Craig Hoy
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Given the fragility of bus services across Dumfriesshire, will the minister commit the cabinet secretary, who is overseas, to a meeting with me, so that I can reinforce the case for a station at Beattock, which is now increasingly vital?”
“Jenny Gilruth: Perhaps it was a bit too much to expect some positivity about these announcements from Mr Hoy. However, I hope that he recognises that the Government has significantly adapted our position on support for businesses in relation to some of the outputs that I have set out today.”
“If kicking the can down the road was a competitive sport, this Government would win gold every single time. Many Scottish businesses now continue to face some of the highest rates liabilities in the UK, and many have seen eye-watering increases as a result of the most recent revaluation.”
“I extend to Mr Hoy the same invitation that I extended to Mr Greer. If Mr Hoy wants to come forward with some more ambitious proposals ahead of the budget, my door is open— Craig Hoy: I am seeing you tomorrow. Jenny Gilruth: We will be meeting tomorrow—I look forward to that engagement.”
“I thank the minister for her invitation for us all to work together. I will meet the Deputy First Minister next week to that end. If the new, fiscally prudent, small-state Scottish Government can commit to reducing tax and cutting the benefits bill, we will have a fruitful relationship.”
“Let us hope that that sentiment remains as we progress through the months. We need to look more broadly at where Scotland has been and where it is going. Scotland is a country that has made reducing child poverty an absolute priority—that is one of its moonshots. With our 6 per cent lower figure, we are leading the UK.”
The complete record
Every one of 926 lines we hold for Craig Hoy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 19.
“The guidance lacks clarity, direction and the legislative backbone to deliver safety. Instead of rules, teachers are given laminated lists of bullet points to hand out. Miles Briggs was bang on the money when he said that that SNP-issued guidance is “a pathetic response to the epidemic of violence in Scottish classrooms”. He is right. We now know that violence is a big problem in schools and the guidance is not worth the laminated paper it is written on. The culture of tolerating or hiding violence affects the whole school environment and learning outcomes. It drains teaching time while staff firefight disruptions. Instead of teaching, good teachers leave and pupils’ learning suffers. It is therefore vital that inspectors ask whether school discipline policies are effective and implemented and whether staff are safe.”
“Worse still, teachers have raised concerns about overreliance on the restorative behavioural approach, with 69 per cent of Scottish teachers who responded to one survey saying that that approach was the single biggest factor in deteriorating pupil behaviour at their school. Almost two thirds felt that restorative practices, such as mediated conversations after incidents, were ineffective in managing serious discipline. The NASUWT’s general secretary cautioned that teachers “are being left without the back-up and effective deterrents needed to address poor pupil behaviour.” Despite that, the SNP Government’s recent guidance, which we have not had the opportunity to discuss in the chamber, is a collection of buzzwords that entirely fails to meet the seriousness of the situation.”
“What is particularly alarming is the increased vulnerability of female teachers. Teachers have described being groped, sexually harassed and physically intimidated. The cabinet secretary is fully aware that female teachers feel least safe, yet the response has been to issue vague recommendations without the investment or statutory backing to make a difference. Given this reality, we must call into question the implementation of discipline policies. Under Scotland’s new national action plan on relationships and behaviour, which was launched in August 2024, every school should have a clear behaviour policy that is followed by all. However, the NASUWT found that one in five teachers could not confirm whether their school even had a behaviour policy and, of those who could, only 6 per cent said that it was always enforced.”
“Every member of this Parliament agrees that there is a discipline issue in Scottish schools. The NASUWT Scotland survey from March 2025 found that 83 per cent of teachers reported more pupils being physically violent or abusive in the past year; eight in 10 had been threatened with a weapon; more than a third—37 per cent—had been assaulted by pupils; and nearly 90 per cent had experienced verbal abuse, from swearing and threats to racist or sexist insults. The Scottish Government’s behaviour in Scottish schools research in 2023 reported that incidents of violence, aggression and disruption “have risen significantly” in recent years. In fact, 35.8 per cent of Scottish 15-year-olds told programme for international student assessment 2022 researchers that they had witnessed a physical fight at school—that is double the OECD average.”
