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 16 of 19.
“It was an emergency budget in all but name, and it proves the point that Labour—just as we have seen with past Labour Governments— cannot be trusted to run the economy or to keep to its word. I also share some of Liz Smith’s concerns about the nature, and more importantly the timing, of the welfare cuts. It is clear that the Labour Government has been forced into taking those decisions because of the black hole in the budget that it has created since it came to office last year. These measures reek of desperation—they were not planned. We would welcome one thing: a debate on the future of welfare, not just in the rest of the UK but here in Scotland. Nonetheless, let us not beat around the bush—this is just yet another broken promise from a broken-promises Labour Government. It said that it would not raise national insurance, and it did.”
“The debate so far has been interesting. I listened carefully to Maggie Chapman and her lecture on dignity and respect; it is a pity that she does not show the same commitment to dignity and respect for the rule of law to our Supreme Court and to the women who need and want safe spaces in Scotland. I also listened carefully to Clare Adamson. Until that point, the debate had been fair-minded and reasonable, but—to quote Neil Kinnock back to her—it was sad and regrettable that she sought to “play politics with people’s lives” and people’s benefits. The same goes for Gordon MacDonald, who sought to turn this important and complex debate into a constitutional one. I share the cabinet secretary’s concern about the tone, timbre and technical nature of the spring statement.”
“It is there to protect and to support people, and that is exactly what this Government will continue to do. I move, That the Parliament calls on the UK Labour administration to immediately scrap its damaging social security reforms, as announced in the Pathways to Work: Reforming Benefits and Support to Get Britain Working Green Paper; highlights the UK Government’s own impact analysis, which shows that 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be pushed into poverty under these plans, and notes the Resolution Foundation’s report that lower-income households are set to become £500 a year poorer, following the UK Government’s Spring Statement 2025. 15:04”
“In conclusion, however, it is time for the UK Government to wake up to the reality and the impact that its reforms are already having on people in our society, in particular disabled people. That is not a viable or credible way to create a strong economy. It is not too late for the UK Government to change course and listen to the experience of those who will be impacted, and to the evidence from charities and academics, and change its mind. I call on the UK Government to follow the Scottish Government’s lead to protect and enhance the social security safety net rather than dismantling it and stigmatising people who need support. I go back to the question that I raised at the start: what is social security for, and what is Government for?”
“It is important that we bear in mind the eligibility criteria for our benefits. Of course we want to see people going into employment—that is exactly why we have put £90 million in the budget to assist with that. It is important that we recognise the impact that mitigation has on the Scottish Government budget, amounting to £210 million this year. The modelling estimates that as we move forward to mitigate the two-child cap in 2026, that will reduce the number of children who are living in relative poverty by 20,000, which will also have an impact on our budget for social security. We are committed to ensuring that Scotland’s finances remain on a sustainable trajectory, and we will publish our next medium-term financial strategy later next month, alongside a fiscal sustainability delivery plan.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I will if I can get some time back. Can I, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes. Craig Hoy: I accept the cabinet secretary’s point in respect of the UK Government, but has the Scottish National Party Government not made the same mistake at various points, when it has cut funding for employability at the same time as the benefits bill has been rising? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Our benefits bill is not related to whether people are in or out of work—with the greatest respect to Mr Hoy, I think that he is conflating different issues. Our benefits bill is dictated by whether people are disabled, are carers or are on a low income. Unfortunately, as we often see, many of those who rely on the Scottish child payment have parents who are in employment.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much it projects to spend on social security by 2029-30, including how much of this it estimates will arise from Barnett consequential funding. (S6O-04541)”
“I was pleased to meet the tenants, who are enjoying their new homes in the member’s constituency.”
