Scottish Parliament, 27 November 2025

421 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

General Question Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good morning. The first item of business is general question time.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the number of police officers in Edinburgh and the Lothians, in light of the growth in the population of south-east Scotland and any additional policing duties in the capital. (S6O-05206)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The deployment of officers is a matter for the chief constable based on operational priorities. In the previous financial year, the Scottish Government’s record investment in policing enabled Police Scotland to take on more recruits than at any time since 2013. As of 30 September, 1,106 officers were deployed to Edinburgh and 888 to Lothian and Borders. In both divisions, that is more than in the previous quarter and broadly similar to the figures at the same time last year. A range of regional and national resources is also available to assist local officers following the creation of the single service.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that, as I have raised on several occasions, Edinburgh has one of the lowest police to population ratios in Scotland. That has been the case for years now, at a time when the population has been growing three times faster than the Scottish average. It is also resulting in many of our police stations having to close their public counters more and more regularly and in Edinburgh’s city division having fewer officers available now than it had in 2017.

It is clear that pressures in Edinburgh are impacting on our police services and their ability to police the capital, so will the cabinet secretary agree to meet Lothian MSPs to consider the developing challenges that our police service faces, especially given the capital status of Edinburgh?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

As a West Lothian MSP, I am very aware of the growing population across the Lothians. That, of course, has a bearing on a range of public services.

On policing, as I said in my original answer, such matters are operational ones for the chief constable, who can move resources as she sees fit according to threat, harm and vulnerability. I am pleased that, due to the Government’s investment, police numbers have stabilised.

I am of course happy to meet Mr Briggs and other colleagues, as long as they are very aware of the clear divide between ministerial responsibilities and operational matters.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The number of police officers per capita is higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. Will the cabinet secretary provide details of the pressures that Police Scotland faces as a result of the United Kingdom Government’s hike in employer national insurance?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

This year’s record police funding of £1.64 billion supports police capacity and capability and ensures that our police officer numbers per 10,000 of the population in Scotland remain considerably higher than those in England and Wales.

As members will be aware, we have continually urged the UK Government to fully fund the £400 million additional cost in employer national insurance contributions that it imposed on Scotland’s public services, including Police Scotland. That was not done for this financial year and, as yesterday’s chaotic mess of a UK budget confirmed, the increase remains in place. I note that the increase in funding for Scotland’s budget will not cover even half the shortfall from the costs of that hike on Scotland’s public services.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress made towards issuing Scottish Government bonds, in light of Scotland’s recent high credit ratings. (S6O-05207)

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

Following the excellent credit rating results, the Scottish Government is making all necessary preparations to ensure that a multiyear bond programme can commence in 2026-27. As the First Minister announced earlier this month, the total size of the programme is expected to be £1.5 billion over the next parliamentary session, subject to in-year borrowing requirements and market conditions.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

The positive credit ratings are testament to Scotland’s track record of responsible fiscal management, and it is welcome that the Government remains on track to commence the bond programme in 2026-27. Can the Deputy First Minister say any more about how the programme is expected to support the Scottish Government’s investment in key infrastructure?

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

The credit rating results are absolutely excellent for Scotland, and they confirm that this country is high investment grade. As the independent investor panel pointed out, a credit rating and a bond issuance can act as a means of increasing investor engagement in Scotland. It is a gateway to broader investment, enhanced visibility in global capital markets and a stronger platform for economic diplomacy. I am delighted that we have been able to deliver on the recommendation made to us in the report of the investor panel.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

It is welcome that the Scottish Government is exploring innovative ways of raising extra capital in addition to the normal method of raising it through the national loans fund. In what scenarios does the Deputy First Minister envisage bonds being issued? Will they be issued in cases where there are high returns, such as investment in Clyde metro or expansion of the Scottish Event Campus? Could they also be used for national health service projects such as the new institute of neurological sciences in Glasgow?

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

I am pleased by Paul Sweeney’s welcome of this step, and it is important for me to state on the record that it is about borrowing better, not borrowing more. It is about borrowing within the limits that are set through the fiscal framework.

The member is absolutely right to say that the programme can be used to fund infrastructure development. It will be used for capital infrastructure, which he cited some examples of, and as we go through the process, decisions will be taken on what infrastructure will be funded through it.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to preserve and enhance historic buildings in Scotland’s town centres. (S6O-05208)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government is supportive of historic buildings in town centres being preserved and regenerated. We provide support for our historic environment through sponsorship of Historic Environment Scotland, which received £74.2 million in grant in aid funding in 2025-26. That funding helps Historic Environment Scotland to maintain properties in its care, deliver grants to the heritage sector, undertake research on the effects of climate change on historic buildings, and fulfil advisory and regulatory functions.

HES also provides advice to property owners, local authorities, developers and community groups. That helps to protect our historic environment while supporting jobs, skills and vibrant communities.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that actions to preserve historic buildings, such as those undertaken at Paisley’s museum, library and town hall, help retain a cultural focus as well as create economic footfall in town centres? Do such actions represent a way forward for town centre regeneration while making historic buildings fit for purpose for the 21st century?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I agree with all of that. I thank the member for mentioning the projects in Paisley, because the Scottish Government is pleased to see the cultural investment being made there. It is a good example of culture being a tool for driving the economy, with a wide range of engaging and enjoyable cultural experiences being provided for our citizens, too. I am particularly glad to see the focus on accessibility in such projects, allowing more of the local community to participate in and benefit from cultural activities.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its just transition plan for the Mossmorran petrochemical site. (S6O-05209)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

The Scottish Government is focused on securing a just transition for workers to avoid jobs being lost and a repeat of the industrial devastation that was inflicted on Scotland by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. There is no doubt, however, that the closure at Mossmorran is a profound challenge to that just transition approach, and our focus is rightly on the workers and the communities who will be affected by ExxonMobil’s shock announcement.

Within our limited economic powers, the Scottish Government is focused on securing new opportunities for those workers. Our work at Grangemouth means that we have a strong foundation to build on. We have line of sight to businesses that may wish to invest and understand the needs of workers and communities. Scottish Enterprise has the unique expertise to secure new investment at both Mossmorran and Grangemouth.

It is important to note that the site in Mossmorran consists not only of the Fife ethylene plant. We have assurances that the Shell natural gas liquids plant will remain in operation.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Four hundred employees and contractors face redundancy at Mossmorran, but the transition plan that the Scottish Government promised in early 2025 has still not materialised. Instead of there being a blame game between both Governments, when will the Scottish Government take responsibility for protecting the sector and end its presumption against oil and gas in order to prevent job losses in the oil and gas sector supply chain?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

There are two parts to that question. First, I want to outline what we committed to do. On 19 March 2024, I discussed with ExxonMobil decarbonisation projects that would provide the impetus for a just transition plan at the site. Dr Alasdair Allan followed that up with ExxonMobil on 28 October 2024, but since then it has been very difficult to engage with. Our officials have engaged with the business since June to try to secure time. We have always said that, once the Grangemouth just transition plan was out, we would work on a Mossmorran one. Of course, the Grangemouth just transition plan has come out only in the past couple of months.

Alexander Stewart blames the Scottish Government for the issues, but the business has been clear that United Kingdom Government policy, particularly on energy prices and carbon taxation, has added to the market challenges that it faces.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of the progress on the A720 Sheriffhall roundabout project. (S6O-05210)

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The Scottish Government continues to support the promotion of improvements to Sheriffhall roundabout as part of its £300 million commitment to the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal.

As the member will be aware, a public local inquiry was held to consider the significant number of objections that were received, and the independent reporter has since submitted her conclusions and recommendations. Those are under consideration. Advice will be provided following that and a decision will be made by Scottish ministers on whether to complete the statutory process. Although I am keen for there to be progress, it is essential that due process is followed and that careful consideration is given to the substantial volume of information that will inform ministers’ decisions.

Colin Beattie (Scottish National Party, Midlothian North and Musselburgh)

Many of my constituents are growing increasingly concerned about the delay in the progress of the Sheriffhall interchange project. Will the cabinet secretary give my constituents in Midlothian North and Musselburgh any comfort regarding timelines for the delivery of the scheme?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I reassure the member that the Scottish Government remains committed to delivering improvements at Sheriffhall. Although I cannot give a definitive timeline today, I reassure him that ministers recognise it as a priority, and my officials are reviewing the reporter’s report, along with the considerable number of objections, to inform next steps. Funding for the project remains part of the city region deal.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it can take to ensure that critical national infrastructure serves the local communities hosting it and is built safely, securely and in a way that is sensitive to the landscape around it. (S6O-05211)

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Critical national infrastructure refers to assets that are assessed to be critical to the functioning and security of the country. That process enables the Government and its partners to prioritise, better understand and mitigate the risks that threaten those critical sites.

There are currently 13 officially designated CNI sectors, and responsibility for them is split between relevant devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government. Scottish devolved CNI sectors include Government; transport, including roads and bridges; emergency services; health; water; food; and chemicals. UK Government reserved CNI sectors in Scotland include energy; transport, including aviation, rail and ports; emergency services, including HM Coastguard; communications; finance; civil nuclear; defence; and space.

Due to their criticality, the details and locations of CNI assets are classified and not publicly available. As CNI assessments are carried out on existing infrastructure, all building, environmental, planning or related regulations or legislation should be adhered to during the planning and build phase. CNI owners and operators are given extra support for that.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Today, in Shetland, another major developer is hosting a local event about future energy connections across Shetland. The oil and gas industry has been a critical part of Shetland’s economy for the past 50 years. Shetlanders are not against innovation, but many have raised with me a feeling that our islands are being swamped with new energy developments. People who tolerated the divisive Viking wind farm development are now pushing back against what is described as the continual and creeping industrialisation of Shetland, including proposals for more pylons across the landscape and a green ammonia plant.

One constituent, who asks for all cables to be underground, writes:

“The push for renewable energy is attributed to providing a future plan to tackle climate change, but will there be a future for Shetland if all proposed developments go ahead as planned?”

Does the cabinet secretary agree that, when communities such as Shetland host significant national energy generation but continue to have high levels of fuel poverty, there is something wrong with the system? Does she agree that local communities—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Wishart.

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

I absolutely agree with Beatrice Wishart. There is something very wrong with a system in which communities are asked to host critical infrastructure but are still paying the highest electricity prices in the UK. That is why I have been advocating for a number of reforms at UK Government level. The first of those is decoupling the electricity price from the gas price, which was taken off the table as part of the review of electricity market arrangements—REMA—consultation and was never brought back when the new UK Government came in. Secondly, I am advocating for a social tariff, which should make a difference to those in particularly vulnerable households.

This morning, I met the leaders of Shetland Islands Council to discuss the need for more community benefits, not just from critical infrastructure but from energy development in general. We are updating our good practice principles on that, but I am pleased to say that, although the previous UK Government was not interested in having enhanced community benefits mandated in law, the current Government is consulting on the issue.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

My constituent Matthew Gready of Dunecht will incur a £125,000 loss on the sale of his property. That is all evidenced by qualified chartered surveyors, and it is all because of a proposed Kintore to Tealing pylon route. What assessment has the cabinet secretary made of the financial impact of those pylon routes on home owners, and will she establish a compensation scheme for residents who can demonstrate material financial loss arising from the pylons that will lead to the destruction of rural Scotland?

Gillian Martin (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

Mr Burnett is referring to an application that has not been put into the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit. Even when it is a live application, he knows full well that I cannot discuss it in public.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting stability and growth in Scotland’s video games sector, including what engagement it has had with Rockstar Games, in light of reports of recent staff dismissals. (S6O-05212)

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

Before I answer, I hope that the member will indulge me in welcoming pupils from Fortrose academy, who have just arrived in the gallery.

We are fully committed to supporting Scotland’s thriving games ecosystem. This year, we supported the prestigious DICE Europe conference in Edinburgh, which maximised benefits for Scotland’s games ecosystem and showcased our industry to the world. We have engaged with Rockstar Games and reiterated that we expect all employers to treat staff respectfully and engage openly with workers and trade unions.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

I know that the Deputy First Minister will stand with me when I say that our thoughts are with the staff who are affected by the redundancy dismissals at Rockstar Games. In recent weeks, I have heard from people who work in the games sector across Scotland, who say that the demands of the sector, including what is known as “crunch”—a period of mandatory overtime prior to deadlines—are leading to burnout and a high turnover of staff, and making the industry inaccessible to too many in Scotland. In that context, there are—rightly—growing calls for unionisation in the industry. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that workers’ rights to organise must be upheld, and will she ensure that any Government funding is contingent on that basis?

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

I am in full agreement with Michael Marra. I am aware that the member is the co-convener of the cross-party group on the Scottish games ecosystem, and I know that he will share my view on the importance of fair work principles being embedded in all businesses and among all employers. I absolutely agree with that position.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the financial sustainability of Ayrshire College. (S6O-05213)

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

Ayrshire College does remarkable work, particularly in the aerospace sector, and I very much valued and appreciated visiting the college on 11 November. I greatly value the significant contribution that all colleges, including Ayrshire College, make to our economy and society, and I recognise the significant financial pressures that the sector is facing.

The Scottish Government cannot comment specifically on the financial position of an individual college such as Ayrshire College, but the Scottish Funding Council continues to engage closely with the college sector to monitor financial sustainability and provide appropriate forms of support that are tailored to the circumstances of individual institutions.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Forecasts show that most colleges are not sustainable. Ayrshire College is facing a £2.1 million reduction in core teaching funding, over and above a 20 per cent real-terms cut since 2021-22. That huge blow means that the college is already having to make difficult decisions. Does the Government recognise that, and that it must work urgently with the college and its trade unions to address its funding challenges and ensure that we secure and protect jobs, alongside young people’s education?

