Scottish Parliament, 10 December 2025

367 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, and the first portfolio is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. I advise members that there is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions. I will try to get in as many as possible, but that will require brief questions and answers.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of its recent decision to allow a flat-rate approach to the visitor levy, what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding whether to also introduce lower non-domestic rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. (S6O-05259)

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

The Scottish Government has regular engagement with the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors through the non-domestic rates consultative group, which is chaired by the Minister for Public Finance, and other forums such as the Scottish hospitality round table. We regularly discuss matters of importance, including budget priorities and the views of stakeholders, in the run-up to the Scottish budget. As is normal, decisions on non-domestic rates policy for next year will be set out in the budget on 13 January 2026.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The Deputy First Minister knows that it was the Scottish Conservatives who warned that a flat-rate levy would be much fairer and easier for businesses to administer, which is why we lodged amendments to make that happen. Now that ministers have finally accepted that position, will the Deputy First Minister commit to continuing to listen to the constructive pro-growth solutions that the Scottish Conservatives set out, starting with action on business rates, to restore confidence in Scotland’s retail, hospitality and leisure sectors?

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

It is always nice, if a little bit rare, to hear constructive pro-growth policies from the Conservatives—[ Interruption ]—although I always appreciate Liz Smith’s contributions in that regard. We just need to get the rest of her colleagues into the same space.

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

The Scottish Government’s rates relief policies are the most generous anywhere in the United Kingdom, and the visitor levy is designed to make popular tourist destinations more competitive, with enhanced visitor services and facilities. Will the cabinet secretary say more about how the Scottish Government’s measures of support will continue strengthening Scotland’s regional visitor economy?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

They are not.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We do not need any sedentary interventions.

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

Colin Beattie is absolutely right to talk about the Scottish Government’s rates relief being some of the most generous anywhere in the UK. That is particularly important when it comes to our high streets, where businesses benefit from the small business bonus scheme in particular. The visitor levy is designed to help to reinvest levies that are raised in popular tourist destinations. The choice of whether to introduce a levy is a matter for local authorities.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

To ask the Scottish Government how it supports Scotland’s living wage places to encourage the uptake of the real living wage amongst employers. (S6O-05260)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government has a funding partnership with Living Wage Scotland going back to 2015 that supports the real living wage accreditation scheme. That has led to the establishment of five living wage places, an increase in the number of accredited employers from 14 in 2014 to more than 4,000 in 2025, and at least 72,000 workers in Scotland receiving a pay rise as a direct result of their employers’ decision to accredit. The partnership has made Scotland the best performing of the four United Kingdom nations, with the highest proportion of workers aged 18 and over being paid at least the real living wage, at 88.7 per cent against the UK average of 85.4 per cent.

Bob Doris (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)

I congratulate the Glasgow city region, where 200 new employers have been accredited as paying the real living wage in the year to November 2025, benefiting almost 2,000 additional employees. The city region now has 1,300 accredited employers and it has ambitions to reach 2,000 in the next three years. How can the Scottish Government support that ambition, whether by working with sectors that find paying the real living wage more challenging, such as hospitality, or by helping to remove barriers such as the UK Government’s employer national insurance contribution increases?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I congratulate Glasgow on being a real living wage place and on the progress that the member outlined. He referred to hospitality, and fair work continues to be at the heart of our national tourism strategy. The Fair Work Convention has done a lot of work on fair work in the hospitality sector, and we continue to support and enable the adoption of fair work practices in the tourism and hospitality sectors.

We are taking a lot of other measures. I mentioned our funding partnership with Living Wage Scotland, which includes a low-pay sector strategy that involves targeted engagement with employers in sectors such as hospitality, social care, tourism and retail. A lot of work is taking place on that.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues on how its internal modelling of oil and gas jobs in the north-east compares with the latest industry estimates. (S6O-05261)

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

We monitor and consider a range of evidence in relation to the energy sector. As part of that approach, we commissioned and published independent analysis of Scotland’s energy system and just transition. That analysis considers the economic impact of Scotland’s oil and gas industry, including in terms of employment, during the transition to net zero.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer, but it is not good, because the North Sea industry has been trapped in a vicious circle of Scottish National Party Governments that demonise oil and gas, egged on by student politicians and Green extremists, who delight in every announcement of hundreds of jobs being lost in the north-east. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that we should do everything that we can to reverse the worrying downward trend in oil and gas jobs, which will damage our energy transition in the long term?

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

Every employer that is facing the prospect of redundancies in the oil and gas industry right now cites the energy profits levy and the damaging effect that it has. If the Conservatives had not extended the levy, it would have expired at the end of this year, so perhaps the Conservatives need to ask why they extended it.

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

On that note, does the cabinet secretary share my concern that industry modelling has consistently shown that the biggest threat to oil and gas jobs remains the Tories’ energy profits levy, which is now continued by Labour?

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

Absolutely—I could not agree more. The biggest threat—those are not my words, but the words of multiple employers—to jobs in the energy sector in the north-east is the energy profits levy. That was introduced by the Conservatives and extended by the Conservatives, and it has now been extended by Labour. We all hoped that, at the recent budget, Labour would suspend and replace the levy, but the UK Government obviously does not appreciate the level of threat that is facing our energy industry right now.

Mercedes Villalba (Labour, North East Scotland)

Modelling by Uplift shows how new oil and gas licensing does not and cannot lead to new jobs in the north-east because, over the past decade, hundreds of new licences were awarded, but jobs in the sector still halved. What is the Scottish Government doing to support Labour-founded Great British Energy to become the UK’s energy champion, to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies that benefit us all and to redress deindustrialisation in the north-east region?

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

Let me be clear that we are working collaboratively with GB Energy and we appreciate the work that it is doing, particularly in collaboration with, for example, the Scottish National Investment Bank. The primary issue, however, is that jobs are being lost in the north-east—largely because of the energy profits levy—at a faster rate than new ones are being created through renewables and particularly offshore wind. Some clear policy levers could be deployed to shift that balance. We encourage the UK Government to move faster when it comes to things such as auction rounds and grid connectivity to accelerate the roll-out of offshore wind. At the same time, the UK Government should, as a matter of urgency, replace the energy profits levy, which the UK Government itself accepts is unjust and unfair.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the impact of its export growth strategy, “A Trading Nation”, including what metrics it has used to assess this. (S6O-05262)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government has provided regular updates on the delivery of “A Trading Nation”, our policy on the issue, since it was published back in 2019. We published a full progress report in 2022 and we have also published an independent evaluation of the delivery and impact of “A Trading Nation”, with a further update due next year.

In 2024-25, Scottish Enterprise secured a record forecast of £2.46 billion in future export sales, which was an increase of more than 10 per cent from the previous year. However, as the member might be aware, Scotland’s international exports remain just below 21 per cent of gross domestic product against our 2029 target of 25 per cent, which reflects the scale of the challenge that is being experienced in trade as a result of global uncertainty and the impacts of Brexit.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Recently released data shows that United Kingdom exports have grown by 4.6 per cent while Scotland’s have fallen by 7 per cent. Since 2018, Scotland’s international exports have fallen by 4 per cent in real terms, and instead of rising to 25 per cent—the target that is set out in “A Trading Nation”—they now sit at just 20 per cent. In light of those outcomes, will the minister admit that the Scottish National Party Government is failing on trade and failing businesses that export?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I am astonished by the points that Tess White raised in her question. It is clear that Scottish exports to Europe were very important to the overall picture of Scottish exports. Therefore, Brexit, which was introduced by her party, has really damaged Scotland’s export efforts. We have a lot of work to do to recover from that. It would help the Parliament if she at least recognised that Brexit is the key factor behind the decline in exports from Scotland to Europe in the statistics that she mentioned.

Daniel Johnson (Labour, Edinburgh Southern)

The minister is doing an admirable job in defending the Government’s record, but the target is 25 per cent and exports fell from 22 per cent to 20 per cent last year. Worse than that, the figures show that exports to the rest of the UK have fallen by 10 per cent. What is the Government doing to help exporters to export to our biggest and most proximate market—the rest of the UK?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member is quite right that the UK is a very important market to Scotland. We have more than £90 billion in exports, much of which goes to the rest of the UK, and there are a lot of international exports as well. We now have a six-point export plan to address some of the challenges.

Scotland has been disproportionately hit—I repeat the word “disproportionately”—by Brexit compared with other parts of the UK, which is why we face the challenges that we currently do.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support manufacturing, including in the renewable energy sector. (S6O-05263)

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

The Scottish Government is committed to a thriving manufacturing sector, as underlined by our £75 million investment in the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland. Manufacturing accounts for 178,000 jobs and more than half Scotland’s international exports. In 2023, the sector contributed £18.1 billion in gross value added to Scotland’s economy.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

The Deputy First Minister will recognise that securing manufacturing capacity in the renewable energy sector in Scotland is critical to the delivery of a just transition. She will also be aware that Ming Yang has proposed a £1.5 billion investment in a manufacturing facility at Ardersier. She will recognise that the delay in the United Kingdom Government making a decision on the matter is now causing significant uncertainty in the renewable energy sector.

What engagement has the Deputy First Minister had with the UK Government on the issue? Will she ensure that she presses the UK Government for an early decision on the matter, given the economic benefits that that investment would bring not only to the Highlands but to Scotland as a whole?

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

Jobs in the manufacturing sector are among the biggest prizes for our economy in the just transition. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build, create and manufacture products that will be essential for the just transition and the renewables industry. The export of such products will ensure that Scotland is at the heart of the global transition to net zero.

We totally understand the importance of national security, but the time that it is taking for the decision to be made is damaging for the supply chain and developers, because the uncertainty is essentially stalling momentum, which means that others are not making the timely decisions that are required to boost our economy.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

The Deputy First Minister has talked about support for manufacturing, but communities across Forth Valley are still waiting for basic transparency about the future of the Ineos Olefins and Polymers plant at Grangemouth. I have written to the Deputy First Minister a couple of times to seek some detailed answers about the Government’s contingency planning for the site, but I have not yet seen any detail.

Given the scale of the risk to hundreds of highly skilled jobs and to Scotland’s wider industrial base, will the Deputy First Minister set out what contingency planning is in place for the O and P plant, which Scottish Government directorates are leading the work and when the Parliament will finally be given a transparent plan, rather than reassurances that, sadly, have too often not matched reality in the past?