“Has someone written his question for him? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I am sure that Craig Hoy will be delighted by the answer, if he is interested in it—because he did not appear to be interested in the question. From 2007 to the end of December 2024, the affordable housing supply programme helped to support the delivery of 3,532 completions across Midlothian, of which 70 per cent were for social rent. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Colin Beattie’s constituency to meet tenants and to meet Wheatley Homes East to discuss the new development at Rosewell. It is a fantastic example of the investment that the Government has put through charitable bonds, and further developments are taking place there. The development is a high-quality scheme that was provided by that registered social landlord.”
“Yesterday was April fools’ day, but it was no joke for ordinary hard-working Scottish families and businesses. In fact, it laid bare the impact of decisions taken by the Scottish National Party and Labour Governments—two left-wing Governments that are committed to unsustainable tax, spending and borrowing. Labour and the SNP now have serious questions to answer about their fiscal plans. In delivering the 20-minute statement, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government was, rightly, able to criticise the Labour Government. However, by using that mechanism, rather than by opening this debate, she has dodged such scrutiny herself. That is more evidence that the Scottish Government is unwilling to answer serious questions about the public finances on its watch and is incapable of doing so.”
“However, the trends that the member refers to are outwith the control of any Government. We have to ensure that there is a genuinely just transition for the parts of the country that have invested so heavily and have so many skills in the oil and gas sector, and to ensure that the many people in those industries who are seeking new opportunities get the skills that they need to do that. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 8 has been withdrawn. That concludes portfolio questions. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow the front-bench teams to change positions. Fatal Accident Inquiries (Deaths in Custody)”
“The minister will be well aware that, in many instances, it is the profits from companies’ oil and gas interests that are funding investment in renewables. Does he therefore share my concern about the data that the Office for Budget Responsibility released yesterday that shows that tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas will slump from £5.4 billion to £2.3 billion by the end of the decade? Surely that will impact on profits and impede investment in renewables. Alasdair Allan: As was discussed earlier today, the long-term trajectory around the income that the UK Government derives from the North Sea is determined by the long-term trajectory of the maturing of the North Sea basin. That does not mean that the Scottish Government does not think that oil and gas are important—clearly, they are.”
“We have to adjust to that and put in place measures to tackle those issues, and that is what the Government is doing. Autism and ADHD Diagnosis (Waiting Times) 5.”
“I add my expression of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Christina McKelvie and, in particular, to our colleague Keith Brown. Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that were released yesterday revealed that, by the end of the decade, tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas will slump from £5.4 billion to just £2.3 billion as a result of declining production. How can that be described as a just transition? The First Minister: Over many years, I have listened to lots of debate—certainly during the 2014 referendum campaign—that have indicated that oil revenues are not going to be a source of strength for Scotland in the future. Mr Hoy is alighting on the challenges that exist as a consequence of a declining oil basin.”
“Is there absolutely no space for reflection that Craig Hoy has been part of a Conservative Party that has undermined the public finances and delivered poor economic growth and which now comes here and lectures me about a Government that has increased GDP per capita faster in Scotland than it has grown in the rest of the United Kingdom? That demonstrates the fact that Craig Hoy is just playing about with politics. Craig Hoy: You cannot answer the question. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister. The First Minister: He is playing about with politics, has no constructive solutions to bring forward for Scotland and is part of a party that has damaged the wellbeing of the people of Scotland by austerity. Endometriosis Awareness Month 5.”
“Life expectancy is the starkest measure of living standards and, after 18 years of the Scottish National Party Government, Scots still die younger than people in the rest of the UK. Why, on John Swinney’s watch as Deputy First Minister and now as First Minister, has Scottish life expectancy dropped in five of the eight reporting periods since 2014? The Presiding Officer: First Minister, please answer only in relation to the substantive question. The First Minister: I wonder whether, in the aftermath of the Conservatives’ ejection from office last summer, Craig Hoy has reflected at all on the damage that has been done to our society by 14 years of austerity under the Conservative Government.”