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

Since coming into post, I have greatly valued my engagement with Colleges Scotland, individual colleges and members across the chamber on the challenges that are facing the sector, as well as the huge opportunities. Ayrshire College is showing leadership with its partnership with Prestwick Aircraft Maintenance Ltd, providing real-world opportunities where there is significant demand. Again, I commit to working across the Parliament on the challenges and opportunities that our college sector faces.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes general question time.

First Minister’s Question Time

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Rachel Reeves has increased taxes by £26 billion. Under Labour, taxes will be at their highest levels in history. The freezing of income tax bands will force millions of workers to hand over even more of their wages. The Labour chancellor is not only screwing taxpayers; she is also borrowing even more money, leaving more debt to future generations. She did all that despite saying that she would do none of it. Does John Swinney intend to keep the Scottish National Party’s manifesto promise not to raise tax on Scottish workers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Government is giving consideration to the implications of the United Kingdom Government’s budget for the Scottish budget. However, this morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government confirmed that the Scottish Government will not increase income tax rates or introduce any new bands.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

John Swinney stood on a manifesto promise not to raise income tax rates or bring in new bands—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The same John Swinney then stood right there and delivered a budget that raised income tax.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

How can we trust you?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Findlay.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

One year later, the SNP again raised income tax.

On 6 November, when John Swinney was challenged about that broken promise, he had the audacity to claim that it was not “out of kilter” with the SNP’s manifesto. Looking very much like Joe Biden, John Swinney seemed to be completely unaware of what he had done.

To make matters worse—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

To make matters worse, on 13 November, he misled the Parliament by falsely claiming to have maintained his manifesto commitment. When John Swinney suggests that he will not increase income tax, how can anyone trust a word that he says?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

What a wandering lot of drivel that question was. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Findlay makes a habit of coming to the chamber and not reading out complete paragraphs from party manifestos that set out our position. We set out our manifesto position in 2021, but we said that we had to be mindful of the economic context. The economic context has been fundamentally changed by two things: first, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, which led to a spike in inflation and a massive increase in public sector costs; and, secondly, the absolute rank and total stupidity of the Liz Truss budget, which Russell Findlay supported. That is what changed the landscape.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

What a cheek. The master of wandering drivel speaks. He is the guy who raised income tax and broke his manifesto promise twice—we always have to read the small print with the SNP.

Scotland’s workers, families and businesses deserve to know whether more of their hard-earned money is going to be swiped by the SNP, but John Swinney cannot be trusted on any tax rises that he may be planning.

One group that is increasingly concerned is the Scottish Association of Landlords. It says that Rachel Reeves’s new

“property income tax could be the final straw”,

and that it could harm tenants by jeopardising the supply of rental properties.

Rachel Reeves has handed the SNP the power to introduce and even increase that tax in Scotland. Given the damage that has already been done by the SNP’s rent controls, does John Swinney accept that that new tax could further damage the rental market for tenants?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government put forward legislation, which has been approved by Parliament, that introduces rent controls but also enables Scotland to be an attractive market for housing investment. That is demonstrated by the dialogue that the Government is having with the investment sector. Of course, any decisions about these issues will be set out in the budget in January.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

The SNP is forcing Scottish taxpayers to constantly pay more and more and more. Before the budget, it had already set aside around £150 million to end the cap on universal credit for families with more than two children. However, given Labour’s decision to scrap the two-child cap, the SNP can now spend that money on something else—not on more benefits.

There is another way—a commonsense way—that would reward hard work and help the economy. We believe that Scottish taxpayers deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money. They deserve fairness and a break from higher bills, so will John Swinney instead use that £150 million to cut income tax?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have made it clear that the mission and purpose of my Government is to eradicate child poverty. I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom Government has taken the decision, from 1 April, to abolish the two-child cap, which was put in place by the previous Conservative Government. It is an atrocious intervention in the benefits system, and I am glad that my Government has shamed the Labour Party into acting on it. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have also set out on previous occasions what the Scottish Government would do in the situation that we now face. I said that we would use the money that we had allocated to lift the two-child limit, which was an initiative taken by the SNP Government in the face of votes against such a proposal by Labour MPs in Westminster, to reduce child poverty even further than the decreasing levels of child poverty in Scotland under this Government.

Mr Findlay attacks me for asking people on higher earnings to pay more in tax. I am prepared to do that so that I can work to eradicate child poverty, which is the best thing to do for the future of our country.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Eighteen months ago, the people of Scotland got rid of a Tory Government that had done so much damage to our country. Clearing up its mess was never going to be easy—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Clearing up its mess was never going to be easy, but UK Labour choices are making a difference. Yesterday, the UK budget delivered an increase to the minimum wage and the living wage, which means another pay rise for 200,000 Scottish workers. The budget will help with the cost of living, with £150 off energy bills and £300 off for those who are most in need. It reinstated the winter fuel allowance and raised the state pension, benefiting 1.1 million pensioners in Scotland. There will be £820 million more for the Scottish Government, with £10.3 billion more—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Their constituents have benefited from £10.3 billion more since Labour came to power, and the end of the two-child cap—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please ask a question, Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The end of the two-child cap means that 450,000 children—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Question, Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—will be lifted out of poverty across the UK, and it will benefit—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Sarwar, you may put a question now or I will ask the First Minister to address the comments that you have already made.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am asking the question, Presiding Officer.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Please do.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

You have intervened twice already.

The end of the two-child cap will benefit 95,000 children in Scotland, so will John Swinney—[ Interruption .] They are heckling poverty reduction—who would have thought it?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Sarwar, I have asked you—

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Will John Swinney—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Sarwar, in future, when I ask you to put a question, put a question at that point. Continue.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Will John Swinney welcome the greatest reduction in child poverty as a result of a UK budget this century?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I thought that members of Parliament were supposed to keep up with what is said in Parliament. I have already welcomed the abolition of the two-child limit, because this Government shamed the Labour Party into action in the first place. Labour MPs have been trooping through the lobbies of the House of Commons to vote to keep the two-child limit since they came to office 18 months ago. It has been an absolute disgrace.

I am glad that the Labour Party has realised that there is an election coming in May and that, possibly, a Labour Party driving up child poverty in the United Kingdom might not be a good look for the Labour Party in Scotland. However, I am very pleased to say to the people of Scotland that child poverty is falling in this country because of the actions of the Scottish National Party Government.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

The First Minister is delusional. For eight years, the SNP had the power to end the two-child cap but did nothing; UK Labour scrapped it after 18 months. The sad truth is that the SNP preferred the grievance. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

For two years, John Swinney has argued for income tax to rise in England and Wales. That would have led to a cut in Scotland’s budget, based on the fiscal framework that he himself negotiated. That proves that he has not got a clue. While he was arguing for Scotland’s budget to be cut, I was arguing for more investment, and the United Kingdom Labour Government delivered. Given that £5.2 billion was received last year and was completely wasted by this incompetent and tired SNP Government, does that not prove that we need a change of Government in Scotland so that Scots can feel the benefit in our schools, hospitals, police and public services?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Oh, he is trying awful hard today to get himself excited. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Let me set out to Mr Sarwar the choices that this Government made. We decided to prioritise the introduction of the Scottish child payment—we were the only part of the United Kingdom to introduce such a measure; nothing similar exists in any other part of the United Kingdom—and we used the resources that we have raised in Scotland to make sure that that could be delivered, with the result that child poverty is falling in this country.

Mr Sarwar talks about the increase in resources that are being made available. He is right: there will be extra resource funding of £510 million over a four-year period. However, the one-year increase in employer national insurance contributions in Scotland is estimated to come to about £400 million. There we have it—an average annual increase in our budget of £127 million, eaten up by an increase in employer national insurance contributions that was put in place by a Labour Government. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members, thank you.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

This Government will do what it always does—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

We will concentrate our public expenditure on the priorities of the people of Scotland. Why does that matter? It matters because that delivers for the people of our country and demonstrates, as was proven by the credit rating agencies, that this country benefits from prudent fiscal management and prudent financial planning. That is what an SNP Government delivers.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I think that John Swinney needs to cheer up a little bit. An additional £10.3 billion for Scotland’s public services is a transformative amount of money, but the SNP cannot be trusted with people’s money. National health service waiting lists remain unacceptably high, our schools are falling down international league tables, police numbers are being cut and there is rising crime on our streets. That is why Scots are asking where the money has gone. That is why we cannot risk a third decade of the SNP and John Swinney. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Is it not the case that, in May, Scots have a clear choice: more wasted money and wasted opportunities with John Swinney, or a Government that respects their money with me—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—police stuck in accident and emergency departments and courts with John Swinney, or police on our streets and safer communities with me—[Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

They do not want to hear it, Presiding Officer. The choice is between long waiting lists with John Swinney or an NHS that is fit for the future with me. It is the past with John Swinney or the future with me and Scottish Labour.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Okay. Let us start with waiting lists. My Government’s priority is to bring down waiting lists and, in particular, waiting lists involving long waits. Between April and October this year, the number of new out-patient waits of more than a year reduced by 17.9 per cent—for five consecutive months, waiting lists involving long waits fell. Over the same period, the size of the waiting list for those waiting for new in-patient day-case procedures for more than 52 weeks reduced by 26.1 per cent. The plan that I put in place, backed by the resources that we have invested, which the Labour Party would not vote for, is now reducing waiting lists in our country.

If Mr Sarwar wants to own the budget of the United Kingdom Government, he must own its consequences. Those consequences are that, today, people’s fuel bills are still higher than they were when Labour came into office; they are not lower, as Labour promised. There will be job losses in the north-east of Scotland, which Anas Sarwar will be responsible for, because of the actions of the Labour Government.

I will invest people’s money wisely in boosting public services and strengthening the economy, and I will leave Anas Sarwar to dream about what he might be able to do if he convinces the people of Scotland, whereas this Government is delivering for the people of Scotland.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Before we move to question 3, I remind members that people in the gallery would like to be able to follow proceedings.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Last week, I asked the First Minister for the just transition plan for Mossmorran workers that his Government promised that it would write 18 months ago. He twice avoided answering that question. Since then, we have had three summits in as many days, which have involved the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments and Fife Council. At none of those has the Scottish Government provided the plan that it committed to write.

The Scottish Greens spent years working with the trade unions representing Mossmorran workers and the wider community to produce plans of our own, because we all knew that this day was coming. Hundreds of workers face losing their jobs within weeks, and their Government has no plan to help them. Can the First Minister please just admit that there is no Scottish Government plan to support the Mossmorran workers and apologise for the fact that his Government did not deliver on the commitment that it made?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

What the Government is doing is taking what we learned from the issues that we addressed in Grangemouth, where the just transition plan has resulted in a range of business development opportunities emerging, and applying that, in dialogue with the trade unions, interested parties, Fife Council, the United Kingdom Government and the company, to the future of Mossmorran.

I very much regret the circumstances that the workers at Mossmorran face. The Deputy First Minister and the Scottish Government are working assiduously with all interested parties to deliver a future for those who are affected by the decision that has been taken about Mossmorran.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Would it not have been great if the Deputy First Minister had been able to attend the summits with the plan for jobs that her Government committed to write 18 months ago? The Mossmorran workers have been abandoned by ExxonMobil and, despite knowing about the company’s plans to cut and run, yesterday’s Labour budget contained absolutely nothing for Mossmorran. Those workers have also been let down by a Scottish Government that, when push comes to shove, has no new ideas.

The Scottish Greens have an idea that we want to put to the First Minister today. Grangemouth rightly has a just transition fund, and Unite the Union has ensured that, as a condition of getting any money from that fund, organisations must offer job interviews to anyone who was made redundant by Ineos. Will the Scottish Government now do the same for Mossmorran workers?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yes, I am happy to confirm that. The agreement that was reached with Unite the Union was announced by me a few weeks ago, and I very much applaud the collaboration that Unite has engaged in. It has been a partner of the Government in dealing with the situation at Grangemouth and a partner of the Government in dealing with the situation at Mossmorran.

I think that I picked up Mr Greer correctly as making the point that prior notice was given of the decision about Mossmorran, but I point out that it was not given to the Scottish Government—we had about a week’s notice. The United Kingdom Government knew about the situation for months, but it never sorted it, never fixed it, never addressed it and never intervened in the way that it did in Scunthorpe or any other situation in which it decided to intervene. That just goes to demonstrate that, when it comes to industrial closures under a Labour Government in London, there is one rule for the rest of the United Kingdom and one rule for Scotland.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the First Minister what impact the chancellor’s autumn statement will have on Scotland. (S6F-04479)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I indicated a moment ago, yesterday’s budget will have financial consequences for the Scottish Government’s budget. I welcome the decision to remove the two-child limit, which the Scottish Government was already planning to mitigate in March next year.

There will, of course, be consequences for the public. Their energy bills will not be cut by the £300 that was proposed by the Labour Party. Energy bills will still be, on average, £340 a year higher than the Prime Minister promised that they would be.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

Yesterday’s United Kingdom Government budget came after weeks of chaos, dithering and U-turns by the chancellor, amid an on-going cost of living crisis, the downgrading of UK economic growth every year until 2029 and public finances being in a worse state now than when Labour came to power.