“I take cognisance of what the cabinet secretary has said about overburdening the inspectorate with reporting, but I believe that I need to take the time—for which I apologise—to make the case for why those issues require to be called out and appear in the bill as areas for inspection. Amendments 18 and 45 do not create unnecessary bureaucracy or abstraction, but rather root the process in the realities of modern Scottish education. The amendments outline key areas for mandatory assessment that reflect the experience of staff, pupils and parents. Each element is proposed not as a technicality, but as an educational necessity. We must begin where the crisis is most acute— in school discipline, which is covered in amendment 18 by paragraph (a) of proposed new subsection (1A) of section 30.”
“Amendments 18 and 45 would prevent thematic inspections from being possible, because every matter that is listed in amendment 18 would require to be covered in each inspection and inspection report. If agreed to, amendments 18 and 45 would risk hindering the chief inspector’s flexibility and weakening the independence of inspection and reporting in our education system. I urge Mr Kerr not to move these amendments. If they are moved, I ask members not to support them. I move amendment 17. Stephen Kerr: Amendments 18 and 45 seek to reshape the purpose of school inspections in Scotland, in order to ensure that underlying issues in schools are identified and worrying trends are not ignored.”
“My concerns about Mr Kerr’s amendments 18 and 45, which he has brought back following stage 2, are that they remain overly prescriptive. Including amendments of such a nature in legislation would make it difficult for the new chief inspector to develop their role organically and, importantly, would limit their ability to respond to the changing needs of our education system over time. As I noted at stage 2 in response to Mr Kerr’s amendments, I believe that it is significant that, when Professor Muir gave evidence to the committee, he expressed concern that the inspectorate could become dominated by reporting, which is a risk that I believe amendments 18 and 45 would exacerbate. Professor Donaldson also highlighted the risk to the chief inspector’s flexibility of being overly focused on the reporting role.”
“I am therefore very pleased that, working in particular with Ms Duncan-Glancy, we have been able to lodge amendment 17 in my name, along with amendments 25 and 80, which are consequential to it. I thank Ms Duncan-Glancy and the staff in her office, who helped to facilitate that. Critically, amendment 17 acknowledges the purpose of providing assurance to the public about the quality of education that is being provided in our educational establishments. It also addresses a concern that the Educational Institute of Scotland raised at stage 2 that the purpose of inspection should include holding institutions, not individual teachers, to account, which is made clear in amendment 17. I therefore urge members to support amendments 17, 25 and 80.”
“Amendment 198 disagreed to. Amendment 14 not moved. Section 29—Assistance with inspections Amendments 15 and 16 not moved. After section 29 Amendments 199 and 200 not moved. Before section 30 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on purpose of inspection. Amendment 17, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 18, 25, 45 and 80. I point out that if amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 25 due to pre-emption. 20:15 Jenny Gilruth: I welcome the agreement, including in the committee’s stage 1 report, that the purpose of inspection should be set out in the bill. In the interests of building consensus, I agreed at stage 2 not to press my amendments and to work with other members in advance of stage 3 to develop a shared purpose for inspection with the broadest possible support.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 49, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 197 disagreed to. Section 28—His Majesty’s Inspectors of Education in Scotland Amendments 12 and 13 not moved. Amendment 198 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 198 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Brian Whittle: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whittle. Your vote will be recorded. Nicola Sturgeon: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Sturgeon. Your vote will be recorded.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 48, Against 68, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 11 disagreed to. After section 27 Amendment 197 moved—[Pam Duncan- Glancy]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 197 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. My app is frozen. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Hoy. Your vote will be recorded. For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 28, Against 90, Abstentions 0.”
“It is actually less than the equivalent underspend of 1.3 per cent in England, where his party was in control for most of that year. He will understand that that money flows into 2025-26 to support the budget that we are taking forward this year. None of that money is lost. Craig Hoy clearly does not understand how that works or the management that goes into steering the underspend in the budget outturn to within 1 per cent of the total budget. That is just another demonstration of why the Conservative Party, with Craig Hoy pretending to be its finance spokesperson, is not fit for office in this”
“Is it not, therefore, deeply regrettable that money that could have been spent last year on saving jobs, supporting councils and delivering growth to drive much needed tax revenues will now be spent in future years on the negative social and economic costs of those repeated SNP policy failures and misplaced priorities? [Interruption.] Ivan McKee: Murdo Fraser is applauding—I thought that he knew better. It is quite embarrassing to listen to Craig Hoy demonstrate his complete inability to understand the fundamental concepts of today’s statement. He does, or should, understand that that funding is not lost—it simply moves into this year’s budget. He should also understand that the underspend is just over 1 per cent of the total budget that we have to spend.”
