Scottish Parliament, 10 September 2025

313 contributions from 64 members. The official report.

Presiding Officer’s Ruling

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. Before we begin this afternoon’s business, I note that I undertook to respond to the point of order that Mr Whitfield made at the end of the members’ business debate last night. I have had time to reflect on his point of order, and I will advise Mr Whitfield and other members accordingly. A bill must, on its introduction, be accompanied by a financial memorandum that sets out best estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues to which the bill’s provisions would give rise. The rules on a financial memorandum do not require it to include comment on the merits or otherwise of the bill’s provisions—that information is included in the bill’s policy memorandum.

As Mr Whitfield will be aware, although the matters are interlinked, standing orders make separate provision on financial resolutions. When it is determined that a bill requires a financial resolution, no proceedings may be taken on the bill at any stage after stage 1 unless the Parliament has, by resolution, agreed to a financial resolution. I hope that that clarification is helpful.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is rural affairs, land reform and islands.

I advise members that, across the afternoon, we are incredibly tight for time, so I make the usual plea for brevity in questions and responses. I will do my best to get in as many supplementary questions as I can. It is unlikely that I will get them all in, but I will do my best.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what engagement it has had with Seafood Scotland regarding the development of the Scottish ocean cluster. (S6O-04898)

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

I was fortunate to join Seafood Scotland for the launch of its ocean cluster project at the Seafood Expo Global conference in May. The project represents a welcome new approach to maximising the value and sustainability of our seafood industry by focusing on the critical opportunity of utilising industry by-products that have traditionally been underutilised or simply discarded. I am hopeful that the project will drive further innovation and sustainability in our seafood while, at the same time, maximising the value that we get from those products.

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

The Scottish ocean cluster has the potential to drive innovation and entrepreneurship in the blue economy by creating value from underutilised sidestreams. A successful Iceland ocean cluster—a model that Scotland seeks to emulate—has generated high-value jobs in engineering, artificial intelligence, product design and biotechnology, thereby contributing to vibrant and sustainable local economies. Furthermore, that ocean cluster has driven substantial growth in Iceland’s biotechnology sector and has resulted in the establishment of its first unicorn company, which creates high-value medical products from fish sidestreams—namely, cod skin. The Scottish ocean cluster would have the added benefit—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Question.

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

—of access to our established biotechnology and innovation facilities. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that development has significant merit, and will she agree to meet me?

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

Audrey Nicoll has raised some really important points. It has been exciting to see what has been developed in Iceland. We can only hope to build on that ambition and make the most of the opportunities that exist in Scotland to capitalise on innovation and new funding streams.

I am more than happy to commit to a meeting with Audrey Nicoll. It would be beneficial to include Seafood Scotland in the meeting, so that we can discuss the project in more detail.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

The cabinet secretary very helpfully accepted my invitation to join cockle fisher stakeholders at a meeting in Newton Stewart in July. At that meeting, she committed to come back with a progress report on the approach to opening a sustainable cockle fishery on the Solway. Will the cabinet secretary provide an update on progress?

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

I thank Finlay Carson for the meeting that I held with him and his constituent on such a fishery. We had a really helpful discussion. I am still waiting for more information from officials, but I will keep him updated. When I receive that information, I will look to discuss the issue further with him.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what the justification was at the time for the purchase of Glen Prosen by Forestry and Land Scotland in November 2022, with a reported cost to the public of £17.6 million. (S6O-04899)

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

The strategic objective of acquiring the additional land at Glen Prosen was to create a contiguous area of 10,000 hectares in public ownership across the Angus glens and in the Cairngorms national park. It provides an opportunity for the development of an exemplar of integrated land management that can demonstrate how habitat restoration, forestry, agriculture and other land uses can be combined in a way that furthers the Scottish Government’s aims for people’s wellbeing, nature recovery at scale, climate resilience and thriving rural communities.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

For three years, the only formal reason that was given for the purchase was “strategic importance”, although what that means has never been formally set out. The public did not ask for it, the people in the glen did not want it and, three years on, they still await the promised management plan that would explain its strategic importance. Given that, under the Scottish National Party’s new land reform legislation, failure to produce such a plan would result in a massive fine to the taxpayer, when will the plan be laid, what will the amount of the fine be if it is not, and from which budget will it come?

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

There has been significant consultation and engagement in the development of the land management plan, and I believe that the plan will be submitted to Scottish Forestry, the regulator, in the coming months. It has been finalised, but it has taken a long time to develop, purely because of the extensive engagement and consultation that has taken place. I hope that the Scottish Parliament will pass the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, which is progressing through the parliamentary processes. At that point, I will expect our public agencies to follow the plan and, if anything, lead by example when it comes to the different initiatives that we will introduce.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

We have just heard from the cabinet secretary that Forestry and Land Scotland purchased Glen Prosen for the purposes of nature recovery, climate resilience and public health and wellbeing activities, which are clearly in the public interest. When I consulted on my proposed land ownership and public interest bill, I found widespread support for a public interest test on transfers of large landholdings. Will the cabinet secretary support the inclusion of a public interest test in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill ahead of stage 3?

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

As the member will be aware, and as we have discussed at length during stage 2 consideration of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, we have looked at introducing wording that would reference a public interest test in a way that is ultimately workable and that would achieve the aims that we have set out in the bill.

I look forward to continuing to engage with Mercedes Villalba and members across the chamber as we look to strengthen the bill and work on amendments ahead of stage 3.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government what work it is doing to support sustainable farming and food production that is based on improving biodiversity. (S6O-04900)

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

As per the vision for agriculture, Scotland will have a support framework that delivers high-quality food production, climate mitigation and adaptation and nature restoration. The agri-environment climate scheme continues to support targeted environmental actions, with £339 million having been committed since 2015. The £14 million future farming investment scheme will facilitate farmer-led actions to restore nature, address climate change and improve business efficiency.

We have new requirements to prevent damage to peatlands and wetlands, and the whole farm plan biodiversity audit encourages the adoption of nature-friendly approaches. The transition to the four-tier framework will further incentivise farmers and crofters to improve biodiversity.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

As of last week, support payments of more than £322 million had reached the accounts of farmers and crofters. Uniquely in the United Kingdom, Scotland has maintained direct payments, showing that the Scottish National Party values the work of farmers and crofters and knows the importance of stability and the ability to plan. How much of that funding has been received by Ayrshire agricultural businesses compared with equivalent businesses in England, thanks to the SNP’s policies?

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

The Government whole-heartedly supports our farmers and crofters. We recognise how crucial forward planning is for agricultural businesses, which is why we have committed to having no cliff edge in support as we transition to the new four-tier framework.

As of 8 September, basic payments scheme and greening 2025 advance payments worth £21,799,762 have been issued to businesses in Ayrshire local authority areas. That is one part of a wider package of support, including the aforementioned agri-environment scheme, that we are delivering to farmers and crofters. I point out that Andrew Connon of NFU Scotland was delighted to see farmers receiving those payments.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Scotland has legislated for sustainable regenerative agriculture, but stakeholders—farmers and other people who are employed in the sector—are concerned that little has been done to provide the education and training opportunities that are needed for that urgent shift. Without a properly funded long-term education and skills pipeline, there is a real risk that the transition in agriculture will stall before it has had a chance to get started. What consideration has the minister given to allocating a greater proportion of funding to the education and skills tier of the farm support budget, to ensure that the agricultural workforce has the skills and training that it needs?

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

I am sure that Ariane Burgess knows that a range of things happen in agriculture that help knowledge exchange between farmers and among the community. In specific terms, tier 4 of the framework is about continuous personal development, and it will continue to help farmers to get to a place where they can deliver the vision of the agriculture programme.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the cross-Government co-ordination on islands, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action to ensure that island communities are protected through an effective flood resilience strategy, in light of Audit Scotland’s reported findings on weaknesses in preparedness. (S6O-04901)

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

Climate change adaptation and improving resilience to flooding, including for our island communities, are priorities for the Scottish Government across ministerial portfolios. The recently completed Millport coastal flood protection scheme exemplifies that commitment. We have invested £39 million to safeguard island homes, businesses and critical infrastructure, which demonstrates how national leadership and local delivery can build real resilience for island communities. We are carefully considering Audit Scotland’s report, while noting that many of its recommendations align with work that is already under way as part of our national flood resilience strategy, which itself was subject to an island community impact assessment and requires cross-Government working.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The Auditor General’s report highlights that Scotland does not have a clear national plan to improve communities’ resilience to flooding. It says that the funding model is

“not fit for purpose”,

with costs rising from

“£350 million to over £1 billion.”

In a previous answer, the minister spoke of providing whole-hearted support for farmers and crofters—and I assume that he also meant support for our communities—so why is it that, after 17 years in government, the Scottish National Party has failed to produce a fully costed, time-bound flood resilience plan? When will such a plan finally be put in place?

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

I dispute Martin Whitfield’s characterisation. I point out that the report stated that there has been

“a positive step forward in providing the strategic leadership that is needed”.

The Scottish Government has funded improvements to flood resilience across communities in Scotland since 2016. It has allocated more than £570 million to local authorities to support flood protection schemes and wider flood resilience.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There are a number of supplementary questions—I will try to get in as many as I can.

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

My constituency is prone to significant flooding, and at the weekend alerts were again issued for Stornoway and Baleshare. The minister might be aware that the Baleshare causeway was built in the 1960s. Given that, since the original construction, upgrades have been limited, and given that the community in Baleshare is now frequently cut off from the rest of North Uist due to flooding, what avenues might be available to support that vital work?

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

As ministers, we take the impact of coastal flooding and erosion on local communities, such as the community in Baleshare, very seriously. As such, we have published guidance to support local authorities to develop coastal change adaptation plans. Over this parliamentary session, almost £12 million will be invested to support such adaptation.

Scotland’s national islands plan sets out the actions and investments that the Scottish Government intends to put in place to meaningfully improve outcomes for island communities, including building resilience to climate change. A new national islands plan will be developed for publication this year, and we will continue to listen to and be guided by islanders to ensure that it continues to deliver on our shared vision for thriving, sustainable and successful island communities.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The Government cannot do that on its own. It needs partnership with farmers and landowners, both on islands and across the country, but that simply is not happening. We should be using best practice and natural water management measures. However, there has been no proper discussion and no roll-out of best practice. When will that happen?

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

I hear Willie Rennie’s points. We have had these conversations before. I am alive to the fact that we need those landscape-scale interventions if we are to ensure that we develop proper flood strategies. I am absolutely committed to looking at that.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

A number of flood prevention schemes have been constructed on the isle of Cumbrae in recent years, the most recent being on Millport waterfront—a £48 million investment that is 80 per cent funded by the Scottish Government. What impact does the minister envisage that that investment will have on the long-term security of Millport against the adverse impacts of climate change?

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

The Millport coastal flood protection scheme exemplifies our commitment to improving resilience to flooding in our island communities. It was completed last year and provides a one-in-200-year standard of protection for the 2km of Millport’s coastline. It has improved flood protection for more than 650 homes and businesses by reducing the risk of flooding and tidal overtopping and by improving community resilience to the impacts of climate change and the increased frequency of storms. The scheme not only safeguards homes, businesses and critical infrastructure in Millport; it demonstrates how national leadership, local delivery and partnership working, which relate to Willie Rennie’s point, can help us to build real resilience for island communities.