Does the First Minister agree with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce that the budget’s net effect will be to further dial up pressure on businesses, risking our reputation as a magnet for global investment? Does he share my concern that, while thousands of Scottish oil and gas jobs are at risk from Labour’s tax policy after this budget, energy bills next April will still cost £340 a year more per household than the Prime Minister promised a year ago, while UK unemployment has risen by 282,000 on Labour’s watch?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

On Mr Gibson’s last point about unemployment, that is now significantly lower in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. I welcome that indication of good performance in the Scottish economy. Indeed, that good economic performance in Scotland was recognised by both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s in their assessments of Scotland’s credit rating.

In addition, the decision not to abolish the energy profits levy will have disastrous consequences in the north-east of Scotland, and the Labour Party will have to own those consequences—we will make sure that it does.

In relation to energy prices, individuals were promised a cut of £300 to their energy bills, but that is not happening under the Labour Government.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Rachel Reeves yesterday made the same mistake as John Swinney, with a “Benefits Street” budget that increased tax on workers, pensioners and savers. The Scottish benefits bill is set to soar to close to £10 billion by the end of this decade. How does John Swinney intend to pay for that?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The Scottish Government will set out its budget in January, which will, of course, following the pattern of all the budgets that we have set out, be a balanced budget. Because of all the years of balanced budgets under the Scottish National Party Government since 2007, Moody’s is able to say that Scotland benefits from “prudent financial management”, and Standard & Poor’s is able to say that Scotland benefits from “prudent financial planning”. I would have thought that those assessments from credit rating agencies—those independent voices that comment on economies around the world—would be of some solace and comfort to Mr Hoy and give him something to be cheerful about. Given that we have such strong financial planning, even Mr Hoy should be satisfied with our performance.

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

It would be churlish not to welcome the about-turn on the two-child benefit cap—it is better late than never. That, of course, benefits children and their families, but it also puts money into the local economy, because that money helps people to pay inflationary food and energy bills. It is a good thing all round.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Yes, and it also complements the work that the Scottish Government is doing on the Scottish child payment, for example. We are putting money directly into household finances, which enables families to spend locally, to have more control over their resources and to be better able to support their families. That is exactly the type of impact that will be felt in Christine Grahame’s constituency, as it will be felt in constituencies the length and breadth of Scotland.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government plans to commemorate the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. (S6F-04480)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Last Friday, I launched the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence in Perth city, in my constituency. Ministers will take part in a national leadership event, a vigil and a parliamentary debate and will visit local projects. Tackling gender-based violence is not a commitment for only 16 days, however; it is a commitment for 365 days a year. That is why we will continue to implement our equally safe strategy, which focuses on prevention and is backed by £21.6 million of expenditure for the current financial year.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I welcome to the public gallery representatives from Women’s Rights Network Scotland and Beira’s Place, along with survivors of domestic abuse. Today, we held a vigil outside the Parliament, remembering the 46 women who have been killed by men in Scotland in the past five years. Behind every statistic is a real-life story of a woman whose future has been erased and whose family has been shattered.

Shockingly, the statistics continue to rise. The latest figures show that almost 64,000 incidents of domestic abuse have been recorded by Police Scotland, while there has been an 11 per cent increase in the number of reported rape cases. Let us also not forget that there are grooming gangs operating in Scotland, although the Scottish National Party Government wants to believe that they are not a problem, so it sticks its head in the sand.

Will the First Minister finally commit to backing my Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which will better monitor perpetrators and prevent potential victims from becoming victims in the first place? Will he do the right thing and also agree to a grooming gangs inquiry, so that we can uncover the true scale of the abuse of women and girls that is occurring in Scotland?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Presiding Officer, Pam Gosal raises many serious issues, to which I would like to give substantial answers.

First, I welcome the groups that are here. I commend them for their courage and for commemorating the 46 women who have been killed by men. Every single time a woman is killed by a man in our society, it is a totally unacceptable crime and it appals all of us, regardless of our politics.

My second point is on the bill that Pam Gosal has introduced. The Government will engage constructively on the bill. We have already legislated on the issue through different measures—the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Act 2025 is an example, as is the previous domestic abuse legislation—to strengthen the legislative position so that there is absolutely no tolerance of domestic violence in our society.

The issue of grooming gangs is a very complex one, to which the Government is giving detailed consideration. On Monday, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the Minister for Children, Young People and the Promise, I was briefed by Police Scotland and the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group on the prevalence of those issues in Scotland. The national group met to review those issues yesterday, and I have personally conducted a discussion on them with Professor Alexis Jay.

I hope that putting all those details on the record today will give Pam Gosal and colleagues in Parliament the confidence and assurance that the Government is looking in detail at all those questions. Nobody is putting their head in the sand. These matters are being looked at in detail. There are complexities around the interaction of the call that has been made for us on the issue with the child abuse inquiry that we have already statutorily established, so there are no straightforward ways through the issue. However, I assure Parliament that the Government is giving every serious consideration to this important issue.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

The prevention of male violence in all its forms is preferable, both morally and practically. During this parliamentary session, we have an opportunity to legislate to tackle male demand for prostitution and to really disrupt the trade in women and girls, which is both a cause and a consequence of violence. Does the First Minister agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that that legislation is fit for purpose and that it passes, so that we can finally make good on a policy position that we have held for decades—that prostitution is violence against women and we will not accept the harm that it causes for a second longer?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As the Minister for Victims and Community Safety made clear to the Criminal Justice Committee last week, although the Scottish Government strongly supports the principle of legislating to criminalise those who purchase sex, we retain a neutral stance on the Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill. It is clear that a number of stakeholders have voiced concerns about the safety of women, and it is paramount that the legislation laid before Parliament must be safe for women involved in and exiting prostitution and must recognise online exploitation. It is paramount that, alongside a number of other issues with the bill that the committee has heard about, that must be addressed by the member in charge if the bill is to have the confidence of Parliament.

I assure Ruth Maguire of the sustained and detailed attention and engagement of the Government in taking forward legislation and in contributing to the discussion about addressing the issues.

Ash Denham (Independent, Edinburgh Eastern)

One of the few areas of gender-based violence that is currently condoned by the Scottish Government is the violence of prostitution. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s support—its qualified support—for the principle of my unbuyable bill, which will give the police the powers that they need to close that gap in the law. Will the First Minister meet me and a group of survivors, so that he can hear at first hand about the horrible realities of prostitution?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As Ash Regan properly sets out, the Government is engaging constructively on the bill, and I would be very happy for the minister responsible to engage with Ash Regan and others on the bill. As I said in my response to Ruth Maguire—I say this out of a desire to be helpful—there are challenging issues with the bill that we must properly address to ensure that the legislation can be applied, and the Government will engage in that process.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the First Minister, in light of ExxonMobil’s announcement of the closure of the Mossmorran ethylene plant, what action the Scottish Government is taking to mitigate any damage this will cause to the Cowdenbeath area and the wider Scottish economy. (S6F-04483)

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I reiterate my deep disappointment and concern at that decision, and I assure the workforce at the Fife ethylene plant that the Scottish Government is committed to doing whatever it can to safeguard jobs there and to secure an industrial future for the site.

The Deputy First Minister has engaged extensively with all who have an interest in supporting the workforce and the local economy at Mossmorran, including the trade unions, workforce representatives, Fife Council and the United Kingdom Government, which holds the levers for industrial intervention at the scale that we have seen in England and Wales. We have also joined partners, including Fife Council, in calling for a pause to the closure, to ensure that all options to secure the industrial future of the site have been exhausted. I welcome Mr Rowley’s participation in the discussions on Monday.

Alex Rowley (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I acknowledge the hard work and professionalism shown by the Deputy First Minister in mobilising the key stakeholders that will be required to begin dealing with the impact of the announcement. On Tuesday, at Fife College, I attended a meeting at which ExxonMobil was very clear that the feed to the site will be shut off in February and that the closure will go ahead as announced.

Although Fife Council will chair the task force that is being set up, does the First Minister acknowledge that, if we are to achieve a new industrial future at Mossmorran that will create significant opportunities in skills and employment, the Scottish Government will have to play a major role in co-ordinating that response? Does the First Minister accept that, in order to address the impact of the closure, we must see substantial investment from both the UK and Scottish Governments?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Presiding Officer, let me correct what I said. I referred to Monday when, in fact, the meeting was on Tuesday. Regardless, I welcomed Mr Rowley’s participation in that discussion.

I confirm to Mr Rowley that the Scottish Government will be an active and critical player in the response at Mossmorran. Mr Rowley and I have worked together for long enough to remember our engagement on issues relating to previous industrial closures in the Fife communities that he has championed. We will have that again in this case, and we will work collaboratively with Fife Council.

Scottish Enterprise has a lot to contribute to the process, with many projects emerging from the work that has been undertaken on a preparatory basis in Grangemouth. That full intelligence will be available to the group at Mossmorran. I recognise that there will be resource implications, given all that is involved, and the Government will consider those as part of our budget process.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to constituency and general supplementary questions. Concise questions and responses give more members a chance to take part.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Scotch Whisky Association has warned that the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s decision to further increase duty on Scotch whisky will put additional pressure on a sector that is already suffering job losses, stalled investment and business closures. Does the First Minister agree that that was the wrong decision, given the challenges facing the industry, and will he highlight what the Scottish Government is doing to support the sector?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The issues that Mr MacDonald raises are very important and significant. Calls for the disparity in alcohol duty to be addressed in the budget went unheard. There will now be a rise in duty rates amounting to 18 per cent over three years.

The Scotch whisky industry is an important sector to the Scottish economy. As Mr MacDonald will be aware, I worked assiduously over the summer to try to resolve another issue that is presenting challenges to the Scotch whisky industry—the tariffs applied by the United States. I await the outcome of the United Kingdom Government’s approach to that issue. I am becoming increasingly concerned that no solution has been offered, despite the hard work that has been done on the issue. I recognise that the industry is operating in a challenging environment, and the Scottish Government will support it in any way that it can.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Scottish sports governing bodies are collectively saying that they are increasingly unable to deliver core functions due to a continuing squeeze on their funding. Not only are increasing numbers of competitors being asked to pay to represent their country, but projects that are designed to increase participation opportunities and to reach out into our communities, especially in the most deprived areas, are being cut. There is much talk of improving the nation’s health through early intervention and prevention. Surely physical activity is the very essence of improving physical and mental health. Is it the Scottish Government’s intention to honour its 2021 manifesto pledge to double the sport budget by the end of this parliamentary session?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have received correspondence from a number of sports organisations on that important question. I acknowledge the centrality of Mr Whittle’s points and the necessity of investment. The Government is investing £46.43 million in the sport and active living budget. We are operating in constrained financial circumstances, but we will do all that we can to boost the funding that is available for sport. I do not want to sour these exchanges, but I point out to Mr Whittle that his party leader has just demanded that I use £150 million for a tax cut.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Spend to save.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Mr Whittle is shouting “spend to save” at me, but the money has to be available to spend in the first place. That comes about through constructive engagement on the budget. The Conservatives voted against the budget last year. I do not know what they will do this year, but I encourage the Parliament to come to considered conclusions about the priorities in the budget, and the Government will be willing to engage with members on that question.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The First Minister might be aware of the case of Leo Huisman, who recently completed an optometry course at the University of the Highlands and Islands. Leo is a British citizen who lived abroad with his family, but they were forced to flee to Scotland. However, because they are British citizens, they are not considered refugees. The Scottish Government allows universities to waive higher university fees for migrants and refugees who seek humanitarian protection. Leo has paid home tuition fees to UHI, but it is now asking him to pay £23,000 as an overseas student in order for him to graduate. He has a job lined up and a supportive employer, but he simply does not have £23,000. If he does not graduate, his four years at university will be totally worthless and his skills will be lost to Scotland. Leo has written to the First Minister. Will the First Minister intervene simply to allow Leo to graduate so that his qualification does not go to waste?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I have not seen that correspondence yet, but I will ask my office to put it to me when I return after First Minister’s question time. I will look at the case and see what I can do. Rhoda Grant makes a completely reasonable and understandable point. Given ophthalmology waiting lists, more optometrists might be quite handy, so I will have a look at the issue and do what I can to help.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

Today, people across Aberdeen and the north-east are worried about their jobs, their families and the future of their communities. Investment in the North Sea is at a record low, and a Robert Gordon University report states that 1,000 jobs a month are being lost. Despite the swathe of warnings from experts, Labour failed to scrap the energy profits levy this week and remains wedded to that tax on the north-east. Does the First Minister share my concern that Labour’s choices will cost jobs and drive a more rapid decline in the North Sea? What steps will his Government take to preserve skills, save jobs and ensure a truly just transition?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

As I have already indicated, I am deeply disappointed that the energy profits levy remains in place. It is deeply damaging to the prospects for employment and opportunity in the north-east of Scotland. The Scottish Government is putting in place support to the tune of more than £120 million through our just transition and energy transition funds, which has been invested in the north-east to support the region’s transition. We will continue to be steadfast supporters of the transition in the north-east, supporting the communities as they face a very challenging situation that has been made worse by the preservation of the energy profits levy.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Forth Valley royal hospital maternity service in Larbert is the latest maternity service to receive a damning report from an unannounced inspection. The report highlighted that mothers were being put at serious risk and that some had to wait up to 62 hours to be induced. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that lessons are learned from the report and that safeguards are put in place to protect mothers and their unborn babies as a matter of urgency?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The purpose of the review reports that have been undertaken for every maternity service in the country is to ensure that practices are actively challenged so that they can be improved. That is what is under way, and that is why the Forth Valley service has been inspected. It is, I think, the third inspection that has been undertaken. If we consider the example of Tayside, which was the first investigation, we can see that many of the recommendations that were made in relation to the services there have now been implemented, and that will be the position in Forth Valley.