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

It varies, but I engage with the O and P plant, on average, about once a month, which reflects the site’s importance. I completely agree with Stephen Kerr’s emphasis on the importance of the site.

There are on-going conversations with the United Kingdom Government on the bulk of any support that would be required for the plant, but the Scottish Government has also explored options for support.

Ultimately—and I guess that this will create some frustration—a lot of the information is very commercially sensitive, as Stephen Kerr will appreciate. However, I assure him that engagement is taking place, on average, once a month, and that the issue forms part of the agenda for my direct engagement with UK Government ministers, such is the importance of the plant.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of parents now being able to request Gaelic school provision in their areas, what financial and resource support it is providing to local authorities to ensure that such requests can be considered and implemented. (S6O-05264)

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

A number of sources of financial support are in place to respond to requests for Gaelic school provision. That can include support from the learning estate investment programme, the local authority’s capital programme and the Scottish Government’s Gaelic schools capital fund. We also provide resource funding to help with the delivery of Gaelic-medium education. Further support for GME in schools comes from a range of bodies, including Education Scotland and Stòrlann.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The cabinet secretary will be aware that the retention and development of the Gaelic language hinge on tackling depopulation in the Gaelic heartlands. What support is the Scottish Government providing to employers and further education institutions to enable them to target population retention? What specific measures are being taken to expand the pipeline of qualified teachers in Gaelic-medium education in order to tackle staffing shortages?

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

Rhoda Grant has asked a number of questions, so I might not do justice to them all in my answer.

First, the need to provide support for the Gaelic heartlands is precisely why the establishment of areas of linguistic significance is critical. I am keen to move at pace in encouraging local authorities to engage with communities before presenting proposals for the designation of areas as areas of linguistic significance, because that will unlock a number of other support provisions.

Secondly, on support for employers, we recently renamed the Gaelic group that I help to chair. We had our first meeting under the new name of Tog this week, and there are—for the first time, I think—representatives from the private sector on that group. That indicates how important it is that the private sector is also supported. Through that group, we are considering how to support the creation of new jobs.

Given that the light on my microphone is flashing, I will write to Rhoda Grant on the issue of qualified teachers, which is a matter of priority.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Pupils are being provided with an excellent Gaelic-medium education in my constituency—which is outwith the Gaelic heartlands—in Condorrat primary school and Greenfaulds high school, but there is a desire among the community for a dedicated GME campus for those aged three to 18. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that, even where there is already provision, local authorities should be open to considering new requests to further enhance such education, particularly in areas outwith the Gàidhealtachd?

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

I commend the work that goes on at Condorrat primary school and Greenfaulds high school, and I share Jamie Hepburn’s aspiration for enhancing Gaelic-medium education. He is absolutely right to reflect that GME campuses for those aged three to 18 are transformational, because all the data and evidence indicate that, when a child is educated in an entirely Gaelic-medium area from the age of three to 18, the outcomes are stronger.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any implications for its work to grow Scotland’s economy, whether it will provide an update on its engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding the Office for Budget Responsibility’s recent economic forecasts. (S6O-05265)

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

Ahead of the UK budget, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to set out the Scottish Government’s priorities, but, once again, Scotland did not receive what we had highlighted—I have already talked about changes to the energy profits levy.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, which was published alongside the budget, downgraded the outlook for the UK economy, based on weaker productivity growth. Since 2007, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.2 per cent, compared with 6.8 per cent in the UK, while productivity has also grown at a higher average rate.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The OBR has updated its growth forecasts for the next five years. It now forecasts average GDP growth to be slower than was projected in March 2025. It also downgraded its forecast for the UK for 2026, 2027 and 2028. In the light of those forecasts, what policies has the Scottish Government implemented to help to grow Scotland’s economy?

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

Economic growth is a priority for the Scottish Government. We will continue to support businesses through transformative initiatives such as the Scottish National Investment Bank and Techscaler, and through investment of up to £500 million in offshore wind. Scotland is a top destination outside London for foreign direct investment, and Scotland’s green freeports are attracting early-stage investment, such as Sumitomo’s £350 million commitment at Nigg and Haventus’s £300 million commitment at Ardersier. Our strengths are recognised by global credit rating agencies, which gave the Scottish Government a rating that is the same as the UK’s and higher than that of major European and global economies.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding support for the workforce and local economy of Mossmorran, in light of ExxonMobil’s announcement that the Fife ethylene plant will be closed. (S6O-05266)

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

We are engaging with them extensively, and I very much appreciated Willie Rennie’s attendance at the summit that I hosted a few weeks ago. Since the announced closure, the First Minister and I have been in regular discussion on the topic. I have also been engaging with the Minister for Public Finance and the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy to ensure that the Government remains focused on securing the best possible outcome for the site.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I appreciated the Deputy First Minister’s leadership at that summit.

Apart from the initial furore, there has been a lot of silence since the announcement, despite the fact that it will have a big impact on the local economy—I am sure that that is what the Deputy First Minister found when she visited the plant. Will she tell us of more tangible progress that is being made, such as who has been interested in coming to the site, how many jobs could be secured from that and how quickly it could happen?

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

I would be very happy to give Willie Rennie an update today, but—and perhaps this would be more useful—I want to continue to keep him updated as the process develops. As part of Scottish Enterprise’s early engagement, it has been working very constructively with ExxonMobil since the announcement was made.

We are looking at two potential opportunities. The first involves projects that were identified through project willow or the Grangemouth task force. Some of those projects might be a better fit for Mossmorran, and some of the companies are indicating that Mossmorran might be of more interest to them. Those are slightly more medium-term opportunities.

Secondly, and in the short term, Scottish Enterprise is looking at how to mitigate the impact on the local community by identifying ways to increase the number of jobs locally through supporting other employers in the community.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There is time for a couple of supplementary questions, but they will need to be brief.

David Torrance (Scottish National Party, Kirkcaldy)

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the sky-high cost of energy is crippling Scotland’s industries and that, given the immediate implications for the workers at Mossmorran and while the levers to make a difference and save jobs remain reserved to Westminster, it is essential that the Labour Government acts now to ensure a just transition and to support the energy sector?

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

Every household in Scotland is aware of how challenging energy prices are and of the fact that they have continued to increase since Labour took office. That is even more challenging for some energy-intensive businesses, which have seen no support and are not subject to a cap on the increase in energy prices. It is all the more difficult to operate in a globally competitive environment when other competitors, particularly across Europe, are seeing lower energy prices.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I listened intently to the Deputy First Minister’s response to Willie Rennie, and in particular to what she said about the project willow projects—which, if it involves taking potential jobs away from Grangemouth to give them to Mossmorran, sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul. However, there is a wider concern, which is that Grangemouth and Mossmorran closing represents the loss of our industrial base. Where is the Scottish Government’s industrial strategy for the future?

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

Murdo Fraser said that he was listening intently, but perhaps he was not listening enough. The point that I made was that some of the businesses that have been exploring the prospect of locating in Grangemouth are recognising that Mossmorran may be better suited to their needs. It is not a question of taking from Grangemouth to support Mossmorran; it is one of retaining the jobs in Scotland. Where one site may not be a perfect fit, there may be more appropriate sites, such as at Mossmorran.

We are keen to use the Grangemouth process to support industrial assets generally. We have our green industrial strategy and, at a point such as this, it is a matter of actively delivering for the sites and retaining the jobs as far as we can.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes questions on the Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic portfolio.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the contribution that community-led initiatives can make to supporting local government services and outcomes, and reducing demand through early intervention and prevention. (S6O-05267)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Our recently published public service reform strategy recognises the critical importance of community empowerment to the design and delivery of local services. Through the democracy matters process, we have gained valuable insight into the contribution that community-based organisations and individual citizens are already making to improving outcomes in local areas, as well as their desire for greater influence and control over decisions that affect them.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the innovative transformation work that is under way in Clackmannanshire, supported by £1 million of investment from the Scottish Government, which puts community voice at the centre of designing local solutions. By contrast, does she agree that the United Kingdom Government’s top-down pride in place programme, which provides no funding for Clackmannanshire, undermines both devolution and genuine community-led initiatives such as those in my constituency? Is she concerned that, although Labour members of the Welsh Parliament have spoken out against that devolution grab by the Labour Government in Westminster, there has not been a squeak from the Labour Party here in Holyrood?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree with that. Although we welcome all investment to support Scotland’s communities, we are strongly opposed to the use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—as the Labour Party here used to be—to fund activity in devolved areas in Scotland. The UK Government’s local growth funding, including the pride in place programme, has completely bypassed democratic scrutiny and accountability and has created stakeholder confusion, undermining the governance structures and work of local communities. That is a view that is shared by Labour members of the Senedd in Wales.

We have a strong track record of delivering regeneration with communities, and I hope that the UK Government honours our previous ministerial agreement to work together to maximise the impact of those funds for Scotland’s people and places.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I ask for supplementary questions to be brief.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Audit Scotland has warned that councils are under severe financial pressure this year, with community facilities and local services already being cut back. Community groups tell us that they simply do not have the capacity to take on more. Does the cabinet secretary therefore accept that relying on community-led initiatives is not a substitute for properly funded local government?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have confirmation from the Accounts Commission of real-terms increases to local government funding for this year and the past two years at least, which helps to protect services and deliver for local communities. I point out to Alexander Stewart that at no point, so far as I am aware, has any member of his party made local government funding a key priority in the budget discussions. Perhaps there needs to be a little bit more communication of what the priorities are from the Conservative benches.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

The North West Glasgow Voluntary Sector Network supports, connects and advocates for organisations providing vital services to the people who live in the north-west of Glasgow, many of them from some of the most deprived areas. All that could end in March, however, because it was told this week that it is losing its funding. What can the cabinet secretary do to help the network, and will she work with me to ask the council to rethink the decision to defund that critical service?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As Pam Duncan-Glancy will know, it is for councils to make decisions about the various organisations that receive funding in their areas. We also provide considerable funding to third sector organisations. If Pam Duncan-Glancy would like to furnish me with further details, I would be happy to communicate with her about that particular group.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government how the planning process monitors the delivery of any job creation figures included within planning applications, including applications for salmon farms, once they are built and operational. (S6O-05268)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Planning authorities may monitor developments to consider whether they have been carried out in line with approved plans and conditions, which must have a planning purpose. They can also take enforcement action where appropriate. However, it is not the role of the planning system to monitor the number of jobs that are created as a consequence of any grant of planning permission. Planning decisions are made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Decision makers identify the considerations that are, in planning terms, material to the determination of the application.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