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

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support small-scale food producers in rural communities, in light of its commitments under the national good food nation plan. (S6O-04902)

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

The Scottish Government remains committed to supporting small-scale producers and empowering them to help deliver our vision for agriculture. This year, the small producers pilot fund is providing up to £1 million in resource funding, which includes support for the practical training fund, to help small producers to access training and build stronger, sustainable businesses. The practical training fund supports our good food nation ambitions by providing access to training on sustainable food production for small producers, who will play a role in advancing the outcomes that are set out in the proposed national good food nation plan.

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

The cabinet secretary will know that two fantastic local producers in my constituency, at Mossgiel farm and Corrie Mains farm, have lost their school contracts with East Ayrshire Council. Those businesses have long supported sustainable food, local jobs and the good food nation vision, and have helped East Ayrshire to achieve gold status under the Soil Association’s good food for life scheme. The decision is a real setback, and it raises serious questions about the procurement rules that councils must follow. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is time to review the frameworks to ensure that they do not end up working against the very goals that we are trying to achieve collectively?

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

I completely understand the concern that Elena Whitham raises. I point out that such decisions are for East Ayrshire Council to take, because public bodies are responsible for their own procurement decisions. However, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 already includes a range of drivers to increase the quality and consider the provenance of the food and drink that are procured. The Economy and Fair Work Committee undertook a review of the 2014 act and made a number of recommendations, which the Minister for Public Finance followed up on. I believe that the committee is due to receive an update on the recommendations that were made.

We of course wish to support our local producers. Scotland Excel does a lot of work to ensure that producers are in the best position possible to bid for public contracts, so that we do not end up in the situation that has been described. I am always keen to see what more we can do in relation to that, which is why public procurement is highlighted in the good food nation plan.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the potential impact on farmers and food producers of the introduction of meat-free days in public institutions, such as schools and hospitals. (S6O-04903)

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

It will come as no surprise to Murdo Fraser to hear me say that Scottish red meat is world renowned and is recognised as a good source of vital nutrients, including iron, zinc and vitamin B12. We continue to work with the sector to ensure that it thrives as part of a climate-smart food system. Decisions on which meals to serve are matters for each managing authority—whether it be public or private—because we recognise that they are best placed to take into account local dietary needs and demands. For example, in schools, provided that statutory food and drink standards are met, decisions on which products to include on menus are matters for the local authority.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I congratulate the minister on his track record in producing healthy red meat on Scottish farms, but he will be familiar with the concern that Scottish farmers and food producers have expressed about the growth of meat-free days—for example, on school menus—and about the substitution of meat with heavily processed meat substitutes, instead of healthy, home-produced Scottish meat products.

In the area that the minister and I both represent, a group called ProVeg International is actively involved in designing school menus to reduce the availability of meat. Does the minister agree that we should support choice when it comes to menus in schools and elsewhere and that, just as there should always be vegetarian and vegan options for those who want to choose them, there should also be the option of healthy, home-produced meat for those who wish to choose it?

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

I am grateful to Murdo Fraser for bringing up that question, because the issue is close to my heart. I am aware of the concerns and campaigns among some stakeholders, and of the potential impact on farmers and food producers of the introduction of meat-free days in public institutions. Indeed, I will meet the local campaigner on that very issue on 19 September, in my capacity as a constituency MSP.

The Scottish Government continues to keep a focus on food policy, based on scientific evidence, and in partnership with bodies such as Food Standards Scotland. I absolutely get the point that Murdo Fraser is making, which is that we should have a balanced diet for our children and young people.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government at what stage the current funding application is for the Edinburgh biomes project at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. (S6O-04904)

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

The Scottish Government has already committed £58 million to the Edinburgh biomes programme over the past five years, to the end of 2025-26. We will continue to play an important role in supporting the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh as it moves forward with delivery of the programme, within overall budget constraints across the public sector. The process to determine capital funding provision for future years is under way, and regular discussions with the botanic garden continues, to ensure that it is fully engaged with that process.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the risk to that globally important living collection of plants if the heating system were to fail, which reinforces the importance of delivering the project. The uncertainty of funding each financial year makes planning the project even more challenging. What assurance can the cabinet secretary give the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh that it will receive the necessary funding to complete the project? Will she agree to visit the site with me and other Edinburgh MSPs to see the global importance of the project?

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

I am more than happy to commit to that meeting. I absolutely agree with Miles Briggs on the overall importance of the project.

I emphasise, and offer assurance, that our officials are in regular discussion about the matter with the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. We have already provided quite a lot of flexibility in relation to spend and attempts to reprofile that, in recognition of challenges that could not have been foreseen when the project was first initiated.

We all want to see the project be a success. A refreshed business case is being worked on, which will feed into the budget processes. I am more than happy to continue the discussion and undertake that visit.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

How exactly does the Scottish Government plan to protect vital carbon mitigation research at the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh in the interim period while the biomes project secures funding?

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

I would like to say how much we value the work that the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh undertakes through its research and in relation to its collections. I hope that I have emphasised that so far. That is why we work so closely with it, and particularly through the difficult budget situation that we are all facing at the moment. We all want to work to support the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, which is certainly what I am committed to doing.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government, in relation to its policies on land reform and land use, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding any action that can be taken to address concerns about derelict land and vacant buildings in urban areas, including Glasgow. (S6O-04905)

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

I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues relating to land reform and particularly to the links between the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and other Government policies. The Government is very aware of the harm that vacant and derelict sites can cause to communities, and we are providing resources to address those issues. Glasgow City Council is receiving £1.9 million this year from the vacant and derelict land fund. In addition, we are seeking to reform and modernise compulsory purchase. We are also reviewing the community right to buy.

Annie Wells (Conservative, Glasgow)

What steps will the Scottish Government take to ensure that the land that has been left derelict since the demolition of the Red Road flats more than a decade ago is finally brought back into productive use, given that the local community has been left feeling ignored and let down during this time, and in light of its responsibilities for land reform and community empowerment?

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

If the member writes to me about the particular issue that she just highlighted, I will be more than happy to come back with more specific detail. A number of different reforms are under way that I think will help to address some of that situation. I have already mentioned the vacant and derelict land fund. We are also undertaking a review of community right to buy, which I think will assist. We have the Scottish land fund and the review of compulsory purchase orders. As a Government, we have also committed to undertaking a consultation on compulsory sales orders. Those measures in the round, as well as what we are doing more broadly in relation to land reform, will help us to better address the problems and blights that exist in our communities.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

The urban blight and unfulfilled potential of derelict buildings such as the Interfloor factory building in Dumfries have been an issue for many years, and I have campaigned about it, along with residents and businesses. What more could the United Kingdom Government do to change the tax system that it controls to promote refurbishment and regeneration and to avoid people defaulting to demolition purely because of tax regulations?

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

Discussions are on-going with the UK Government on those issues. One of the best solutions to the discrepancy in the tax treatment of refurbishment and retrofitting would be for the UK Government to equalise the relevant VAT rates. That would definitely bring benefits for the regeneration of communities, while also contributing to our net zero ambitions by reducing the emissions that are caused by demolition and new construction. I am happy to follow up on that with my Government colleagues and to respond to Emma Harper in more detail.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes questions on the rural affairs, land reform and islands portfolio. I apologise to the members I was not able to call. To allow front-bench members to change places, there will be a brief pause before we move to the next portfolio.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next portfolio is health and social care. I remind those members who were not in the chamber earlier that we are tight for time across the afternoon. I will try to get in as many supplementaries as I can, but questions and responses will need to be as brief as possible.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recently published report by National Records of Scotland, “Healthy Life Expectancy, 2021-2023”. (S6O-04906)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

The Government remains committed to supporting everyone to live longer, healthier and more fulfilling lives. We recognise that the latest report indicates that there has been a slight decline in Scottish healthy life expectancy, which is the number of years for which people can expect to live in good health.

Experts attribute the stalling of improvements and the widening of health inequalities in Scotland to successive economic shocks, which include austerity, Brexit, Covid-19 and the on-going cost of living crisis. To tackle those inequalities, the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have jointly published a 10-year population health framework that aims to improve life expectancy—which is an objective measure—while closing the gap between the life expectancy of the most deprived 20 per cent of communities and the national average.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Healthy life expectancy estimates for both men and women in Scotland have hit their lowest point since records began in 2014. There are also clear regional variations, with North Ayrshire having the joint lowest healthy life expectancy, at 52.5 years for women and 52.6 years for men. What work is the Scottish Government doing to improve healthy life expectancy nationally, and what work is it doing with North Ayrshire Council and NHS Ayrshire and Arran specifically in relation to North Ayrshire?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise that the issue of the inequalities that exist across Scotland is one that the Government needs to look at alongside local authorities and health boards. That is why we have introduced the population health framework. As part of that, three Marmot pilots will look specifically at how areas can take a whole-community approach to supporting their communities.

I was pleased to be able to visit a project—not in the member’s constituency, but in South Lanarkshire—that is looking at whole family support in areas of inequality to support a move to a better population health position.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

In April, the Scottish Fiscal Commission published its “Fiscal Sustainability Report”, which raised concerns about the pressures that ill health will place on future Scottish budgets. It said that, if population health improved relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, fiscal pressure could be eased, but it would rise if population health worsened. Given that healthy life expectancy has been falling since 2014 to 2016, is the minister concerned that we might be on a path to the worst health scenario projection?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I recognise the amount of work that Brian Whittle does in the area of preventative health activity. The Scottish Government has looked at tobacco and vaping and is working with the United Kingdom Government on a bill that will try to reduce people’s reliance on tobacco and vaping. In October, we will bring in regulations in relation to healthy food options, and specifically on high fat, salt and sugar. There is also the legislation on minimum unit pricing for alcohol. We are working closely with the UK Government to ensure that the gambling levy funding is allocated specifically to support people with gambling issues, which can also impact on their health.

This Government is ensuring that we take a health in all policies approach to improving people’s health because, if we do not have healthy people, we do not have healthy businesses or a healthy Scotland. That is what I am working towards.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask for more brevity in responses.

Question 2 was not lodged.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I am already on my feet, Deputy Presiding Officer.

To ask the Scottish Government what information it holds on the number of children currently waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment and the median length of wait. (S6O-04908)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The Scottish Government does not hold data relating to the number of children waiting for an ADHD assessment or to the length of waits. Health boards hold their own data on that.

As I have previously acknowledged, work is needed to improve the quality of data that is available on neurodevelopmental support and services. We are working with health boards and local authorities to better understand what is available and how it can be used to support improvements for children and families.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I remind members of my diagnosis.

The minister’s answer speaks for itself. The reality is that there is a crisis in neurodiversity assessment and that the Government does not hold that data. How does it propose to fix the problem when it does not know the scale of the problem or even the length of waits? Children are going to wait until they are adults to be assessed. When will the Government introduce a comprehensive system of waiting time data and pathways for assessment?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The member will be aware that considerable work has already been undertaken on the development of pathways, both for children and young people and for adults.

On the point about data, as I stated in my original answer—and as I referred to in the statement that I gave to Parliament towards the end of June—we understand the issue and the interest in Parliament on the length of waiting lists and the median waits. That information is held by health boards.