Jackie Baillie (Labour, Dumbarton)

A report this week by Hospice UK found that two thirds of hospices in Scotland have made cuts or are planning to do so within the next year due to financial pressures. Every time that there are salary rises in the national health service, hospice staff do not directly benefit, and, therefore, there are pressures on recruitment and retention. At the same time that the Scottish Government is considering the funding of proposals for assisted dying, does the First Minister share my view that we should assist hospices with funding salaries to the same level as in the NHS in future?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I am very sympathetic to the point about hospice costs. In July this year, £5 million of funding was distributed to support independent hospices to deliver pay parity for clinical staff with their NHS counterparts—that is the Government intervening to do exactly that.

What is difficult for hospices is when they get surprises, such as employer national insurance contribution increases, because those put up the costs of employment. Jackie Baillie raised with me the financial pressures, and, bluntly, that is where some of the financial pressures are coming from.

I very much want to do all that we can to support the hospice movement, for which I have enormous respect. The issues in relation to hospice care and palliative care are central to the human rights of individuals in our society. Jackie Baillie knows that my public position—this is a personal position and not the Government’s—is that I am opposed to assisted dying legislation, and I do not think that it is appropriate for the issues of palliative care and assisted dying to be in any way connected. They are separate issues. The right to palliative care for individuals in our society is absolute, and we should do all that we can to support the sector. The Government will certainly do all that it can in that respect.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

Monday is world AIDS day. Despite huge progress around the world in the development of treatments to prevent and manage HIV, we cannot fully rest on our efforts until a permanent vaccine is universally available around the world.

Scotland is signed up to the ambition to eliminate all new cases of HIV by 2030 and I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on that—but it is the last cohort of people living with complex cases of HIV who will be the hardest both to find and to treat.

Is the Government fully committed to further rolling out opt-out testing for HIV and universal access to pre-exposure prophylaxis—PrEP—and will the First Minister recommit his Government to the shared ambition that Scotland can, and probably should, become the first place in the world to eradicate all new cases in the next four years?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I warmly recommit the Government to achieving that objective by 2030. As Mr Greene states fairly, the operational plans that are being delivered to achieve that are on track and good progress is being made. However, we have to sustain that focus to make sure that we can achieve that objective. It is part of a global effort and we will succeed in that effort only if we start by addressing the issues here.

The other point that I would add is that we must also tackle stigma. There is still too much stigma around HIV and, as a tolerant, respectful and courteous society, we should do all that we can to eliminate that as we work together to achieve the objectives that Mr Greene has put to me.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes First Minister’s question time. The next item of business is a members’ business debate in the name of Jackson Carlaw. There will be a short suspension to allow those who are leaving the chamber and the public gallery to do so.

Congestion Charging and Clyde Tunnel Toll (Glasgow)

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask guests who are leaving the chamber and the gallery, who have been most welcome to attend our Parliament—it is your Parliament—to do so quickly and quietly because we are about to move on to the next item of business and we need some quiet for that. Thank you for your co-operation.

The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-19519, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on Glasgow City Council’s plans for an at-city-boundary congestion charge and a toll on using the Clyde tunnel. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament notes proposals from Glasgow City Council to introduce an at-city-boundary congestion charge and a toll on using the Clyde Tunnel; recognises that at a meeting of the local authority’s Economy, Housing, Transport and Regeneration City Policy Committee on 19 August 2025, it was confirmed that the council would continue to investigate the possibility of putting in place the congestion charge and tolling the tunnel; understands that, if a congestion charge was introduced, it would result in motorists from other local authority areas, including the neighbouring East Renfrewshire, being charged each time that they drive into the city, for reasons such as work, healthcare and education; acknowledges that motorists would also be subject to a further charge if they pass through the Clyde Tunnel in the event that a toll is put in place, and notes the view that, as these plans from Glasgow City Council could have a widespread impact on motorists, and particularly if other local authorities responded by introducing equivalent congestion charges, it is appropriate for Scotland's national parliament to debate the proposals.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I thank the members who have been generous enough to lend their support to my motion.

Can I say too how delighted I am to see Fiona Hyslop here to respond to the motion. I hope that it will give her the opportunity to redeem herself after the casual way in which she brushed aside my inquiry a few weeks ago, which is the direct reason for my bringing this matter to the chamber for debate today. When I asked her about the matter, she said words to the effect that the Tories were in favour of localism, this was nothing to do with her and she washed her hands of the whole affair. I hope that that will not be her attitude today.

In some ways, perhaps I should hope that that will be her attitude because it has so offended all my constituents in Eastwood that it has done wonders for my re-election prospects next May. Perhaps that was her intention—I do not know. If it was, I will be eternally grateful. However, I would far rather that she called out the reckless disregard for the damage that her colleagues in Scottish National Party-led Glasgow City Council could be wreaking upon the public by pursuing the policy. I would also rather that she gave proper consideration to the wider, long-term consequences that might follow as a result of that action were other councils to follow suit.

What the council has proposed is not, as some people have now got used to, a low-emission zone charge for heavy, fuel-inefficient vehicles. It is talking about an at-city-boundary congestion charge. It is asking constituents not only from my local authority but from all the neighbouring ones to flash their digital passports as they seek to cross the city boundary into Glasgow. People who attend healthcare appointments at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, people who go to work in the city, people who hope to bring some sort of income into the city and, in my case, people who just cross the road or go up the street to Sainsbury’s to get their shopping would have to pay a boundary charge for the privilege of doing so.

People in East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire are likely to be the most heavily impacted. However, the charge would apply to every person in Scotland who does not live in Glasgow when they cross the council boundary. That is, a driver who is resident in the Borders or Dumfries and Galloway would be charged for entering Glasgow when they crossed into the city from one of the neighbouring local authorities. Drivers who are resident in one of the other 31 local authority areas would be charged for every car journey to Glasgow, including for work, healthcare, education or social and family reasons, while Glasgow residents would be exempt.

What have people had to say about that prospective charge? The chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said:

“We cannot support a city-wide congestion charge until public transport improvements have been made”.

That was his reason for objecting to the plan but he also said:

“We are very concerned about the possible displacement of business out of Glasgow.”

The west of Scotland development manager for the Federation of Small Businesses said:

“we would urge extreme caution when it comes to considering”

introducing tolls.

In addition to the proposed congestion charge, there is a proposed charge for using the Clyde tunnel, which is used by many people to get to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital to attend urgent appointments. When that hospital was confirmed by Nicola Sturgeon following a decision by Malcolm Chisholm in a previous session of the Parliament, people who lived in East Renfrewshire, who could easily access the Victoria hospital, expressed concerns that accessing the Queen Elizabeth hospital was a much harder journey to undertake by public transport. To this day, that remains the case and, therefore, many such people have to access it by using their cars. They will all be charged.

People coming across from the north of the city will be charged for getting to hospital. That, surely, is the antithesis of the SNP’s proudest boast when it first came into office in the Parliament, which was that it was abolishing tolls. When we abolished the tolls on the bridge across to Skye, SNP members were bursting with enthusiasm for the fact that they had abolished tolls. Here we are coming full circle with the SNP administration in Glasgow proposing tolls and Fiona Hyslop washing her hands of the matter—despite section 51 of the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which she could enforce, saying that it can take place only with her express permission.

I am pleased to say that Labour members have been supportive of the motion. Even SNP MSPs have endorsed it. I am not surprised to see Mr Harvie glowering at me as he usually does. Ross Greer, who is the only West Scotland MSP who is totally unconcerned for the wellbeing of the West Scotland region, will no doubt think that it is a wonderful thing. It is not. It is potentially a devastating and damaging additional charge on my constituents and a devastating and damaging experience for businesses across the city, which could undermine the wellbeing and healthcare of my constituents and those in neighbouring local authorities.

I ask the cabinet secretary not to brush aside the proposal on this occasion—or, if she is going to do that, to use some nice, choice words that I can use in my election literature, as I have no doubt that that would assist me—but to consider seriously whether the long-term implications of all other local authorities following suit might be a matter of national concern. Were somebody to travel from Edinburgh up to Aberdeen, paying a boundary charge for the privilege of passing through every council area, stay overnight and then pay a boundary charge for passing through every area on the way back, it would be ridiculously complicated and a burden on that motorist. The proposal would place a burden on motorists across Scotland and it would damage both the tourist infrastructure across the city and the Scottish economy.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

Unfortunately, I do not have time because I am coming to the end of my seven minutes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I am afraid that there is no extra time available.

Jackson Carlaw (Conservative, Eastwood)

I hope that Mr Sweeney is going to repent as well, because I have been very concerned by his tacit support for the proposal. If he is going to repent, no doubt he will say so in this speech.

I say to the cabinet secretary that I understand the issues about funding local services and all of that, but the proposal is a deeply damaging one that, if extended, could have fundamentally damaging consequences for the Scottish economy, the healthcare and wellbeing of our constituents, and the whole of Scotland. I say to the cabinet secretary, “Please say no.”

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Before we move to the open debate, I advise members that there is a lot of interest in speaking in the debate and we are very tight for time. We will resume with other business at 2 pm and we need to allow parliamentary staff sufficient time to clear the chamber between the two sittings. Therefore, members must stick to the time that they have agreed to, which is up to four minutes.

I call Jamie Hepburn, to be followed by Pam Gosal.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I could see you looking very clearly at me when you reminded members of the four-minute limit.

I thank Jackson Carlaw for lodging his motion. I have some sympathy with it. I double checked just before the debate and found that I had not signed it, which was remiss of me—I have now altered that and added my name.

I have some concerns about the proposals that the motion touches on. It is only fair to recognise that, as I think we would all agree, there are issues of congestion in the city of Glasgow. To be fair, more often than not I notice them when I am contributing to them. There are also issues to do with emissions in Glasgow, although I observe that the LEZ has worked quite well, and we should reflect on that. However, there are other means of trying to tackle some of the issues of congestion, and I will try to return to them within the four minutes that I have been allocated.

We should also recognise that Glasgow is responsible for maintaining many of the crown jewels that we are all proud that we have in this country. Kelvingrove art gallery and museum and the People’s Palace are tremendous assets not just for the city of Glasgow, but for Scotland as a whole. I am very proud to represent Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, but I am also a very proud Glaswegian. I grew up in the city of Glasgow and I certainly recognise the importance of those assets to the city and the country as a whole.

This is probably too big a subject for me to linger on it in this debate, but I happened to notice that Mr Sweeney, whom I look forward to hearing from in a few moments, has lodged a motion on the restoration of a well at Glasgow cathedral, and I was taken by a point that he makes in that motion about the emergence of the metropolitan city of Glasgow. We have the city region and the city region cabinet, but there is a question about whether we really have proper metropolitan governance in the city region. That is a much wider debate and probably not a matter for discussion today, but there is something to be said for us considering what that might look like in the context of properly resourcing assets across the entire city region.

We should remind ourselves that the proposal is being explored and there is no firm commitment to it yet, but I recognise the concerns. I will not repeat what Jackson Carlaw said about Glasgow Chamber of Commerce’s remarks, but its points were well made about public services that people have no choice but to go into Glasgow to access, such as the national health service. My constituents and I live in the NHS Lanarkshire area but, because of the historical relationships between Cumbernauld and Kilsyth and other areas, more often than not, people access services in Glasgow, such as at the Glasgow Royal infirmary and Queen Elizabeth university hospital. Those concerns have to be heard.

I have some suggestions about improvements that could be made to public transport to alleviate some of the congestion. At Croy railway station, which is in my area, we have had a historical problem with congestion—that word again—in the car park. The problem dissipated during Covid-19 but it has re-emerged, and I am engaging with ScotRail to see whether we can improve capacity there.

We need improved bus services. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2019—which I was very proud of and pleased to vote for—gives powers to local authorities to improve bus services in my area. I am pleased that Strathclyde Partnership for Transport is exploring that, and we should welcome that. Stagecoach, which operates in my area, has talked about exploring the use of hard shoulder running on the M80 between my area and Glasgow. We should explore that possibility, too. There are other means by which we can tackle the issue, and those should be considered.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I thank my colleague Jackson Carlaw for bringing this important topic to the Parliament. This issue affects not only those in Glasgow but everyone outside of Glasgow, including those in my region of West Scotland. The Scottish National Party-run Glasgow City Council is looking to propose an at-city-boundary congestion charge and a toll on those using the Clyde tunnel, which would result in motorists from other local authority areas being charged each time they drive into the city.

People on the ground are not happy with that development. During the past month, I have knocked on thousands of doors in East Dunbartonshire, and have found that many residents are very concerned. Let us be clear about who the proposals would affect—those of us who are travelling into Glasgow for work or hospital appointments, or to check on elderly relatives, drop off kids at school, attend university or college or simply enjoy a day out.

Any charge for non-residents is seen as an unfair additional tax. Those who would be most acutely affected would be those on low incomes, shift workers, minimum-wage workers and the elderly who rely on their cars due to unreliable public transport. That is why I launched a petition calling on Glasgow City Council to ditch the proposal. It has received hundreds of signatures so far. Why is it that hard-working families and communities will be forced to pick up the bill for the SNP-run Glasgow City Council’s financial mismanagement?

