deal for Scottish taxpayers. Those taxpayers are sick and tired of an SNP Government that costs them more but delivers less, of a Government that spends their money on inward-looking fringe obsessions such as gender reform and policing free speech, and of paying for meaningless quangos and a civil service that has doubled in size since 2014.

People are paying more for public services that simply are not working. We all know, deep down, that that is the case, because our constituents tell us so. Our postbags and inboxes lay bare 18 years of SNP failure on schools, hospitals, roads and railways. However, it is clear from the amendments today that it is only the Scottish Conservatives who know what the public want and need. That is why we propose a tax cut for Scottish workers, scrapping the 20p and 21p rates to create a simplified 19p rate for income up to £43,600 a year. That is a tax cut for hard workers of up to £444, while still funding front-line public services.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Will the member give way?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I have a lot of waste to identify, so I will give way later if I can.

The SNP is costing Scotland £1 billion a year in lost growth and countless billions more through incompetence and waste. The SNP Government boasts that its so-called progressive taxation—a system that taxes nurses and teachers more—is bringing in £1.7 billion a year, but the Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that there is an economic performance gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom of £1.1 billion in this year alone. We know what is really going on: the impact of the SNP’s tax rises on Scots feel very real indeed, but the benefits are simply another SNP false promise.

That missing billion, in black and white, is the true cost of John Swinney. The Fiscal Commission is being characteristically diplomatic in describing it as an “economic performance gap”. I call it the deep and corrosive economic effect of 18 years of an anti-growth, anti-business SNP Government.

Every independent forecaster, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the SFC and the Fraser of Allander Institute, warns that the SNP Government cannot continue on the fiscal and spending path that it is on. A benefits bill that is set to soar to £10 billion by the end of the year is £2 billion more than the Government can afford. The number of senior civil servants is soaring, and quango after quango is spewing out bizarre and costly recommendations and regulations. John Swinney’s high-tax, low-growth Scotland simply cannot continue. That means taking the SNP’s client state head on.

When we brought forward our fully costed plans for tax cuts this year, Shona Robison said that they would be impossible. However, on Monday, John Swinney finally admitted that she has got it wrong, announcing that, this week, the SNP Government will reveal £1 billion of SNP waste that the SNP itself has identified. However, when the SNP talks of public sector reform, we do not expect much action.

We would deliver it, however. We would reduce the size of the civil service back to pre-2016 levels within five years. We would introduce a new taxpayer savings act to cut the number of quangos by a quarter, through closing down and merging unnecessary bodies such as the Scottish Land Commission and Community Justice Scotland and creating a Scottish agency of value and efficiency—SAVE—a short-term, business-led body that is designed to mount a war on waste to claw back £500 million of misspent public money. We would introduce tighter public spending rules that would clamp down on the frivolous use of taxpayers’ money and introduce sanctions on individuals who breach those rules. We would apply a zero-based accounting system to the annual budgetary process of the Scottish Government, and we would go on to reduce red tape on public services such as the national health service by reducing their statutory reporting requirements. We would also slash the cost of government, making efficiencies in public relations and human resources departments. That would mean more doctors, fewer spin doctors and more shared service hubs across government.

We would make sure that every public sector worker is focused on delivering for taxpayers. We would ban woke roles in equality, diversity and inclusion. We would end once and for all the Scottish Government’s obsession with gender issues, and ban the production of all non-statutory guidance that relates to gender identity or trans issues across the public sector.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Craig Hoy has given some examples, which is what I was going to ask him for. He says that we want to save on railways. Does that mean that safety goes down? He says that we should reduce reporting requirements, yet his colleague who is next to him always asks for more transparency. Surely he cannot have both.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will gladly give to John Mason the two papers that I have that detail everything that we can do to cut the horrendous waste across the Scottish public sector.

We need to do more work to dismantle the SNP’s secretive and inefficient client state. We would remove the smoke and mirrors around public sector decision making by extending lobbying laws to organisations that are funded by SNP ministers just to tell them what they want to hear. We would also create a new accountability and transparency dashboard, which would provide clear information about how taxpayers’ money is spent and who signed it off.

There are two sorts of SNP waste—the sort that, rightly, angers people, and the sort that, rightly and roundly, outrages them. Take the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care’s use of a taxpayer-funded limousine to meet his friends in the pub for a pre-match pint prior to going to the football. It is to Neil Gray’s discredit that he has not resigned, but it is to the public’s dismay that John Swinney has not sacked him. Such is the level of SNP contempt for hard-pressed taxpayers that that kind of behaviour goes unchecked in SNP Scotland.

The SNP says that it will change, but the past is the best guide to the future. The SNP’s credit score with the country is seriously impaired. A billion pounds has been wasted on Barlinnie prison, which was meant to cost just £100 million; £500 million has been wasted on two out-of-date ferries; £50 million has been wasted on malicious prosecutions; and £30 million has been wasted on a national care service that was scrapped before it even started. That is the reality of the SNP’s casual disregard for taxpayers’ money.

In contrast, we would deliver tax cuts for workers, wage a war on waste right across government, and tackle head-on the SNP’s bloated client state.