I repeat the point that I made in my original answer and in response to questions in Parliament in June: we are working with health boards and engaging with local authorities to understand the picture more clearly. I am conscious of the member’s interest. As part of the pre-agreed summit between parties, we will have the opportunity for dialogue, and I am sure that we will be able to explore the area further.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

A couple of members wish to ask supplementary questions. I will try to get them both in, but they will need to be brief.

Karen Adam (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I welcome recent figures that show that the Scottish Government has met child and adolescent mental health services waiting time targets for the third successive quarter. However, we must maintain the momentum, particularly in the face of unprecedented demand for mental health and neurodevelopmental services. Will the minister say more about how health boards are being supported to improve their performance and provide our young people with the support that they so desperately need?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I put on the record my sincere thanks to the staff in our national health service CAMHS teams for their hard work. They play a vital role in making that achievement possible. However, we cannot be complacent. I agree with the member that we need to sustain that work and, importantly, ensure that standards are consistent across the country. That can be done only with direct support from the Scottish Government. Through our support framework, we continue to work with boards to meet those targets and ensure that they have robust improvement plans in place. We are also investing directly in a system to ensure that children and young people receive the support that they need, when they need it.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The minister’s response to Daniel Johnson sums up this Scottish National Party Government. How can he, as a minister, possibly be part of the solution when he does not even ask for the data? How can the minister possibly be able to put forward ideas, policies or anything at all if there is no data? Will the minister now ask the 14 health boards for the data? If necessary, will he put in his own freedom of information requests to find out what the data is? This is simply unacceptable.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

That is interesting, because Mr Kerr asked me a question on the matter when I gave a statement to the Parliament at the end of June. The point that he made about the importance of data to understanding the landscape and developing policy is important. I recognised that point then. I had recognised it in the statement that I gave to the Parliament, and I recognised it in both my original and supplementary answers to Daniel Johnson.

Of course there is a need for data and for understanding of it, but health boards hold that data. As I have stated and have indicated previously to the Parliament, my officials have been engaging directly with health boards to understand the range of data that is available and, importantly, how that data can be used and applied for the benefit of children and young people.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details regarding the announcement that NHS Dumfries and Galloway has moved to stage 3 of the NHS Scotland support and intervention framework. (S6O-04909)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

The NHS Scotland support and intervention framework is one of the key elements of monitoring performance and managing risk across the national health service in Scotland. All NHS boards are continuously reviewed against that framework, based on their financial performance.

The decision was taken to escalate NHS Dumfries and Galloway to stage 3 of the framework for finance. That will include increased oversight and co-ordinated engagement, ensuring that the board is provided with the appropriate support and that it returns to financial sustainability. Regular updates will be provided to ministers on the financial position of NHS Dumfries and Galloway following the escalation.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The escalation of the health board to stage 3 is a genuine concern for people across the NHS Dumfries and Galloway area, many of whom already struggle to access healthcare. The picture across Scotland is one in which health boards are under extreme pressure to make significant cost savings, rather than focusing on the day-to-day job of delivering the highest standards of healthcare.

Through its funding formula, the Scottish National Party Government has, in effect, left rural health boards high and dry and fending for themselves. It is systematically failing rural Scotland due to the skewed funding formula. Will the minister now commit to revising the NHS Scotland resource allocation committee funding formula to make sure that rural funding meets rural health needs and that health boards such as NHS Dumfries and Galloway are not left in an impossible situation?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I will point out to Craig Hoy a couple of facts about NRAC and the funding position. NRAC explicitly takes account of rurality and the challenge of delivering services in rural and island communities. That directly contradicts Mr Hoy’s understanding of NRAC.

When it comes to the financing of health boards across Scotland, we delivered at the budget a £21.7 billion funding settlement for health and social care services in Scotland. That was a record funding settlement, which the Tories opposed. Not only did they oppose it, but their tax and spending plans would have involved £1 billion coming out of the funding of public services and the decimation of the health service. Those were the plans that Mr Hoy put forward.

Emma Harper (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I recognise that the SNP Government is committed to fully funding our NHS to ensure that patients receive the best possible care. Given the challenges that have been described, will the cabinet secretary outline how NHS Dumfries and Galloway in particular will continue to benefit from record funding—notably that in the 2025-26 Scottish budget?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

In the 2025-26 budget, NHS boards received increased investment in their baseline funding, bringing total investment to more than £16.2 billion, with NHS Dumfries and Galloway receiving more than £425 million That represents an increase in investment of £60.7 million compared with 2024-25, including additional funding to provide for prior-year pay deals as well as a range of funding to support vital front-line services. NHS Dumfries and Galloway’s resource budget has increased by 22.3 per cent in real terms between 2010-11 and 2025-26, and in cash terms by £218 million between 2006-07 and 2025-26.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that paid-for visits at private health clinics in the first quarter of the year were at the highest level recorded in a single quarter. (S6O-04910)

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

My priority is to expand national health service capacity to cut waiting times. That is why we have invested a record £21.7 billion in the budget—which, I note, Labour MSPs refused to support. This year, we are targeting more than £110 million of that to cut waits. That targeted funding is expected to deliver more than 213,000 additional appointments and procedures this year. Clearly, our plan is working, given that a record number of hip and knee operations were performed last year. In July, the highest number of NHS operations were performed since February 2020.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The NHS was established by Labour to provide universal healthcare that is free at the point of use. The new Labour Government has provided the Scottish Government with record investment, but it has not been utilised effectively—that is self-evident. The choice that many of my constituents face is to spend their life savings on private healthcare or languish on waiting lists. That is a result of the failure of the Government after 18 years.

People in their 20s are waiting for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessments and elderly people are waiting for cataract removals. More and more people are being forced to seek private care out of desperation and pain. That is simply unacceptable, and it is reminiscent of a time before the national health service when private care was the only option. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the rise in paid-for visits to private clinics is a result of an NHS that is failing to meet people’s needs?

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I reiterate the point that I made in my initial response to Mr Sweeney, which is that my priority is to expand NHS capacity, and that is what is happening. July saw the largest number of operations performed in the national health service since back in February 2020, and a record number of hip and knee operations were performed in the NHS last year.

The number of paid-for private procedures in NHS Scotland is much lower than in other parts of the health service, including in areas where Labour is in charge, such as England. The level of paid-for private provision was 54 per cent higher in NHS England than in Scotland.

Our service delivery would be made much easier if we were able to recruit internationally. On that, I ask Mr Sweeney to lobby the United Kingdom Government to stop the decimation of social care and health visas, which were down by 77 per cent last year. That would enable us to recruit into the positions that can help us to get through those waits.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to increase the availability of residential social care beds in the west of Scotland, in light of reported closures and service reductions in the region. (S6O-04911)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

We do not want to see the closure of good-quality care homes, and we understand the concern that the issue causes residents and families.

Regrettably, care homes can close for various reasons. It is outwith the remit of the Scottish Government to intervene. Although we have overall responsibility for social care policy in Scotland, the statutory responsibility for delivering, commissioning and providing appropriate social care support at a local level lies with local authorities, national health service boards and integrated health and social care partnerships.

Funding for health and social care is at a record level. Our 2025-26 budget will invest £21.7 billion into the sector, including almost £2.2 billion of investment for social care and integration. That delivers on our commitment to increase social care spending by 25 per cent during this parliamentary session—two years ahead of schedule.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, as unsurprising as it is. If social care spending is at record levels, why are care homes in Greenock and Paisley closing down? Why are services on Arran reducing capacity? Why are the majority of care homes that are closing citing financial viability as the primary reason for their closure?

We have lost more than 250 care homes, or more than 2,000 beds, during the past decade. As the minister knows, Donald Macaskill has said that the whole of Scotland’s social care sector is in crisis. I have constituents who are languishing in hospital when they should be in a care home. What will the Scottish Government do about that?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

The member’s final point relates to delayed discharges. The cabinet secretary and I engage closely with integration joint boards, health boards and wider partners to work to drive improvement. Although we have a challenge nationally, we see examples of excellent practice across the country. Part of the challenge is to ensure that parts of the country where performance is not where it should be can learn from other parts of the country.

The member will appreciate that many of the challenges that are faced by our social care sector—and particularly by residential care homes—are the result of macroeconomic factors that are outwith the immediate control of the Scottish Government. We have been through a period of significant inflation, and policy decisions have had a significant impact, not least the UK Government’s decision on national insurance.

We are committed to working constructively with our partners at the local level to ensure that we provide support for our social care sector, and we will continue to do so.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I remind members that the initial question was about residential social care in the west of Scotland.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

I am sure that the minister shares my concern that a number of residential beds are at risk of being lost following the UK Labour Government’s reckless decision to raise employer national insurance contributions, which is estimated to add a further cost of more than £84 million to Scotland’s social care sector. Will the minister join me in calling on the UK Labour Government to immediately reimburse those costs in full to stop that unnecessary harm to vital lifeline services across the country?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Minister, please link your answer back to the substantive question.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

Yes, Presiding Officer.

The issue impacts the west of Scotland and many other parts of the country. The Scottish Government is deeply concerned about the impact that the UK Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions will have on the social care sector in Scotland. The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities continue to press the UK Government to fund the impacts of those changes on Scottish public services in full. I include the vital services that are provided on behalf of local authorities by providers in the private and third sectors, such as the non-profit social care sector. Scottish Government officials have estimated that the social care sector faces additional costs of more than £84 million as a result of that decision.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

Recognising the need to improve the terms and conditions of the existing social care workforce, the Scottish Government was on the verge of allocating £38 million in funding to enhance sick pay, maternity pay and paternity pay provisions, which would in turn have helped to reduce the loss of care home spaces in the west of Scotland. That was 18 months ago. The money disappeared at the 11th hour. Has that work been abandoned, or will we see the return of the £38 million pot to address the terms and conditions of the social care workforce?

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I have already outlined the investment that the Scottish Government is providing to social care to help to ensure that we drive up standards, including payment of at least the real living wage. We are taking forward work on sectoral bargaining. I have engaged constructively with the UK Government on its Employment Rights Bill process. We are committed to working constructively with our partners to drive forward standards in social care across Scotland. If Jackie Baillie is interested in the matter, I am sure that she will bring forward reasoned proposals as part of the budget-setting process, rather than sit on her hands, as she did earlier this year.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the United Kingdom Government’s recently announced funding to test new ways to tackle obesity and the reported limited access to weight management treatments across Scotland, what steps it is taking to ensure that people in rural areas, such as Dumfries and Galloway, can access new weight loss treatments, including through innovative models such as pharmacist-led pilot schemes in general practitioner practices. (S6O-04912)

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

We know that we need a whole-system approach to tackling obesity, with new treatments as part of a package of interventions that include prevention through making our food environment healthier. The Scottish Government and NHS Scotland issued a national consensus statement in September 2024 that recommended the introduction of obesity medications in a phased manner across national health service boards, so that people who are in greatest clinical need benefit first.

I welcome the UK-wide obesity pathway innovation programme funding competition, with up to £10 million ring fenced for devolved nations. Officials are working with all health boards, including NHS Dumfries and Galloway, and innovation leads to support development of bids that expand access to a range of weight management treatments across Scotland, which could include community pharmacy.

We are also working collaboratively on the development and subsequent implementation of a quality prescribing guide for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, including a section on treating obesity.