“That would have saved jobs and businesses that are now lost, and delivered tax receipts, which are now faltering. It could have provided support to Scotland’s underfunded councils, which were this year forced to impose double-digit council tax increases. That would have allowed hard-pressed households to save money. Today’s report also proves that ministers continue to pursue the wrong economic and fiscal priorities, with the Government confirming the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s projection of an £851 million shortfall in Scotland’s tax take. That is a black hole that will have to be reckoned with in 2027 and 2028.”
“I thank the Minister for Public Finance for advance sight of his statement. We know that the Government does not like being reminded that, in recent years, it has secured record settlements from Westminster and that it is duty bound to balance its budget. At a time of Scottish National Party cuts—to areas such as colleges and employability schemes—and tax rises, we have found out from today’s provisional outturn report that there is a growing underspend as a result of decisions taken by Scottish ministers. The SNP has repeatedly underspent its budget, and it has done that this year to the tune of £557 million, which is almost double the figure of the previous year. Ministers could have put that money to good use. It could have met our repeated calls for the passing on of rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in full.”
“We are putting in place budget processes to monitor and control that, and that will equate to a reduction of approximately 4 per cent in each of the next five years. The cabinet secretary will give more detail about that in the medium-term financial statement and the fiscal sustainability delivery plan that will be unveiled next week, and I know that Craig Hoy will wait with interest to see the further details that we will provide next week.”
“It is right to say that we have already announced one merger of public bodies this week and more of that will happen in due course, but the first step is not restructuring, no matter how attractive that might sound. The first step is to go in and understand where the duplication is and then to remove that and get bodies working together so that we can see the opportunities beyond that. That is where we will get the biggest value, rather than just grabbing headlines. It is worth saying that civil service costs actually went down in real terms last year, that the head count is also going down and that that will continue as part of this work. The £1 billion savings target is 20 per cent of the corporate costs that we identified in a study that we did last year.”
“We saw that across the Atlantic, where Elon Musk is no longer with the Trump Administration precisely because he went in with a big axe and started cutting stuff, but that backfired immediately because he did not know what he was doing. The strategy is about understanding, in a serious way, what the barriers are in leadership, accountability, incentives and culture. It is about taking forward the efficiency programmes that we have already delivered on and that have, as I said in my statement, saved £280 million already. It is about building on the work in procurement, estates and intelligent automation—where we have done some fabulous work already—across the public sector and taking that work to the next level by building on the foundations that we have.”
“The strategy does not mention a single body, agency or quango that is to be cut, so are there any, other than those that were announced in the health service statement yesterday, or is this yet another work of fiction? Is it not time for this Government to stop talking and start swinging the axe? Ivan McKee: I thank Craig Hoy for the question—I think. It is not unexpected. I have delivered transformation programmes in the private sector and elsewhere. If we are serious about making real change, it is important to understand the drivers that create the barriers that prevent us from doing that. Just going in and swinging a big axe will not deliver services.”
“The Government says that that is neither an attempt to grab headlines nor a throwing out of targets, but we have been here many times before with the SNP. I therefore have some questions for the Government. What is the breakdown of the £1 billion in savings? How will those be made, in which departments and agencies and in which specific corporate functions? If that is now so achievable, why has the SNP Government not done it before? The strategy makes only passing reference to the workforce and the issue of severance, so what size, in full-time-equivalent terms, will the bloated civil service be by the end of this decade and in 2035?”
“I apologise for my late arrival and for missing the beginning of the minister’s statement. This 49-page, 14,851-word wish list of word soup on the future of public services does not use the word “waste” once, but it does say that the Scottish National Party Government has “the ability to deliver real change within the public services”. I agree with that, because the Government has delivered real change for the worse in Scotland’s public services. Despite that Government telling us, the Scottish Conservatives, that it would be reckless to advocate for tax reductions of £500 million, Ivan McKee says today that he can save £1 billion simply by cutting corporate functions by 20 per cent in the next five years.”
“[Interruption.] The investment that we are making is helping to secure a resilient and future-ready workforce— Jackie Baillie: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Kate Forbes: I am just about to close. It is a workforce that will continue to drive economic value and support Scotland’s place at the forefront of innovation and manufacturing excellence. 17:02”
“That is an area where the Scottish Government undoubtedly has responsibility, and I am actively engaged in ensuring that there is a pipeline of people and skills. [Interruption.] Having already promised Murdo Fraser, I would not want to cut him off by taking another intervention. We have to invest in the pipeline of skills, and we are investing in that future pipeline, including the £185 million to support apprenticeships. I will take the intervention from Murdo Fraser. Murdo Fraser: I wonder whether the Deputy First Minister can clarify one point that has come up during the debate: how does the construction and maintenance of a submarine meet the definition of munitions? Kate Forbes: Scottish Enterprise reviewed the opportunity—a formal application was not made— and concluded that it was not consistent with the policy.”