Recent independent research indicated that job numbers in salmon farm applications may be significantly overstated, for example by applying job figures per pen even where pens will be empty on rotation. Does the Scottish Government agree that it should adopt best practice by analysing and verifying job creation claims before approval and after farms are established to ensure that there is transparency and accuracy in decision making?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The salmon farming sector and its wider supply chain are an important employer in Scotland, particularly in our coastal and island communities. An independent report on the sector’s economic impact, which was commissioned by Salmon Scotland and published last month, showed that Scotland’s salmon farming sector supports 10,850 jobs in Scotland and contributed £953 million gross value added to the national economy in 2024. On any individual case, it is for the planning authority to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of any information that is provided in support of an application and to decide how much weight to give to any particular material consideration when deciding on the application.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

There are 3,600 businesses across the country that are involved in the Scottish salmon supply chain. That includes W&J Knox in Kilbirnie, which supplies new nets and ancillary products, as well as washing, sterilising and repairing existing stock items, employing more than 60 people locally in my constituency. Does the cabinet secretary agree that it is important that figures on job creation and sustained jobs include the wider supply chain?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated in my previous answer, the salmon farming sector, together with its associated supply chain, is a significant source of employment in Scotland, particularly in coastal and island communities. Mr Gibson rightly underscored the essential contribution that fish farming makes not only through direct employment but, as the business in his constituency illustrates, through the extensive economic activity that is generated across the wider supply chain.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting Aberdeen City Council to maintain its local government services, including in response to any increasing social need in the city. (S6O-05269)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The 2025-26 budget delivered record funding of more than £15.1 billion for local government, which was a real-terms increase of 5.5 per cent. As part of the record funding package for local government, Aberdeen City Council will receive £505.1 million to support day-to-day services, which equates to an extra £37.5 million or an additional 8 per cent compared to 2024-25.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Aberdeen Cyrenians, which is a charity that supports people across Aberdeen who are facing poverty and homelessness, has warned that reforming the energy profits levy

“is not just an economic imperative, it’s a moral one”,

which is needed to prevent a “spiral of decline” and social harm in the city that no amount of welfare spending can reverse. Does the cabinet secretary share my concerns about the impact of Labour’s fiscal policies on local communities in my constituency? Will she say any more about the Scottish Government’s work with local authorities to mitigate that impact?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I share Jackie Dunbar’s concern that the retention of the reserved energy profits levy risks further consequences for jobs and investment across Scotland’s energy sector over the coming weeks, months and years. I assure her that the Scottish Government will continue to do what it can with the powers that are available to us, working alongside partners such as local authorities and trade unions, to support the energy workforce. Through our just transition fund and the energy transition fund, more than £120 million has already been invested in the north-east to support the region’s transition to net zero.

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

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its engagement with the United Kingdom Government regarding the energy profits levy and its implications for North East Scotland. (S6O-05270)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

When the First Minister met the Prime Minister last week, he made it clear that the UK Government must act now or run the risk of delivering irreversible deindustrialisation and decline in Scotland’s economy. The energy industry is facing an existential threat unless it gets the support that it needs from the UK Government—including the removal of the energy profits levy—to help to ensure that there is a just transition from oil and gas to renewables that protects skills and delivers a pipeline of future investment.

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

The replacement windfall tax mechanism ignores the fact that the industry needs certainty now, as job losses are already reaching levels of around 1,000 a month. Furthermore, the EPL undermines the shift to a balanced energy mix, as the loss of the requisite skills and experience from the north-east gathers pace. Most alarming of all, HM Treasury stipulates that a windfall occurs only at a Brent oil price of around $95, which is a price that has not been seen in three years. That means that the EPL is, according to the Government’s own determination, unwarranted.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that retaining the EPL until 2030 risks thousands of avoidable North Sea job losses and that, instead, bringing forward the new oil and gas price mechanism to 2026 will protect jobs, stimulate investment and deliver much-needed energy and job security?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I agree very much with Audrey Nicoll’s proposition. I share the concern that the retention of the energy profits levy risks further consequences for jobs and investment across Scotland’s energy sector over the coming weeks, months and years. As the First Minister set out to the Prime Minister last week, the energy industry will continue to face a threat unless it gets the support that it needs from the UK Government. The First Minister pressed that point very firmly. Such support must include an urgent transition from the EPL to a fairer fiscal mechanism, to help to ensure that there is a just transition from oil and gas to renewables that protects skills and delivers a future investment pipeline.

Liam Kerr (Conservative, North East Scotland)

With the likes of Stephen Flynn and John Swinney previously demanding an even higher EPL and one without investment allowances, I am very pleased that the Scottish National Party has reversed its position to align with Conservative calls to scrap the levy. Will the Government now also reverse its presumption against oil and gas, which is doing so much damage to north-east jobs and the north-east economy?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

That is very much a rewriting of the history of the energy profits levy. It was the Conservatives who introduced the EPL, and we did not support its extension to 2029, which happened under the previous Conservative UK Government, or its further extension to 2030 and the increase in the rate that was confirmed at last year’s UK autumn budget. The Conservatives are fooling no one on this point.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it will take in its budget to support high street retailers in the South Scotland region that are at risk of closing. (S6O-05271)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The 2026-27 Scottish budget will be published and presented to Parliament on 13 January 2026. Further details will be available at that stage.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Retailers are often the largest employers of young people in our communities, yet more high street shops in my region are closing, or choosing not to open, because of high business rates, and that trend is contributing to our growing youth unemployment. Our current rates put us at a disadvantage compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. What will the Scottish Government do to provide relief to get our local economies moving?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The Scottish Government is listening to all interested parties, industry sectors and others as we collect information, analyse the data that is required and make the decisions for the budget for 2026-27, which, as I indicated, will be presented to Parliament on 13 January next year.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

The minister will be aware that, across South Scotland and beyond, reassessments of non-domestic rates bills are causing very real concern to businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. One small pub in a rural community has been given a draft rateable value of £24,700, up from £9,474; last week, a restaurant in Edinburgh that faced a rates increase of 54 per cent announced its closure with immediate effect; and a bed-and-breakfast business that has been operating for 17 years faces a 116 per cent increase that could well put it out of business. Will the minister now urgently intervene and ensure that bills do not rise for businesses next year, otherwise it will be the last Christmas for many pubs, restaurants and shops?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

The revaluation process is carried out by independent assessors, but I am aware of the concern and have had communication from businesses on the points that Craig Hoy raised. We continue to look at the challenging economic conditions and the pressure that rates bills put on businesses.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what communication the finance secretary has had with the United Kingdom Government and the Financial Conduct Authority regarding what support is available for policyholders impacted by the withdrawal of the family protection plan by CMutual and Maiden Life Försäkrings. (S6O-05272)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

On 21 November, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government wrote to Lucy Rigby, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to highlight the concerns of Scottish credit unions and their members. The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority received a copy of that letter. I subsequently met representatives of the FCA on 3 December to discuss the matter. Although the regulation of financial services is a matter reserved to the UK Government, we will continue to engage with all parties to help to secure the best outcome for those affected.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Ten days ago, thousands of elderly people, many in our most deprived communities, had their family protection plan unilaterally cancelled by CMutual. I understand that, since then, at least seven people in Scotland, who had paid in good faith for that plan, have died without cover, so I thank the Minister for Business and Employment for meeting some of those affected when they visited the Parliament two weeks ago. I also want to recognise that the UK Government has offered to bring stakeholders together. Will the Scottish Government urgently convene a rapid response group, involving the coalition of independent credit unions, to find a solution, at this very distressing time, and so stand with and stand up for the victims of this national scandal?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The Scottish Government will continue to engage with those affected. As the member knows well, we very much share his concerns and the concerns that have been expressed by MSPs from across the parties on the issue.

A few days ago, I had a further meeting with Elaine Rae, who represents the Scottish League of Credit Unions. As I mentioned, I also met representatives of the FCA. We will continue that engagement. During our meeting, as well as addressing general issues on which it could not go into detail—for legal reasons, as it has not yet reached conclusions on what it is looking at—the FCA said that perhaps 5,000 people across the UK are affected, 1,000 of whom are aged 80 or over and so might not be eligible for an alternative product. A number of those 1,000 people will reside in Scotland, so we should be concerned about them, particularly given the time of year and the anxiety that the issue is causing.

I assure the member that we continue to engage with the credit unions at the UK level—but particularly at the Scottish level and with the Scottish League of Credit Unions—as well as with the FCA. As I indicated, we have also made representations to the UK Government.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

To ask the Scottish Government how much it will allocate in its forthcoming budget to local authorities to provide financial support to those affected by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, including businesses. (S6O-05273)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The 2026-27 Scottish budget will be published and presented to the Parliament on 13 January next year, and further details will be available at that stage. We expect every local authority in Scotland to keep those affected by RAAC up to date with guidance and support to help to manage this issue. We are keen to work with councils on exploring solutions, such as flexibility to support more affordable housing projects in their area to create the fiscal headroom needed.

Fulton MacGregor (Scottish National Party, Coatbridge and Chryston)

This week, I met representatives of four small local businesses that had been based on Main Street in Coatbridge but had been forced to relocate in what they had been told was an emergency due to the presence of RAAC in an adjoining property.

That has led to massive financial and personal costs to those businesses, whose operators tell me that they have no financial support and very little practical support from the council, despite them believing that support had been promised at a previous council meeting and despite them having taken, in good faith, the advice that the council gave them. The council says that the businesses do not fit the criteria for any of its current grants. Surely that is not right. Those businesses support a town centre that is already in trouble, and they provide valuable employment.