“The 65,000 jobs that are provided by our breweries and pubs stretch from the Borders to the Outer Isles and from city centres to Scotland’s remote glens. That is the contribution of the sector across Scotland, and we should be rightly proud of it. Scotland’s food and drink sector could, and should, have a bright future. However, to deliver that, the Government must heed the warnings that have been made. We all recognise the economic and social contribution of the sector, but to ensure that that continues, ministers must be willing to stand up and fully support it. 15:57”
“However, we also need action to support Scottish products and to make more local beers available. An opportunity will be created next month when the Scottish pubs code will enable tied pubs to sell one guest beer from a small independent brewer. As the sector looks forward, we also need to ensure that the operating environment is conducive to attracting people to work in it. We all know that the beer and pub sector offers excellent employment opportunities, but we urgently need a more positive dialogue about the unique community value of the sector, the range of careers that are on offer, and the transferability of the skills in the sector. Ministers also need to look at the employment situation in rural communities, where a lack of affordable housing and the shortage of public transport can cause specific problems.”
“I hate to say it, but the SNP must also address the creeping anti-alcohol agenda that is being actively pursued by this SNP Government. In fact, a senior executive from one of the largest global drinks producers told me that, in all the countries in which his firm operates, he has never seen a Government that did so little to champion or defend its national drinks industry. That lack of support for the sector is also evident elsewhere. Scotland’s pubs, as I said, are not receiving that lifeline business rate relief, which is an injustice, and which will continue into next year. As our amendment makes clear, the industry has worked hard to address the harms of alcohol misuse through a range of local initiatives such as Best Bar None, as well as supporting the work of Drinkaware and the Portman Group.”
“The Parliament and the Government need to deliver a period of regulatory calm and measures that incentivise investment. Brand Scotland aims to make Scotland a place that is recognised as a highly desirable country to live in, work in, study in, visit, trade with and invest in. However, ministers need to clearer about the role of key industries such as Scotch whisky, craft gin and brewing. Sadly, Scotland’s pubs are closing at a faster rate than elsewhere in the UK, and investment is being diverted because lack of certainty makes it difficult to plan ahead. We need urgent action on a number of other fronts, including the obstructive planning process and the employment challenges—including those created by Labour’s national insurance increase—that are a barrier to growth.”
“That also means John Swinney biting his tongue, following a series of cack-handed interventions in UK-US security and trade discussions. Ministers must also choose very carefully their language on the Scottish alcohol industry more generally. Last year, the cross-party group on beer and pubs—which, for the record, I chair— recommended that the Scottish Government should rethink its “curiously outdated and unbalanced attitude” to the sector. We called on ministers to recognise that huge economic and social potential is waiting to be unlocked in the sector, but that that will only happen if the mood music is carefully chosen. Our report called on ministers to develop “a coherent hospitality strategy ... to align with the objectives of Brand Scotland”. We need to give the sector a chance to thrive.”
“Inflation had an impact on the costs of inputs such as cereals, energy and shipping. There is the risk of a redesignation of Scotch in England. In addition, the threat of tariffs now looms large. In Scotland, our drinks industry has been forced to grapple with a number of ill-thought-out SNP policies, such as the botched deposit return scheme, minimum unit pricing, the threat of restrictions on marketing and sponsorship—which had been withdrawn but is now back on the table—and the impact of the SNP’s failure to pass on rates relief to the Scottish hospitality sector. We need a concerted effort to fend off those threats, including action by the UK Government to promote strong and open trade relations with key export markets, including the US.”
“We have only to look at the Edinburgh Gin distillery, a new visitor attraction at the Arches, just a few yards from the entrance to the Parliament, to see that. At the last count, Scotland had 100 breweries and more than 4,340 pubs, employing 65,000 people and contributing £1.8 billion in wider economic benefits. Across Scotland, breweries and distilleries employ locally and are committed to sourcing locally wherever possible. They work with hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises across Scotland. However, despite the powerful contribution that the sector makes to the economy and to those who work within it, it still faces risks at home and abroad. The Scotch Whisky Association has said that 2024 was a “challenging year”. There was a 14 per cent increase in the tax on every bottle of Scotch whisky.”