Those are the policies, based on sound, common-sense Conservative values, that Scotland so badly needs. Sadly, it will never get them from the SNP Government.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Government’s failure to grow Scotland’s economy has led to an economic performance gap worth £1.1 billion in 2025-26 alone; believes that there should be a crackdown on wasteful expenditure from the Scottish Government through the tightening of spending rules in the Scottish Public Finance Manual, reducing the number of highly paid senior executives within the public sector, and reversing the recent ministerial pay rise, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the proceeds of a crackdown on waste to cut income tax by up to £444 for every person in Scotland by abolishing the 20% and 21% rates of income tax, so that everyone earning up to £43,662 pays 19p for every £1 earned.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The investment that we are making this year in our public services is made possible by the tax choices that we have made and the vital additional funding that they provide. The Tories and, indeed, other Opposition members need to explain to the Parliament what they would cut if we had not taken those tax decisions, but instead, we hear demands for further spending and, at the same time, cuts to taxation—[ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Cabinet secretary, please resume your seat. I will set some parameters here. I appreciate that some individuals are seeking to make an intervention, which is perfectly laudable, but others are shouting from a sedentary position, which is not acceptable and will not happen, not least because I will have to keep interrupting, which will shorten the debating time of members who are further down the list in the debate.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Their position is not credible and the public knows that it is not credible, which is why the Tories have such low support among the public.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In Mr Hoy’s speech, he spelt out exactly what measures the Conservatives are going to take. Why can the cabinet secretary not admit that?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We know the standard of what is provided by the Tories—unfunded tax cuts made on the back of a fag packet. We will take no lessons from a party that destroyed the economy. Many members on the Conservative benches supported Liz Truss and her economic policies, which hard-pressed householders are still paying for through their mortgage payments. We have had Tory economic policy during the years—[ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Johnson, please do not.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Michael Marra seems to want to defend that for some strange reason. The Conservatives proposed almost £1 billion in tax cuts last year in advance of the budget, and the impact of that approach on our essential public services, including our NHS, would be profound.

Our progressive approach to tax underpins the entire Scottish budget, allowing us to support the most generous social contract in any part of the UK, which includes things such as free prescriptions, free higher education and support such as the Scottish child payment, all of which would be put at risk with the Conservatives’ contrasting income tax proposals, which would seek to reverse our progressive approach and give the greatest tax cut to the top 25 per cent of income tax payers.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. When did she first become aware that there were at least £1 billion of savings to be made in efficiencies, as was revealed in The Herald on Monday? Where is she looking for the £1 billion? It seems so difficult for her to understand—and I do not believe that it can be—that we are proposing a costed programme of savings. The Government is saying that it is going to save £1 billion. Where is the £1 billion to be saved? Let us hear where the £1 billion is to be saved.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I am sure that Stephen Kerr will be on the front bench tomorrow to hear Ivan McKee’s statement on public service reform, in which he will set out the work that is already under way. It started many years ago and has been accelerated by the work of the Minister for Public Finance. Stephen Kerr will see the detail of that tomorrow, and I am sure that he will be present for it.

The Opposition is also keen to talk down the Scottish economy. Day in, day out, we hear that in this place. The reality is that the Scottish economy is one of the best performing in the UK.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I will later, if I have time.

Since 2007, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.3 per cent, compared with 6.1 per cent in the UK, and productivity has grown at an average rate of 1.1 per cent per year, compared with a UK average of 0.4 per cent. Most recently, in 2024, Scotland’s economy grew by 1.2 per cent, compared with a UK rate of 1.1 per cent.

I will give way to Daniel Johnson.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It will need to be very brief, Mr Johnson.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Would the cabinet secretary care to quote those figures since 2016 and acknowledge whether they are higher or lower for Scotland compared with the UK for that time period?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

It is the long-term growth that matters. [ Interruption .]

I do not know why Daniel Johnson and the Opposition—

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

No, thank you. I do not know why Daniel Johnson and the Opposition cannot accept that it is a good thing that, since 2007, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.3 per cent compared with 6.1 per cent in the UK. Why can they not simply accept that that is a good thing?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The cabinet secretary is now in her final minute.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Craig Hoy talked about an economic performance gap, but Professor Graeme Roy from the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been clear that, in the context of income tax, that does not refer to an assessment of Scottish Government policy or performance—rather, it is

“purely a technical measure and is not meant to be a commentary on Scottish Government performance.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 10 December 2024; c 37.]

That is what Graeme Roy from the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said.

To conclude, last week’s spending review has not helped the position in Scotland. An increase of spending of just 0.8 per cent over the next three years, compared with an average of 1.2 per cent for UK departments, leaves us facing a £1.1 billion shortfall. The spending review was disappointing for resource and capital spend and infrastructure investment.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You will need to conclude.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

To come back to the point about public service reform, tomorrow Ivan McKee will set out the detail of what we have been doing and what we will do. We will do it in a way that is sustainable and works out the detail, not the nonsense that we have heard from the Tories today.

I move amendment S6M-17980.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:

“believes that public service reform must be an ongoing process in order to deliver the best use of public funding, and recognises that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’s arbitrary scheme would lead to a cut in available public funding for vital services like the NHS.”

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

In what is a feat of surprisingly accurate economic analysis that you would not expect from the acolytes of Liz Truss, the Scottish Tories have pinpointed one of the deep problems at the heart of Scotland’s finances. That problem is, of course, the Scottish National Party Government. It has an abysmal record of 18 years of waste, incompetence and, increasingly, chaos—£6.7 billion of taxpayers’ money wasted on ferries that do not sail, prisons that do not get built, a deposit return scheme that did not recycle a single bottle and a national care service that did not employ a single carer. Hard-working Scots are literally paying the price of SNP failure, with over £1.6 billion spent on the scandal of delayed discharge because the SNP cannot get Scotland’s NHS working.

Normally, whenever I lay out that litany of waste, it is met with complaint and howls of derision from SNP members, but it is good to have supporters on the front bench today, with the belated admission that, by their own estimates, they waste £1 billion a year. That is, of course, on top of the tally that I have just laid out.

Scotland has also suffered from the chaos and financial mismanagement of finance secretaries, who, with one exception, still sit around the Cabinet table. There has been failure to supply crucial information to the independent forecaster, refusal to publish core documents, including a pay policy, capital spending plans and the medium-term financial strategy, and chaotic, knee-jerk in-year announcements such as the council tax freeze that nobody knew about. Party politics is always put first.

Budget after budget does not even last six months, and there have now been three consecutive years of emergency in-year cuts slashing funding across the board to balance the books. There really is no other word for it—it is complete and utter chaos.

The Labour Party believes strongly in progressive taxation, but to ensure public support for progressive taxation, we have to show people what they get in return, and the SNP has utterly failed to do that. Every year, Scots are paying more and getting less in return. One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, schools are sliding down the international league tables, there is a housing emergency and councils are cutting key services. Better public services, more investment and a better standard of living is what people should be getting from paying their fair share in tax, but, under the SNP, that could not be further from the truth.