“That is precisely why we have invested considerable funding to support innovation, workforce training and the wider industrial base— another point that has been sorely missing from Opposition speeches. That is also why we continue to support firms as they evolve, ensuring that Scotland retains and grows its share of defence, aerospace and shipbuilding work, with all the economic and employment benefits that brings. In my engagement with the sector— Murdo Fraser: Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention? Kate Forbes: I will finish this point and then, if I have time, I will bring the member in. In my engagement with the sector, which I am delighted to see Craig Hoy recognise, the point is made to me repeatedly about the skills that are required in an area of growth.”
“Both cannot be true. That is why I am happy to set out the Scottish Government’s position. There is an added irony, particularly from Craig Hoy, but from across the Conservatives, who frequently accuse the Scottish Government of spending too much money in areas that are undoubtedly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. We will remember this debate the next time that they accuse us of doing that. The defence sector is a cornerstone of high- value manufacturing in this country, supporting more than 14,000 jobs and contributing £3.3 billion annually to our economy through world-class capabilities in shipbuilding, aerospace and advanced technologies. The one point on which I would agree with colleagues across the chamber is in identifying the strengths of those industries here in Scotland.”
“Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention? Kate Forbes: I will take an intervention, early though it is in my speech. Craig Hoy: I thank the Deputy First Minister for giving way. Does she not accept that the debate has exposed the credibility issue that the SNP now has with business? In quiet meetings, the SNP gives businesses warm words, be they about hospitality—with hotels struggling with the implementation of the visitor levy—or about the Scottish defence industry. Is it the case that the very few pro-business ministers lack influence in the Government, or is it the reality that they are not as pro-business as they make out? Kate Forbes: That was more speech than intervention. The ironic thing about the debate is that we have parties on both sides of us making directly contradictory accusations about the Scottish Government.”
“We all know, deep down, that that is the case, because our constituents tell us so. Our postbags and inboxes lay bare 18 years of SNP failure on schools, hospitals, roads and railways. However, it is clear from the amendments today that it is only the Scottish Conservatives who know what the public want and need. That is why we propose a tax cut for Scottish workers, scrapping the 20p and 21p rates to create a simplified 19p rate for income up to £43,600 a year. That is a tax cut for hard workers of up to £444, while still funding front-line public services.”
“Under the Scottish National Party, Scots are being hammered with high taxes while public services continue to decline. That is why the motion that I will move in this Parliament—a Parliament that is paid for by each and every taxpayer—will force every member of the Scottish Parliament to decide whose side they are on: whether they want to be on the side of the bloated SNP state or on the side of delivering a better deal for Scottish taxpayers. Those taxpayers are sick and tired of an SNP Government that costs them more but delivers less, of a Government that spends their money on inward-looking fringe obsessions such as gender reform and policing free speech, and of paying for meaningless quangos and a civil service that has doubled in size since 2014. People are paying more for public services that simply are not working.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the health secretary has had with ministerial colleagues and NHS Lothian regarding the provision of education and tutoring for sick children at the Royal hospital for children and young people in Edinburgh and other national health service facilities and services. (S6O-04814)”
“In 2022, visitor and tourism businesses in the national park generated nearly £450 million for the local economy. That is already a significant sum. The Government must ensure, for both this project and future ones, that it does not undermine such tourism numbers by developing projects that will deliver negative economic repercussions.”
“As we have heard, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority said that the plans created an unacceptable risk of flooding and the Government’s environment agency, SEPA, warned that there were concerns about the irreversible loss of woodland. As members have mentioned, the national park authority rejected the proposals. More than 150,000 people lodged objections to them, warning that the entire vista of Loch Lomond would be negatively affected, which would in turn impact the scenery and increase traffic and could have the perverse effect of deterring environmentally friendly tourism. Those are all legitimate and reasonable concerns that the Government was apparently ready to set aside to allow the appeal to go ahead. I recognise that it is vital that we develop the local economy, but we should also look at the figures.”