“Scotland’s £15 billion food and drink sector is globally renowned and respected. However, it is also neglected and, sometimes, made the scapegoat— including by its Government. The sector provides billions to the UK economy. Scotch whisky alone contributes £7 billion; the vast majority of that sum is generated here in Scotland. Our drinks industry is not only important to the Scottish economy in terms of income, jobs and exports; it is a highly productive sector. It is entrepreneurial. It comprises large, global multinational brands and smaller businesses such as Winton Brewery and Broughton Ales in the South of Scotland region, which I represent. It is also a key driver in other sectors, such as tourism, culture and advertising.”
“I say again to Rhoda Grant that I commend buying Scottish and I have breaking news: the Scottish National Party first ran a campaign to buy Scottish more 40 years ago. I know—I was outside the supermarkets, waving flags for it, and it led to supermarkets branding Scottish produce with a saltire. There are some benefits to being older. 15:26”
“Lest people think that it is all about alcohol in the Borders—although there is no problem with that—there is also Tweed Valley Venison, based in Peebles, which makes venison and game from the Tweed catchment area into burgers and sausages, and the fourth-generation retail and wholesale butcher Shaws Fine Meats is in Lauder. Fifth-generation artisan bakery Alex Dalgetty and Sons is based next door to my office in Gala, and it has a second shop in Melrose. It is the producer of the famous Selkirk bannock, which I suggest is best warm with butter. I have had to skip some, so I apologise for not being able to mention other food and drink retailers and wholesalers across the Borders—I am sure that you are relieved, Presiding Officer.”
“I have time to mention just a couple of those, because I have been taking interventions that were really pretty worthless. Traquair House Brewery exports its beer and ales around the world. Broughton Ales has won awards from the Society of Independent Brewers and Associates, the Campaign for Real Ale, UK supermarkets such as Tesco, Meininger’s international craft beer awards and the world beer awards. The Tempest Brewing Co, which was originally in a disused area in Kelso, is now in my patch in the Borders, and it has a very successful taproom at its brewery for people to sample its products. Stow brewery is in Lauder and it produces beers and gins.”
“Despite warm words before the general election from Dame Jackie Baillie, there has been no progress on a rural visa pilot scheme. B is for Brexit and T is for tariffs, because we are now at the mercy of the human wrecking ball that is otherwise known as Donald Trump. Unlike political leaders, I do not need to be circumspect or ca’ canny with my words. As he levies tariffs here, there and everywhere, he disrupts the world’s economy to boot. That is another impact on our food and drink exports. By the way, there never was a special relationship—the dugs in the street know that. The broad background is that, in 2020, the food and drink sector in Scotland generated turnover worth £15 billion and it comprised more than 17,000 small businesses employing about 129,000 people. Many of those businesses are in rural communities such as mine.”
“It did not mention an increase in employer national insurance contributions, and that was on top of the decisions relating to the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality—the winter fuel allowance and now, of course, benefits. Labour has a lot to answer for, so, if I was a Labour member, I would keep quiet for the time being. On top of that, we have Brexit—do not mention the B-word. There is hardly a cheep about that from Labour or the Tories. I wonder why. Could it be because it was never the open door to the world’s markets, including the USA, but the bearer of increased regulations, red tape and costs? Just ask the Horticultural Trades Association. It has also led to undeniable shortages in the workforce. Just ask the soft fruit growers who watched their year’s work turn to mush in the fields.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Christine Grahame: I seem to have touched a raw nerve. I wonder why. The Deputy Presiding Officer: From whom are you taking the intervention, Ms Grahame? Christine Grahame: I am sorry—I thought that sitting down would be a sufficient indication. I am now sitting down. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant, I think. Rhoda Grant: Does Christine Grahame acknowledge that the NI threshold was cut for small businesses, which will have a positive impact on small rural businesses? Christine Grahame: One has to ask oneself about all the other things that Labour did not mention in its election manifesto.”