Meanwhile, the Tories have failed to acknowledge the economic and fiscal realities in which the UK operates. British public finances were left in a truly terrible state by the previous Tory Government. Over 14 years, it presided over a low-wage, no-growth economy. It inflicted austerity on public services, doing lasting damage to them all. It crashed the economy, sending interest rates spiralling. It presided over a cost of living crisis with sky-high inflation not seen since the 1970s. It closed the last Parliament with living standards lower than they were at the opening of that Parliament for the first time since the Napoleonic wars. It spent the last year of that Parliament promising money that it did not have in a desperate attempt to buy votes, leaving a gaping black hole in Britain’s public finances. It spent the annual national reserve three times over in the first three months of that year, Mr Hoy. All of that left the incoming UK Labour Government with a major clean-up operation to undertake. There was no apology, no humility and no shame from the Conservatives.

Frankly, the Conservatives’ plans today are not worthy of the back of a fag packet. This afternoon, they have brought half-baked, reheated tax cuts to the Parliament, and we should not believe a word of it. Cutting down on quangos would not deliver the savings that are needed for such drastic tax cuts; they would surely mean deep cuts to core public services such as our NHS. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has projected that the NHS will account for an increasingly large share of the Scottish budget: up to almost 55 per cent in the next 50 years. With an ageing population, that investment is absolutely essential. Are the Conservatives really proposing that we defund our NHS to fund tax cuts?

The UK Labour Government is facing up to the mess that both parties here in the chamber have made of our country. Last week’s game-changing spending review saw record investment for Scotland, with a £9.1 billion boost to Scotland’s budget—the highest settlement in the history of devolution.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Michael Marra give way?

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

No, thank you, madam.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Marra is about to conclude.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To give you the words of the Daily Record, the Chancellor’s spending review

“means the SNP Government can no longer blame Westminster for Scotland’s ills. Successive SNP First Ministers have cited UK Government austerity as the reason for struggling services. Rachel Reeves, who has handed Holyrood an extra £9.1bn, has called time on that excuse.”

Enough of the excuses from the SNP. Enough of the half-baked ideas from the Tories. Let us get our economy moving.

I move amendment S6M-17980.1, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:

“understands that the Scottish National Party administration has wasted in excess of £6.7 billion of taxpayers’ money since 2007; believes that the Scottish Government’s reckless spending and failure to grow Scotland’s economy has led to an overreliance on tax increases to plug annual budget gaps; welcomes the UK Government’s decision to decisively end austerity, deliver a record budget settlement for Scotland, and pledge an extra £9.1 billion over the next three years, and believes that the Scottish Labour Party’s plan to establish a Scottish treasury with strategic oversight for spending in all Scottish Government departments is essential in order to put an end to waste and ensure that people in Scotland get value for money.”

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

In this debate, we will cover ground that we have covered many times before. Although the Scottish Conservatives routinely ask in the Parliament for additional spending, they also routinely deride the taxation that is needed to provide that spending. The Tory magic money tree is sadly a figment of their imaginations. In the real world, countries need to generate revenue, and that means taxation. Taxation is the means by which we pool our resources for the collective good. That money is then allocated for spending and investment by a democratically elected Government.

It is a truth that is not universally accepted in the UK that, if you want Scandinavian levels of public services, you have to pay Scandinavian levels of tax. Believing in a magic money tree or in the growth fairy does not eliminate that truth, however much you wish that it might. High GDP growth does not, by itself, contribute to quality of life and society. In isolation, what it tends to do is indicate that the rich are getting richer while more and more people are being left behind. To see that, we have only to look to America, where there is high GDP growth but staggering levels of poverty, homelessness, violence and people without healthcare, and high maternal mortality.

No matter what your GDP is, redistribution of wealth is needed to fund public services and to ensure a functioning society. Without wealth redistribution, the rich will forever get richer while the poor get poorer, until the fabric of society frays and falls apart. For those who believe in a growth-first economic model—those who say, “Once we have growth, then we can put money towards community centres and universal childcare”—what is the magic level of growth that suddenly unlocks that policy change? When has enough wealth been generated that we can start to redistribute it? That model is a toolbox fallacy.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

One of the pieces of evidence is something called the Laffer curve, which, as some of the member’s predecessors in the Government knew, is a diagram that shows that when you increase tax, sadly, at one point, the revenue starts to go down.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am aware of the Laffer curve. I am also aware of where it has been discredited and where it applies. It applies specifically to income taxes and not to the kind of taxes that the Scottish Greens advocate, such as land value tax and wealth taxation.

Our society is extremely wealthy. There is no shortage of money. It is just that it is concentrated in the hands of a few very wealthy people.

For a bit of fun, when preparing for this debate, I put this question into an artificial intelligence chat interface:

“Between lower house prices, free tuition, baby boxes, free prescriptions, free bus travel for under 22s, free eye tests, and free social care is a person earning £100,000 a year in Scotland better off than a person living in England, even with Scotland’s different income tax regime?”

Its conclusion was:

“If you’re single, child-free, and healthy, England may offer better net income. But if you have a family, children in education, or elderly relatives needing care”—

which is most of us—

“Scotland’s public services can provide significant non-cash value that may outweigh the tax difference.” [Interruption.]

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I have only four minutes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is about to conclude.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I then asked the AI:

“What about someone earning an average Scottish wage?”

The response was:

“For someone earning the average wage, Scotland is likely better overall than England due to ... Comparable or slightly lower income tax ... Significant savings from public services”

and

“Lower cost of living”.

Thank you, AI—I could not have said it better. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Willie Rennie to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I think that I like—[Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Rennie, could you sit down, please?

Could those on the Conservative benches show some courtesy and respect to other speakers in this debate, please?

I again call Willie Rennie to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I like this new Lorna Slater, who is outsourcing intelligence to artificial intelligence. We might see some new radical policies—perhaps even more radical than before.