We often hear about how important free flow and connectivity are for areas to allow social and economic growth. However, the proposal is nothing but a money-making scheme that will hinder connectivity. What comes next? If all councils start charging like this, why would anybody leave their area? Would we live in silos? Is that the sort of Scotland that the SNP is aiming for? The SNP likes to bang on about inclusion and integration, but now it risks creating divisions in Scotland. This is, yet again, another saga in its war against motorists. Like my colleague Jackson Carlaw, I hope that the cabinet secretary will use her powers to intervene and stop this ridiculous development.

However, it is not only individuals who are opposed to the plan—businesses are too. Local businesses are unhappy at the proposed congestion charge, and so are major wholesalers and cash-and-carry suppliers that are based in Glasgow, as any additional costs would be passed on to the customers. That puts local businesses at a disadvantage during an already difficult trading period.

Stuart Patrick of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce said:

“We are very concerned about the possible displacement of businesses out of Glasgow”,

and called on the SNP Government to do more to improve transport links. Businesses are already suffering from the poor decisions that have been taken by the Scottish Government and the UK Labour Government, and the last thing that they need is more tax.

I do not see people paying every single time they drive into Glasgow. I highly doubt that the money that is raised from this terrible scheme will be enough to make up for the SNP-run Glasgow City Council’s financial mess, and those who lose out will be families, businesses and communities. I hope that, in closing, the cabinet secretary expresses her opposition to this outrageous proposal.

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

I thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the debate to the chamber. I chose to speak in the debate because, once upon a time, in the not-too-distant past, I was responsible for the Clyde tunnel and the road network in Glasgow. It is a wee bit dear to my heart and I probably know a wee bit more about it than most of the people in the chamber.

In the 1960s, the Clyde tunnel was state-of-the-art technology. It used to get visited by schools and by dignitaries from all over the world. Inside, it was like a spaceship—it was a tremendous thing to visit. However, it has been a bit neglected over the years; it has had a wee bit of capital investment, but not much. The Clyde tunnel was completed and opened in 1963 by Queen Elizabeth. It was paid for by the former Glasgow Corporation—that was 63 years ago. The citizens of Glasgow—mums, dads, grannies and grandpas—paid for the tunnel. The SNP has an absolute cheek in trying to introduce charging for the use of something that the people of Glasgow have already paid for and own.

The running costs of the Clyde tunnel are roughly £1.5 million a year, which is the best value of any tunnel in the UK. It costs about 7p per car trip and is used by roughly 60,000 vehicles a day. If each vehicle is charged £1, that equates to more than £20 million a year, compared to just over £1 million for running the tunnel. The tunnel belongs to the citizens of Glasgow, and charging for it is a supertax on the citizens of Glasgow. We should stand against that.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Davy Russell (Labour, Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse)

Not just now.

The Scottish Government abolished that kind of tax on the Erskine bridge, the Forth road bridge and the Skye road bridge. By proposing to introduce a tax on the people of Glasgow, the SNP has, yet again, shown its contempt for them. However, that type of skulduggery is normal for the SNP administration led by Susan Aitken.

There has been mention of the crown jewels represented by Glasgow’s iconic buildings. The SNP has mortgaged them all. It has hocked the lot of them, including the city chambers. As if that is not enough, it wants to introduce a tax on vehicles entering the city boundary, which would apply to those based outside the city. It is not a viable solution to congestion, and it victimises the people of Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire.

There are dozens of side roads that cross the city boundary, so it will cost tens of millions to implement the charge, never mind run it. That is a harsh penalty on the majority of common working people who travel to work in the mornings. It is an expense that will be absorbed by hard-pressed families, because the public transport alternative is not reliable or adequate enough. Ultimately, it will be a quick cash grab—a supertax at the expense of businesses, employers and road users in general. It will affect jobs and local businesses, because people will avoid Glasgow. If the council would like to increase the use of public transport and have fewer people driving into the city, the only route forward would be to make public transport more frequent, reliable, better and faster.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on bringing the motion to the chamber. I am genuinely sorry if he thinks that I was glowering in any way. It was certainly not the intention. It is just my face. If he does not like it, I am sorry, but it is the only one that I have.

I have no particular objection to what is written in the motion. Jackson Carlaw makes the point that, if a proposal of this kind was taken forward, it would have a wider regional impact and perhaps even a national impact. It is reasonable for Parliament, as the national forum for debate, to discuss it. I have no objection to that.

I have to admit that I expected a little more hyperbole in the speeches. We have not been disappointed, as a little bit of the “war on motorists” rhetoric has come up a couple of times in some of the speeches.

There are two perspectives through which we can see the issue: one is transport and the other is local government. I will split them up.

On transport, whether the Conservatives agree or not, I believe that there is an overwhelming case for a shift towards lower car use and greater investment in, and more availability and affordability of, public transport. Instead of vehicle excise duty being the principle means of raising revenue from road use, we should be shifting towards something that is closer to a polluter-pays principle, whether that is through road user charging or some other form. The UK Government has been praised—or perhaps “has been given a cautious welcome” is the right phrase—for taking some baby steps in this year’s budget to introduce a polluter-pays principle for road use. Even if the UK and Scottish Governments and local government all recognise that some kind of change of that kind has to come in time, I think that they all lack the courage to say so. If we make such a change then, of course, border and boundary issues will have to be addressed. I am aware that some areas in East Dunbartonshire, for example, have a residential road that is so close to the boundary with Glasgow that entering Glasgow is the only way for a person to leave their street. Of course, some of those issues will have to be addressed, but they are not insurmountable.

As for the local government perspective, I believe that the proposals that are under consideration from Glasgow City Council reflect local government’s position more generally, which is a lack of funding and a lack of power. Of course, I make the case that the Greens have done more than any other party in recent years to protect local government funding in many years of budget negotiations, and we have also successfully made the case for new financial powers for councils, some of which are now in place. Is it enough? No, but we are the only party to have made serious progress and to have shown how to fund that fairly from progressive taxation.

As we all know, and as has been acknowledged for many years, the specific issue that Glasgow City Council faces is that a great many high-value properties outside the city are generating costs for Glasgow without contributing council tax. That is a historical inequality since the break-up of Strathclyde region. The failure to reform local government taxation is one of the chronic issues that the Parliament has repeatedly refused to resolve, which leaves Glasgow City Council being forced to consider options that probably would not be its first preferences if it had solutions to the wider issues.

The Clyde tunnel is nationally important infrastructure, but its specific costs are borne by Glasgow City Council, simply because of the designation of the road, rather than the nature of the infrastructure. Comparable bridges are not funded by local authorities. Does anyone, whether that is Glasgow City Council, my party, or anyone else, think that the proposal is a wonderful thing, to use a phrase from Jackson Carlaw? I do not think that anyone does. It is one option to address legitimate issues. It is not the only option and it may not even be the best option, but the challenge to anyone who does not like what the council is considering is, if not that, then what? The answer needs to address questions about local government funding, the inequality that is facing an urban centre such as Glasgow—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You need to conclude, Mr Harvie.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

It needs to support the transition to a sustainable transport system that reduces road traffic levels and invests in high-quality public transport and the needs of people and planet.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Harvie. I have indicated the lack of time that we have for the members’ business debate. I need members’ co-operation in order to allow our staff not to have to rush around like mad people in a stressful way. That is what I am trying to avoid.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I congratulate Jackson Carlaw on lodging the motion and securing a debate in the chamber on this important issue.

I must be honest: I believe that the proposal is 100 per cent daft. An SNP-led Scottish Government abolished the last remaining bridge toll in 2008, yet here we are in 2025 with an SNP-led council trying to introduce tolls on the Clyde tunnel, alongside an at-city-boundary charge, as many members have mentioned. You could not make it up. I have no idea how the Cabinet Secretary for Transport will try to square the circle, because these charges will have a profound impact on constituents across the central region.

South Lanarkshire, North Lanarkshire and even Falkirk are commuter communities, and the thousands of people who choose to live there depend on travelling to Glasgow or Edinburgh for work. If this idea ever becomes a reality, my inbox will be full of motorists angry at being told that they must pay yet another tax just to get to their jobs.

We should step back for a second and remember what motorists already fork out for the privilege of owning a car. They have to pay for road tax; insurance; servicing and MOTs; repairs; parking permits; costly paid parking in certain local authority areas; petrol and diesel; and for many people, monthly payments on the car itself. The local SNP Administration wants to slap an additional charge on to what motorists already fork out simply for crossing from one local authority area into another, but to me, that is just not common sense.

We should also take into account yesterday’s budget, because the chancellor now wants to tax electric vehicles, too. I am under no illusion why motorists are fed up, because it is just tax upon tax upon cost upon tax.

Going back to the at-city-boundary congestion charge, I think that the most ridiculous aspect is that our public transport network is still not good enough to give people a genuine alternative. That point has been mentioned by Jamie Hepburn, Patrick Harvie and others in the chamber—it is not a genuine alternative. The at-boundary charge just prices people out of owning a car, and provides no workable solution for how they are supposed to get around.

Moreover, Jackson Carlaw is 100 per cent right to suggest in his motion that Glasgow City Council’s plans could trigger a domino effect. If one local authority introduces such charges, others might retaliate. It will become a tit-for-tat spiral, and the only losers will be the ordinary, hard-working people who are left to pay the price.

I am beyond fed up with the same people being taxed to the hilt to prop up ageing infrastructure and fill gaps in mismanaged budgets. It is not the taxpayers’ job to cover for political incompetence, but that is exactly the pattern that we keep seeing from left-wing Administrations. I am very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s views on this: does the Government still believe in the abolition of tolls, or is the expansion of new bridge tolls and infrastructure tolls happening quietly by the back door? Will it meet the Scottish National Party administration at Glasgow City Council and tell it bluntly to think again?

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I am compelled to speak in the debate on behalf of Glaswegians like me who will be inadvertently impacted by a charge from the SNP council, which, although it is aimed at people living outside the city boundaries, will have an immensely negative impact on Glaswegians, too.

I do not envy the SNP members in the debate having to defend a policy that will have such a negative impact on their constituents’ day-to-day lives. Everyone knows that that will include friends and family outside the city’s boundaries, as well as small businesses, which will not be thrilled at another council policy that makes it easier to stay out of Glasgow than spend money in it.

The SNP Glasgow City Council’s proposals to introduce a congestion charge alongside a toll on the Clyde tunnel are fundamentally unfair. No matter how it tries to justify it, it cannot take away from the essential fact that this is a tax on working people who, in the absence of reliable, affordable and 24-hour public transport, rely on their cars to drive to and from Glasgow to work in Glaswegian businesses, homes and public services and contribute to our economy. Without those people, whom the SNP would like to tax, Glaswegians will suffer.

The SNP can pretend that the charge is for reducing congestion, but while public transport remains so woeful, every Glaswegian knows that it is just a money-raising scheme that the council has been forced into by its own party’s Government underfunding it. People in Hyndland, Partick and beyond now have to pay an emissions charge on top of their parking permit. Even if one’s car is electric and emits no fumes, the congestion charge is spin at best and patronising at worst. That those residents and others in the north of the city who want to use the Clyde tunnel to get to the Queen Elizabeth university hospital either to work or visit their ill relatives might have to pay another additional charge is a very sorry state for the city’s residents to be in.

I, and many Glaswegians, could not function day in, day out without people who live outside our city boundaries, but under these plans, some of the support workers who work with me and my husband every day would have to pay to come to work in the city that they are proud to call home. Many commuters rely on private transport because public transport options are unreliable, costly and sometimes simply not available or accessible. That means that those who are least able to change how they travel and those who are most disadvantaged will be hit first.

In addition, the charge will have a major impact on businesses. Glasgow Chamber of Commerce has warned that firms might relocate unless huge improvements are made first of all to public transport. At a time when workers and businesses are already dealing with price rises caused by international events outwith their control, the implementation of this policy risks creating more of a burden, forcing out customers and businesses.

The premium that Glasgow already pays to maintain infrastructure used by people from across Scotland is not fair, and trying to balance an unjust allocation of money with an unjust charge would be correcting a wrong with another wrong. Glasgow needs greater acknowledgement from the Scottish Government of the footfall that our city attracts; that footfall should be reflected in greater and fairer funding settlements so that Glasgow City Council can properly maintain and build city infrastructure and services without penalising Glaswegians.

For the past 18 years, local government has been cut to the bone by the SNP. As a result, SNP councils are starting a boundary charge war, which can only end with other councils implementing their own boundary charges and the people of Scotland as a whole being less connected and worse off.

I urge SNP ministers to talk to their SNP colleagues in Glasgow City Council about the investment that they need to maintain and build thriving local services. They should also work more closely with local communities, authorities and others to produce legislation that enables them to take buses into public ownership and run them for the needs and wants of the people, not profit.

The expansion of bus networks and improvements in accessible and affordable travel must be prioritised before such charges are even considered. If we want to get people out of cars, we must give them viable alternatives instead of unfairly penalising them. Attempting to build instead of punishing is the only way in which we can successfully deliver climate action and social justice together, and that is what I urge the Government to do.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank Jackson Carlaw for securing this debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to outline my opposition to the proposed Glasgow congestion charge, which would be bad for my constituents and bad for Glasgow. It is a beggar-thy-neighbour policy that would hit those of us from the west who regularly visit Glasgow. I say to the SNP council that believing in separatist politics is not an excuse to disregard the needs of your nearest neighbours.

The SNP and Greens in Glasgow City Council will try to hide behind the idea that they are proposing the charge for environmental reasons, but the truth is that they are not. If they were serious about reducing the number of car journeys in the city, they would have ensured that commuters in the greater Glasgow area had access to affordable and reliable public transport. However, they have not done so.