“We need the UK Government to stand up for Scotland, represent us around the world and work in partnership with us, not drive UK policy, resources, time and effort into the south-east of England, promoting even more inequality and not allowing Scotland to realise our economic ambitions. We will do our bit here, in Scotland, but it is about time that the Labour Party started doing its bit as well. I commend the motion to Parliament.”
“If you were in one of the many exciting companies in Scotland that are often referred to in the chamber, whether that is in life sciences, the space industry or fintech, and you read that the UK Government’s official view is that Oxbridge and the golden triangle is the home of British innovation, how do you think you would feel? Those companies are inventing cures for diseases and new technologies for space, and they are looking at ways to protect the planet and provide the best possible data. All of that has been invented, developed and innovated here, in Scotland. The Labour Party’s Chancellor of the Exchequer then stands up and says in her big speech on the future of the UK economy that Oxbridge is the home of British innovation. That is unacceptable. We have to get that fixed.”
“People have written books about how Scotland invented the modern world but, meanwhile, the UK Government has cancelled the supercomputer in Edinburgh. The Prime Minister mentioned every other part of the UK—or, at least England—in his big talk about the future of AI, despite the fact that, just last year, a Nobel prize winner who is an alumni of the University of Edinburgh won an award for machine learning. He is one of the world’s leaders in AI and studied at the University of Edinburgh, and that must be recognised by the UK Government. We have to do something about that.”
“Why are we not having a discussion about that and fixing it? Richard Lochhead: I pull the member back to the big picture. I know that planning is important for the Scottish business community, and it is really important that we get that right and listen to the recommendations, but we are talking about the future direction of the UK economy and the implications for Scotland. That is what we must have at heart. When the Prime Minister delivered a big speech about the AI action plan and the future of AI in the UK, despite the fact that Scotland leads internationally in many areas of AI, he mentioned four areas down south, but not Scotland. That is why the business community and our innovation sectors are concerned; they are reading reports on that and seeing it happen. We need a UK Government that recognises what is happening in Scotland.”
“When I went to Singapore on a trade mission, a senior businessperson in Singapore said to me that it was refreshing to have a Scottish minister arguing for investment in Scotland, because, usually, UK ministers make the case for investment in the golden triangle in the south of England. That is what is happening around the world. Others are taking a nod from the UK Government’s policy direction. Michael Marra: What would the minister say to the investor panel that was commissioned by the Scottish Government, which said: “It is not apparent that the Scottish Government considers the impact of its actions on investment appetite” and that “Planning decisions are slow and sit in the system for unacceptably long periods”. That is what the business community is saying to his Government about its record.”
“Even Terry Murden of Daily Business Magazine— who is not the biggest friend of the Scottish Government, it has to be said—described the speech as “Southern comfort, but no help for Scotland.” The issue is that embassies around the world and UK agencies take their lead from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister say, which is, “Drive investment into the golden triangle in the south-east of England.” That is what will be happening behind closed doors around the world. Thank goodness we have Kate Forbes as our champion for investment in Scotland and that the Scottish Government is making an effort to attract investment into Scotland.”
“Labour colleagues are talking up the golden triangle as the future for UK investment. Paul O’Kane: In my contribution, I made the point directly to the minister that, throughout the debate, he has referenced investment in Liverpool, Tyneside and Manchester. Does he not see that a lost decade cannot be overturned in seven months and that investment in every part of the UK is vitally important and is at the core of the UK Government’s agenda? Richard Lochhead: Yes, but the thrust of UK economic policy is causing concern in the Scottish business community. The BBC reported that Rachel Reeves said that she “vowed to build ‘Europe’s Silicon Valley’ between Oxford and Cambridge”.”