I like a robust and colourful contribution in the chamber. I admire Craig Hoy for his approach to politics, because it is sometimes very entertaining and educational. However, I have to say that he took a kamikaze approach today. I was looking back at a headline in a newspaper in, I think, 2022. It said:

“Boris Johnson’s partygate scandal a ‘difference of opinion’, Craig Hoy says.”

He was dismissing the partygate scandal, somehow.

I think that it is reasonable to ask questions of Neil Gray—as long as we understand that we need to reflect on our own past comments and observations on our own party when doing so. For Craig Hoy to make that speech about economic and financial competence, given his party’s responsibility for Liz Truss, Brexit and even Boris Johnson, took a great degree of courage. I give him full credit for making that attempt this afternoon.

Public service reform should be boring. It should be boring, detailed and hard work to find out where efficiencies can be made. The more exciting that public service reform is, the more superficial it is—in such cases, it is more of a vote-catching effort than it is a real attempt at public service reform. I am afraid to say that Craig Hoy’s list today was just all eye catching, rather than a real attempt at changing the way in which public services operate.

The size of the state has increased—there is no doubt about that. What we need to work out is how we get it back down to pre-Covid levels. We need a detailed understanding of that. I hope that, tomorrow, the minister will set out a very clear programme of boring, detailed change that results in a difference, because it is the difference that really matters in the long run.

We also need digital and AI—this is perhaps where I agree with Lorna Slater—to be at the heart of the work that we are doing.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

rose—

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will see whether I can give way shortly.

I am afraid that I speak to a number of experts in that sector who believe that the Government is just not at the races when it comes to aligning the public services in a way in which digital processes can be used to bring uniformity and deliver efficiencies. Many experts out there are saying exactly that.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

rose—

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.

The main point that I want to make is that, to get our public finances back on track, we need to get our economy moving. The biggest problem that we have is the economic inactivity rate, which is at 24 per cent. In England, it is at 21 per cent, which is not much better, but the figure is just dreadful in Scotland. At the heart of that is getting the NHS into a position in which it can get back to work people who would work if they were able to do so. That is now about ailments of the mind, whereas in the past it was about ailments of the body.

We need to reorientate the NHS so that it is focused on economic productivity. That will make a tremendous difference to the taxes that we raise and to our ability to afford public services. If we can sort that, we will have achieved something in this Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate. I advise members that the small amount of additional time that was available has been entirely used up by the preceding front-bench exchanges, so members will need to stick to a four-minute limit. Any interventions that are taken must be absorbed within members’ agreed speaking time.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

My colleague Craig Hoy outlined a commonsense vision for Scotland’s economy—a vision that is rooted in fairness, ambition and opportunity. We fundamentally believe that Scots deserve a better deal than what they are currently getting under the SNP Government. After 18 years in power, the SNP is presiding over a stagnating economy, a ballooning civil service and an economic performance gap of £1.1 billion, with billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted on pet projects—money that should have gone to front-line services instead.

The list of SNP failures is too long to go through this afternoon. The impact is simple: people are paying more and getting less—I agree with Michael Marra on that. One key difference between the Scottish Conservatives and other parties in the chamber is that we believe in small government. We believe in empowering people to succeed, not holding them back. However, the SNP, the Greens and Labour want to keep people stuck in the doldrums in perpetuity.

Although the Scottish Conservatives support vulnerable people, the SNP is handing out hard-earned taxpayers’ money, with the cost of the welfare state expected to reach £9 billion by 2030. The cosy left-wing consensus that has held Scotland back for decades is dumbing down Scotland rather than lifting it up.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Could Rachael Hamilton specify who those handouts are being given to? Who are we talking about?

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We have identified many tax-saving policies that the Government could implement. We agree with the Scottish child payment, but we want people to be lifted up, not knocked down. We want people to have jobs and to be supported into work. We do not want them to be held back in the way that the Scottish Government is holding back the economy. I point out to Shona Robison that even the Scottish Fiscal Commission has told us that Scotland faces an £851 million income tax black hole due to the rising costs of benefits, public sector pay and new policy commitments.

Beyond the fiscal mismanagement—although Shona Robison does not seem to accept that the SNP is mismanaging the economy—the SNP has a bloated public sector that now accounts for the second-highest share of employment of any region or nation in the UK, and the bureaucracy continues to grow. Scotland now has 130 quangos, with more on the way.

Then there is the tax system, which has been described as “daft” by one of the SNP’s own MSPs. Scotland is now the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, which is not something to be proud of. The SNP should be ashamed. Workers here are unfairly penalised and pay more tax than those who do the same jobs elsewhere in the UK.

In my constituency, which is in the Scottish Borders, residents told me last week that they feel like they have been paying more but getting less, which is something that we have heard many times in the chamber. People see local services in decline, despite SNP claims to the contrary. We must offer people a different path for Scotland and a better path to economic prosperity.

The Scottish Conservatives have put forward positive and practical policies that would improve people’s lives. We believe in a smaller and more efficient state that delivers better value for money and better services for lower taxes. We would give Scottish taxpayers a better deal by cutting taxes to 19 per cent for all taxable income up to £43,600. That would be worth £444 to ordinary working Scots. We believe in restoring value for money, and we would introduce a taxpayer savings act.

Tomorrow, we will hear from Ivan McKee about public sector reform, so SNP ministers clearly agree that there is blob and bloat in their Government. We believe in rebuilding trust with the public. We believe that Scotland can do better. The SNP should be listening to the Scottish Conservatives.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Let us start with the ludicrous suggestion that, after taking no pay rise, Scottish ministers should continue to wear a hair shirt and endure declining real incomes year on year, even though the UK has had cumulative inflation of 70 per cent over 17 years. Which other societal groups do the Tories feel should not receive a pay rise for 17 years? It would certainly not be UK ministers—there are now 121—under successive Labour, coalition and Tory Governments. There has not been a peep about their pay from the Westminster devotees to my left—the Tories—which completely devalues their already threadbare argument. It is just a cheap, nasty and rather pitiful shot that devalues what was already an incoherent and poorly cobbled together motion.

The Tories suggest that they would cut tax

“by up to £444 for every person in Scotland”.