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

Obesity remains one of the most pressing public health challenges that we face, and access to effective treatments is vital if we are to improve outcomes and reduce long-term pressures on our NHS. However, I continue to hear from constituents in Dumfries and Galloway that access to the new medication is extremely limited. In a recent response, NHS Dumfries and Galloway stated that it had not even undertaken a cost benefit analysis of the use of the new drugs, so how can we ensure that such treatments are patient centred?

Jenni Minto (Scottish National Party, Argyll and Bute)

I thank Finlay Carson for his follow-up question, and I recognise how much I appreciated visiting a community-led pharmacy in Newton Stewart, in his constituency, in the summer.

I recognise that we have to ensure that all boards have pathways to ensure that people who need obesity-reducing drugs can have them. We have been speaking directly with NHS Dumfries and Galloway, alongside other health boards that are considering how to implement such pathways, but we have so far been unable to reach an internal agreement on how to progress that through services, finance and primary care. However, I am happy to follow that up with Finlay Carson.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on how it is supporting adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to access medication. (S6O-04913)

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

First, I clarify that not all adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder require medication and that a range of non-pharmacological supports should be made available following diagnosis. When medication is required, it can be prescribed by specialist services following a formal diagnosis of ADHD.

My officials have liaised with national health service boards across Scotland to understand what provision they have in place to deliver adult neurodevelopmental assessments, and we are exploring how to address current issues that are contributing to long waiting times for assessment. In addition, we fund the national autism implementation team, which is supporting NHS boards to develop, enhance and redesign existing local adult neurodevelopmental services.

Marie McNair (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I have been contacted by a constituent who received a psychiatric assessment and an ADHD diagnosis when residing in England and who was advised that his general practitioner was willing to prescribe Ritalin. However, he has been refused such a prescription in Scotland, apparently because of the need for a psychiatric assessment here. My constituent is therefore without the medication that he desperately needs, despite having a diagnosis and a GP who is willing to prescribe Ritalin. Will the minister intervene in this case and help to secure the support that my constituent needs?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

As briefly as possible, minister.

Tom Arthur (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire South)

I acknowledge that the increase in adults undertaking neurodevelopmental assessment across Scotland is creating challenges for services. The risks of underprescribing need to be carefully balanced against the potential risks of inappropriate prescribing.

As I hope that the member appreciates, decisions on prescribing should be led by the appropriate clinicians. We are aware that different health boards have adopted varying approaches to private diagnosis or diagnosis from outside Scotland. We are aware that NHS Lothian, for example, has issued guidance to support clinicians. My officials will draw on the experience of health boards and explore a sustainable solution that effectively addresses the balance of risks.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I apologise again to members whom I was not able to call for supplementaries. That concludes portfolio question time.

Scotland’s Finances

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18779, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on improving Scotland’s finances. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Murdo Fraser to speak to and move the motion.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is my great pleasure to open the debate on improving Scotland’s finances—an ambition that I am sure we all share across the chamber.

To help to inform the debate, I note that, over the past few weeks, we have had two significant publications highlighting the state of public finances in Scotland. Just last month, we had from the Scottish Government the annual “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” report, which sets out what is, in effect, an income and expenditure analysis not just for the Scottish Government but for the totality of public spending in Scotland. The messages from that report are stark. The net fiscal deficit for Scotland now stands at £26.5 billion, which represents the gap between the amount of money that is raised here in taxes and the total that is actually spent. That figure represents 11.7 per cent of gross domestic product—twice the United Kingdom level.

In practical terms, that means that if Scotland were to become an independent country, the Government of the day would have to find around £13 billion, either in tax rises or in public spending, just to mitigate the current level of UK fiscal deficit—

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am happy to give way to Mr McKee, who will explain to us where that £13 billion would come from.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Murdo Fraser is barely a minute into his opening remarks and he has completely misrepresented what GERS is. He should know that it is very clearly Scotland’s fiscal position under the current constitutional arrangements. The whole point of independence is that it would give us the capability to raise more money and spend it more effectively than we currently do.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr McKee has let the cat out of the bag: he has just said that we would have the opportunity to raise more money. I will give way to him again if he can give me one example of how the extra £13 billion would be raised.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The whole point is that we would not have to raise that amount of extra money, because we would not be paying for significant parts of the Whitehall machinery and other costs that are incurred down south that Scotland receives no benefit from but that are allocated to our expenditure. Through growing the economy by focusing on our strongest sectors, we can emulate countries such as Ireland, which has many tens of billions of surplus euros, or Norway, with its trillion-dollar wealth fund. We would be in the position to do that if we were an independent country.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I will give you the time back, Mr Fraser.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That was a U-turn from Mr McKee within 10 seconds. He stood up and said that we would raise the money, but he has changed his mind completely in the course of just a few seconds. Let me move on, because Mr McKee has already taken up half my time with his intervention.

As is revealed in the GERS figures, the union dividend now accounts for £2,600 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. With that level of extra cash to spend on the national health service, education, justice and infrastructure, surely Scottish residents have the right to expect public services that are so much higher in quality than those in the rest of the UK. Patently, that is not their experience, and, in many cases, outcomes in Scotland are poorer than they are in England, where much less money is being spent.

The second publication that should concern us is the latest report from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which is the independent watchdog that exists to scrutinise Scottish public finances. The SFC has identified an economic performance gap that it estimates will cost the public sector £1.058 billion in the current fiscal year. In practice, that means that we are losing £1 billion in revenue that would otherwise accrue if Scotland’s economy performed at least at the level of the UK average. The consequences of Scotland’s relative economic underperformance are severe. According to the SFC, the Scottish Government faces a projected £851 million negative reconciliation in the financial year 2027-28, exceeding current borrowing limits, due to the slower increase in earnings in Scotland compared with that in the rest of the UK. At present, no one in the Scottish Government has any idea how that can be funded. Even more seriously, extending to the financial year 2029-30, according to the SFC, Scotland faces a projected £4.8 billion fiscal gap that is made up of resource spending of £2.6 billion and capital spend of £2.1 billion.

The simple fact is that spending is growing faster than revenue, fuelled by increases in the public sector pay bill and the growth in welfare spending. Despite pledges from the Scottish National Party to reduce the size of the public sector workforce, the devolved civil service has grown by almost 60 per cent since 2018-19. Increased pay deals will simply add to the burgeoning public sector cost unless the workforce reductions that were promised are delivered. Perhaps the biggest concern is around social protection spending, which has grown by 55 per cent in real terms since 2020-21, crowding out other budgets. As the SFC makes clear, that is simply not affordable.

Whichever party is in government by 2029-30, that black hole has to be filled. So far, the SNP is in complete denial about the scale of the problem, perhaps hoping that, by then, it will be somebody else’s responsibility to fix it or that Westminster will, once again, come to the rescue—although, given the state of the economy and the UK’s finances under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, it is likely to be very disappointed.

So, what do we believe needs to happen? First, we are past the point at which we need to end short-termism in Government spending. We need a full multiyear spending review to identify priorities, make savings and inform needs. Secondly, we need a strategy to cap welfare spending growth, which is currently consuming too large a share of resource spending. Simply put, we have too many people of working age who are in receipt of benefits when they should be part of the workforce. That requires investment in apprenticeships and reskilling, as well as schemes to assist those who are currently far from the workplace to be engaged in meaningful employment.

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member will be concluding shortly.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise to Mr Macpherson.

Thirdly, we need proper public service reform to see where savings can be made. Mr McKee promises that he can find £1 billion-worth of backroom savings in Government departments, although we have yet to see a detailed plan for that, and private correspondence that was released following freedom of information requests suggests that his ideas have been met with something other than enthusiasm by his cabinet secretary. However, doing that would be, at least, a start, and we encourage Mr McKee to do that good work on our behalf.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, we need a proper focus on productivity and economic growth to broaden Scotland’s tax base. Only by allowing private sector businesses to thrive, thereby expanding the economy, will we see more better-paid jobs created and greater tax revenues generated to fund the public services that we all need.

In conclusion, it is clear that the SNP is clueless about how to address the enormous financial black hole that it has created. Only the Scottish Conservatives have the ideas to tackle the issue. That is the point that is made in our motion today, which I am pleased to move.

I move,

That the Parliament notes with deep concern the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast of a £4.7 billion funding gap in 2029-30; recognises that without the Union dividend of £2,578 per person there would be a substantial deficit, with Scotland’s 2024-25 net fiscal balancing standing at -£26.5 billion (-11.7% of GDP); regrets that the Scottish Government continues to dismiss these realities and prioritise constitutional campaigning over sound financial management; calls for urgent measures to restore credibility to Scotland’s finances, including a full multi-year spending review to identify priorities, savings, and reform needs, a strategy to cap welfare spending growth, which is currently consuming a significant amount of resource growth, and create jobs by moving more people into work through reskilling and apprenticeships, a focus on productivity and economic growth to broaden Scotland’s tax base by allowing businesses to thrive, and a robust public service reform and stronger Audit Scotland oversight to deliver better value; believes that the Parliament must focus on NHS waiting times, education standards, and community safety rather than fiscal denialism, and resolves that Scotland’s future depends on fiscal discipline, growth, and accountable government within the United Kingdom.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing attention to the fact that the Scottish Government has been constrained for many years by the austerity measures of the UK Government, which were taken forward by the Conservative Party.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The GERS figures that I referred to earlier show that public sector spending in Scotland is now equivalent to 52 per cent of gross domestic product. If that is austerity, at what level does Mr McKee think it should be?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

What has happened over those years is clear, and nobody would deny that we have been under those austerity measures. As I said before, the whole point of independence is to put us in a position where the constitutional arrangements allow us to grow the economy and focus on what is important to deliver increased tax revenues across Scotland. I thank Murdo Fraser for giving us the opportunity to highlight the positive actions that this Government is taking in what is a very challenging fiscal environment.

The Scottish Government has balanced the budget in each and every financial year, against the backdrop of economic turmoil and hardship for many.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

You have to.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I hear Conservative members shouting that we have to do that. Of course we do. The point is that we do it—we deliver that every year—which requires us to manage the budgets that we have in front of us effectively and efficiently. That does not happen by itself. Enormous pressures have been placed on public and household finances by prolonged Westminster austerity; the economic damage of Brexit, which costs us £2.3 billion in public sector revenues every year; the Covid pandemic; the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis, which has been made worse by both UK Governments during the past few years; and inflation shocks. However, this Government has deployed every lever at our disposal to ensure that we stay true to our values and deliver for the people of Scotland while delivering a balanced budget. That is fiscal discipline in action.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister says that he can balance the budget between now and the end of the decade by saving £1 billion in public expenditure through cutting waste and reducing the public sector workforce. His colleagues said that they had considerable concerns about his £1 billion figure. Can he say what those concerns were?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The reality is that we are going to deliver that. If the member wants to know where the number comes from, it comes from the numbers that we published last year. Openly, across the whole public sector, spend on corporate costs will reduce by 20 per cent over the next five years, at 4 per cent per year. That will involve a range of measures, including in procurement, where we have already saved more than £200 million; in estates, where we have already saved many tens of millions of pounds; and in workforce reduction. That is where the £1 billion is coming from, and the member should have no doubt that we are going to deliver that.