What more can the Scottish Government do to enable local authorities to provide support to businesses in such exceptional circumstances, thereby reducing the risk of our high streets going into further decline?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I recognise that this is a difficult time for businesses that are affected by RAAC, and Fulton MacGregor has laid out the impact on such businesses in his area. We encourage all business owners to follow the guidance that is available, including that from the Institution of Structural Engineers. However, I will be happy to look further into the matter if the member will share the details with me.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what plans it has to amend tax thresholds in the next Scottish budget. (S6O-05274)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

As is normal, we will outline our income tax policy decisions in the Scottish budget, which for the year 2026-27 will be published on 13 January 2026.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Labour’s decision to freeze income tax thresholds—which was unsurprising, given what Labour has been doing in government—pulls more ordinary workers into higher tax bands. Although the Scottish National Party has criticised the Labour budget, it is doing the same in Scotland. In 2018, an experienced teacher’s salary sat at around £9,000 below the higher rate threshold, whereas, next year, that same teacher will be at around £9,000 above it. I do not see how that can be fair. Does the cabinet secretary accept that the continuation of threshold freezes is nothing more than a stealth tax on working people at a time when they need more money in their pockets?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government has introduced many measures that have put more money into people’s pockets, including the Scottish child payment, which has meant that Scotland is the only part of these islands with falling child poverty rates. We expect those with the broadest shoulders to pay a bit more; however, we will deliver a budget that will be fair to households, fund public services and continue our ambition to eradicate child poverty.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes portfolio questions on finance and local government. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow members on front benches to change.

Social Security Spending

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20056, in the name of Alexander Stewart, on controlling the rising benefits bill in Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Once again, it falls to the Scottish Conservatives to highlight the ever-increasing benefits bill that Scottish taxpayers face. My motion highlights the unsustainable social security spending commitments that the Scottish National Party Government has made since it received significant powers over benefits in 2016.

I will make it clear: when we say that the SNP’s rising benefits bill is unsustainable, we mean it. The SNP spends more on benefits than it does on our schools or our police. One in seven pounds of the Government’s spend goes on the benefits budget.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that the Scottish benefits bill will rise to £9 billion by 2029-30. The SNP has already spent £1.2 billion each year on top of what it receives in block grant adjustments. By 2029-30, the figure is forecast to hit a shocking £2 billion.

Audit Scotland has said:

“The Scottish Government has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending within its overall budget.”

That is a damning indictment. However, it is not surprising, because the SNP has so far shown no intention of getting its benefits bill under control. It does not see doing so as a priority.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Would the member like to outline which devolved benefits he would take away and how he would do that?

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We need to have a discussion about universality in benefits. We have already spoken about the SNP’s light touch when it comes to keeping records on benefits, and that is a vitally important matter. We want to see the economy grow and we want to get people off benefits and into the job market, so that they can prosper and move forward.

The amount spent on adult disability payment is the largest of all the devolved benefits and is the biggest contributor to the SNP’s overspend in that area. By 2029-30, ADP alone will cost Scottish taxpayers £770 million more than the equivalent UK benefit would have.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Can the member tell the chamber whether the Scottish Conservatives voted for or against all of the secondary legislation that built in the eligibility for ADP, which he is about to criticise?

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that you will find that the Conservatives did vote for it, but you have to understand that your light-touch approach, which I will come on to speak about later—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Always speak through the chair.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We will speak about that light-touch approach and we can discuss the number of people who, as part of the benefits process, have been receiving funds in error or due to fraud.

As I said, it is expected that, by 2029-30, ADP will cost £770 million more than the equivalent UK benefit would have done. The ADP’s light-touch review system might be one of the biggest drivers of this increase in cost compared with the personal independence payment system in the UK. The current review system allows claimants to self-declare that their circumstances have not changed. All they need to do is tick a box on a form, so it is hardly surprising that the Auditor General concluded that

“Social Security Scotland does not have a reliable figure for the amount lost to fraud and error”.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that Social Security Scotland had reported only 29 cases of fraud since 2023-24. That is compared with the thousands of cases that are likely to have happened. If the SNP is at all serious about addressing spiralling benefit costs, it must look at its naive approach to fraud and error.

Our motion also speaks about the UK Government’s decision to remove the two-child limit. In the coming years, that decision will cost UK taxpayers at least £2 billion extra, which will put a strain on our public services. In the current climate, that is not the right priority for the UK or Scottish Governments, and we cannot support the decision.

The SNP had already set aside £155 million, which could have been spent elsewhere, to remove the cap in Scotland. How long has it been since we have seen that across the UK? I hope that £155 million will be used to support hard-working families and taxpayers.

However, the First Minister has already confirmed that the extra money will be added straight back on to Scotland’s benefits bill.

Clare Adamson (Scottish National Party, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am running out of time.

If that decision does not sum up the SNP Government’s high-tax, high-welfare approach to government, I do not know what does.

Having spent years complaining about the previous UK Government’s approach to benefits, the SNP is now discovering that it is not as easy as it looks. In 2017, the estimated cost of setting up the Scottish Government’s in-house benefits agency, Social Security Scotland, was £300 million and, by 2023, that had blossomed to £700 million.

The Government refuses to learn any lessons and, judging by Shirley-Anne Somerville’s amendment, that will not change any time soon. The amendment not only ignores the £2 billion spending gap, but calls for the UK Labour Government to increase the UK’s benefits bill even further.

The Labour amendment at least acknowledges the funding gap that exists. However, it also celebrates Labour’s decision to remove the two-child limit by increasing taxes on working people. We therefore cannot support the amendment.

Scotland’s benefits system should be an essential safety net for those who need assistance. We can all agree on that principle. The Scottish Conservatives believe that this system must be fair and affordable. We must ensure that the spiralling costs are not balanced on the backs of hard-working Scottish taxpayers. That is where we differ from all other parties in the chamber, because the left-wing consensus does not want to accept those principles. The scale of the problem is such that it is too big for the SNP Government to ignore. Instead of burying its head in the sand, this is the time for the Government to be honest with Scottish taxpayers about how it will fix the mess that it has created.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that social security spending by the Scottish Government and its future social security spending commitments are unsustainable; notes the report published by Audit Scotland in September 2025, Adult Disability Payment; further notes that the Audit Scotland report highlights a “funding gap for devolved social security spending of £2.0 billion by 2029/30”; calls on the Scottish Government to explain why, according to Audit Scotland, it “has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending”; believes that raising taxes in order to remove the limit on the child element of Universal Credit was not the right priority for either the Scottish Government or the UK Government, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the money that it will save, as a result of the UK Government's decision, to lower costs for people across Scotland by instead cutting income tax.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Shirley-Anne Somerville to speak to and move amendment S6M-20056.3.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We have just heard the Scottish Conservatives set out an apparent repudiation of the benefits system that this Parliament voted for unanimously, and which I am proud that we have established. The Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 was unequivocal in enshrining in statute the principle that social security is an essential investment in the people of Scotland, based on dignity, fairness and respect. It is a safety net for us all, because we may all need it at some point in our lives.

Like Mr Stewart, I am unwavering in those principles, which are even more important today than they were seven years ago, particularly because of the cost of living crisis that was brought on by Brexit. I am also unwavering, as is the First Minister, on this Government’s commitment to eradicate child poverty. That is why it is so remarkable and, quite frankly, grotesque to hear politicians still championing the two-child limit, despite the fact that it was condemning 20,000 children in Scotland to unnecessary additional hardship.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that there is considerable public support for the two-child cap, because it is seen to be about the incentives that are given to families? The debate about social security should be about incentives and whether people feel that benefits are more productive or whether being in work carries a greater incentive.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I thank Liz Smith for her question, but it is important to recognise that, contrary to some of the incorrect narratives that are currently in play, the Resolution Foundation has set out very clearly that the abolition of the two-child limit helps working families, because three in five families that are set to benefit from its scrapping include at least one person in work. What genuinely disappoints me is the othering of poor people and of those who require social security support.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I will make some progress, if Mr Hoy will forgive me.

Who knows what will happen in our lives? A marriage break-up or caring responsibilities could make it very difficult for a family that had been coping well financially to deal with subsequent circumstances. I am not going to turn my back on those children, even if the Scottish Conservatives are.

Our benefit investment is fully funded, and that is exactly because we balance our budget every year.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

If Mr Hoy had wanted more time, he should have given the whole afternoon to this debate, and I would have been delighted to discuss the issue with him in further detail.

We balance our budget every year, despite more than a decade of welfare cuts from successive UK Governments. We recognise the fiscal challenges that face the public finances, which is why we have a strategy and a plan in place for a sustainable path. Let us be very clear that the budget process is under way, but this SNP Government will stand resolutely behind the support that we deliver for people. Unlike Westminster, we will not be cutting support for disabled people, and we will never accept cruel policies such as the two-child limit.

On future spending, it is important to emphasise that the proportion of the resource budget that the Scottish Government has chosen to invest in enhancing social security—compared with the proportion invested in England and Wales—is projected to increase by less than 1 per cent by 2029-30 compared with the current financial year. Other than retaining the two-child limit, we have still to hear—despite the point being raised this afternoon—which one of the benefits the Conservatives would cut. Would they cut benefits from disabled people or their carers, whom I met this morning, or from those on low incomes, including those who are in work?

Mr Stewart mentioned the adult disability payment in particular. The expenditure on ADP is indeed forecast to exceed the value of the block grant, because we have chosen to take a fairer approach. I note the comments from the Auditor General for Scotland, when he said:

“We assess that this has been a successful project.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 1 October 2025; c 4.]

I note that the Resolution Foundation, in an update that it published on Monday, said:

“the introduction of ADP shows that improving the claimant experience is not at odds with keeping caseloads and costs under control”.

It also said that

“By 2025, there is no evidence that ADP is a more leniently-awarded benefit than PIP”,

and that

“the latest data does not suggest that ADP is a ‘soft touch’.”

We have a benefits system that is robust but fair. It is an investment in the people of Scotland. I am sorry that the Scottish Conservatives feel that they wish to turn their backs on the people of Scotland; that perhaps points towards some of the polling evidence that we have seen today. Nevertheless, we will continue to bring forward a social security system that works for, and delivers for, the people of Scotland, and I am proud to take that to the people next year.

I move amendment S6M-20056.3, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“reaffirms its commitment to the social security principles contained in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and unanimously adopted by the Parliament, including that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland and is itself a human right; welcomes the abolition of the two-child limit across the UK; calls on the UK Labour administration to go further and scrap other damaging welfare reforms implemented by the previous UK administration, including the benefit cap, and supports the Scottish Government’s commitment to reinvest funding to end the two-child limit in further measures to tackle child poverty in Scotland.”

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I begin by addressing the framing of the debate. Titling the motion “Controlling the Rising Benefits Bill” is not just unhelpful; it misunderstands the purpose of social security. Social security is not a discretionary pot to be constrained according to political taste. It is a lifeline—it should be demand led, it is rights-based and it is essential to supporting people through hardship with dignity.