I was not aware that every person in Scotland paid tax, as the clumsily written motion suggests. Children, many pensioners, prisoners, students, the unemployed and so on do not pay tax. The motion says “up to £444”, which means that some people would gain very little—I note that it is not an average, but “up to”, which is like buying double glazing and getting “up to” X pounds off. The Tories must do better if they are to reclaim even a soupçon of the credibility that they lost by backing the Liz Truss economic catastrophe less than three years ago, which led to the highest UK tax take since world war two.

How much would the Tories’ tax cut reduce spending by? What would be cut? They suggest a nice, easy target:

“highly paid public sector senior executives”.

The UK Tory Government that they urged us to re-elect last year did not cut such jobs, but apparently we should. Which ones? What would be the impact on public service delivery if talented people voted with their feet and left the public sector? It is just empty, lazy, thoughtless populism, which is aimed at clawing back votes from the Faragists. Come budget time, we will no doubt hear from Tory MSPs the same tedious litanies in which they demand more expenditure in every single Scottish Government portfolio ad nauseum. It is as boring as it is stupefyingly predictable.

If the Tories truly believed in a crackdown on waste, one might be more sympathetic. However, that is belied by their UK Government’s waste of tens of billions on shoddy defence procurement, dodgy public-private partnerships in services, which were often provided by Tory pals, and high speed 2, which has been delayed again and is set to cost over £100 billion.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

As for the economic performance gap, I quote the evidence that Professor Graeme Roy gave to the Finance and Public Administration Committee last week:

“The net tax position is interesting ... it is not an assessment of Scottish Government policy or performance ... As we highlight in the report, it could be down to different policy decisions; it could be the result of a UK Government decision having an impact on Scotland relative to the UK; it could be a Scottish Government decision having an impact on Scotland relative to the UK; or it could just be down to general economic performance in Scotland ... London is also a factor ... If the city has a really good year ... it will be harder for Scotland with regard to the net tax position.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 10 June 2025; c 20.]

EY’s annual UK attractiveness survey reports that Scotland, which has only 8.2 per cent of the UK’s population, secured 15.8 per cent of UK inward investment projects last year, which created 4,330 Scottish jobs. That record market share cements Scotland as the UK’s top destination outside London for the 10th year in a row, and the sixth best in Europe. Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow remain among the top seven UK cities for foreign direct investment. EY’s global investor survey found that a quarter of those who are planning to invest in the UK are targeting Scotland, which maintains our long-standing position as the UK’s preferred destination outside London.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Scotland’s continued success in attracting inward investment is testament to our skilled workforce, world-class universities and commitment to innovation. Despite global economic instability, investors recognise the strength and stability of Scotland’s economy.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Those projects bring high-quality jobs and long-term opportunities to communities across the country, which is a clear sign that Scotland is open for business. Inward-looking Tories do not want to hear that and would close our overseas offices, where Scottish Development International engages with investors. We will pursue growth while the Tories undermine efforts to secure it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to conclude.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

I apologise for not taking interventions, but a speaking time of four minutes is clearly not long enough.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Our motion demands an end to the high-tax and low-delivery agenda that the Scottish Government has been pursuing for the past 18 years.

The Scottish Conservatives accept that the Scottish Parliament should have a wide range of powers over taxation to support Scottish businesses and taxpayers and to incentivise strong economic growth. Those are both things that the Scottish public would no doubt support. However, since receiving powers over Scottish income tax, the SNP has used them to turn Scotland into the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. After years of endless tinkering with Scottish income tax, the Scottish Government has left us with a system in which anyone who earns more than about £30,000 pays more in tax than they would if they lived in any other part of the United Kingdom

The Scottish tax system has no fewer than six separate bands, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the system as being “unnecessarily complicated”. The Scottish Parliament information centre has pointed out that, since 2017-18, the higher rate threshold has remained largely unchanged, which has dragged thousands more taxpayers into the higher tax bracket. About 22 per cent of Scottish taxpayers now pay the higher rate, with that percentage having doubled over the past eight years.

Our motion mentions the economic performance gap that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has identified. The SNP’s tax system is no doubt responsible for some of that gap. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s findings assume that the changes to the tax system will have certain behavioural impacts. Further analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the behavioural changes might be even worse than the Fiscal Commission’s assumptions. That means that much more spending is being wasted and that people are getting a worse deal. I very much doubt that that is what the Scottish public wanted as a result of taxation being dealt with in this Parliament.

What are taxpayers getting in exchange for their higher taxes? Scotland’s education system is now internationally average. Scotland has record NHS waiting lists. There has been a litany of broken promises on upgrading roads. It is clear from those things, combined with a bloated and costly public sector and the millions of pounds that have been spent on ferries, that the Scottish public are getting a raw deal.

Our motion sets out what a better deal for taxpayers would look like. As well as cracking down on waste, we would abolish the basic and intermediate tax rates. That would ensure that every Scot would save up to £444, with those earning up to £43,662 paying 19p for every £1 earned.

As Sir Tom Hunter recently warned, Scotland is not reaching its full potential. We need a new approach to the country’s finances instead of the old-fashioned left-wing approach that has dominated the Scottish Government for far too long. A package of commonsense changes such as the ones that we have proposed would be the first step in making progress.

The Scottish Government needs to stop managing decline and start rewarding success. We have lots of successful businesses across the country, but that success is being stifled by the Scottish Government’s measures. We would empower Scotland and give Scottish taxpayers the value for money that they deserve, rather than them paying more and getting less.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

We need to lower the temperature a bit. As members know, I always like to strike a consensual tone, so I thank the Government and the Conservatives for providing arguments that I can agree with.

I agree with the Conservatives that the Scottish Government suddenly furnishing us with the figure of £1 billion of waste a year is somewhat striking, in relation to both the quantum and the fact that it has taken the Government 18 years to come forward with that. In turn, I agree with the Government that it is somewhat ironic for the Conservatives to present such a miraculous plan. I note that the savings are not added up in the Conservatives’ documentation, so we do not know whether their sums add up at all.