The current UK Government appears to be continuing the trend of austerity, and its spending decisions will significantly hamper Scotland’s fiscal position for the coming year. The UK spending review was a missed opportunity to take the necessary measures to stimulate economic growth and put public services on a sustainable path.

Our funding for day-to-day spending is set to grow by only 0.8 per cent in real terms over the next three years. Had our funding for day-to-day priorities grown in line with the UK Government’s overall spending, we would have £1.1 billion more to spend on priorities over the next three years.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

What would the minister say to Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that under no circumstances could what the UK Government is doing be described as austerity across the UK? Will the minister acknowledge that there is an additional £2,600 per person in Scotland? It is not austerity, and the independent experts say that it is not.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I have just clearly said that, if our spending in Scotland had been growing at the same rate as UK Government spending was growing, in total, we would have £1.1 billion more to spend on our priorities over the next three years.

I want to talk about the actions that we are taking. We have a very thorough public service reform strategy, which was published in June and which we are taking forward across a whole range of activities to deliver that £1 billion. The fiscal sustainability delivery plan sets out a clear and credible path to managing Scotland’s public finances over the next five years by increasing value from our spending and driving efficiency and productivity across public services; delivering sustainable and inclusive economic growth; expanding Scotland’s tax base and creating more good jobs; and taking a strategic approach to taxation to ensure that the tax system is fair and competitive and that it delivers sustainable revenues.

We have committed to a Scottish spending review—which Murdo Fraser called for—and that is happening, as he well knows, alongside the 2026-27 Scottish budget. That will provide the spending plans for three years for resource and four years for capital, with spending focused on delivering the greatest impact across our four priorities of eradicating child poverty, tackling climate change, growing the economy and ensuring high-quality and sustainable public services. Those are our priorities and the priorities of the people of Scotland.

Ultimately, it is only with the full powers of independence and full control of fiscal levers that we can deploy a truly sustainable system to support efficient and effective public services that deliver for the people of Scotland. Until that time, we will continue to do everything within our powers to meet the challenges that our public finances face, and we have set out a clear path to achieving that.

I move amendment S6M-18779.3, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:

“that Scotland’s public services have been hampered by the UK Conservative administration’s austerity budgets; recognises the deep harm that the UK Conservative administration has done to the economies of the UK and Scotland with Brexit, and that this has reduced Scotland’s public spending by £2.3 billion annually; further recognises that this loss of public finances impacts on Scotland’s vital public services, including Scotland’s NHS, support for a just transition, and skills training; notes that a public sector reform programme is underway with the aim of saving public money while protecting the delivery of frontline services; believes that the UK Labour administration should either explore the application of wealth taxation or devolve the necessary powers to Scotland so that the Scottish Parliament can do so; welcomes that the Scottish Government has already announced plans for a three-year spending review to be published alongside the upcoming Budget, and believes that it is only with the powers of independence and full control of the fiscal levers that a truly sustainable and fair system can be developed to support efficiency and public service delivery.”

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Over the past 14 months, the UK Labour Government has decisively ended austerity and has already invested an additional £5.2 billion in Scotland. The UK spending review in June saw a further £9.1 billion of investment in Scotland over a three-year period.

That funding can be transformational for public services, which have been decimated by, yes, 14 years of Tory austerity, but also 18 years of SNP incompetence. The current fiscal arrangement—the Barnett formula and the pooling and sharing of resources across these islands—means that spending per person is significantly higher in Scotland than in England. The Scottish Government’s own GERS figures for 2024-25 show that spending per head in Scotland is more than £2,600 higher than the UK average.

For years, the SNP claimed that Tory austerity was the reason why public services in Scotland were so bad. It no longer has that excuse, yet more people in Tayside than in the whole of England are spending more than two years on NHS waiting lists. Scottish 15-year-olds are a full year behind their English counterparts in maths, and more than 10,000 Scottish children are living in temporary accommodation. Capital projects such as the A9 and the replacement of Barlinnie are running years—even decades—late, and costs are spiralling wildly out of control.

The largest block grant in the history of devolution has not even touched the sides of SNP incompetence and waste. No reasonable, responsible Government would put the Barnett formula at risk—that is absolutely clear—yet scrapping the Barnett formula is official SNP policy. Shona Robison told the Scottish Affairs Committee on 16 January 2025 that full fiscal autonomy was the Scottish Government’s preferred position. This very morning, the cabinet secretary told a tax conference here in Edinburgh that the SNP is “negotiating on that”.

Those words should send a shiver down the spine of every Scot. The SNP’s war on the Barnett formula would wipe £14 billion from Scotland’s annual budget. That is a quarter of our total budget, as set out in the GERS figures from the Scottish Government. Professor Mairi Spowage from the Fraser of Allander Institute said at that conference that, if we did that, Scotland would get a lot less funding. I would love to hear from Government ministers today how they think the negotiations to get rid of the Barnett formula for Scotland are going and what that level of cuts would mean for Scotland’s public services.

The approach has been panned by people who, unlike ministers, are looking at the facts. Respected institutions such as the IFS point out that drastic spending cuts and vast tax rises would be needed to balance the books were the SNP to have its way.

The SNP must recognise and learn that, as a responsible Government that works with the UK Government in a new kind of relationship, it has to take responsibility for Scotland, as a legitimate interlocutor with the UK Government. There must be an honest set of negotiations, but that has not been the case so far, with the Scottish Government having made £135 billion of spending demands since the UK Labour Government took over.

The SNP would know all that if it had bothered to do its homework first. The finance secretary admitted that no detailed work has been undertaken on full fiscal autonomy, and the Scottish Fiscal Commission told the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it has had “no instructions” on it from the Government, despite full fiscal autonomy being Government policy.

The truth is that that is a very serious misstep from a knackered SNP Government that has failed to deliver on the issues that really matter: Scotland’s NHS, schools and housing. Scotland has long suffered at the hands of the economically illiterate and fiscally inept SNP. A Scottish Labour Government will work in partnership—proper partnership—with the UK Government to translate the record investment into delivery on the ground. We will get the basics right, defend the Barnett formula, get Scotland’s NHS back on its feet and set the new direction that this country so badly needs.

I move amendment S6M-18779.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert:

“recognises that, as a result of the Barnett formula, spending per head of population is higher in Scotland and that full fiscal autonomy would end this arrangement.”

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Every year, when the GERS figures are published, unionist parties treat them as though they are some kind of gotcha. They claim that the numbers prove that Scotland cannot afford independence, but that is not what the GERS figures show. Depending on how accurately you rate them, they reflect Scotland’s finances inside the UK—inside the union. By definition, they cannot say anything about what Scotland’s finances would be like outside the UK.

Unfortunately for Mr Fraser and his colleagues, who are unable to come up with many persuasive things to say on the subject of the union, they cling to the GERS figures as an alternative to proper debate about the future of the union. They want independence supporters to just go quiet and disappear, but half of Scotland believes in independence, and we are not going away. Why? Because the union is not working for us. It allows the rich to get richer, unchecked. It sees cuts to services that are relied on by millions of people as the only way to balance the budget.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Lorna Slater take an intervention?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I will make some progress.

The UK is one of the most unequal countries in Europe. Wealth is concentrated in very few hands, while families across Scotland struggle. There is no shortage of money, but it is hoarded by a few, while millions struggle.

The UK child poverty figures are morally repugnant. As of April 2024, 4.5 million children in the UK—31 per cent—lived in relative poverty. That was a record high. A hundred thousand more children fell into poverty compared with the previous year. Most of those children—72 per cent—live in working households.

Food insecurity is widespread. In 2024, one in six UK households experienced hunger. More than 14 million people, including 3.8 million children, were food insecure. Child poverty is not just a number; it represents millions of people suffering inside the union.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will Ms Slater take an intervention?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I will carry on.

Nearly 1.7 million children are affected by the two-child benefit cap. That policy has pushed about 350,000 children into poverty and 700,000 into deeper poverty. The gap between rich and poor is not theoretical. A cross-party commission estimated that scrapping the two-child cap, paired with benefit increases, could lift 4.2 million people out of poverty, including 2.2 million people in deep poverty.

In environmental terms, the system is also failing us. Environmental taxes made up just 1.9 per cent of GDP in 2024. That was down from 2 per cent. You heard that correctly—during a climate crisis, the UK Government is collecting less in taxes through environmental measures. As a total share of taxation and social contributions, the figure dropped from 8.4 per cent in 1997 to 4.5 per cent in 2024. That decline persists even as the climate emergency intensifies and recognised economists are calling for change.

Overhauling tax powers to ensure that those who have profited from wrecking our climate pay for its clean-up is very reasonable and fair. How is it a just transition if ordinary workers are being asked to pay for the consequences of the actions of massive oil and gas corporations?

This week, University of Oxford experts argued in the Financial Times that a land and property wealth tax is vital in order to “improve housing affordability” and ensure that rising land values benefit society, not just landowners. However, Westminster does not act. Instead, it refuses to tax wealth properly, underfunds the NHS and lets polluters off the hook.

Environmental taxation income is falling when it must instead rise in order to pay for the just transition. Scotland can choose differently. With independence, we can choose to close the wealth gap to redistribute wealth.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You need to bring your remarks to a close now, Ms Slater.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

We can invest in public services. We can make Scotland a fairer and greener country when it is an independent country.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Today’s debate has turned into the usual constitutional battle, as these things do, but the Parliament needs to have an honest and grown-up conversation about the reality of Scotland’s finances, and I would like to think that we can do so. I say that not as someone taking a constitutional or political point of view but as a member of the Public Audit Committee, which is a great committee because we get sight of and scrutinise all the numbers, many of which have been quoted by speakers in the debate. We look at the numbers objectively and fairly, as does Audit Scotland.

We are talking not only about figures on a balance sheet but about people. When we look at the state of Scotland’s finances, we are talking about whether we have enough schoolteachers, whether people with mental health problems or additional support needs are being helped back into the workplace and whether there is enough money to build new ferries for our island communities or enough to fund outdoor education. Apparently, there is never enough money to do it all, but the numbers are serious, and the Conservatives are right to bring them to the Parliament’s attention today.

By 2030, there will be a £4.7 billion funding gap. That is the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s own number; it is not a made-up political number for a Daily Mail headline but a real, independently forecast number. The Government needs to have a harsh look at the reality, because it is in denial about the figures.

In the motion, another interesting point that I agree with is about scrutiny. I have a lot of respect for Audit Scotland’s role, but its powers are somewhat clipped at the moment, and I want to see them expanded. For example, there should be mandatory deadlines for ministerial responses to Audit Scotland’s section 22 reports. There should be stronger enforcement powers, in particular when issues of poor performance or financial mismanagement have been identified. I also want the Parliament’s committees to have enhanced scrutiny powers to ensure that any recommendations that they make actually lead to reform, because too many reports just sit on ministers’ shelves.

Too many projects have gone massively over budget. The new ferries were supposed to cost less than £100 million; the bill is now sitting at more than £400 million. What could the Government have done with that extra £300 million? What extra public services could it have supported with it? HMP Glasgow is 10 times over budget—the figure sits at nearly £1 billion of spending. We can argue about the reasons why that has happened, but think of the money that has been wasted on those inflationary costs. The A9 is already more than £100 million over budget. I suspect that that figure will rise massively, if it ever gets completed. We cannot blame all those costs on inflation, because had the projects been delivered on time—when inflation was incredibly low and money was cheap to borrow—it would not have mattered.