When we talk about social security, we are talking about families who are trying to keep their heads above water, people who are sick or disabled and children who deserve the security and opportunity that far too many are denied. Reducing the debate to a question of control risks stripping away the humanity and responsibility that should underpin these decisions.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The debate ought to be about incentives. It is absolutely fine that the current benefit system provides for those who are most in need. The issue is the system’s attraction for other people who could well be in work but are not seeking it, because there is no incentive for them to go to work. That is what the debate should be about, is it not?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The evidence shows that, unfortunately, the two-child cap just led to more people living in poverty; it did not do anything to incentivise people into employment. I agree that the way out of poverty is through employment, but the policies that the previous UK Government introduced did not manage to achieve any of that.

The Labour amendment sets out the challenges clearly. Audit Scotland has raised serious concerns about a £2 billion funding gap in devolved social security spending by 2029-30, and it has highlighted the absence of any detailed Scottish Government plan to deal with that.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will Claire Baker give way on that point?

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am very short of time—sorry.

The Scottish Government has chosen to expand entitlements, but those choices must be matched with credible financial planning. Warm words do not fund commitments; responsible government does.

The announcement in the UK budget of the removal of the two-child limit is a significant anti-poverty measure, and it should be welcomed. It will lift an estimated 450,000 children across the UK out of poverty, including around 95,000 in Scotland. It is the single most cost-effective action to drive down child poverty rates, and it is unquestionably the right thing to do.

Let us be clear: the two-child cap was—as I have said—a deliberate Conservative policy choice, and it pushed families into poverty and imposed long-term costs on health, education and economic potential. Removing it was the right thing to do, and the decision was taken at the right time, when it could be delivered sustainably and responsibly.

However, the nature of child poverty has changed. Nearly three quarters of children in poverty in Scotland are in working households. Poverty today is not simply an issue of unemployment—it is about low pay, insecurity and the rising cost of essential goods. That is why action such as increasing the national living wage, raising the basic rate of universal credit, supporting energy bills and strengthening employment rights matter. Those measures help working families to stay afloat.

In Scotland, after 18 years of SNP Government, relative child poverty after housing costs has fallen by just 1 per cent. The Government’s own targets will not be met unless there is urgent action in the areas where it has fallen short. That must include investing properly in employability services, rather than cutting £30 million from budgets, and addressing Scotland’s housing emergency, which currently leaves 10,000 children in temporary accommodation.

We cannot talk seriously about tackling poverty without addressing the central role of work. For those who can work, secure employment is the most sustainable route out of poverty. Parents need flexible work options, affordable childcare and targeted support to enable them to get into, and progress in, the labour market. Too many young people are not in education, employment or training. The disability employment gap in Scotland is wider than that in the rest of the UK, with almost 300,000 working-age people in Scotland out of work because of illness.

In conclusion, Scotland needs a Government that sets out a credible plan for funding its commitments; that aligns social security with opportunity; and that uses every lever at its disposal to improve people’s lives.

I move amendment S6M-20056.2, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:

“notes with concern Audit Scotland’s recent assessment of a ‘funding gap for devolved social security spending of £2.0 billion by 2029/30’ and the absence of a ‘detailed strategy for how [the Scottish Government] will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending’; welcomes the announcement in the 2025 UK Budget of the removal of the two-child limit for universal credit, noting that this will lift an estimated 450,000 children across the UK out of poverty and that, in the assessment of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, ‘the projected fall in child poverty over the current parliament would be the biggest on record’; believes that this must be followed by a renewed focus in Scotland on tackling the causes of poverty and boosting the means of defeating it, such as employability, housing and education, and further believes that the long-term solution to breaking the generational cycle of poverty in Scotland must include supporting people into sustainable and well-paid work.”

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Our social security system embodies the duty that we have to one another. It provides a best start grant when a new Scot is born and the Scottish child payment as the child grows. When the young person enters work for the first time, they might be able to claim their job start grant and, when they die—much later in life, I hope—the funeral support payment ensures that they will be laid to rest with dignity. I ask the Conservatives: what do they want to cut? Clearly, they would prefer to keep the two-child limit and rape clause in place, despite the overwhelming evidence that they have caused significant increases in child poverty. The estimated 20,000 children who have been brought out of poverty through lifting the cap would go straight back into it if the Tories had their way.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Does Maggie Chapman accept that the interplay between universal credit and the Scottish child payment is resulting in some people choosing not to work additional hours, and that they would be willing to do so had that mechanism not been put in place?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Quite frankly, I think that that has more to do with problems with universal credit than anything else—the restrictions that are placed on people who want to work a few additional hours instead of full time.

Social security should be seen as an investment in our economy as well as our people. We know that money that is paid out in social security circulates in local economies and is spent in local businesses. The End Child Poverty coalition estimates that local economies would benefit by as much as £19 million annually per constituency by lifting the cap. In Alexander Stewart’s region, Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy would regain £2.5 million, and Russell Findlay’s constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North and South would together get £4 million back. Next time that they knock on doors, they will need to look their poorer constituents in the eye and explain why they do not want that money to be put back into their pockets and their communities.

As if the disaster of PIP was not enough, perhaps they want to take the money from the adult disability payment. However, the truth is that, as with so many payments, ADP is helping too few people and not too many. [ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Please resume your seat for a second, Ms Chapman.

Unbelievably, a conversation is going on from a sedentary position between two members of front-bench teams, which is extremely discourteous to Ms Chapman and the chamber.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

Of those who have applied for ADP in the past year, 63 per cent have been rejected, which is worse than for PIP—the independent Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Resolution Foundation agree on that—and we know that many people do not get the right decision the first time. During the ADP’s short history, 60,000 people have asked for a second opinion. Some have had to go all the way to court to get what they are owed. That shows that we need more money in those kinds of social security payments, not less, as the Scottish Conservatives seem to be arguing.

I agree with the cabinet secretary about the need to have a social security system that is there for us all in case we need it, but disabled people are struggling now. When I raised that last week, the Minister for Equalities did not answer my question about what changes, if any, have been made in Social Security Scotland to lead to the change in the figures. I hope that the cabinet secretary can tell us why so many of the stats are going in the wrong direction: there are more rejections, more appeals and fewer people getting the highest rates that they deserve.

The Conservatives ran the social security system across the UK for 14 years. The motion is evidence, as if any more were needed, that the party learned nothing from its mistakes—not from those who took their own lives out of despair because of benefit sanctions and losing disability support, and not from the increase by thousands of per cent in the number of food parcels that are given out because social security does not meet people’s basic daily needs. The Conservatives have not learned that, if we want a society that is prosperous, fair and equal, a social security system for all is vital.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I want a caring system that respects people when they are in need. That is why the Liberal Democrats supported the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, and why we believe in the fairness, dignity and respect approach. We believed that, when we were creating a new welfare state, we needed to come together to create those new central powers for it.

One of my constituents told me that, unlike under the previous Department for Work and Pensions system, she was believed—and her face showed the relief of being believed. She was right to think that she deserved that respect, and that is why I was pleased that that approach had filtered through into the Scottish system. It is also why I am pleased that the two-child limit has gone, because, in effect, it was punishing the children rather than the adults. That is not an appropriate way to manage a welfare system.

However, we can agree that the current system is unsustainable and that, when we reach it, the forecasted £2 billion gap will test us quite considerably. It is also true that the levels of economic inactivity—said to be one in four or one in five; the figures fluctuate—are too high. That means not only that there is a significant burden on the social security system but that we are losing valuable taxpayers to our economy.

On both fronts, the system is not sustainable. I think that we can all accept that we face an enormous challenge, but I am more concerned about the impact on individuals, because the level of economic inactivity in Scotland is far too high.

Unlike in the 1980s and 1990s, when those who were economically inactive were primarily men who had worked in industrial complexes and whose bodies were battered and bruised, we are now talking about younger people who are neurodivergent or who have mental health issues. We cannot afford for them to be economically inactive for the rest of their lives.

In the 1980s and 1990s, those men lost perhaps about 20 years’ worth of economic activity. If we do not support into work the people who I have just mentioned, they will be lost to work for the rest of their lives, which will be bad for them and for our economy. We need to deal with that.

The most depressing thing about the debate is the silo mentality that surrounds it. We must have rounded services that help those people. I have an example of a young person in my constituency in his 20s. When he was at school, he received support for his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. When he left school, he went off the rails. He has been lost to the economy for four years now, because there is no adult neurodivergent service in Fife. That situation is replicated across the country.

What is the national health service doing? Does it not understand that it is important that it orientates its services to help the economy? If we do not get those people back to work, we will not be able to raise the taxes to pay for the vital NHS services that we rely on. We must have a rounded system.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will Willie Rennie give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I have only 30 seconds left.

I know that the Deputy First Minister has been leading some work on that, but the situation is urgent. We need to align all our services and focus on the one in four or one in five people who are economically inactive. We must provide the required services—not just in relation to the skills, housing and other things that are referred to in the Labour amendment, but in relation to the NHS. We must ensure that we are focused on getting them back to work for their own sake, for the sake of our taxes and for the sake of the economy.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

This debate is important not just because of the persistent warnings from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, Audit Scotland and all the other economic forecasters that the ballooning welfare bill is seriously threatening the fiscal sustainability of Scotland’s future, but because they believe that the system is not sufficiently transparent and the Scottish Government is not sufficiently accountable for the decisions that it makes. The Auditor General confirmed that at the Finance and Public Administration Committee yesterday. He is rightly complaining that the Scottish Government is not sufficiently transparent in explaining how its tax policies contribute to the Scottish budget policy profile or, just as important, which of them do that.

Another reason why the debate is important is because far too many politicians, including Scottish ministers, shy away from the problems, especially just before an election, in the hope that they will go away. Of course, they will not go away, because they are now so serious. As Fraser Nelson wrote yesterday in his latest article, we will not solve that problem if we indulge only in a political “blame game”. We are all guilty of ignoring the extent of the problem.

By the way, on Mr Balfour’s point, as members will have heard me say before, one of my frustrations in this Parliament is that we seem to continually avoid the necessary debate about which universal payments should be our priority and which should not be. If I remember correctly, not that long ago, when the cabinet secretary was at the Social Justice and Social Security Committee, she rightly set out that the Government is facing the issue of not being able to roll out free school meals to the extent that it would like to. The cabinet secretary has to accept that there are issues for the Scottish Government.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member give way on that point?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will come back to the member in a minute.