When did we last hear about a 19p basic tax rate? That is right—it was in the mini-budget from Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. With straight faces, the Scottish Conservatives are coming to the chamber with exactly the same uncosted tax cuts as were proposed by the UK Conservative Government that led to the calamity of increased mortgage bills, a run on the pound and a run on the cost of UK borrowing. That is simply not credible.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will Daniel Johnson give way?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am happy to give way if Craig Hoy can explain why the Scottish Conservatives are doing that.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does Mr Johnson think that the people who are watching the debate will find it a bit rich that the Labour Party, which broke its promise on tax, is lecturing the Parliament about tax?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

With that, we find out that the Conservatives have learned precisely nothing.

Let us look at public service reform. Frankly, I think that Willie Rennie was absolutely right to say that public service reform should be routine—it should be boring, measured and continual. The problem is that the Scottish Government has postponed it for 18 years. However, the Conservatives have made a critical mistake, because such reform is not about shrinking the state but about looking at where head-count increases should occur. The reality is that, over the past decade, civil service head count has increased by 71 per cent—that is three times the rate of head-count increase in the NHS and 10 times that of local government—while police head count has fallen by 6 per cent and that of further education by 10 per cent.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Does Daniel Johnson recognise that a large portion of that increase is due to the establishment of Social Security Scotland and the devolution of welfare benefits?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Social Security Scotland accounts for 3,000 of the head-count increase, which is less than a third. The total head-count increase is between 8,000 and 9,000, and about a third of that is from Social Security Scotland, so that is not an adequate answer.

This comes at a time when we have £6.7 billion-worth of waste from things such as ferries and scrapped deposit return schemes and when the Scottish Government seems to seek to reheat the arguments for full fiscal autonomy, with the loss of the 20 per cent premium that we gain through the Barnett formula.

Ultimately, there is a lack of engagement with the economic performance gap, which is dismissed as a technicality. It is not a technicality. The performance gap boils down to a difference in the earnings of everyday Scots; it is about tax receipts.

It is instructive that the cabinet secretary could not answer my question about the increase in GDP per head since 2016—it is 4.4 per cent for the UK and 2.6 per cent for Scotland. That date is important because 2016 is the year against which fiscal devolution is benchmarked; it dictates how much money we have to spend. The fact that the cabinet secretary could not answer that question and does not understand its relevance tells us everything that we need to know about the Scottish Government’s incompetence when it comes to public finances and the economy.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

George Adam is the final speaker in the open debate.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

I found the opening remarks from Tory members quite entertaining—indeed, if people took them seriously, they would be offensive. In particular, I chuckled at the line that it is only the Scottish Conservatives who know what Scots want. That was a total belter, as they say in my neck of the woods. We must give the Conservatives their due—if Tory political spin were renewable energy, Scotland would reach net zero by tea time. As we live in the real world, we know what the Conservatives are really all about.

The Conservatives come here today to demand a better deal for taxpayers, as if they have not just spent the past 14 years making everyone poorer, crashing the economy and sending household bills through the roof. The same crowd who gave us Liz Truss and a mortgage hike now want us to believe that they have the answers. The Tories want us to believe that they have suddenly found a magic formula for fixing the economy—after they crashed it, after they hiked mortgages and after they dragged us out of the European Union, which is costing Scotland billions. Now here we are, with a motion built on slogans that has very little substance.

The Conservatives talk about cracking down on waste but offer no real plan, just the same old Tory playbook—cut taxes for high earners and slash public services to pay for that. They want to rip £1.5 billion out of the budget and then pretend that nobody will notice the consequences to the NHS, schools or social care. Those of us with longer memories know exactly what the Tories are all about and what Tory economics means for our communities.

In the 1980s and 1990s, it was the Conservative Party that sucked the economic life out of towns such as Paisley. We watched as the looms fell silent, the mill gates closed, the Anchor and Ferguslie mills all disappeared, and the car factories and electronic firms that once sustained local families shut down, one by one. Unemployment soared, and that was believed to be acceptable by an uncaring Westminster Government. Community spirit in Paisley and in towns across Scotland was tested to the limit. That was not reform; it was Tory economics at its harshest—and it did not support anyone from my community. That is what Tory value for money looks like in the real world, in real towns and for real people in Scotland.

We now have a Scottish Parliament and a Scottish Government that have delivered a balanced budget that funds front-line services—a budget that most parties in this Parliament supported. While the Tories were voting against that budget, the Scottish Government was investing in our NHS, boosting education, reintroducing winter fuel payments for pensioners and protecting the vulnerable.

More than 60 per cent of Scots are better off under our tax and social security policies. Most Scots pay less income tax than people elsewhere in the UK. That is fairness in action.

Unlike the Conservatives’ lack of a plan, our approach is progressive, responsible and honest about how we will fund the services that people rely on. For far too long, the Tories have postured in the chamber while Scotland has been getting on with the job. We are growing the economy. For the 10th year in a row, Scotland is the top destination in the UK for inward investment outside London.

Scotland deserves better than further reheated Tory austerity. Scots deserve a Government that invests in our people, protects the most vulnerable and builds for the long term. That is exactly what this Scottish Government is doing every single day. It is time for us to reject this Tory nonsense.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to closing speeches.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

The content of Craig Hoy’s opening speech was spectacularly Trumpian. Not only does he want to implement something like DOGE—the US Department of Government Efficiency—to get rid of imaginary waste, but he wants to ban diversity, equality and inclusion and remove support for trans kids and adults. That is a heck of a track record to go on, given the success of the Trump regime in America, which has seen the largest protests ever against such policies. Good on the Scottish Conservatives for picking up on some popular policies there.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Will the member take an intervention?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

No—I have only four minutes.

One of the things that Craig Hoy said that he would get rid of is the Scottish Land Commission, which is the public body that supports land reform. Land ownership in Scotland is highly unequal and concentrated, with a small number of individuals and entities owning vast areas of land—433 landowners own 50 per cent of Scotland’s privately owned land. That concentration limits opportunities for local and community development, especially in rural areas. It is mind-boggling that the Scottish Conservatives, who purport to champion rural areas, would want to get rid of that body. However, the Conservatives are, of course, in the business of keeping rich and powerful landlords and landowners rich and powerful. That is what they are here for.