We need to improve Scotland’s productivity, which grew by only 1 per cent each year from 2008 to 2023. That is important because lack of economic activity affects how much money the Government has to spend. Taking more than £3 billion in additional tax revenues due to tax differentials north of the border has resulted in only just over £600 million of cash being available for the Government to spend. That is 20 per cent—20p in every extra pound that is paid by Scots. We have to look at that properly.

We also need to look at spend. The welfare budget is sitting at more than £6 billion and is due to rise to £9 billion. At the minute, it is 15 per cent of the entire budget, and it will rise. The health and social care budget is sitting at around 40 per cent of the entire budget. If we put those two areas together, 70 per cent of Scotland’s budget will be spent on two portfolios. Where does that leave education, transport, preventative healthcare and all the other measures? It is about time that we got people back into the workforce by supporting those who need it most.

The reality is that there is a £4.7 billion gap, productivity is lagging, and we are spending more than we are getting in income. That has to be addressed. We cannot talk, argue or borrow our way out of the problem. We will have to sit down as grown-ups in the room and agree a way out of it.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate, with back-bench speeches of up to four minutes.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My passion is the outcomes for Scottish children; that is, providing a positive future and ensuring an education that encourages knowledge and allows children to be children. What is essential to achieving such outcomes for our children? I would go as far as stating that, to achieve anything through a state-funded process, the robust health of our economy is essential, as it literally funds everything that we do.

The country is forecast to have a £4.7 billion funding gap by 2029-30, as highlighted by the Scottish Fiscal Commission. As our motion states,

“the Scottish Government continues to dismiss”

that as a reality. However, it is a reality, even if the Government refuses to recognise it. Making changes for the better comes from recognition and acceptance that there is a problem and actively taking steps to eradicate the issue. We have therefore requested measures in our motion. I will speak to the second of those measures, which is

“a strategy to cap welfare spending growth, which is currently consuming a significant amount of resource growth, and create jobs by moving more people into work through reskilling and apprenticeships”.

In Scotland, we carry too high a number of people who are economically inactive, and not enough is being done to fix that. I return, as I have many times, to parental employment. A paper was produced by the Social Justice and Social Security Committee containing answers to some of the issues that I have mentioned. What issues are preventing people from gaining continuing and meaningful employment? Too many people of working age are being let down by the basics of insufficient transport, lack of flexible childcare and restrictions in reskilling. In many cases, those three issues converge, making it completely impossible for people to come off welfare and support themselves.

When it comes to transport, bus services are restricted and restrictive. I have previously spoken about the fully subscribed Fife College course that had to be cancelled due to a timetable change by the local bus company. It does not take a genius to work out that, if people cannot get to work or college, they cannot participate.

I turn to childcare. I know that the Deputy First Minister shares my frustration on that issue. Childcare in Scotland is meant to ensure that the funding follows the child, but that is simply not true. We have disparity in the offer across 32 councils. There are councils barring children from outwith their local authority area, which restricts where and when parents work. The Scottish Government is forcing parents to choose between family and work, and that is unacceptable.

On reskilling, college places have been drastically underfunded by the SNP Government. People might get a college place, but they will be hindered by a lack of ability to get to college and by the inflexibility around their childcare offering.

It is essential that we grow our economy. In that way, we will increase the tax base and reduce the tax burden on the ever-squeezed middle earners, who are more than frustrated. Over the summer, I talked to many people who are, quite simply, hacked off with this Government. They pay more in taxes, have swallowed massive council tax rises and are facing exactly the same next year. They have been promised cheaper, greener fuel bills, but prices continue to rise. Frankly, there is simply too much month at the end of the money for far too many Scots. As politicians, we ignore them at our peril.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Once again, we are having a debate in which the Opposition says that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid to be independent. In this shameful, unfair union, Scotland is too wee in population terms, Scotland is too poor and Scotland would be incredibly stupid to stay in the union any longer. When Scotland was dragged into this union, our population was just over one fifth of that of England. Now, three centuries later, the population of Scotland is less than a tenth of that of England. That is the true union dividend—or rather, loss, which is what it really is.

The Tories are indeed correct: Scotland is too wee, and all thanks to their beloved union. Their campaign against the people of Scotland is still on-going. Scotland is in desperate need of new families and more children. What is the Westminster answer? Austerity, which makes people think twice about having more kids. There is also the two-child cap. Imagine banning women from having children. Imagine punishing people for trying to grow their family. The Tories are truly the anti-family party, and Labour is no better.

It does not stop there. From Brexit, sending our young European workers fleeing, to the current pantomime of both Westminster parties dressing up in a vile parody of Farage—or, as one of his former teachers said, “fascist” Farage. It is almost as if Westminster wants the Scottish population simply to wither away, leaving nothing but a barren wasteland called North Britain.

The union loss does not stop there. The Tories have the temerity to mention the deficit. The day Scotland entered the union we did not have a single penny of debt to our name but, the morning after, we were saddled with a share of Britain’s—or should that be England’s—£15 million debt pile. And, boy oh boy, did the British debt pile keep growing after that. Three centuries later, and the British national debt mountain now stands at £2.9 trillion. That is £41,572.17 of debt for every single man, woman and child. That is the true union loss: a mountain of debt racked up by Westminster in Scotland’s name. Yet again the Tories are correct: Scotland is too poor—at least, we are poor in the union, with that £41,572.17 of debt for every single person.

It is only getting worse. Starmer and Reeves, the Thatcher tribute act, have driven British debt repayments higher than even Liz Truss could manage. The union debt loss—not dividend—is truly the gift that keeps on giving. Yes: thanks to the union loss—not dividend—Scotland is currently too poor and too wee, and, yes, we would be stupid to stay in the union any longer. Now is the time for us to leave the sinking ship. Now is the time for independence because, with the powers of independence, we can grow our population, grow our economy and unshackle ourselves from the union debt loss—not dividend.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

The title of the debate is “Improving Scotland’s Finances”. To do that, we need to produce an economic strategy, based on growth; to develop an industrial strategy; to address productivity; to rise to the challenge of the green industrial revolution; to be at the forefront of the technological changes that are required to address the climate challenge; and to recognise the changing demographics, with an ageing population and low birth rates.

We need to increase funding, but to do so in a way that does not increase taxes for working people, who are already worse off than they were in 2010, and who have suffered with austerity, wage stagnation after the financial crash, increased costs and higher interest rates. As has already been mentioned in the debate, the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts that Scotland faces a funding gap of roughly £4.7 billion a year by 2029-30. That is equivalent to 4 per cent of day-to-day spending and 23 per cent of the capital budget. Recent GERS figures highlight that Scotland’s public spending deficit now stands at more than £26 billion, or around 12 per cent of GDP.

Scotland’s finances are undoubtedly in a challenging state, but addressing the state of our public finances comes down to political choices. We can choose to protect public services, save jobs and invest in our communities, or we can repeat the failed experiment of austerity. The Scottish Government’s political choice, as set out in its medium-term financial strategy, appears to be one of further cuts to public services.

Public sector workers and public services should not pay the price for the Scottish Government’s mishandling of public finances, yet its plans for public sector reform will result in precisely that. There is still a lack of detail from ministers on what services will be subject to cuts and which jobs will be lost, but the Scottish Trades Union Congress has warned that up to 10,000 jobs could be lost.

Scotland has already lost more than 1,000 firefighters, 1,000 police officers and around 65,000 local government workers since 2006. Those are the very people who keep vital front-line and local services running. A loss of an additional 10,000 workers will undoubtedly have an impact on those, and on the delivery of wider public services, at a time when they are more needed than ever.

I would therefore be grateful if the minister could provide any detail about which services will be subject to cuts and job losses, and how they will deal with that deficit.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will Katy Clark take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is about to conclude.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

I apologise, but I do not have time.

In its fiscal sustainability development plan, the Scottish Government outlined steps that it would seek to take on tax. One of those was for ministers to undertake engagement regarding the taxation of wealth and to publish a literature review on the subject. I would appreciate it if the minister could outline how that would work and, indeed, how work on land taxation more generally is progressing.

Ahead of the Scottish Government’s budget, I hope that ministers will engage seriously with unions, and those of us in the Parliament, on the issues that are being raised in today’s debate.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will begin by repeating three of the key facts that have underpinned contributions to the debate so far.

Fact 1: by 2029-30, resource spending will be £2.6 billion above the available funds, and capital spending will be £2.1 billion above the available funds. Fact 2: social security payments in 2029-30 will rise to £8.8 billion from the current £6.8 billion in the current budget, which is a nearly 30 per cent increase in just four years. Fact 3: the economic performance gap is just over £1 billion.

It is little wonder, then, that the Scottish Fiscal Commission and other forecasters are warning of serious long-term fiscal unsustainability. The trouble is that, with current demographic trends and a high incidence of economic inactivity, plus the fact that the Scottish economy has been seriously lagging behind the UK economy for more than a decade, Scotland has not been creating the growth that it desperately needs to pay for an increasingly dependent population.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will Liz Smith take an intervention?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will not just now, minister. I will come back to you in a minute.

Further, the Scottish Government has not been focused on getting people back into work, broadening the tax base or prioritising economic growth.

The Government tells us that it is addressing the issue with public sector reform, a reduction in the public sector workforce and preventative measures to reduce long-term demand for welfare payments. As yet, we do not have the details.

Inside all of that, there was a really interesting admission from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government at the Finance and Public Administration Committee last week, when she acknowledged that she was facing some tough decisions and that some areas of spending must be reined in. For example, in relation to free school meals, she said:

“We will not be able to roll out the universal offer as far as we had perhaps initially wanted to ... we have to prioritise those children who are most in need.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 2 September 2025; c 34.]

Finally, we have an admission from this Government that things have been spiralling out of control. Finally, it has been forced to admit that it cannot adopt the principle of universalism across the board, not just because universalism does not prioritise those who are most in need but because it is wholly unaffordable.

I hope that that is at last a sign that the Scottish Government has finally woken up to the folly of the years that it has spent in the pursuit of universalism, whether in relation to benefits, prescriptions, university tuition or whatever, because its current policies are serving only to make that big black hole much bigger.

I hope that that will also mean that we will finally address the widespread belief that it is the duty of the state to fix everything. That approach has clearly failed when it comes to the public finances, most especially in Scotland, where the rise in the number of benefit claimants is deeply worrying. It has also failed because it has allowed a dangerous claim culture to develop. Far too many people believe that they are unfit to work when they are not. That is not good for the Scottish economy, and it is not good for society, either.

Senior figures in the business community all say that Scotland is not performing nearly as well as it should be because there has been insufficient emphasis on growth and on creating better jobs. All along, they have watched the SNP Government prioritise the wrong things, which has detracted attention from policies that are proven to create growth. They want the Government—I know that the Deputy First Minister agrees with this—

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Will Liz Smith give way?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will come back to the minister in a minute.

They want there to be much better collaboration between the private and public sectors, and they want the Government to be serious about broadening the tax base, rather than taking an approach that is having detrimental impacts on our middle and higher earners.