“Of course, we should be getting a share of those projects. The big picture is the UK economy’s direction of travel. Kevin Stewart made an important point about inequality and how we are repeating past mistakes. The new UK Labour Government is, once again, emphasising that the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London, in the south- east of England, will drive the UK economy forward. Even the Tories, who introduced the levelling up agenda—albeit 10 years late— accepted that too much was happening in the golden triangle in the south-east of England. That may have turned out to be a slogan, but it identified a debate that needed to be had in the UK. Now, the Labour Party is talking about how the Tories got it wrong, but it is doing exactly the same thing.”
“With regard to speeches that UK Government ministers have made, I draw attention to what the Prime Minister said just last week, when he was announcing the £200 million for Grangemouth, about how integral Scotland is to our ambition for a clean power mission to transform the energy sector by 2030. Scotland is the energy capital of Europe and it is integral to those plans, and it will be invested against on that basis. Surely the minister sees that that is a positive signal of the UK Labour Government’s view of and vision for Scotland. Richard Lochhead: First, we recognise that, in some cases, UK Government money and investment is coming to Scotland, which is important. However, the member suggests that we should be thankful and celebrate the fact that Scotland has a share in UK projects.”
“We have also discussed the growth deals as a good example of how the Governments have worked together. I do not understand why the other parties are trying to conflate the Scottish Government’s willingness to work in partnership with the UK Government with the fact that we have concerns over the UK Government’s direction of travel in promoting the south-east of England. Michael Marra: The minister will recognise that, instead of what he has described, what we got from some back-bench SNP members was talk of what happened in the days of empire and the East India Company. That is an illustration of where, unfortunately, the Government’s motion took us.”
“She also views that area as the home of British innovation. That has huge ramifications for our business community in Scotland. I know that other members would rather not talk about that, but—to be honest—if my party had plummeted to 18 per cent in the opinion polls, I would perhaps be asking myself why the people of Scotland currently have a certain view of the UK Government. It is important to reflect on what is happening with the big picture. Last week, I met Douglas Alexander, when we both spoke at an exports event in Edinburgh called “Made in Scotland, Sold to the World”. We co- operate on issues like that—we have discussed in this debate how we have co-operated on freeports and the fact that there is other funding coming from the multibillion-pound national wealth fund, with £200 million earmarked for Grangemouth.”
“Surely he must agree, having listened to the debate, that, while we could have had a positive and constructive debate about Scotland’s economy, we could not do so with his party’s motion? Richard Lochhead: As the member will be aware, we occasionally disagree over the future direction of the Scottish and UK economies, and today we are having a vigorous debate on that very subject. SNP members have our views on the future of the Scottish economy, and other parties are here defending their views on it, too. However, it is important that we address the big picture, which is that the UK Government’s Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that she sees the golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge, and in particular the Oxford- Cambridge corridor, as the key to the economic success of the UK.”
“The Conservatives have said that things were much better in their day. Labour Party members have said that things are much better now, because Labour is in Government. Douglas Ross has said that he does not want to be here, which we all know, and he gave us his views on various things— Douglas Ross: Will the member give way? Richard Lochhead: Oh, I suppose that I will have to give way, as I name-checked him. Douglas Ross: It is not so much that—the minister said that he would be happy to give way to any colleague, so I am taking him up on that. Does the minister accept that my issue was more with the structure of the debate? I am happy to speak about the economy, but we knew how the debate would go—as he has just said, it was very predictable—because of how the SNP framed the motion for debate.”
“There is a diverse range of companies that build everything from naval ships to drones and other technologies that are being used. Of course, the space industry in Scotland is crucially important, too. As the world prepares to invest billions of extra dollars in the space industry, there are opportunities for Scotland to get a slice of the action. That will lead to high-value jobs in our country and the further expansion of our space industry. We should not limit our ambitions to building small satellites—which we are very good at—and rockets; we have to look at the global situation and what that means for Scottish opportunities. I think that apprentices, and the opportunities not just in defence but in diversification within those companies, are important for the Scottish economy. In many ways, the debate has been quite predictable.”