Alexander Stewart set out the stark facts that we have to face. I will not rehearse them again, but I point out that most commentators believe that a large part of the problem is down to the lighter-touch approach to welfare applications, with fewer tough questions for applicants to answer and fewer rejections of applications.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Will the member give way?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that Mr Balfour’s intervention might be on the same point.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Liz Smith knows that I absolutely agree with her on the issue of universalism and benefits. However, on the issue that Mr Stewart raised and that I think that Liz Smith is trying to develop, I note that ADP actually helps people into employment. If we take ADP away from people, there might be a negative effect, with more people ending up in unemployment. Does she recognise that ADP might be the wrong benefit to go after?

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I certainly acknowledge how important ADP is, and Mr Balfour is right that it takes people into work. However, we have to look at the exponential increase in it. That is a matter of concern, and it is something that the Scottish Conservatives have been pursuing for some time.

One issue is the exacerbation of the economic inactivity problem, which is a serious labour market issue for a number of sectors. If it becomes more financially comfortable to be on benefits and, at the same time, more expensive for employers to employ people because of rising costs, including Labour’s national insurance charges, the outcome is predictable. In other words, it would be much better if the welfare debate was more about the balance of incentives rather than mud slinging, which happens all too often.

To sum up, those of us who argue that there should be constraints on this social benefit aspect are often told that we lack compassion and decency and that our stance is immoral. I completely and utterly reject that assertion. It is not doing anything that would be lacking in compassion and decency, not just because of the long-term effects on benefit claimants but because of the long-term effects on Scotland.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I am glad that we have the opportunity to debate the issue today, not because I agree with the motion—actually, I fundamentally disagree with the framing of social security as a cost instead of an investment in the people of Scotland—but because I recognise that there is a concerted effort by some to claw back money from those who need it most, in the name of being responsible. It would not be responsible for a Government to leave people in poverty. Those of us who know how damaging that is need to take every opportunity that we can to speak up against that and bring the debate back to the basics. We must decide whether, as a country, we want to support people with the essentials—food, heating and health—and eradicate poverty, or protect and expand the disgusting wealth gap that already exists in the UK.

The motion specifically mentions adult disability payment. Let me remind Parliament why ADP is essential. We replaced the cruel and demeaning process of personal independence payment—a system that was based on suspicion and targets—with a process built on dignity, fairness and respect. Today, the Tories seem to want to bring us back to that suspicion and those dehumanising targets. If the Audit Scotland report confirms high demand for ADP, that is because demand is high and people now have a fairer and more compassionate system to turn to. We cannot then turn them away or deny them their dignity.

At a time when we are doing all that we can to reduce child poverty in our communities and people across Scotland are still struggling with the cost of living, prioritising the cutting of tax would be absurd. Tax exists to support the common good, and I am happy that my taxes in Scotland go towards ending child poverty. Now that the UK Government has finally done the right thing and scrapped the two-child cap, the money that we had started to spend on mitigating it in Scotland should go towards extra efforts to support families.

When Alexander Stewart’s party was in power as the previous UK Government, not only did it cut social security spending, but the Tories embarked on a systemic and sustained tearing apart of the security net that is supposed to exist to prevent anyone—including children, disabled people and pensioners—from falling below a minimum standard such that they cannot afford to eat.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

If Emma Roddick is correct in that, can I ask her where she feels that the revenue should be found in order to finance welfare, because it is a huge, fat bill?

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is a huge investment in people who otherwise struggle to be productive, active members of society. We are talking about children and disabled people—there is no world where it is legitimate to allow them to fall into poverty rather than support them financially to be productive members of society.

That safety net, which was torn apart, will not be fixed with one change, and the Scottish Government has a huge job to rebuild it. Such an undertaking would not be an easy job even for those who are in charge at a UK level, but it is even harder for a devolved Government that works within constraints and at the whim of a UK Government. Unfortunately, the topic of today’s debate is a good example of that.

The Scottish Government stepped up to do the necessary work because the UK Government refused to scrap the two-child cap, despite knowing about the damage that it was doing. The UK Government has now taken action, but it did so late, so the Scottish Government has had to readjust priorities and take a new approach. It is possible to be at once glad that the two-child cap will not apply anywhere in the UK, which it should not, and frustrated about the constant difficulty that our sustained and comprehensive approach in Scotland has been held back because we did not know what the UK Government would do next.

The forecast funding gap is a huge challenge and it is concerning, but it does not inherently mean that the priorities that the Scottish Government has set out should be criticised. The fact that the UK Government’s spending choices and the resulting block grant that is given to Scotland do not provide enough money to tackle poverty is a problem. The fact that the Scottish Government is having to try to tackle types of poverty that are a direct result of past UK policies is a problem. The fact that people will still struggle after this one change is also a problem, but that means that we need further investment and not reprioritisation.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I am quite concerned by the speech that we have just heard, but there are some members in the chamber who do not believe that the rules of economics are completely optional.

Audit Scotland’s 2025 report on adult disability payment should serve as a wake-up call to every member of the Parliament. It sets out in clear and unambiguous terms how unstable devolved social security finances are. The report projects a £2 billion funding gap by 2029-30 across devolved benefits—a gap that the Scottish Government has no credible plan to close. This is not a responsible or sustainable Government and it is certainly not fair to the people of Scotland, who are constantly called on to foot the bill.

Working families—the very taxpayers whom the Government claims to champion—are already paying the price. Middle-income households, teachers, nurseries, police officers and small business owners pay significantly more here than they would pay in other parts of the UK. What do they receive in return? They get a devolved social security system that is overspending by hundreds of millions of pounds a year, with no fiscal strategy or contingency plan in place whatsoever.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that individuals with disabilities and those who fall on hard times deserve help through benefits, but that does not absolve any Government if it avoids fiscal responsibility. People expect their taxes to be managed wisely. Instead, they face the possibility of increased taxation or reductions in essential public services while the benefits system runs at its current scale. Audit Scotland could not have been clearer: the Scottish Government is expanding entitlements faster than it can fund them, and it is doing so without transparency or long-term financial planning.

Speaking of holding people’s taxes to ransom, I note that the UK Labour Government, under Rachel Reeves, has announced that it will abolish the two-child limit on UK-wide benefits. In the budget, she froze income tax and national insurance thresholds—moves that the independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, says will push more people into higher tax bands. That is the same chancellor who promised that working people would not pay more in tax, but she now has to admit that ordinary families must contribute more.

That raises a fundamental question for the Scottish Parliament: is providing benefits the only way to support families? We have to be honest—it is not. Instead, our focus should be on supporting families, especially when it comes to raising children.

One of the biggest challenges that families face today is the affordability of childcare. The Scottish Government has all but forgotten the promise that it made to expand funded childcare for those aged nine months and onwards. If it was truly serious about supporting families with children, it would do so, as it promised, providing affordable and flexible early years provision and supporting working parents with childcare. It would not add open-ended benefit commitments funded by even higher taxes.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Will Meghan Gallacher take an intervention?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Ms Gallacher is in her final minute.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

If the aim is to support family life, effort should go into providing families with practical support at the point at which they need it most. The Scottish Government should not be asking ridiculous questions about which benefits need to be cut; it should be giving people the tools to succeed.

Working people are paying more, services are delivering less and the Government that is responsible for this mess wants yet another parliamentary term. It does not deserve it. Scotland cannot afford a Government that spends first and thinks later. It is time to put competence before chaos, honesty before spin and taxpayers before wish lists. Scotland needs a Government that respects the people who fund it, not one that treats them as an afterthought.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Pam Duncan-Glancy, who joins us remotely.

Pam Duncan-Glancy (Labour, Glasgow)

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Social security exists to provide a safety net, but safety nets are of no use if they have holes in them. To promise a new way but not manage the forecast spend is not just unfair but a dereliction of responsibility. So, too, is marching people up a hill with promises of a kinder approach when, according to a report on ADP by Edel Harris OBE, disabled people remain frustrated about processes, inconsistent decision making and the lack of understanding of particular conditions.

My inbox reflects that reality. I have had constituents who have struggled to get information in accessible formats—they might have visual impairment or need the information in another language. We were told that the production of letters in different formats requires a manual workaround, but we should remember that we are talking about an information technology system that was millions of pounds over budget, so it is of concern that it is failing on a basic aspect of meeting needs.

Advice services in Glasgow have told me that they find the system hard to navigate. According to Citizens Advice Scotland, the fastest-growing areas of advice on ADP relate to redeterminations and appeals. That means repeating information, and it leaves people exhausted, unheard and without hope.

According to Audit Scotland’s assessment, there will be a funding gap of £2 billion by 2029-30, with the absence of a strategy to fill it. Warm words, or, as the Government’s amendment says, a “commitment to ... principles”, mean nothing if the Government cannot put its money where its mouth is. The Government uses warm words but does not put in the hard graft to deliver the deeds. The job of government is to do things, not just to say things.

That is why I welcome the announcement in the UK budget of the removal of the two-child limit for those on universal credit, which will lift an estimated 450,000 children across the UK out of poverty. That is the biggest projected fall in child poverty on record, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The UK Government is not just saying empty words; it is acting.

The UK Government did not, and Scottish Labour would not, stop there, because tackling the causes of poverty and boosting the means of defeating it, including through employability, housing and education, need action, too—action that the SNP Government has failed to take. The long-term solution to breaking the cycle of poverty must include supporting people into good, well-paid jobs. That means properly funding colleges to deliver skills, providing apprenticeships in key skills areas for anyone who qualifies and supporting people who desperately want to work but who face relentless discrimination or barriers to getting into work.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the disability employment gap in Scotland still sits at 31.5 per cent. Although some disabled people are unable to work, we know that, with the right support and structures in place, many want to work and many can thrive in the workplace and contribute significantly to the economy.

The equality academy run by the Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living is an incredible example of how that can be done. The organisation, which is in my region, runs an internship programme that provides NHS placements for disabled graduates. The programme supports disabled people to unlock their potential and has an 88 per cent success rate for getting people into work. We need more such programmes.

Then there are the thousands of disabled people who are left languishing on social care and NHS waiting lists, unable to access the support that they need to fulfil their potential. There are 1.7 million people in Scotland with arthritis or musculoskeletal conditions, which are among the biggest causes of persistent pain, disability and lost working days. Such people could benefit from a hip or knee replacement, for example, yet of the more than 10,000 waits of over 52 weeks for in-patient day-case treatment in Glasgow at the end of October, 15 per cent were for orthopaedics.