I will take a quick intervention from the minister.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

It will have to be incredibly quick.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I will rattle through some facts. Fact 4: we balance the budget every year. Fact 5: we have laid out such plans in the fiscal sustainability delivery plan. Fact 6—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We do not have time for this.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Fact 6 is that the business community does not believe the minister.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I want to thank the Tories for bringing the debate to the chamber, because it highlights exactly why the union does not work for Scotland and why only independence can deliver a brighter future for the nation and everyone who lives here.

Nothing at all will convince me of the case for the union. Economically, the UK is a basket case, from the financial crash and the lack of action against those who caused the problem in the first place to the fact—this is another fact—that Brexit is a disaster. Modelling by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that, in 2023, the UK economy was already 2.5 per cent smaller than it would have been if the UK has remained a member of the European Union, and it expects that figure to rise to 5.7 per cent by 2035. In Scotland, that equated to a cut in public revenues of around £2.3 billion in 2023.

Here is another fact. The short-lived Liz Truss-Kwasi Kwarteng mini-budget tanked the economy by taking out of it more than £40 billion. I am sure that we all remember the cheerleaders among the Scottish Tories urging the Scottish Government to follow Liz Truss’s lead. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Please resume your seat, Mr McMillan. I will not have a cross-chamber conversation going on while a member has the floor. Please show some courtesy and respect, members.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I will repeat that point, just in case members could not hear it. We cannot forget about the cheerleaders among the Scottish Tories who urged the Scottish Government to follow Liz Truss’s budget. I am glad that the SNP Scottish Government rejected those Tory demands.

Sadly, the financial carnage that the Tories created—this is yet another fact—left a mess of huge proportions, and the UK Government that took over from them was always going to have a lot on its plate. I even agreed with Anas Sarwar—which is not something that I often do—when he said last June:

“I will not disagree when it comes to the carnage the Conservatives have imposed on this country, and the state of their public finances.”

The position that the Labour Government was left in was pretty similar to the one that Labour left the Tories in 2010. I am sure that we all remember the note that Liam Byrne left for them, in which he said:

“I am afraid there is no money.”

I turn to Labour’s amendment. It is true that Labour inherited a mess, but we all know that it has a sufficient majority in the Commons to fix it. However, the 18 months of misery and chaos that we have had under Keir Starmer’s Government has done nothing at all to instil any confidence in Labour’s handling of the economy—or anything else, for that matter.

Labour recognised that the country had had 14 years of austerity, which was clearly going to have an impact on public spending and delivery. Westminster austerity, whether Tory or Labour, does not stop at the border. It was made in Westminster for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. When in opposition, Labour’s Wes Streeting said something that we can all agree on:

“all roads lead back to Westminster”.

He uttered those comments while trying to defend Labour’s running of the NHS in Wales. That was because of austerity. The uncomfortable truth for Labour is that the same austerity hammered the people living in Scotland as well.

Last year, Labour promised to cut fuel bills by £300. They have increased by nearly £200. Labour hammered employers with the national insurance contributions hike in its previous budget. Labour announced the cutting of the winter fuel payment, only to eventually roll back on it after outrage from the public. Labour went on an austerity journey with its welfare cuts that hurt those who need the help the most.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The member is concluding.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Quite frankly, no matter which party’s Prime Minister resides in Downing Street, Scotland will always be hamstrung due to the limitations of devolution. That is why independence is essential for our future.

The financial forecasts that have been spoken about today are all under the current constitutional arrangements. Labour and the Conservatives have proved that they are not up to the job. That is why Scotland needs independence.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to closing speeches. I advise members that there is no time in hand and that therefore they should stick to their allotted speaking times.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I am glad that the Scottish Government amendment, which we intend to support, supports the taxation of wealth and mentions “a just transition”.

I point out to Scottish Government colleagues that we have the power in Scotland to tax the single largest type of wealth: land and property. The main way in which we do that—council tax—is also by far the most broken and unfair element of our tax system. The SNP has been promising to reform council tax for nearly 20 years, and it is time that it got on with it.

The council tax is based on property values from before the new Scottish Green leaders were even born. As a result, it is now completely broken. We would not tolerate most people paying the wrong rate of income tax, but that is exactly what has been allowed to happen for 34 years with council tax.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Will the member take an intervention?

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

Very briefly.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

Ms Slater, will you support the next SNP budget if the SNP does not reform council tax?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Lorna Slater (Green, Lothian)

I will not be in a position to say what our view on the next budget will be until we have seen it, but reform of council tax is very high on our agenda and will always be part of our conversation.

The current council tax system was a quick and dirty replacement for Thatcher’s hated poll tax. Everyone has agreed for years that it must be replaced completely. Despite that, the Scottish Government has lacked the courage to make that change. The wealthiest people in the most valuable houses are getting off with an absolute steal. They pay less than they should, while far more ordinary households pay much more. It may sound dry, but the council tax is crucial for funding schools, social care, bin collections and other local services. It should never have been allowed to become so completely broken. Those with the broadest shoulders and the biggest houses should be paying more than those less privileged to fund the local services that we all rely on.

The reform of local taxation is an opportunity to progress the Scottish Government’s already proposed policy of a carbon land tax. That would raise revenues by incentivising landowners of Scotland’s largest estates to reduce carbon emissions by restoring their degraded peatland and creating more woodland—both key tools to tackle the climate and nature crisis.

The Scottish Government is absolutely right about what more is possible in an independent Scotland. I ask that it sets the example by showing us what is possible, within the powers that we already have, to make Scotland greener and fairer.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

In the contribution that we have just heard from Lorna Slater, there is an important point that speaks to the Government’s amendment. If the Government were at all serious about a wealth tax, it would have done exactly what Lorna Slater set out: it would have reformed council tax and non-domestic rates, because they are taxes on wealth. However, for 18 years, the Government has shown absolutely no interest or seriousness about doing either of those things. That exposes the Scottish Government for what it is.

This afternoon’s debate has been—somewhat predictably—frustrating, but, in a sense, quite helpful, because—

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

Will the member take an intervention?

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I want to make some progress.

In a sense, what we have discovered is that the two parties that are across the chamber from mine are probably more similar than they care to remember. Both want us to have exceedingly short memories. The Conservatives want us to forget that, in 2022, their party caused the single most drastic one-day economic event in this country’s history since 1993—the previous time that they did it—resulting in the shortest career for a British Prime Minister in political history.

Likewise, when Ivan McKee gets to his feet and professes that the Scottish Government has balanced its budget every year that it has been in office, the SNP wants us to forget that, for the past three years, its Government has had to introduce emergency budget measures every September. I understand that, right now, meetings to look for savings are happening because the Government is concerned about the finances in this financial year.

More important, the debate was meant to be about the economy. Although the parties are similar, their mistakes are slightly different. The Conservatives want us to believe that we will cut our way to growth. That misunderstands the role of the state and public services in their interaction with the economy. The SNP wants us to believe that we can tax our way to growth, which is, to be frank, short-sighted.

Most important, both positions misunderstand how the Government should seek to use its money to support the economy in partnership. I was at a round table at the start of this week, at which we discovered that health tech businesses, rather than flourishing in Scotland with our £25 billion-plus expenditure in health, are having to leave this country in order to grow. That is the reality. Scottish Government expenditure, which is significant and growing, does not help to grow the economy; it forces companies out.

Michael Marra was absolutely right: there has been no acknowledgement of the £5.2 billion that has come forward from the UK Government since Labour was elected, nor of the £9 billion over the spending review. The SNP asks us to completely ignore the £2,500 per person that the Barnett formula provides us with. This is important. It is not about independence. The party opposite believes in full fiscal autonomy. That is now the SNP’s official position. Shona Robison and Angus Robertson have said it. The SNP needs to explain to us where the £14 billion—because that is the size of the fiscal transfer—would come from, either in growth or in additional taxation. We did not hear an answer.

Two parties in the chamber want us to forget their errors, their mistakes and the very real costs that they have passed on to every Scot in the country. That is why we need a change in direction—a Government that understands public expenditure, which will use it wisely and which understands that, to grow the economy, we do not cut public services but invest in them.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I am ever the optimist, so I will start with a few areas that I hope the Parliament can unite to commend.

In the past few weeks, a fascinating report from NatWest has confirmed that Scotland had one of the highest rates of start-ups in the UK in the first few months of this year. That is a testament to our investment in the infrastructure that supports start-ups and to the brilliant entrepreneurs.

A few weeks before that, our labour market statistics were some of the best in the UK.

Back in June, KPMG’s chief economist said:

“Scotland’s economy is well placed to strengthen in the months ahead, and if conditions improve as we expect, could give it a modest edge over the UK as a whole in 2026.”

A few weeks after that, Scottish businesses, supported by Scottish Enterprise, delivered their highest-ever level of planned international exports—an unprecedented £2.46 billion during the year to March, which was up by 20 per cent on the figure for the financial year 2023-24. In fact, the current price value of goods exports increased by 15 per cent from the pre-pandemic period while the rest of the UK experienced an increase of about 6 per cent.

As I have said in probably every economy speech since I came into my role, I live in hope that, aside from the politics, the parties in the chamber can join together to commend our brilliant businesses, ingenious entrepreneurs and very talented workers. It is tough out there, and people have covered some of the reasons why, but—my word—Scotland’s businesses are doing a brilliant job, whether they are in tech, manufacturing, life sciences or the food and drink sector. There is such a contrast between the doom and gloom that often characterises the Parliament’s discussions about the economy and the optimism and hope of our businesses and our industries. As Kevin Stewart said, we are certainly not “too wee” or “too stupid”. Our businesses and our workers prove that.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

I very much appreciate those comments, but will Kate Forbes not reflect that we did not hear any of that in any of the preceding speeches from those on the SNP benches? They were all doom and gloom too, were they not?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I have not singled anyone out. The funny thing is that I think Daniel Johnson has tried to drive a wedge in an area where I hoped that all of the Parliament—those from all parties—could join together to commend.

There is no doubt that the cost of living remains extremely tough for people. I think that it was Katy Clark who talked about that—I ask members to forgive me if it was somebody else. Flatlining wages across the UK, which have not grown in line with inflation since 2008, have been really tough for people. The impact of Covid, combined with stubbornly high inflation and the catastrophe of the Truss budget, has been felt in real terms by households across the country, and it has also had an impact on public finances.

Although today’s debate is obviously just a bit of fun for some—the Tories—I am with Jamie Greene, because we need to take our public finances seriously. As we approach the next budget, the parties’ approaches to that budget will be on display. The Parliament has always been very quick to call for more spending and very slow to identify how to find it. I am old enough to remember when the Conservatives’ form of opposition to welfare support, when it was first being devolved, was to tell us to be more generous. Now they have very much changed their tune.

I want to touch on economic inactivity.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I reassure the Deputy First Minister that we are entirely serious about looking at the Fiscal Commission’s warnings about public finances. However, in 2023, the Scottish Government promised that it would reduce the size of the public sector workforce in Scotland. How is that going?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

That cues me up nicely to talk about workforce. I thought that Roz McCall gave an absolutely brilliant speech—I hope that that does not ruin her credibility. She talked about the serious issue of economic inactivity, which we can all get behind. During the past few months in particular, I have convened a lot of work between employers, public and private employers and the third sector to look at how we resolve this. The Government has been quite good at helping people into work, but the question remains of how we keep people in work and break down the data, because this is not a homogenous group, especially after Covid, when a lot of people left the job market and have not returned for various reasons. I am keen to work on that issue on a cross-party basis.