As for Michael Marra’s contribution, Scotland offers more generous and accessible public services than England does, because of higher per capita spending and the different policy choices that are made in Scotland. The big question is whether Labour will bring in policies such as free school meals, free bus travel for under-22s and free prescriptions throughout the UK to bring England’s public services up to the level of Scotland’s. So far, England has been lagging behind. Now that Labour is in government at Westminster, the Scottish Labour Party needs to look at how it will help England to catch up.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

[ Made a request to intervene .]

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am sorry, Mr Kerr. I have only four minutes, so I need to press on.

The single most important tax reform that we could make in Scotland is to reform council tax. Unfortunately, every party other than the Scottish Greens voted against our proposals to revalue council tax and move away from the absurdity of using 1991 property values, which has most people paying the wrong rate and makes the tax regressive, which means that the people who have the least pay the most. That is not fair, and nor is it raising the money that our councils need to provide public services.

We have only to look at Liz Truss’s mini-budget and Donald Trump’s big, beautiful bill—I am sure that Craig Hoy is a fan of it; he certainly sounded as if he was adopting Trumpian policies—to see how tax cutting can be counterproductive to economic success, and downright devastating for ordinary people.

Tax cuts largely benefit the wealthy. Public services largely benefit people on average wages who have children, health needs and care needs. I know who I would like the Government to support.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I welcome the new consensus in Scottish politics, which has been signed up to by all sides—and perhaps even by artificial intelligence—that the Scottish Government is wasting a massive amount of money. Clearly, we will hear more about that tomorrow in a well-advertised statement: Willie Rennie expects it to be very boring but, hopefully, very detailed. The minister is well aware that the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee has been calling for a proper programme of public service reform for years now, and many independent bodies have bemoaned the fact that there has been no evidence of it as such.

This is a Tory debate, and we have heard the Tories’ proposition based on their recently published policy document. I gave it its second download just this afternoon, and a thriller it is. There are plenty of pictures of Russell Findlay looking moody. Does he ever look anything but? It sets a savings target of some £642 million. It identifies a £1.5 million saving by closing Architecture and Design Scotland. Unfortunately, however, £500 million of the heavy lifting is to be saved by drawing a target around that figure on one of the pages of the document. That is how the money is to be saved. It is a project to save half a billion pounds with no detail whatsoever about how to do it.

The rest of the money is to be saved by

“STOPPING THE WASTED TIME ON WOKE”.

That is a risible attempt at an intervention in the public spending debate, which is not worth the publication at all. It is right-wing populism by numbers. It is fantastical nonsense.

That brings me, in part, to Kenny Gibson’s speech and his rejection of the tax changes that the UK Labour Government has put in place. He is of course right to point out some of the challenges that arise from those tax changes. Unfortunately, the SNP Government has rejected the entirety of the tax adjustments of some £45 billion, which have had to be used to try to rescue the public finances from the mess left by the Tory Government.

It does not stop there. Prior to the UK budget that was set out last autumn, there were demands from the SNP Government for £70 billion of additional spending—and the Scottish Government did not stop there. In the run-up to the spending review, just in the past few weeks, there was another £20 billion-worth of demands for public spending.

In total, there were £90 billion-worth of demands, with a complete rejection of £45 billion for raising the money. That is not credible and not sensible. Frankly, for a Scottish Government that wants to engage with the UK Government on a proactive basis and on a proper level, as we regularly hear from the cabinet secretary, it is not fit for purpose—far from it.

Last week, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government agreeing with Alba and Reform that the Barnett formula should be scrapped in Scotland. It is utter nonsense to give up voluntarily an additional 20 per cent for spending on public services in Scotland.

Lorna Slater asked about the funding of public services across the rest of the UK. She might have missed the massive expansion of free school meals south of the border, but she will know that £9.1 billion of additional spending is coming to Scotland.

I pay tribute to Daniel Johnson’s very relevant observation that the date of 2016 is incredibly important to the fiscal framework in this country. I advise the cabinet secretary to revise her speaking notes on that basis. The fact that UK GDP per head grew by 4.4 per cent, compared with the 2.6 per cent figure for Scotland, is critical to the economic performance gaps: it flows through the fiscal framework, to which the cabinet secretary is a signatory.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate.

I will start with Willie Rennie’s contribution and give him my sincere and heartfelt assurance that my statement tomorrow will, indeed, be very boring but that it will address the challenges that he has identified. He is absolutely right that treating the debate as some kind of show will not get to the reality of the detail that must be dealt with in order to transform Scottish public services. I will go through that in more detail tomorrow.

Willie Rennie made a number of points about digital, which, again, I will cover to a significant extent tomorrow. AI is very much part of our consideration, but we need to get the balance right and ensure that ethics are well considered when we roll it out. I will talk more about that tomorrow.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

Although we might disagree on much, does the minister agree that this is not about shrinking the state, and that reform must be about freeing up people for front-line public service delivery?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Yes, I agree. It is not about a smaller state; it is about a state that is the right size to deliver what it needs to deliver and getting the workforce and resources in the right place to do so.

Willie Rennie talked about our NHS. Just yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care unveiled two documents on service renewal and population health that articulate how we are going to take the reform agenda forward in the health and social care space.

Craig Hoy talked at length about all kinds of stuff. As usual, he was looking for uncosted tax cuts at the same time as spending increases, which is what we have come to expect from the Tory Party.

I think that I must have been the third person, after Michael Marra, to download the Tory document. I had a wee look at it while I was listening to Craig Hoy. As far as I can tell, he identified three public bodies that he wants to get rid of, which is a long way from the quarter of public bodies that he is targeting. He would then, of course, add another one, by putting in place a new quango whose job I am not quite sure of but which seems to be about taking forward work that this Government is already doing, without an additional quango.