It is clear that there is still such a long way to go to ensure that people are able to realise their human rights, including the right to work. A Scottish Labour Government would set about removing the barriers. We would clear the waiting list backlog so that fewer people were locked out of work, revitalise colleges and reform employability.

The UK Labour Government has already delivered a direct pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scottish workers. That is the sort of action that we need—action to deliver the rights of people to participate in society, to work and to contribute. That is how people have dignity; that is how we empower people; that is how we meet the skills gap in Scotland; and that is how we will not just reduce poverty, but consign it, rightly, to the dustbin of history.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in today’s debate, although it follows a recurrent theme from the Conservatives in terms of their increasing use of depressing, screeching rhetoric. We hear various refrains from them.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I have just started. I will get on with identifying some of that screeching rhetoric.

I see that Mr Lumsden is sitting up at the back of the chamber. He is keen to constantly go on about “mega-monster pylons” or the “woke elite”—he has been watching Fox News far too often. Then there was Craig Hoy’s recent dog-whistle—or perhaps foghorn—debate on illegal immigration and housing. The refrain that we heard from Mr Stewart today was about the collective “left-wing consensus”—he, too, has been watching too much Fox News. [Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Hepburn, could you perhaps get to the meat of your contribution?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am getting to the point, Presiding Officer. The point that I am making is that today’s debate is, again, designed to be just rhetoric. We heard it quite clearly from Mr Stewart. There is an attack on social security—that it is not about getting people into work. As we have heard already, we know that many of those who are in receipt of benefits—be they reserved or devolved—are already in work, and it is dangerous and cynical to stand up in this chamber and suggest otherwise. However, that is clearly what is being done when members say that the preference should be to get people into work—we know that people in receipt of benefits are often already in employment.

Mr Stewart talks about fraud. We might take the Tories a bit more seriously if, within the past day, a report had not emerged that shows that there was £10.9 billion-worth of fraud during the period of Covid under their watch. That figure dwarfs the £5.3 billion for the Scottish Government’s social security spend.

I am very proud of the Scottish Government’s record in utilising its social security powers and in implementing a pension-age disability payment and the adult disability payment, which the Resolution Foundation has said

“is proving to be a more claimant-centred and dignified”

process. I am proud of the Scottish child payment, which we know is keeping young people out of poverty.

Another refrain that we often hear is about common sense—that is the rhetoric that we often hear from Mr Findlay, as if it is not common sense to invest in supporting disabled people into employment and in keeping young people out of poverty.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am afraid that I am not going to give way to any Conservative members. We have been given four minutes each to speak in the debate, and I intend to use the entirety of the four minutes that I have been given.

The Tories referred to the Audit Scotland report, but they failed to mention what it cited, which is that

“87% of new ADP clients feel they have been treated with kindness”.

Of course, the cost of administering social security in Scotland is lower than was initially forecast.

I turn to affordability. It is the case that the Scottish Government has presented a balanced budget each and every year since 2007. I heard the dulcet tones of Mr Kerr earlier when that was mentioned, saying that we are “legally obliged to do so”. Of course we are legally obliged to do so.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Yes!

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Exactly—I do not know what point he thinks he is making. If he thinks he is making a point, it is a stupid point. The fundamental point is that the Scottish Government has balanced the budget every year, including for expenditure on social security. [Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members!

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is telling that the Conservatives say that they want to cut social security but, when they are invited to, Mr Stewart either does not have a clue what he wants to cut or, as I suspect, is not brave enough to stand up and say what he wants to cut. That is the reality of the Conservatives’ position. I am proud of the Scottish Government’s record, and I will continue to stand behind its investment in the people of Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We now move to closing speeches.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

In case it was not clear, the Scottish Greens profoundly disagree with the premise of the Conservatives’ motion. The idea that Scotland’s “benefits bill” is somehow a problem to be controlled, rather than a lifeline that allows people to live dignified, independent lives, tells us everything about their priorities. Social security is a human right. It is an investment in our people, with real returns: reduced poverty, better health and the ability for people—disabled people, parents and carers—to participate fully in our society and economy.

The briefing that we received for today’s debate from Scottish Action for Mental Health is clear that, for many disabled people, especially those with mental health problems, support such as ADP is not a luxury. It enables survival, independence and basic rights.

Spending on social security is rising not because Scotland is reckless but because need is rising. Westminster austerity has deepened hardship, and Scotland has chosen not to abandon people. We spend £1.3 billion more than we receive from the UK Government. That is a political choice, and it is one that I support.

If we are to be serious about tackling poverty, we must take further steps. The Scottish Government’s commitment to redirect money that was previously set aside to mitigate the two-child cap into other anti-poverty measures is very welcome. That structural investment will make a tangible difference to families.

The SCP remains our flagship tool in the fight against child poverty, but we will still not meet our targets in the next five years unless that payment rises significantly. With the £150 million that is now available, we could increase the payment by £10 a week, which would lift 20,000 additional children out of poverty. That is the scale of difference that bold action could make.

We have to confront barriers, too. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that, next year, 5 per cent of eligible families—17,000 children—will miss out because they do not apply. That does not include families who are entitled to, but are not claiming, the benefits that they should have. Let us commit to doing far more to help people access what they are due, working with advice services, community organisations and trusted local partners.

We must also acknowledge that, for some families, SCP as it stands will never be enough. The Scottish Parliament information centre tells us that around a quarter of the families receiving it are so deep in poverty that £27 a week cannot move them out of it at all. While a technical premium for the most deeply impoverished families is not deliverable in the short term, we can act now by using family characteristics that correlate strongly with poverty risk.

Young people, especially young single parents, are losing out because UK benefits pay them less, purely because of their age. Some 55 per cent of children with a parent under 25 are in poverty. One Parent Families Scotland and 81 partner organisations have called for a Scottish child payment top-up for young parents, at a cost of only £20 million. That would be an excellent use of the additional funds that are now available.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Would Maggie Chapman give way on that point?

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I am afraid that I do not have time.

The motion before us assumes that Scottish social security spending is too high. It is not; it is too low. UK payments still sit among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Scotland is lifting them, but from a very low base. The Scottish Government must indeed plan sustainably, but if we are building new roads during a climate crisis, and if wealthy shooting estates can benefit from reliefs that are intended for small businesses, we are looking in entirely the wrong places for savings.

We should not balance the books on the backs of the poorest people. We must build a system that is rooted in dignity, equality and compassion, because that is the Scotland that people deserve.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

In closing for Labour, I thank members across the chamber for their contributions. It is important that we debate these matters, as it is clear that there are different views across the chamber. Liz Smith commented on that, as did other members. The debate has shown that there are fundamental differences in the way in which members believe that we should approach social security.

We should all know that social security provision is the cornerstone of a society that cares and is just. My colleague Claire Baker made that point well, as did other members in the chamber, such as Emma Roddick and Maggie Chapman. Social security is about supporting people. That support includes returning people to economic activity and making sure that there is enough work available for them. All those things matter, but the Tories do not acknowledge that it is a very unequal world out there and that people are trapped in poverty.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Of course there are inequalities, but is it not the case that the way of dealing with those inequalities is to ensure that we have economic growth—

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Which is undermined by the national insurance increase.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Indeed—my colleague is right to say that. Economic growth will allow us to raise people up so that they each have a higher income.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

We need to make things fair for people, but the current economic model is not fair. The Labour Government has increased the living wage, yet we had complaints from Conservative members about that.

We know that almost one in four children in Scotland are growing up in poverty. We need solutions to ensure that children have a fair chance to live free from hardship and with opportunities. We need a good social security system to allow children and families to have the opportunity to flourish. If we can do that for children and families, there will be a ripple effect that helps society. That is the key point—it will benefit us all. By investing in social security and children, we will make a difference for everybody in society.

That is why Scottish Labour was pleased to lodge our amendment that welcomes the removal of the two-child limit for universal credit in the 2025 budget. As other members have said, about 450,000 children across the UK will be lifted out of poverty, 95,000 of whom are estimated to be in Scotland.

There is always a debate about what we can afford to give to the very poorest in our society. We are told time and again that welfare spending is wasteful. However, what is really wasteful is having children grow up in poverty. To be clear: tackling child poverty is an investment in our society.

I have made it clear before and I make it clear once again that I deplore the previous Tory Government’s attack on working-class people. The approach that was taken by the Tory Government was to benefit those who have the most wealth and power, embedding poverty in our society. That poverty is what we must tackle. The Tories on the benches opposite must accept that their party played a big part in the poverty that our constituents are experiencing today. We know that many children who live in poverty have families with at least one adult who is working, but that adult is often on low pay and in insecure work.

Labour believes that the Scottish Government must take steps to ensure that we maximise people’s potential. That comes back to the point that Willie Rennie made about ensuring that there are stable paths for people to get out of poverty. By tackling structural barriers, improving pay and hours, increasing progression and supporting the realisation of workers’ rights, people’s outcomes can be changed.

I do not have much time left, but I will point out that the Scottish Government has a responsibility to tell us how it will do those things. We on the Labour benches believe that that will help us to address the funding gap, which the Audit Scotland report provided us information about.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I will begin with a note of consensus, particularly regarding the speeches that were made by Claire Baker and Carol Mochan, who talked about social security being an investment in our society. At the start of the debate, Claire Baker was right to push back on the way in which the Tories have framed the debate and, indeed, framed social security in general.

I welcome the scrapping of the two-child limit by the UK Government. It is long overdue, but we welcome it. However, now that we have seen the UK Government’s child poverty strategy, I question the lack of ambition that is coming from Scottish Labour and UK Labour. Estimates seem to show that poverty will remain stable once those interventions have been taken, which is not the level of ambition that we need.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, in Scotland, we are not reducing child poverty at the pace that we would want to reduce it at? Although Labour supports the Scottish child payment, the process of reducing child poverty in Scotland is pretty static. It is not moving at the pace that we want it to move at, so more action needs to be taken in Scotland, as well as across the UK.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Child poverty is forecast to fall in Scotland, as compared with the rest of the UK, and that is because of the steps that we have taken. Of course, we are in the foothills of the budget process, and if Ms Baker and her party want to make suggestions about how we can work together on this key issue, they would be more than welcome to have such discussions with me. Ms Baker is right to pose that challenge.