After nearly two decades of the SNP in Government, and with the Greens in government for three of those years, my constituents are paying among the highest bus fares in the UK, and there has been no regulation of bus services. Having better and cheaper bus and rail services is the best way of relieving congestion, instead of fining people for going about their business. In other words, London-style congestion charges cannot be proposed without London-style public transport.

That brings me to the real reason for the charge. Everyone knows that it is all about the SNP council raising money to fill a £110 million black hole in its budget—a black hole that was caused by the SNP Government’s underfunding of local councils. Although I sympathise with the position that Glasgow City Council is facing, this proposal is not the answer—stopping the Government’s waste of taxpayers’ money is.

The proposal will have a real impact on my constituents. The people whom I represent need help with the cost of living, but the proposal will hit the pockets of my constituents, particularly those in Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire, West Dunbartonshire and East Dunbartonshire who travel into or through Glasgow. That is before we get to the impact on places such as Lanarkshire, which Davy Russell talked about.

Such travel could be to visit friends and family, to work, to the shops or to attend medical appointments. In his opening speech, Jackson Carlaw talked about the centralisation of health services. Another example of that was the decision to close the children’s ward at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley and move the services to the Royal hospital for children in Glasgow. Under this proposal, my constituents would be charged just to visit their sick children. They would not be alone; hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Glasgow area would be affected.

As we have heard, the basic rule of economics is that the more that is charged, the less demand there is. This measure would be bad not only for my constituents and their cost of living but for Glasgow businesses and the economy.

That is one of the key reasons why Glasgow City Council Labour group has opposed the policy, and it is also why Glasgow Chamber of Commerce has warned that it is

“very concerned about the possible displacement of business out of Glasgow.”

If there are fewer people commuting to Glasgow, it will damage Glasgow businesses, and the damage to them will be damage to the whole region. We will all pay, one way or another.

In conclusion, it is clear that hard-working Scots should not have to pay the price of SNP waste and failure. Like other members, I want to hear from the Scottish Government and the transport secretary whether they support the proposal and are going to co-operate with it, or whether they are going to make representations to Glasgow City Council to get it shelved. I do not believe that it is right and nor do my constituents and businesses, and I believe that the SNP council should think again.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank the member for Eastwood for lodging the motion for debate.

The member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth summarised the issue succinctly when he talked about the wider regional issue that is facing Glasgow. The Clyde tunnel is an important piece of infrastructure for the entire Glasgow city region area, but funding and maintaining it is the responsibility of Glasgow City Council alone. That is symptomatic of a bigger challenge for the Glasgow city region. It is the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the United Kingdom, but, with no devolution deal or elected mayor, its governance is fragmented across at least eight local authorities, and it has limited access to the types of economic growth policy levers and funding that the big city regions in England now enjoy.

The current Glasgow city deal covers eight local authorities in the city region, but there is no statutory agreement with the accompanying powers. With regard to the Clyde tunnel, that means that while Glasgow City Council shoulders the financial burden of maintaining that piece of critical infrastructure, which benefits the whole city region, neighbouring local authorities do not have a say in how the tunnel is funded or in decisions on its future.

The member for Eastwood said that I should rue my position on the issue, but I think that he ought to rue his party’s position 30 years ago, when it vindictively dismantled the Strathclyde region. At the time, John Major described Strathclyde as an “abomination”, but we are now seeing the unintended consequences of that foolish, self-interested decision.

The Scottish Government’s current position is that the Clyde tunnel is a local Glasgow City Council issue, but this debate has made it clear that it is not. I am sure that members across the chamber will agree that the injustice of the status quo is simply unsustainable. Glasgow City Council has had the largest cut to its budget of any local authority in Scotland, and it does not receive a proportionate share of the business rates revenue that is generated within the city boundary. The Glasgow roads budget has also been disproportionately cut as a consequence.

The Clyde tunnel maintenance budget now consumes 10 per cent of the entire roads maintenance budget for the city. That is 762 metres of road out of 1.8 million metres of road in the city, so 10 per cent of the budget is going on 0.04 per cent of the road network. That is certainly unsustainable. The impact is accentuated from a social justice point of view because Glasgow has the lowest car ownership in Scotland, with only 376 cars per 1,000 residents, in comparison with 678 cars per 1,000 people in Renfrewshire.

Districts with the lowest rates of car ownership in the country, such as Drumchapel and Govan, have to pay for the tunnel’s maintenance via higher council tax rates, while the richest communities in Scotland with the highest levels of car ownership, such as Bearsden and Kilmacolm, enjoy the tunnel free of charge and generally have lower council tax rates as a result.

I see four solutions to the problem, which is unsustainable and socially unjust. One solution is adoption of the Clyde tunnel as a national trunk road by Transport Scotland, in the same way as the Kingston bridge and the Erskine bridge have been adopted. However, that solution has been repeatedly resisted by the Scottish Government, despite calls over the years from me and other MSPs for it to be pursued.

A second solution is adoption of the Clyde tunnel as a regional transport asset by the city region councils, co-funded via Strathclyde Partnership for Transport or a new combined authority, restoring the approach that existed via the Strathclyde roads system from 1975 to 1996. However, that is not under consideration by the Scottish Government.

A third option is an agreement by the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to provide additional funding for Glasgow to cover the £820,000-a-year shortfall in the baseline local roads allocation in order to maintain the tunnel. However, the Scottish Government’s position is that it must be funded through the general budget allocation that is provided to Glasgow City Council; I think that that is completely absurd.

Finally, we could resort to the unilateral introduction by Glasgow City Council of a number-plate recognition camera toll system. I think that that is the least desirable of all the options, but it is certainly the only one that is available to the council. Nevertheless, it would require a statutory instrument and regulatory framework to be put before the Parliament by ministers, and no discussion has taken place between Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government so far.

There is an opportunity to address the issue. In my view, the best option is to move to a combined authority approach for the Glasgow city region, which is long overdue and would certainly unleash a lot of potential across Glasgow and the greater Glasgow area. I would like the Government to look seriously at that, because—as has been mentioned—the issue is not just the boundaries or the tunnel, but a whole lot of other things—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Sweeney—

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

It is over to the minister—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

You need to conclude—you are over your time. Thank you.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Fulton MacGregor, who joins us remotely.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

I had not intended to contribute, so thank you for allowing me to speak, Presiding Officer. I will try to be quick and to take less than four minutes. I also thank Jackson Carlaw for bringing the debate to the chamber.

I represent Coatbridge and Chryston in North Lanarkshire, which directly adjoins Glasgow city, so heading into town, as the saying goes, is a major and regular part of life. People travel into town for work, study, leisure, health appointments and so on.

I do not often speak in the chamber on a Glasgow City Council policy or decision, but, as others have said, this proposal directly affects my constituents, who, incidentally, do not get a vote in Glasgow City Council elections and, therefore, need me to speak for them. As we have heard, my constituents, who have contacted me in fairly large numbers, are very much against the proposal. Folk feel that they will be penalised for travelling for work or leisure. There could also be the unintended consequence of people in places such as Lanarkshire and my constituency feeling more negative towards Glasgow. It is an amazing city with so much to offer, so why would the council want to do that? However, I remind the chamber that this is only a proposal. Please let us remember that and bring some calm to our debate.

I understand that part of the reasoning behind the proposal is to increase public transport use and, therefore, reduce congestion. However, public transport is not always a suitable option. The cabinet secretary will be happy to hear that, in my constituency, train services, such as those on the Sunnyside, Kirkwood and Stepps lines, are generally pretty good at getting people into and out of the town. The buses are a bit more hit and miss and are often unreliable for a variety of reasons that I do not have time to go into. My office picks up a lot of work on that issue, particularly in relation to the northern corridor of my constituency—probably more so than in relation to the Coatbridge area, where the relatively new Citylink service has been a big help in picking up some of the slack.

I urge Glasgow City Council to put the brakes on, so to speak, with its proposal and, instead, to work with other local authorities, such as the council in North Lanarkshire, where I am, to improve public transport routes across the region that is served by Strathclyde Partnership for Transport.

Paul Sweeney raised a very important point about the Clyde tunnel, which deserves wider consideration. There is an argument that we should all pay for the tunnel. However, it cannot be done by charging people who go into and out of Glasgow. There may be an argument that all the nearby local authorities should help pay, because it is not fair that people in Drumchapel who do not use cars pay for the Clyde tunnel, while people such as me can use it without paying.

I agree that it is important to reduce car use and ease congestion on the M8. There is absolutely no doubt about that—anybody who uses the M8 would agree with that—but this is not the way to do it. I join the calls for Glasgow City Council to think again on the issue.

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

The policy on local road user charging schemes is given effect in the Transport (Scotland) Act 2001, which was introduced by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition Administration at the time. It has not been used since then, nor has there been a move by any MSPs, including those in the Conservative Party, to remove the option, under the law in Scotland, for Glasgow City Council or any other local authority to choose to use it. Indeed, in opposition, more than 20 years ago, I campaigned against City of Edinburgh Council implementing congestion charging, precisely because it had not engaged properly with the interests and needs of people in West Lothian, including my constituents.

Glasgow City Council has not published specific proposals. Should such proposals emerge, we would fully expect a comprehensive consultation with communities and businesses. Until that process begins, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any particulars. I have not had any meetings with Glasgow City Council on the matter, but I know that it has concerns about the upkeep of, and investment in, the Clyde tunnel, which makes up 0.04 per cent of its road network but requires about 10 per cent of its annual maintenance budget to remain operational. In his contribution, Davy Russell talked about previous neglect in relation to investment.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?

Fiona Hyslop (Scottish National Party, Linlithgow)

I want to make some progress.

Jackson Carlaw talked about how important the Clyde tunnel is to his constituents. Glasgow City Council has previously asked Transport Scotland to adopt it as a trunk road, which was not agreed to because it is a route that data has indicated is mostly used by traffic from the wider Glasgow area.

All members have talked about the local nature of the tunnel. I suggest that Mr Carlaw would question what constitutes the wider Glasgow area and that he might not want East Renfrewshire to be seen as part of it. However, I point out that East Renfrewshire is part of the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport area and also part of the Glasgow city region deal that includes commitments on transport.

In a thoughtful speech, Paul Sweeney set out some of the challenges of regional work in relation to transport—[ Interruption .] I want to address everybody’s points, if I can. In relation to people who enjoy living in East Renfrewshire but get opportunities to work in Glasgow, or receive health services in city hospitals, or want to enjoy the city’s leisure, recreation and study facilities, the balance of who should pay for what services has long been an issue—long before the idea of local road user charging at the Clyde tunnel was raised. Patrick Harvie referred to that.

Jamie Hepburn raised the issue of congestion. Local road user charging generally aims to ease congestion and to generate funds for transport infrastructure and public transport. That is not a new idea—indeed, many cities around the world have implemented such schemes as part of broader strategies to manage car demand.

Car use remains vital for Scotland, given our many rural and semi-rural communities. Any policy aimed at reducing car use must recognise that reality. That is why the draft climate change plan places a strong emphasis on the switch to electric vehicles through incentives and investment in infrastructure. We have refined our approach, and our primary target is now a 16 per cent reduction in car emissions.

Car use is still the largest contributor to greenhouse gases. It accounts for 38.9 per cent of transport emissions and 12.9 per cent of our total emissions. We need to tackle climate change, to have public investment in public transport and to ensure that things are done rationally.

I want to talk about what needs to be done in that wider context. I am concerned about the Labour chancellor’s approach to fuel duty and her EV pay-per-mile proposal. I think that it is the wrong decision for motorists, for our climate and for Scotland. She is ignoring the need for a broader reform of motoring taxation. We have repeatedly called on the UK Government to reform it and to engage with the devolved nations on the matter. What is needed is a four-nations approach to such reform to ensure that it aligns with wider considerations such as climate change, investment in public transport alternatives and road maintenance requirements. It is vital that the Scottish Government is involved in that.

On the current legislation, we are conducting a regulatory check of the 2001 act’s powers on local road user charging, to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. That process brings together local authorities, regional transport partnerships and key stakeholders to assess those powers collaboratively.

Local road user charging powers apply only to roads in respect of which local authorities are also traffic authorities. Meghan Gallacher might not be aware that the prohibition on tolls applies to bridge authorities. It was the SNP Government that abolished the Conservative-introduced tolls on our bridges, which means that authorities cannot charge for the use of trunk roads, as the Scottish ministers are the traffic authority for those roads. The Scottish ministers have no plans to introduce road user charging on trunk roads.

Today’s debate is also about local democracy. Time and time again, the Scottish Conservatives call for greater local decision making, yet when those very powers are placed in the hands of local authorities the Conservatives resist decentralisation. I have always been clear that decisions that shape communities should be made by those closest to them. Local authorities must be empowered to act in the best interests of their areas and remain accountable to the people whom they serve. Should any authority choose to progress with a demand management scheme, we expect it to work constructively and in partnership with neighbouring councils and regional partners where that is needed.

Pam Gosal misunderstands the law. Under the 2001 act, any revenue raised through road user charging must be reinvested to deliver the priorities that the relevant authority’s local transport strategy has set. That would ensure that every pound that is raised supports better transport outcomes. If Glasgow City Council, or any other local authority, considers using the powers, I am sure that it will set out the details of the costs and benefits and will consult widely. I would expect councils to engage with neighbouring local authorities.