“Although the plans to establish a Flamingo Land resort in the national park promised to bring some benefits such as job creation and some economic activity and growth, there have also been—quite rightly—numerous significant concerns, and they cannot and should not be ignored by ministers or the planning system. I am minded to recount that a representative of the Balloch and Haldane community council said that the proposals “go against the very will of the people who live in the area.” She also indicated that the development is unwanted and that it would create a “living hell” for locals. That was a living hell that ministers were willing to overlook right up to the point at which it was obvious that the Parliament was going to defeat them. However, it was not only local residents who were against the development.”
“At the same time, it is home to around 15,000 people, many of whom live and work within the national park. I pay testament to them and I thank Jackie Baillie for securing this debate, because it gives us an opportunity to commend them for their efforts. I also commend my colleague Pam Gosal, not only for her speech but for the work that she has done to oppose the project. Having worked with her for the past four years, I understand that it is better to be on the same side as her than to be against her, and I am glad that ministers have now seen that as well.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer. Many residents of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs will have been watching this debate closely and with interest, albeit that it was usurped at the 11th hour by Ivan McKee yesterday. Mr McKee is not in the chamber today, but I see that the Minister for Employment and Investment is. I am used to looking over at the SNP front bench and seeing ministers looking embarrassed. Today, I saw ministers looking chastened, and rightly so, because they were going against the huge body of opinion, of residents and others, who had expressed that this was the wrong development in the wrong place. Scotland’s first national park, in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, provides a wealth of space for outdoor pursuits and enjoyment of nature. It contributes hugely to Scotland’s tourist economy.”
“This Government will stand up for the interests of Scotland. We need levers that will help us to address the headwinds that we have faced over recent years, such as Brexit, Covid and the war in Ukraine. We do not have those levers in the current fiscal framework, and we want to address that. MV Glen Rosa (Cost Increases) 6.”
“The Scottish Government’s own figures reveal that Scotland spends £22.7 billion more than the country raises in tax, including from our depleted oil revenues. Full fiscal autonomy would mean losing a union dividend that was worth more than £2,400 per person in 2023-24. At present, our deficit is notional; under the minister’s policy, it would become very real, indeed. To pursue full fiscal autonomy—a reckless policy—by how much would Shona Robison be forced to raise tax, and which services would she slash? Shona Robison: I am glad that Craig Hoy acknowledged that the deficit is notional. It is notional because it is based on the current constitutional arrangements, and it is a failure of those current constitutional arrangements, paraded by both Michael Marra and Craig Hoy as if they are something that we should be grateful for.”
“The final step is supporting new computing science teachers, with a substantial investment for the two- year pilot at the University of Aberdeen to train new computing science teachers, who will educate in high schools. That means that our young people can access some of the best education that they can to have a bright entrepreneurial future. Business Motion 17:00”
“The first is in launching the ecosystem fund, which was always designed to be flexible, to allow entrepreneurs to access sometimes just a little bit of funding to help them on to the next step. The second is in backing successful schemes such as Scottish EDGE. There has been much mention of Sir Tom Hunter. That scheme identifies and supports promising new businesses. The third is in our relaunch of the entrepreneurial education pathways fund, which, this year, for the first time, provided entrepreneurial education throughout primary and high school. It was highly successful last year, and it means that entrepreneurship is not just the domain of rare individuals with exceptional intelligence or drive but a democratic approach. Rachael Hamilton rose— Kate Forbes: I am being told to wind up.”
“For example, I do not think that she has mentioned the words “school” or “college”. Those are areas in which the SNP has clearly failed Scotland, particularly in this parliamentary session, yet she sets that aside. It always begins with our people. Why will she not address the issue that surrounds our people and the imbuing of enterprise and the entrepreneurial spirit, which needs to start at a very early age? Kate Forbes: Our people are core to the work that Mark Logan set out in the Scottish technology ecosystem review. Our people and education are vital. In my opening remarks, I definitely made a lot of mention of education and Stephen Kerr will hear the word “education” again shortly. I will go through the five steps that we are taking to develop the best ecosystem for start-ups.”
“Kate Forbes: To use Craig Hoy’s argument, the fact that, for nine years now, we have been the top destination outside London and the south-east for foreign direct investment indicates to me that businesses like what they see in Scotland and they are choosing to invest. I will reiterate the steps that we are taking in Scotland, because, if we have learned anything from our work on entrepreneurship, it is that the interventions that we take have to be flexible and have to work with entrepreneurs, and, as Michelle Thomson said, we have to take a less risk-averse approach to some of those investments, because, by definition, some of that high-growth investment will be of higher risk. Stephen Kerr: The Deputy First Minister is dealing with those things without reference to some very basic foundations.”