I hope that the Presiding Officer will forgive me for the sedentary discussion that I had earlier with Craig Hoy, but an interesting point emerged from it. Mr Hoy said—if I am incorrect, I will be happy to take an intervention from him—that he thought that we should take money away from adult disability payment, because we need to cut the benefits bill. That was an interesting revelation today, albeit that it did not come in a speech.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am happy to find out whether Mr Hoy agrees with himself.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

We want to reduce the benefits bill because, if we grow the economy, people will need fewer benefits.

Why are payments removed from only 2 per cent of recipients of adult disability payment in Scotland on review, whereas the figure for recipients of the equivalent benefit in the rest of the UK is 16 per cent?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

The member is comparing apples with pears. [Interruption.] Well, I am sorry if I am boring Tory members with facts. The situation that Mr Hoy is referring to was to do with the reviews that took place in relation to case transfer, as opposed to the natural reviews that will happen when disability payments are assessed as part of the normal process. I point to the reassurance that the Resolution Foundation has provided on how, in general, adult disability payment is working.

It seems that the Conservatives want to cut adult disability payment. I refer them to their ex-colleague Jeremy Balfour, who rightly pointed out that ADP helps people into employment. With ADP, it is not a question of whether someone is in work or out of work—it is there to assist people with the additional cost of having a disability or a condition. That is the premise of ADP. If the Tories do not agree with that premise, they are perfectly entitled to hold a different opinion.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the cabinet secretary give way?

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I gave way to Liz Smith earlier, and I gave her a fair amount of time, so I am sure that she will forgive me for not giving way this time.

Willie Rennie, as he always does, made a very thoughtful contribution, in which he put some challenges to the Scottish Government—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Please resume your seat, cabinet secretary. There is a conversation going on at the back of the chamber, across benches, between two members in sedentary positions. I wish that they would just stop so that we could hear the person who has the floor.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

Willie Rennie said that his constituent felt believed in the devolved social security system. That is important. Dignity, fairness and respect are important.

Willie Rennie was also right to point out that economic inactivity is a challenge. We do not have time to get into that discussion today. Although the issue is linked to social security, that is not entirely the case, and it is not necessarily linked to ADP. We are looking at economic inactivity.

I refer Liz Smith and her colleagues to the Resolution Foundation report that came out on Monday, which looked at case loads and at awards. It fairly came to a conclusion that is very different from Liz Smith’s. I point people to that.

Meghan Gallacher talked about wanting to spend more on childcare. The funny thing is that we have an opportunity to spend the money that the Scottish Government was due to spend on mitigating the effects of the two-child limit in a different way. The Tories chose tax cuts rather than childcare. If Meghan Gallacher wanted to do more than deliver a speech on childcare, she could have suggested that that money be provided to help people with childcare.

Meghan Gallacher (Conservative, Central Scotland)

Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The cabinet secretary is about to conclude.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

We have heard two different narratives today, one of which has been about creating division, reversing the progress that we have made, and othering. We have also heard a different narrative—a narrative about collective investment in unapologetically tackling child poverty, giving essential assistance to carers, helping old people to heat their homes and helping disabled people with the additional costs of disability.

In a few months’ time, the people of Scotland will have a choice about what kind of future they want—do they want a divisive narrative or a narrative that involves taking a principled stance to support people? I am proud of our continued investment in the people of Scotland, I am proud of what we have delivered through devolved social security, and I am proud to take that record, and our vision for the future, to the people.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, cabinet secretary. I call Craig Hoy to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been an important debate, and one that we should not shy away from, despite attempts by our political opponents to mischaracterise our motives. It was interesting to hear Jamie Hepburn, in one of the worst speeches that I have heard since I came to the Parliament four years ago, lecture my colleague about bravery. He would not be brave enough—[ Interruption .]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Hepburn!

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Mr Hepburn is only reinforcing his reputation as a thug, but we will leave that there.

The main thrust of the debate is about the spending patterns in Scotland.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

I tried to intervene on the wildly blustering diatribe of Jamie Hepburn. At least, on this occasion, it was only a verbal assault on us. I also tried to intervene on the cabinet secretary, but they do not do debate over there. I wanted to ask whether the Scottish Government has any concerns whatsoever about the £2 billion social security spending gap in Scotland. I wonder whether my colleague Craig Hoy could perhaps enlighten us, as I am none the wiser—because they do not do debate.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I absolutely agree with Russell Findlay. It is simply staggering that the cabinet secretary is ignoring the fact that she has a £2 billion overspend and that, by the end of the decade, she will have a £4.7 billion budget black hole. We cannot expect working people—Scotland’s taxpayers—to foot the bill. For clarity, let me say this to the minister: benefits rising to that level is not affordable, but it is also not desirable.

For too long, this has been the SNP’s way: stifle growth, ramp up the benefits bill and just hope that there are enough taxpayers out there to pick up the tab. However, out there, in the real world, the people I speak to—people who have real jobs and real pressures—are working harder and getting less in their take-home pay after they pay the SNP and Labour taxes, while those living on benefits all too readily seem to get it all too easily.

Sadly, Rachel Reeves is now drinking the same Kool-Aid as the cabinet secretary, with the benefits bill in England soaring at the very time that growth forecasts are being cut and taxes for businesses and workers are soaring. The point of no return has not yet been reached, but both our Governments need to act now and act urgently to prevent public finances spiralling out of control.

The people whose doors I knock on often tell me that they resent working so hard, feeling that they are forgotten about, in order to pay for this Government’s misguided priorities. They do not resent paying taxes, but they point across the street to the family on benefits, who have just returned from a foreign holiday, when they themselves cannot afford a night out. They resent that not enough is being done to get people off benefits and back to work, creating a dependency culture that I suspect is being created for crude political purposes. Getting up, going to work—[ Interruption .]—having a—[ Interruption .] The minister keeps chuntering away. If she wants to intervene, she is very welcome to.

Shirley-Anne Somerville (Scottish National Party, Dunfermline)

I am genuinely flabbergasted at the Tories’ continuous attempts to other people. One week it is immigrants, the next week it is poor people, and then it is disabled people—I wonder who it will be next week. There is one thing that is guaranteed: the doors he is chapping on are not voting Tory next time round, are they?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

Reflecting the very real concerns of the people whose doors I have knocked on in Dumfries is not othering people; it is simply telling the minister what is happening out there in the real world. I am talking about people who do not have chauffeurs to ferry them from meeting to meeting.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I do not have time.

Before the Government says that some benefits support people getting into work, let me say that we accept that point—Liz Smith has accepted that—but much more data needs to be collected on the impact of benefits on people’s working patterns and on the number of people on adult disability payment who are actually also in work. The Government does not have that data, and it is not going to look for that data.

The £5.4 billion that is spent on adult disability payment alone is unsustainable. I am very sympathetic to some of Jeremy Balfour’s points but, ultimately, we must seek a methodology to reduce the number of people who are dependent on that benefit. If that means giving them the skills they need and more support to get into full-time work, that is what the Government should be doing, rather than cutting the skills and colleges budget.

Ultimately, as a country, we have to live within our means. For example, the introduction of the two-child benefit cap has saved taxpayers millions of pounds. Our benefits system should be there to provide a safety net—a hand up, not a handout. However, by Labour’s own admission, removing the two-child benefit cap will cost £2 billion next year, rising to £3 billion by the end of the decade. Again, that will have to be paid for by taxes from hard-working Britons.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will not, unless I can have the time back.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There is very limited time.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I will take a very brief intervention.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

I want to speak about the way in which we approach this issue. We cannot accuse people. I knock on doors every day, and the reality is that many people understand that people who require social security are in need. If we want to make things fairer, we need to look at the way in which the economic model runs in this country.

Craig Hoy (Conservative, South Scotland)

I was rather hoping that Carol Mochan would say why Keir Starmer, having said during the election campaign that he would try to bring down the benefits bill, has run away at the first sign of gunfire from the Labour left.

Ultimately, we have to be on the side of those people who put more into the system than they take out. If someone has worked hard during their lifetime, saved, paid their taxes and done the right thing, they deserve dignity and a decent standard of living when they retire. I am on the side of people who work hard, want to get on in life through their own efforts and want to leave something behind for their children and grandchildren.

I also want to make sure that people in genuine hardship get the help that they need. However, we are in favour of a hand up, never just a handout. That is why we must have a welfare system in Scotland that encourages and incentivises work and self-reliance, not a life on benefits for some that is paid for by everybody else.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate on controlling the rising benefits bill in Scotland. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I intervened a couple of times on ADP. I should have declared that I am on higher-rate ADP and, happily, am in employment as well.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Mr Balfour. That is now on the record.

Road Network (Connectivity and Economic Growth)

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20057, in the name of Sue Webber, on connecting Scotland. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

[ Interruption .] Sorry—I am phoning someone by mistake.

Scotland’s road network is the backbone of our connectivity and economic growth. Communities across Scotland, from the Borders to the Highlands, rely on safe, efficient and modern roads to access jobs, education, healthcare and life opportunities, yet Scotland’s roads have been neglected by the Scottish National Party. Dangerous and deteriorating roads are costing lives, damaging local economies and leaving motorists stuck with long, unsafe journeys on roads that should have been fixed years ago.

Motorists are essential to Scotland’s economy and crucial for our connectivity, but they are being punished by the SNP Government. Too often, promises are made and not delivered. The SNP will dual the A9 10 years late at the very earliest. It has failed to dual any of the A96, despite promising to do so in 2011. The SNP has also spent £30 million on the Inverness to Nairn upgrade despite no construction having begun. If we are serious about unlocking Scotland’s potential, the SNP Government must accelerate the upgrading of key roads such as the A75, the A77 and the A96, and it must finally deliver on its commitment to dual the A9, without rejecting the private investment that could help to make that happen.

The state of key roads across Scotland is a national disgrace, and the SNP’s incompetence is continuing to cost lives. SNP ministers have sat on their hands while roads have fallen into a state of total disrepair, despite repeated promises to dual roads such as the A9 and the A96. It is unacceptable that motorists are being treated with contempt by an SNP Government that, shamefully, keeps kicking the can down the road.

We are the only party at Holyrood to have proposed bold action to tackle this issue. We would pass an emergency law at Holyrood that would set out a special fast-track process for completing the A9 dualling project. We would also pass an emergency law that would see key sections of the A75 dualled by 2031 and the entire road dualled as quickly as possible thereafter.