I thank Jackson Carlaw for enabling me to set out a number of these issues as part of the debate. It started with Mr Carlaw’s characteristic hyperbole, but he has opened up issues for which everyone has responsibility—the move to tackle climate change, but also the move towards place-based transport planning, as was set out by Mr Sweeney. If we use the Parliament constructively, we can help to set the conditions for that, and that is what the tenor and manner of the debate should be. I thank the member for allowing me to make those points in my summing up.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate.

Committee of the Whole Parliament

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Good afternoon. I open this meeting of the Committee of the Whole Parliament to consider the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. For the duration of these proceedings, I will be the convener of the committee.

Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

In dealing with amendments, members should have the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for five minutes for the first division of the afternoon. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat as soon as possible after the group has been called. The Parliament is required to indicate formally that it has considered and agreed to each section of the bill, so I will put a question on each section at the appropriate point.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Section 1—Non-domestic rates: liability of owners of unoccupied properties

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 1 is on unoccupied properties: listed buildings. Amendment 1, in the name of Paul Sweeney, is grouped with amendments 2, 4, 5 and 6.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. Although these are unexpected circumstances, they enable me to bring to light a long-running issue that I have been dealing with in Glasgow over the past 18 months or so. Glasgow City Council’s removal of the previous exemption from non-domestic rates for vacant listed buildings has generally been a positive thing for the city in creating incentives for building owners to utilise vacant floor space and to bring listed buildings that were derelict back into productive use. We have seen a flurry of planning applications going through the council in relation to that. The issue has been a long-running one in Glasgow, where there is enough empty floor space in the city centre to fill the Empire State building in New York.

However, a number of complications have arisen, and the council has said that what has happened was unforeseen. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is important for all levels of government to be aware of such issues as they arise and to adjust accordingly to ensure that the public good is maintained as best it can be.

An issue has arisen in circumstances in which, for example, a building preservation trust or a charity has acquired a listed building that is vacant or derelict and that would require a lot of investment to bring it back into productive use. It might be the case that the organisation has secured grant funding, but, unfortunately, in undertaking the restoration programme, the grant funding has fallen short of the cost of the renovation, so the project has stalled. The organisation is then levied with building rates for a property that it cannot occupy or generate revenue from, which threatens its viability as a going concern. That is exactly what has happened to the Govanhill Baths Building Preservation Trust. I am sure that we all agree that it would be absurd to see the whole thing unravelling after all that effort.

The same thing is happening with commercial property. For example, Stephen Lewis of HFD Property Group, who has been looking at a listed property in the city centre with a view to renovating it to bring it back into productive use, has said that he did not know that he was going to be charged business rates for several years, when it will take a year to get planning consent and another two years to renovate the building. He did not programme that into his business plan when he was looking to renovate that building.

Mr Lewis says that it is absurd that, with, say, the old Clydesdale Bank building on St Vincent Place, if he converted it into a hotel, the hotel could move in and not have to pay rates for a year, even though it would not need that exemption, because it would be generating revenue. The incentives are all in the wrong place.

I hope that the minister can see that there are scenarios in which the current arrangements do not work well. As a result, the market for listed buildings in Glasgow has frozen. There is no desire from people to buy those buildings.

I met a guy who was looking to buy the old Tusk nightclub and the Waverley tea room in Shawlands. He was really enthusiastic when I first met him. He told me that the price had just been reduced massively and that it could be a real bargain for him. I informed him that the reason why the owner had reduced the price was that they were getting charged for business rates on the empty building. I could see his face drop, and he said, “I can’t afford to take the hit on business rates for two or three years until I get planning consent and renovate it”. His interest suddenly ebbed away and that building still sits there derelict—it is a blight on the public realm and an underutilised economic asset.

My amendments are probing amendments to illustrate to the Government some of the unintended consequences of the removal of the exemption, as devolved to local authorities. We have seen some local authorities do it—Glasgow City Council being one of the most notable ones. Although the approach has been generally beneficial, it has caused problems. I hope that the Government is alive to those problems and that we can work collaboratively with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and local authorities to address them.

I know that Glasgow is considering a recommended solution. The proposal, which comes from the built heritage commission for Glasgow, is that empty property relief be granted for listed buildings at 100 per cent for a period of up to two years from the date of acquisition, on condition of demonstrating real development progress. That would include design progress—for example, appointing a design team, commissioning design work and incurring and paying design team fees—and a programme that can be linked to Royal Institute of British Architects stages of development; planning progress, including a pre-application discussion with the planning authority or an application for planning consent, with planning queries being addressed timeously; and construction progress, including showing that tenders are under way and that contractors are appointed.

Those criteria would be set to avoid an owner giving the appearance of developing a project without there being any real action towards getting on site. It would avoid bad-faith acting from speculators or land bankers. It is also important to note that, once construction is under way, the reliefs would be granted for premises that are under construction. There would be a long stop date of two years, with agreed milestones if insufficient progress had been made. That would create really powerful incentives for owners to bring the buildings to market and to get renovations under way.

More detailed criteria could be involved; for example, if a charitable organisation is trying to restore a building but its grant funding falls short, it would be crazy for the Government to fund it through grants on the one hand but tax those away with rates on the other. That would undermine the purpose of a charity trying to save a listed building that might provide great community benefits.

I mentioned the example of Govanhill baths and some of the city centre projects that have been stalled or frustrated by the rates issue. There is also Flemington house in Springburn. Marcus Dean, who did up the Abbey Mill business centre in Paisley, took the building on when Glasgow Kelvin College left it about 15 years ago. About a third of the building was turned into a business centre and various organisations were located in it. Two thirds of the floor space was still unused, because it was very expensive to deal with the asbestos, the electrics and so on. Marcus Dean said that he was making decent enough money from rental income on the building to wash its façade, but then he got suddenly hammered with a rates bill for all the empty floor space. That sank the business model overnight, and he had to evict the entire building. Set designers, studio people, artists and charities were all kicked out, because he can claim a year’s temporary exemption for a fully empty building. That permutation is crazy. It has resulted in a stupid outcome for Springburn, it has undermined the local economy and a lot of small businesses and organisations are really stressed by it.

Marcus Dean is faced with the dilemma of what to do with the empty building. The only thing that he can do is convert it into student flats, because it is single aspect. He cannot create dual aspects in the building because of the listed building constraints. In that scenario, it is obvious that he should be able to work with the local authority, which would realise that he is trying to do the right thing and is keeping the building wind and watertight and is maintaining it to a baseline level. The council would see that the building has been used and that the owner is aiming to build towards full restoration, and would therefore give him some leeway.

Currently, the system is purely binary—it is on or off; the owner either gets hammered with full rates or they do not. There needs to be a lot more slack in the system and a lot more attentiveness to the permutations and to the difficulties and complexities with listed buildings. That is what my amendments are all about. I am trying to signal to the Government that there are practical issues with how the removal of the exemption has been implemented in the past couple of years, particularly in Glasgow.

Glasgow City Council is making an effort to work through this, and we need that to be standard best practice across Scotland. That should involve working with COSLA. I hope that the Government can take a convening role in trying to make that work sooner rather than later, because we are seeing a lot of projects in the here and now that are being strained and damaged by it. The Springburn example is just the latest example of the issue. It is very frustrating to act as a glorified estate agent for charities, trying to find new accommodation for them. Let us try to avoid the problem at source.

I move amendment 1.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I thank Paul Sweeney for lodging the amendments. I will talk about how they do or do not fit into the bill in a minute, but first, I recognise the effort, work and focus that he has put into this issue and his commitment to and energy in lodging the amendments at short notice.

The member highlights an important issue, and the Government recognises the intent behind his amendments. However, it is also important to recognise that the bill is intended to rectify a legislative error as quickly as possible and to enable the non-domestic rate system to continue to operate in the way that it has been universally understood and operated in practice since 1 April 2023. It is a short bill with a narrow focus: the sole intention is to rectify the specific issue as quickly as possible.

Empty property relief has always been devolved in full and has included listed buildings, at the request of COSLA. Councils already have the powers to deliver on the substance of Mr Sweeney’s amendments and to offer £105 million of local relief funding a year. That funding has been made available to councils to offer relief to unoccupied properties, including empty listed buildings, as councils see fit and to reflect local needs.

Some local authorities take into account the challenge of putting listed buildings back into use. For instance, Argyll and Bute Council reinvests a proportion of the savings from the changes that it made to empty property relief into a grant incentivisation programme that specifically targets long-term empty, listed properties.

For the reasons that I have outlined, the Government cannot support amendments 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, in the name of Paul Sweeney, and I urge members to resist those amendments. However, I have written to COSLA today, ahead of its leaders meetings tomorrow, to encourage local authorities to take into account the challenges of putting listed buildings back into use when they are designating local relief schemes.

I recognise the scenarios that Mr Sweeney describes on the unintended consequences and perverse incentives that result from the system. The Government is happy to engage with Mr Sweeney and COSLA to work through how we can deliver the results that he seeks.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Paul Sweeney to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I appreciate the minister’s response and the helpful conversations that he and I have had with each other and with representatives of COSLA. I recognise that the bill might not be the optimal vehicle to fix the issue, given time considerations and the need to keep the bill streamlined.

Nonetheless, I am very vexed by the issue, and I am keen to find a solution to it sooner rather than later. Although I am not minded to take forward the amendments because of the complicating factors that they might introduce, I would like to see a practical solution reached—either with COSLA or, potentially, through other legislation, such as the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill—sooner rather than later.

Amendment 1, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

After section 1

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next group is on the liability of owners of unoccupied properties: guidance. Amendment 3, in the name of Stephen Kerr, is the only amendment in the group.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Paul Sweeney rightly identifies real-world problems in relation to listed buildings, but we have also heard about real-world problems in connection to commercial properties. My colleagues who have engaged in the debate over the past day or so have highlighted real issues around perfectly good buildings being demolished and businesses collapsing—owners handing back the keys—simply because of the way in which the legislation has been put into practice. Now, we discover that there was no legal basis for any of it.

Amendment 3 introduces a straightforward requirement that should already be a matter of good administrative practice: it places on ministers a duty to publish clear, accessible guidance on how the restored liability for unoccupied properties is to operate in practice. That guidance would cover how part occupation is treated, how rateable values are to be apportioned and how the new provision interacts with relief schemes. The requirement for guidance is not an embellishment—it is essential to the proper operation of the law. Let us be clear about why that matters: when a Government has already demonstrated that it failed to understand the interaction of statutory provisions, Parliament has every right to insist on clarity.

This mistake is not theoretical: it carries a real-world exposure of up to £350 million or £400 million. Ratepayers, councils and assessors deserve more than reassurances from the very ministers who created the problem. Guidance is the bare minimum safeguard that is required to protect them from further uncertainty and inconsistency.

We are dealing with a complex area of law. Part occupation cases are notoriously technical; apportionment decisions vary across local authorities; the interaction with empty property release schemes is already uneven; and the recent past gives no confidence whatever that the Government understands detail or anticipates consequences. The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020 failed precisely because ministers misunderstood the legal position and failed to anticipate the effects of their own drafting. If the law is unclear, the Parliament has failed in its most basic constitutional function and it is not optional for the Government to get that right—it is a duty.

We must also not forget the experience of businesses in recent years. They have faced a series of botched and unclear initiatives from this Scottish National Party Government. We have had the sudden collapse of the deposit return scheme, the chaotic roll-out of the workplace parking levy, the disastrous handling of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, the constant churn of contradictory guidance during the roll-out of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 and—I almost forgot—the visitor levy, which saw the minister himself sending out two contradictory letters within a few days of each other. The common thread is an administration that does not do detail very well and that does not do clarity, but it is businesses and communities that have to pick up the pieces every time.

This bill exists because of one major legislative failure, and one that we cannot allow to be repeated. The absence of clear guidance would inevitably lead to inconsistent decisions, unnecessary disputes and avoidable appeals. Councils would be left to interpret the legislation with no authoritative direction; ratepayers would be left guessing about their liabilities and assessors would be forced to adjudicate on matters that should already have been clarified centrally. That is not acceptable.

Amendment 3 would do something else that is crucial, because it would reinforce post-legislative scrutiny. Without clarity at the outset, scrutiny becomes nothing more than an exercise in cleaning up ministerial mistakes, as we are doing today, rather than ensuring effective policy. Amendment 3 would build into the legislation a discipline that the Government has consistently refused to apply to itself.

There is also the issue of accountability. When ministers get the law wrong, it should not be for businesses, councils or taxpayers to absorb the cost but for ministers to put right what they broke in the first place. Clear guidance is the minimum instrument of accountability that is available to the Parliament.

I conclude by saying that amendment 3 would create a simple and proportionate obligation. Ministers must publish guidance and that guidance must explain how the new section operates in real-world scenarios such as those that Paul Sweeney discussed in relation to listed buildings. The guidance must also be available to all parties who rely on it. That is how competent Government proceeds, it is how transparent Government proceeds and it is how a Parliament that cares about legal certainty proceeds.

Amendment 3 is about professionalism, but the fact that Parliament must legislate for that basic clarity is, in itself, a commentary on the state of governance under the SNP. When a Government repeatedly drafts flawed legislation, repeatedly fails to anticipate the consequences and repeatedly leaves implementation to guesswork, improvisation and confusion, Parliament must intervene. Amendment 3 is that intervention. It would ensure that the law that we pass would be applied fairly and consistently and would prevent the Parliament from being asked yet again to clean up a mess that should never have been created. I urge members to support my amendment.