If he was paying attention yesterday, he would have noticed that the health secretary has merged two NHS bodies. We are very much in the business of looking for opportunities to save cash and, where that involves structural change, we shall take that forward. Again, I will say more about that tomorrow. [ Interruption .]

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Does somebody want to come in?

No. There was a lot of chuntering from a sedentary position.

I will move on to Rachael Hamilton’s—

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Yes, indeed.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the minister for taking the intervention. When you are looking for savings, will you also look for savings from ministers taking limos to pubs? [ Interruption .] Those are savings that could easily be had.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Speak through the chair, Mr Lumsden.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I missed some of that. Douglas Lumsden needs to be a bit more articulate, perhaps, but I do not think that I missed anything.

Kenny Gibson characterised the motion correctly when he talked about it being more akin to an approach taken by double glazing salesmen. If we are to look for inefficiencies, a very interesting place to look is personal protective equipment contracts south of the border.

On the recycling point, I note that Craig Hoy is very much in the recycling business; as Daniel Johnson pointed out, he is recycling Truss’s policies.

On the Scottish economy, as Kenny Gibson referenced, there is higher GDP growth per person over the long term, higher productivity growth per person over the long term, lower unemployment in the here and now, and the best FDI performance over the past 10 years anywhere outside of London. That is a consequence of the international offices that SDI has around the globe; of course, the Tories want to close those, shutting off access to international investors.

There was higher growth in the Scottish economy in 2024 than in the UK economy. Interestingly, for half of that year, the UK Government was under Tory jurisdiction and, for the other half, it was under Labour jurisdiction, so I do not know who we would blame for the poor performance of the UK economy vis-à-vis what happened in Scotland. In addition, more people earn the real living wage in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.

I listened with interest to Russell Findlay on “The Sunday Show” at the weekend. He threw out a number, and I had to go back to check whether he had articulated it correctly, because he claimed that 5,500 public sector workers in Scotland earn more than £130,000 a year. We have not been able to source that figure. If he has the stats for it, I would love to see them. However, we think that he is including in that the 6,000 consultants—and employed general practitioner staff on top of that—who are of course in that bracket, because we can find only a few dozen beyond that number that are in that category. [ Interruption .] If Russell Findlay’s message to the people of Scotland is that he is going to take an axe to NHS consultants, people should be aware of that.

In my closing remarks, I want to talk briefly—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

You need to be very brief.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

—about the work that we have done on public service reform. It is important to recognise that we are on a journey. Much has already been done. Tomorrow, we will articulate the next stage on that journey. We have reduced the number of public bodies in Scotland from 199 to 131. As a result of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, we have saved almost £2.5 billion in back-office costs over the past 10 years. In the past two years, we have saved £280 million through the work that we have done on procurement, estates and the automation of back-office functions.

The Scottish Government balances its budget every year. We take Scotland’s finances seriously. Next week, we will lay out the detail of our medium-term financial strategy and our fiscal sustainability delivery plan, and, tomorrow, I will lay out the work that we will take forward in the next phase of our public service reform agenda.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not usually someone who gets confused, but—my goodness—I am confused today. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government is very fond of asking Opposition parties to spell out exactly what we would do differently, but, when we do, she objects. She dismisses all our accusations of SNP waste, but she has now admitted that we are right.

As for Lorna Slater’s speech, I have to say that I am very glad that it has been a short debate.

I will set the debate in context by acknowledging some of the fundamental weaknesses in the Scottish economy, which have been much debated by the independent analysts. As well as flagging up the extent of the fiscal predicament in which the Scottish Government finds itself, the analysts have made it clear that that is largely a result of the Scottish Government’s own decisions. They have highlighted the failure to deliver sustained economic growth; concerns over tax structures, especially differentials; and issues with the delivery of more efficient public services, which, as we know, is a subject that has been exercising the mind of the Finance and Public Administration Committee for many months—although I am not sure that members would have got that impression from what the committee’s convener said in his speech.

The bottom line is that Scotland has not been creating the growth that it desperately needs to create to pay for the increasing demands on public services. Senior figures in business—people such as Sandy Begbie—are all telling us—

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

If what Liz Smith has said is the case, can she explain why, last year, the Scottish economy grew faster than the UK economy?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Daniel Johnson made a very relevant point about the extent of the growth of the Scottish economy over a period of time. The economy’s growth over time is the key issue that analysts are talking about.

I pay tribute to the Deputy First Minister, who made a very interesting speech at Panmure house two weeks ago, in which she identified that a top priority was ensuring that there is much better collaboration between the public and private sectors. That is exactly what we must do to stimulate the growth that is so sadly missing. That is an important part of what is required, and I hope that that is now part of Scottish Government policy. If it is not, we will have even more difficulties in paying for public services.

The public sector is bloated—there is no question about that. Every figure that we look at tells us that it is bloated. I want to come back to a point that was made in the chamber some months ago. During the Covid pandemic, we all got used to the state bailing us out. At the time, that was absolutely fine and correct. However, that expectation is still with us—people still expect the state to do all the work for the Scottish economy. That is not good enough, because it is not solving the problems that we need to address.

We need to attend to the economic inactivity in this country. Willie Rennie said that that was the most important problem; it is. We need to get people back to work. We need to get people to take personal responsibility for their lives and not expect the state to do everything. The Scottish Government needs to waken up to the fact that, for a long period of time, all of its policy development—especially when it comes to welfare spend—has been all about a big state. That approach is not working for Scotland. As several of my colleagues have argued this afternoon, we are getting less while paying more. That simply cannot go on.

I finish on a point that was raised, interestingly, by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said that it is absolutely imperative that we have a proper debate about universalism. The Scottish Government, with its social contract, is absolutely in thrall to the principle of universalism, but we clearly cannot afford that universal principle in the area of welfare spend.

The cabinet secretary has often asked me what we would cut. I throw back to the cabinet secretary—I have argued this with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice—that we have to have a debate about universal policy, because there are areas of universal policy that give benefits to people who could easily afford to pay for some of those benefits themselves. That is not how the welfare system should work: it should be about lifting up those who are in particular need and targeting those who—

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will Liz Smith take an intervention?