As we look ahead to the Labour budget in November, which is being introduced at the last possible point because Labour has hedged itself in and has a crisis of confidence, the prospect for Scotland is either to wait and see what we will be given for another year, or for us to say that we have had enough of this. We have all the comparative advantages of other small, independent, advanced economies. We can be just as wealthy as them, but only as an independent country.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Stephen Kerr to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I reinforce what Murdo Fraser said to the Deputy First Minister: the reason why the Scottish Conservatives brought the motion to Parliament for debate today is that this is a very serious situation. A former colleague who is now appearing in a different place said that we should have an adult conversation, and we should. However, in all honesty, could the Deputy First Minister or Ivan McKee possibly think that the speeches that we heard from their back benchers this afternoon were serious? They were hardly serious at all. It was like they were doing a stand-up routine—they were practically unhinged in the way that they conducted themselves and the arguments that they put before the chamber.

One of the most remarkable speeches that we heard today—there were a number from those on this side of the chamber—was from Liz Smith. I particularly liked her fact 6, which was that the business community knows exactly how it feels about how the Scottish Government is managing our public finances. Liz Smith talked about facts. A well-known Burns phrase that is often repeated from various places in the chamber is:

“Facts are chiels that winna ding.”

That is the whole problem for the SNP in this debate—the facts are the facts. For example, SNP members criticise the GERS report, but it is the Scottish Government that produced the report. It is their Government that says what it says. Those are the facts and they cannot be argued with.

We were only a few seconds into the debate before minister McKee was on his feet contesting something that Murdo Fraser had said. It might be a good exercise for minister McKee—and for all the Scottish ministers—to look in the bathroom mirror every morning, when they get up, and repeat to themselves 10 times,

“Facts are chiels that winna ding”,

because no matter how often they stand up and deny the facts, the facts will remain. They can move themselves to any position that they like and any fantasy that they wish to entertain, but the facts are the facts.

While I am on the theme of facts, let me address directly a comment that was made by Kevin Stewart. He said that the majority of the people of Scotland who do not want to break up the United Kingdom are too stupid. We should have that clipped and put on social media 24 hours a day. I tell him that the people of Scotland are not too stupid, and they know a good deal when they see it. Being part of the United Kingdom is a very good deal for Scotland, and I am very proud of that fact.

By the way, we are not banning women from having children—I have never heard such nonsense. That speech needs to be fed through some artificial intelligence somewhere to find out whether there is any logic or reason in it. I can tell Kevin Stewart for a fact that, frankly, his idea that we should be ashamed is far from the truth.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Will the member give way?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

For entertainment purposes and no other reason, I will.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Mr Kerr is proud of the union, but is he proud of the £41,572.17 of debt for every man, woman and child that has been put in play by his beloved Westminster and the union?

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The reason why we have those levels of debt might be the nonsense that has been spoken by Kevin Stewart and other members on his side of the chamber when it comes to more and more spending, more and more borrowing and more and more tax. That is the only answer that the parties on the left have to the problems that we face as a country—both Scotland and the UK—as we can see from the travesty of financial and economic mismanagement by Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer.

There are many other things that I would like to say, but I want to pay compliments, as is right and proper, to my colleague Roz McCall. She spoke as a compassionate Conservative, and she spoke about the facts. There we go—we are back to facts again. I have reintroduced SNP members to facts. Roz McCall reminded us that the facts of economic life are conservative. That is the baseline of what we say in our motion. Members cannot run away from those realities. They might try to paint them a different colour—mainly yellow on this side and red on that side—but the reality is the reality. She spoke about knocking down the barriers that get in the way of people getting back to work, and I compliment her on her speech. It was practical conservatism spoken large in this chamber, as was Liz Smith’s speech, which I have already referenced. She talked about a dangerous claim culture. If we are going to have a grown-up conversation about the state of the public finances, we need to address the issues that Liz Smith rightly and properly raised in this debate.

I see that I am, sadly, running out of time. I have so much material courtesy of everyone who spoke in the debate, but particularly SNP members.

In all seriousness, Audit Scotland has repeatedly warned that runaway welfare costs, rising public sector pay and healthcare pressures are crowding out investment in education, policing and infrastructure. Those warnings are not political attacks; they are sober analysis from our independent auditors, and yet, instead of action from the Scottish Government, we get complacency.

I will conclude. The Scottish Conservatives’ motion calls for honesty and action, not spin and distraction. Message 1 is that we must control welfare growth and move people from dependency to dignity through work, skills and opportunity. Message 2 is that we must invest in productivity to grow the tax base and drive economic growth. Message 3 is that we should reform the public sector and public services—rather than tinkering at the edges—to cut waste and deliver value.

We must end vanity projects. We have had a few—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Kerr, you will now need to conclude.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

—in the first two weeks that we have been back in Parliament, including the nonsense paper on independence—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Kerr, you now need to conclude.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Thank you—I conclude.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Kerr. That concludes the debate on improving Scotland’s finances. We need to protect the time for the second Scottish Conservatives debate, which is about to start.

Asylum Seeker Accommodation

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18780, in the name of Craig Hoy, on the impact of accommodating asylum seekers on Scottish local government. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.

I advise members that we are, as expected, quite tight for time. I call Craig Hoy to speak to and move the motion—up to seven minutes, please, Mr Hoy.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

This is a debate that some members in the Parliament do not want us to have. It is one that is politically heated, and in which those on the liberal left want to mischaracterise the views of others. It is a potentially uncomfortable debate for those in government and those who have recently been in government. It is a debate in which our language needs to be carefully chosen; I recognise and respect that fact.

However, it is a debate that we can no longer afford not to have, because today there are more than 6,000 asylum seekers in Scotland. Glasgow is housing more asylum seekers than any other council in the United Kingdom—a staggering 3,844 as of the end of June; that is 40 per cent more than Birmingham. To be blunt but honest with the communities that we represent and serve, that cannot continue.

The economic costs are considerable. It costs £250 million a year to house asylum seekers in Scotland—£41,000 to house and support each and every one. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. The protests that Mr Swinney condemned are not what any of us would like to see on Scotland’s streets, but they are the product of politicians’ failure to address legitimate community concerns.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Not at the moment.

At the heart of the problem are criminal gangs who bring illegal immigrants into the country in small boats. In the year to June, nearly 90,000 asylum applications were made in the UK, and 50 per cent of those arrived via irregular routes—the vast majority by boat, but others by lorry or shipping container.

The First Minister and Scottish National Party can no longer bury their heads in the sand, because the negative effects of illegal immigration—and of the asylum hotels, which are the visible tip of that iceberg—are very real.

During the summer, I knocked on thousands of doors across Dumfriesshire and, time and again, the issue of illegal immigration came up. It came up among the young and the old, and among those living in small villages and in large towns. It came up among those who are directly impacted by asylum hotels, and among those who have simply watched the small boats arriving on their televisions with an increasing sense of alarm.

The costs are not just financial—there are economic costs, social costs and opportunity costs. Yes, we all want Scotland to be a welcome, open nation. I have had the privilege of living and working overseas, and I know how important migration is for modern, dynamic economies in order that they can attract global talent and, in so doing, create a country with rich and diverse cultures and experiences.

However, uncontrolled migration—or worse still, rampant illegal immigration—simply cannot be the sustained solution to any workforce challenge, and the SNP is playing a strange game of identity politics if it believes that to be true.

As we see from Scottish local authorities, the financial burden of housing immigrants cannot be understated. In fact, SNP-run Glasgow City Council has admitted as much itself—Susan Aitken says that the debt-laden local authority faces a staggering £66 million overspend on homelessness. Today, city chiefs fear a fresh influx of newly homeless refugees as the Home Office reduces the length of time for which people can stay in Government accommodation.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will the member give way?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will take an intervention at this point.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I welcome the measured tone that you started the debate with—language does matter.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through the chair.

Kaukab Stewart (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Does the member recognise that, in fact, the previous Conservative Government deliberately put a hold on processing claims to allow people to seek asylum and that, now that Labour has come into Westminster, it is processing those claims? Does he recognise that there are vast numbers of claims that have not been properly funded in order to enable people to move on in dignity?

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I can give Craig Hoy some of the time back.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I recognise that. I also said at the outset that it would be an uncomfortable debate for parties that had recently been in government. I am not apportioning blame to one party or another, but the SNP—[Interruption.] The First Minister is chuntering away, but the SNP has to recognise—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will the member give way?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I give way to Mr Swinney.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Although Mr Hoy is tacitly acknowledging the failure of the Conservative Government to properly manage the asylum regime over many years in office, he is bringing the debate to the Parliament to politically exploit the issue in a most disgusting fashion. It embodies where the Conservative Party has found itself these days.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

We can always rely on John Swinney to lower the tone. We are coming to the Parliament to reflect the legitimate views of reasonable people in a representative democracy. I think that it is scurrilous, Mr Swinney, for you to throw around that kind of language when we are having a reasoned debate in the Parliament.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Through the chair, Mr Hoy.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Mr Swinney is shaking his head, pretending that none of this is to do with him, but it is quite clear that, as Scotland has more liberal homelessness rules than England, Scottish councils fear that thousands of potential asylum seekers will come to Scotland where they will have a right to be housed that does not exist in England. That is a real risk, which the minister is well aware of.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

No, I will not. I do not have time.

By councils’ own admission, the SNP’s approach is crippling. It is forcing them to prioritise the needs of those from elsewhere when Scots struggle to get a roof over their heads. At the outset, I said that the debate would be uncomfortable for those in government and those who were recently in government. That means us recognising that the policy of housing asylum seekers—many of whom are, in reality, illegal immigrants—in hotels was the wrong decision.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I do not have time.

That decision was taken by the previous Conservative Government in the eye of the Covid storm. Now, we have to admit that it was the wrong policy, even if it was well intentioned.

We also have to recognise that things are now much worse as a result of Labour’s failure to tackle the mounting immigration crisis. Rather than stopping the boats, Keir Starmer and Labour have allowed their numbers to swell. They systematically took apart the deterrent schemes that were put in place by the previous Conservative Administration. In the year to June, Labour presided over a 17 per cent increase in asylum applications compared with the previous year. Beyond those numbers, the picture is even more alarming because of the SNP’s open door rhetoric, which is adding to the pressures.

Scots are seeing their services undermined and their life chances blighted. In 2023-24, there were 40,685 applications for homelessness and 33,619 households were assessed as homeless or threatened with homelessness in Scotland. Across the country, people will be concerned, understandably, when they see priority being given to those who are coming from overseas. Housing asylum seekers in hotels is not the solution to the problem. Tackling the causes of illegal immigration and processing those who are seeking to come to the UK at source is, in effect, the only way to fix it. As I said last week, the use of asylum hotels has changed our communities and, in their view, not for the better.

Five years after the emergency use of hotels during the pandemic, the numbers have soared. In August 2020, 188 asylum seekers were housed in hotels and bed and breakfasts in Scotland. Today, that figure stands at more than 1,500. The previous Conservative Administration committed to end the use of hotels but, sadly, the Labour Government has comprehensively failed to do so.