I move amendment 3.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The amendment would require ministers to publish guidance on owners’ liability to pay non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties. The amendment is not appropriate, given the responsibilities of local authorities and assessors in this process. Local authorities are responsible for collecting rates, awarding any reliefs and interpreting the relevant legislation in doing so. Council appeal processes are in place for cases where people disagree with how they do that.

Furthermore, councils have discretionary powers under section 24A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to ask the assessor to “apportion the rateable value” on properties that are partly unoccupied for short periods of time, an issue that is raised in Mr Kerr’s amendment. It is not the Government’s intention to impinge on local authorities’ freedom to do that by issuing guidance on the matter.

The amendment would also have us specify

“how the rateable value will be calculated and apportioned in such cases”.

The valuation of all non-domestic property is, rightly, a matter for the Scottish assessors, who are independent of central and local government. The independence of valuation is critical for the credibility of the system, and the Scottish Government has no locus to intervene in the objective valuation process. I therefore cannot support the amendment, and I encourage members not to support it either, as it would directly interfere with the powers and responsibilities of local authorities and with the valuation of assessors.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and press or withdraw amendment 3.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am disappointed, but not surprised, to hear the minister’s response. I think that some humility on the part of the Scottish Government—and the SNP—is in order.[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Kerr.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

SNP members are not known for their humility. However, given the mess that we find ourselves in, an apology from the minister might be in order. I have not heard a minister give an apology to everyone concerned.

That is why amendment 3 is so important. We have been presented with such a massive legislative failure—that is what we are dealing with—and the Parliament has been asked to correct it, at speed, without all the proper processes being followed and in the name of emergency legislation, when we heard just yesterday that ministers have known about the issue since before the summer recess.

We are now being asked to accept, in the case of my amendment, that we do not need explanation or guidance. I do not think that clear statutory guidance is a luxury; it is a bare minimum protection that we should now give ratepayers, councils and assessors, and they should expect it from the Government.

Therefore, I will press amendment 3.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 3 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. As this is the first division of the stage, I will suspend the meeting for five minutes to allow members to access the voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We move to the vote on amendment 3. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Humza Yousaf (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Pollok)

On a point of order, convener. I could not connect but I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Yousaf. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 25, Against 84, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 3 disagreed to.

Amendments 4 to 6 not moved.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next group is entitled “Reporting and statements on requirement for legislation (including defects in legislation)”. Amendment 7, in the name of Craig Hoy, is grouped with amendments 8, 11 to 13, 20 and 21.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

This group of amendments explores the issues of transparency and accountability—two issues that I do not think the Government is taking sufficiently seriously in the way in which it is approaching this bill and in the journey that we have been on to get to this point.

My Scottish Conservative colleagues and I have been clear that we are deeply concerned by the bill and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding it. If the Parliament is to pass the bill, we must ensure that such a failure can never happen again.

My amendment 7 would require the Scottish ministers to notify the Parliament within 21 days of a defect being identified in legislation on non-domestic rates for unoccupied properties. As we know, officials and ministers have been aware of this error for many months, but the Parliament was not told until this week. That delay was simply unacceptable.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Mr Hoy accept that flagging up an error before a solution had been found would invite people to take money away from the public purse?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

It is about doing what is right. The Government learned of the issue back in June, but the Parliament found out only in November. If the Government is sufficiently confident that the bill’s provisions can be applied retrospectively, we need have no fear of such claims being made. I hope that, if ministers are serious about transparency, they will support amendment 7 to ensure that the Parliament is informed promptly, not at a time of their choosing.

We will support amendment 8, in the name of Stephen Kerr. Mr Kerr is correct that it is essential that a clear account of when ministers learned of the error, and how they responded, is published in full, if the Parliament and the country are to understand what went wrong and to ensure that it never happens again.

Equally, we will support amendment 11, in the name of Douglas Ross. Given the seriousness of the failure, the Parliament deserves full transparency about who knew what and when—not the usual smoke and mirrors that we get from the Government. The proposal in amendment 11 for a formal statement and publication of all the relevant correspondence is an essential step towards restoring trust, not just remedying the problem that the bill rightly identifies.

We will also support amendment 12, in the name of Douglas Ross. It is vital that the Parliament understands not only how the error was identified but why ministers initially gave one date and later revised it. That was either sloppy or dishonest, and full transparency with the Presiding Officer and with Opposition parties is essential. Amendment 12 will ensure that that clarity is finally delivered. Given the scale of the legislative failure and the real-world consequences for businesses across Scotland, it is essential that we fully understand how the situation happened.

Amendment 13 would ask the Auditor General for Scotland—the head of an independent and respected body in Scotland—to conduct an independent review. We now know that officials identified the defect long before ministers acted. That, in turn, raises serious questions about internal controls and communication within the Government.

Only an external authoritative review can provide the clarity and accountability that people deserve in the circumstances. If ministers want to rebuild trust, they should welcome independent scrutiny. Therefore, I hope that they will support my amendment 13 and allow the Auditor General to shine a light on what went wrong, so that lessons can be learned and the mistake is not repeated.

We will support Douglas Ross’s amendment 20, because it is vital that the statement on the bill’s introduction takes effect before the provisions in the rest of the bill are commenced. That is a sensible step that would guarantee the Parliament the full facts up front rather than after the legislation is in force.

We will also support Douglas Ross’s amendment 21, which would rightly prevent ministers from commencing the rest of the bill’s provisions until they had made a full and transparent statement about how the error arose. That would ensure that accountability came before implementation, not after it.

I move amendment 7.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

My colleague Craig Hoy is absolutely right about the need for lessons to be learned. One of my abiding memories of my time in the Scottish Parliament will be hearing a former First Minister constantly repeating the refrain “I will take no lessons from”. Unfortunately, that could almost be the strapline of the SNP Government, because, as I said in my previous remarks, it is not prepared to exercise some plain humility and accept that there are lessons to be learned. [ Laughter .] SNP members think that it is funny that they passed flawed legislation. I do not think that it is funny at all.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Does Stephen Kerr accept that every Government makes mistakes and that we should not be making a mountain out of a molehill? Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility leaked the budget before it was given, so Westminster makes mistakes, too.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is news to me that the OBR is part of the executive at Westminster. Sure, Governments make mistakes, but Governments that are grown up and mature fess up. This is not a Government that fesses up. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

It is a Government whose instincts are, sadly—in the minds of many members and people outside the Parliament—to reach for a cover-up and perpetuate a secret Scotland that the public are to know nothing about.

Amendment 8 asks for something that should never have required an amendment—it asks ministers to provide the Parliament with a clear, factual and comprehensive account of how such a serious error occurred. The error is not minor, by the way. John Mason referred to a “molehill”. It is not a molehill; it is a major flaw in a critical piece of legislation. Businesses depend on clarity on such matters, and local authorities require clarity when carrying out their legal requirements, but they do not have it, so it is not a molehill.

Amendment 8 asks ministers to account to the Parliament for what happened. That is a basic expectation for any Executive. I remind John Mason and SNP back benchers who sit and chunter through our speeches that our first duty as parliamentarians is to hold the Government to account. Our job is to make the Government honest by shining a clear light of accountability on it. I do not know why some members, particularly members of the SNP, think we are here if it is not to do something as basic as that.

I have been pulled up about amendment 8, but it is quite generous because it says that,

“within 3 months of Royal Assent”,

ministers must

“publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on the circumstances”

that led to the bill. Other colleagues have higher standards when it comes to what they expect from the Government, and I bow to their experience in such matters.

Let us be clear about the context behind amendment 8. For more than two years, ministers did not realise the consequences of their own drafting. When the error was finally identified, did they deal with the issue “at pace”? That is another of the SNP’s favourite phrases. No one of any kind of reasonable disposition would say that they rushed to bring the bill to the Parliament, because they did not immediately disclose the error. They did not divulge it. They did not notify the Parliament. They did not alert those who were affected. As I said, they chose their favourite device—silence. That concealment was a conscious decision, not an accident. That is why the Conservatives have brought up these issues time and again and will continue to do so, particularly in this group of amendments.

The consequences of that decision are measured not in inconvenience or administrative delay but in hundreds of millions of pounds of potential public exposure. To carry public risk of that scale and deliberately fail to inform the Parliament is a breach of the most basic principles of responsible government. This is not a “molehill” or a minor defect at the margins of legislation; it is a failure at the core of good government. It reveals carelessness and incompetence in drafting and scrutiny, which should be alarming to the Administration and to us, as members of Parliament.

This is a direct consequence of ministers who have a track record in legislating for headlines, not outcomes. Some phrases come easily to SNP ministers, but the idea of outcomes being derived from the things that they do as a Government is a foreign concept to them, because I am afraid that they often legislate for theatre, not for the real world.

Amendment 8 would call time on that culture. It would require ministers to account for themselves on the record in a way that could not be evaded or spun by the hundreds of spin doctors that they regularly employ to create the confusion and uncertainty of mixed messaging. Amendment 8 would force them to set out the full timeline of what they knew, when they knew it and what they did with that knowledge. It would compel clarity about the delays, the silence and the decisions that led to the so-called emergency legislation. I think that we are all aware that there are still questions about the bill and this Parliament’s competence on the matter. There has been virtually no scrutiny and, not for the first time, utter disregard for the authority of this Parliament.

It is a straightforward principle that, when ministers make a mistake of this magnitude, they must face the consequences. They must account for it. Despite what SNP members will, no doubt, be saying as they chunter away in the background during our speeches, this is not about partisan advantage. It is about our fulfilling our duty and responsibility as parliamentarians. It is about the relationship between this Parliament and the Executive. The problem with the SNP is that too many of its back benchers think that they are there simply to support the Executive without question. Without the structures of the constitutional arrangement, with the Parliament functioning as a means to hold the Government to account and keep it honest, accountability collapses. When accountability collapses, public trust collapses with it. That is what the SNP Government is suffering from—a collapse of public trust.

Amendment 8 would restore the basic discipline that the Government has abandoned. It would give the Parliament the information that it needed to ensure that such a failure could never occur again, and it would make it clear that ministers could not simply legislate their way out of embarrassment, particularly on an emergency basis, without answering for the choices that brought us here. I urge members to support amendment 8.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The amendments that I have lodged in this group are on issues that I have been raising for the past two days, and I will repeat them today. They are about transparency. Some members think that this is a small issue, but we believe that it is a big issue, because we are speaking about £350 million of taxpayers’ money. There is an issue. A flaw in the legislation was identified and the Government has gone through the process to bring us to the stage that we are at today, where we are speaking on amendments to this bill, which will potentially be passed later.

On the very first day that we discussed this—Tuesday—I asked the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans whether the Government would release information on the bill, to be wholly transparent. His response at the time was that the Government would consider doing that. However, we do not have long to consider that information, because the bill is now before us.

During yesterday’s stage 1 debate, the Minister for Public Finance, Ivan McKee, was asked by Pam Duncan-Glancy whether the Government would be transparent by publishing all the details surrounding what went wrong, when it knew about it, how it knew about it and who it discussed it with. The minister was relatively positive, which is why I am hopeful that the Government will support amendments 11 and 12 and consequential amendments 20 and 21, in my name. That is all that I am asking for, really.

We have had a robust debate already, and members are on opposing sides. Some think that we should just nod the bill through without any amendments and correct the failure in the Government’s legislation. However, I do not think that that is enough. We have to know why things went wrong, why an error of that scale occurred and why it has taken us so long to get to this stage.

Amendment 11 is on the discussions between the Government, COSLA—the representative body of all 32 local authorities—and individual local authorities. We found out yesterday that one local authority notified the Government of an issue on 23 June this year. Yesterday, the minister could not name that authority—I am not sure whether that is still the position. If that is the position, there might be good reasons for it, but we need to know whether the Government then went to the other 31 local authorities and said, “This issue has been raised with us. We’re worried about it and we might need to bring emergency legislation into the Scottish Parliament, so tell us what you’ve discovered in your local authority about the implementation of the bill and collecting revenue from businesses.”

I am also asking for evidence of any discussions with owners of unoccupied properties who are paying non-domestic rates. Was the Government alerted to the error in some way by others, either indirectly through local authorities or directly by businesses?

There is no doubt that NDR is not a popular tax. There was significant opposition to it. As we heard from my colleagues Murdo Fraser and Craig Hoy during the stage 1 debate yesterday, some businesses have not been happy about paying the tax and will be looking at legal challenge to the bill. As I explained to Michelle Thomson yesterday, the legal challenge has been aided by the Government’s own policy memorandum to the bill, which states that it is potentially not compliant with the European convention on human rights.

In subsection (3) of the proposed section in amendment 11, I ask for the Government’s briefings, because we know from the letter that was released by the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans yesterday that officials took a couple of months to look into the issue. I still cannot understand why, when there was an issue of such scale—the Government was worried about losing £350 million—officials took from 23 June to 13 August to decide that something had to be done about it. That seems an awfully long time. What was the correspondence between the Government and officials at that point? Did officials hold up their hands and say, “Look, we’ve made a mistake here”? We do not know. We do not know any of the details. We do not know whether there will be further advice to officials to ensure that future legislation, in a similar vein or completely different, will not fall down in the same way.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Douglas Ross is absolutely right to pursue a full, proper and transparent explanation of how we have got to this stage. My concern is whether we want to extend the legislation to seek a narrative by way of explanation instead of allowing statutes to do what they do, which is, in effect, to create and impose rules moving forward. If Mr Ross had another vehicle through which to achieve his end of full transparency and an explanation, would he have needed to pursue the amendments? Or would he have taken that alternative route if it was available?