“Murdo Fraser: On that very note, the minister will recall that, at the start of the debate, I referred to the importance of the defence industries to Scotland. We are going to see more defence spending in the UK and internationally, which creates an economic opportunity. Does he agree, therefore, that the Scottish Government has to be welcoming of the defence industries? Does he agree that if, on a future occasion, we welcome to the Parliament representatives of, and young apprentices in, the defence sector, we should be welcoming them and not abusing them? Richard Lochhead: I put on record that I very much value the contribution to the Scottish economy that is made by the companies in the defence sector that are based in Scotland.”
“I am very lucky that, in my post, I get to go around the country and meet businesses, entrepreneurs, universities and a wide range of representatives in the business community. There is a lot of excitement at the moment, despite the challenges. Many wells are about to spring in the business and innovation communities. Exciting things are happening in Scotland. We cannot afford to miss this moment of inflection. The decisions that we take over the next few years will lead to our capturing the giant prize—as I mentioned—of prosperity and more equality in Scotland. Conversely, if we, or other people, take the wrong decisions, we will miss some of those opportunities. It is a crucial time for Scotland, which makes this debate even more important.”
“There is a range of domestic issues, and the international situation is also uncertain. We have seen what has been happening across the pond and the ramifications of that on our television screens and on social media. We do not quite know where that is going to go, and I am sure that every member of every party in Parliament is very concerned about that. The Scottish and UK business communities will likewise be very concerned about the potential impact of what may be down the line over the coming months and years—we simply do not know at this point what that will be. I mention that simply because it makes this kind of debate even more important. We absolutely have to grasp the economic opportunities that are before us; we cannot afford to miss them. We are at a moment of inflection for the Scottish economy.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Richard Lochhead to wind up the debate. Minister, I would be grateful if you could take us to as close to 5 o’clock as you can. 16:47 Richard Lochhead: I shall speak slowly and, of course, welcome any interventions that members want to make. I always like to hear members’ views, and I am sure that they are already thinking of what they could say. First, it is important to say—and I said this at the beginning of the debate—that we are debating the future of the Scottish economy and, to a certain extent, the future of the UK economy against a backdrop of challenges and uncertainties. Domestically, there is a lot of concern in the business community about the impending increase in employer national insurance contributions, energy costs, inflation and the on-going impact of Brexit.”
“As our amendment makes clear, we should not ignore the significant contributions that other organisations have made. The British Business Bank’s investment fund for Scotland will deliver £150 million of new funding to the country to drive sustainable growth by supporting innovation and creating local opportunities for new and growing businesses in Scotland. Action under a Conservative Government delivered real support for Scottish investment in Scottish businesses and Scottish jobs and, ultimately, for growth in the Scottish economy. Our commitment to the Scottish economy and the industries that support it is unwavering and ambitious. Sadly, based on our experience not just in this debate but in many recent debates, the SNP—now alongside Labour—does not believe in the same principles of driving growth in the Scottish economy.”
“The previous Conservative Government was serious about boosting the Scottish economy to the tune of £3 billion. As Murdo Fraser said, there was £1.5 billion in city, region and growth deals and £1.4 billion in levelling up funds, including for the freeports that the SNP sought to block, which would have supported jobs in key industries including the oil and gas sector, for which they would have acted as a supply chain. However, it is not only in those areas that the Scottish Conservatives backed the UK Government in delivering for Scotland. As Murdo Fraser rightly said, the Ministry of Defence spends more per head in Scotland than in the rest of the UK—an average of £380 more—and its spending in Scotland grew by 13 per cent between 2018 and 2021-22. That was a vote of confidence in the Scottish aerospace and defence industries.”