“In other words, even if members want low taxation and they think that that will deliver a result, as Lorna Slater said, it takes a lot more than tax rates to develop and deliver a successful ecosystem. Low tax does not inevitably mean world-class ecosystems. We have to do some of the heavy lifting on that. Craig Hoy rose— Kate Forbes: I will bring in Craig Hoy, considering his self-professed entrepreneurship experience. Craig Hoy: Does the minister not realise the problem? If businesses believe that they will get good public services and a good quality of infrastructure, they might think about investing in Scotland despite the SNP’s high taxes. However, in Scotland, we have high tax but poor quality public services.”
“Scotland has a successful track record on university spin-outs. In 2023-24, the number of active firms that spun off from Scottish higher education institutions increased by 9 per cent compared with 2022-23. That is an impressive figure. However, back in 2016-17, the increase was 56 per cent. We are moving in the right direction, and that is to be commended. Another area that members debated and discussed was tax. Clearly, there are dividing lines in the Parliament on tax rates and the tax position, but we have to grapple with the fact that some of the top performers for entrepreneurship in Europe are Denmark, Sweden and Norway, which have high-tax systems with a strong social contract. The Institute for Public Policy Research Scotland recently laid out that approach.”
“Daniel Johnson made the point that universities take too high an equity stake in spin-outs, and I agree that that has been a barrier in the past. However, one of the interesting outcomes of the renewed focus on entrepreneurship and the policies that we have been progressing in the past few years is that the average equity stake that is taken by universities is falling. In 2024, it was the lowest since records began in 2011, falling to 11.8 per cent from 14.1 per cent in 2023. In other words, universities are actively changing their policies on equity, with Edinburgh and Aberdeen leading the way. We commend that. However, if we had not had the discussion three or four years ago about what needed to change, when it came to that really focused approach, we might not have seen that change.”
“What I was keen for this debate to do, however—although this is not my prerogative to decide—was to hone in on one element, or subset, of the economy and talk about the high-growth potential entrepreneurs that we want to develop. I talked about Sweden. Let us be unashamed about the fact that we want to see more unicorns. We want to see more high-growth businesses that go all the way from being small start-ups to hitting the heady heights of being a unicorn. That will be a different journey for them than it might be for a retailer on Edinburgh’s High Street, and different from the experience of some of the other businesses that we all represent. Understanding how we do that is really important. We have talked a bit about universities.”
“Liz Smith: It is incumbent on us all to celebrate the successes. However, when it comes to the statistics that are published by Mark Diffley and his organisation, does Kate Forbes recognise that there are serious concerns among those in the business community about some aspects of what they see as a rather threatening environment in Scotland? Kate Forbes: I absolutely accept that there are issues that the business community raises with me and, I imagine, with all of us. However, we in this Parliament frequently fall into the trap of talking about business as though it is homogenous, and of talking about economic growth and prosperity as though there is a linear line to delivery. There is a role for all of us to have generic economic discussions and debate.”
“I am here to celebrate what they have achieved in the past few years. The evidence is clear that the policies that have been implemented and the investment that has been made during this parliamentary session are starting to turn the tide. We are seeing a significant increase in investment across the board. Liz Smith: Will the member give way? Kate Forbes: I will take some interventions soon. We can even go beyond the figures and look at the examples of companies with high growth potential. TauRx in Aberdeen, which is developing a novel Alzheimer’s treatment, has been valued at more than $1 billion. That is a great example of a business that delivers economic value, and is also providing a solution to a problem—Alzheimer’s— that many people have, sadly, experienced. I will happily take any interventions.”
“In other words, if we simply measure the statistics around total early stage entrepreneurial activity that Murdo Fraser was criticising, we might start to replicate Ecuador, Guatemala and Chile. There is a role for looking at that. The same goes for some of the statistics that Daniel Johnson talked about, such as the fact that the number of deals of more than £10 million had fallen between 2022 and 2023. Yes, but the 2022 figures were boosted by a small number of huge deals, such as GoFibre, which was worth £164 million. The latest data shows that, in 2024, there were 17 deals of more than £10 million, totalling £373 million. That is a 90 per cent increase in deal volume and a 70 per cent increase in value. In other words, Scotland is growing. I am more than delighted for the credit to go entirely to Scotland’s businesses.”