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 6 of 19.
“I recently visited the Annandale distillery in Dumfriesshire and was impressed by its commitment to reaching net zero, with a significant investment in a multimillion-pound, game-changing thermal energy storage system, which was partly funded by the previous UK Conservative Government. What support can the Scottish Government give to the Scotch whisky industry to meet its decarbonisation and sustainability goals, not just in our world-class distilleries but throughout the wider supply chain? Richard Lochhead: I have not had the privilege of visiting that distillery in the member’s region, but perhaps one day I will have the opportunity to do so. In recent years, the Scottish Government has given substantial support to the whisky sector to decarbonise its operations.”
“Craig Hoy should go away and read the document properly. Non-domestic Rates Revaluation (Business Support) 5.”
“Shona Robison: Local government’s budget would be slashed if £1 billion was taken out of public services, which is what the Tories have advocated. They cannot come here to ask for more money for local government if they would take £1 billion out of public services. That is a ridiculous position to take. On the local government funding position, the budget provides a further real-terms increase in the local government settlement by delivering record funding of £15.7 billion, which includes a quarter of a billion pounds of unrestricted general revenue grant. The overall settlement is to increase by £650.9 million, which is a cash increase of 4.3 per cent, or 2 per cent in real terms, compared with the 2025-26 budget. That is the amount by which the local government settlement is estimated to increase by the 2026– 27 spring budget revision.”
“Last year’s national insurance hike showed Labour’s utter disregard for jobs and economic growth. The cabinet secretary was right to say that it has negatively impacted the public sector as well as the private sector. However, as councils grapple with those costs, yesterday’s Scottish budget and spending review dealt them another blow. Today, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the finance and local government portfolio uplift is only 0.3 per cent, which is far less than the 2 per cent that was claimed by Shona Robison yesterday. In future years, the local government portfolio will suffer annual real-terms cuts of 2.1 per cent. How are councils meant to meet those increased costs and deliver front-line services when this Government is intent on slashing their budgets?”
“As I said in my statement, taking all the measures together, around 89,000 properties—or 96 per cent of all retail, hospitality and leisure properties—will benefit from zero or reduced rates. I would have thought that even Craig Hoy could welcome that.”
“Before we go any further, I will say that I do not expect a single member of the Tory back benches who are here today to ask for a single penny of extra funding for public services, given that their front bench would cut services by £1 billion. We will not hear any asks for more money— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Shona Robison: —from the Tory back benches. As I set out in my statement, the estimates of the impact of the budget are that 55 per cent of taxpayers will pay less in Scotland. That figure rises to 57 per cent after costs such as pension deductions. On business, I have set out that we will decrease the basic, intermediate and higher property rates in 2026-27, which will ensure that we have the lowest basic property rates since 2018-19.”
“This failing SNP Government cannot reverse the rot that has set in to public finances and the £5 billion budget black hole that it still faces. Lily- livered Labour says that it will let the budget pass, the Liberal Democrats look set to be lining up to support it and Reform is rolling in behind more benefit spending. Therefore, ahead of an election that will be defined by the cost of living, is it not the truth that only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up for Scottish taxpayers, by saving Scotland from an SNP Government that relegates growth, puts welfare over work and is still wedded to high tax for hard-working Scots? Shona Robison: What is cynical is having a billion pounds of unaffordable, unfunded tax cuts and not telling the public which public services you would cut by £1 billion. [Interruption.] That is cynical.”
“Does anyone beyond the SNP’s clapping seals believe that the fundamentals of the Scottish economy will improve as a result of today’s budget? I have a question for Shona Robison as she prepares to ride off into the sunset, leaving someone else to clear up the mess that she has created. Will the overall tax burden on Scottish households and businesses rise or fall as a result of the budget? How many businesses and how many jobs will be lost as a result of this Government’s failure to pass on in full the rates relief that it has received in the past and its failure to create a new system in order to stop this damaging rates revaluation? Which infrastructure projects, such as the full dualling of the A96, will be shelved as a result of the on-going gap in this Government’s capital funding?”
“Craig Hoy: Mr Swinney does not want to hear his litany of failure being read out in the chamber, because economic growth is an afterthought, public services are failing, and businesses, which are deprived of rates relief in full and still potentially face huge revaluation bills, are continuing to teeter on the brink, despite the modest concessions today. Let us look at what Shona Robison has announced. There is more foreign aid when people are struggling at home, and there is a £36 million increase in the constitutional and external affairs budget—a secret stash for John Swinney’s secret plan. There are cuts to economically productive areas, including cuts to the budgets for the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise.”
“This budget, like all SNP budgets, is smoke and mirrors, is tax and spend and still prioritises welfare over work, with £650 million extra being spent in the social justice portfolio. With an election just 113 days away, John Swinney thinks that he can morph from Che Guevara into Adam Smith with no intervening steps. [Interruption.] However, ultimately, nothing has changed because, at its core, this SNP Government remains high on tax and low on delivery. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: Mr Swinney is chuntering away. Under the SNP today, Scotland still remains the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Just a second, Mr Hoy. Members, I am finding it very difficult to hear Mr Hoy. Let us be courteous.”
“This pre- election budget is as predictable as it is cynical, but the problem that John Swinney and Shona Robison face today is that hard-working Scots who are tired of being taxed to the hilt by the SNP simply will not wear it. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Mr Hoy. Craig Hoy: It will not wash, because we know, and they know, that John Swinney has repeatedly hiked taxes and that he will never do what the Scottish Conservatives would do: comprehensively cut tax and increase thresholds now and into the future. Although today’s change to thresholds for the basic and intermediate rates is to be welcomed, that does nothing for those people at the middle of the tax bands, who are paying 50 per cent tax on the pound between £43,000 and £50,000. That is the cost of the SNP.”
“The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution 17:00”
“However, to be honest, I think that it will absolutely backfire, because the general public will see it as those parties voting against taking money from developers to support cladding remediation and putting the focus back on reducing public services. I think that they will recognise that for exactly what it is. The Presiding Officer: You must conclude, minister. Ivan McKee: I will conclude, Presiding Officer. The Government is very clear that the measure is absolutely essential if we are to be able to support the significant funding to deliver the much-needed cladding remediation programme, the cost of which would otherwise accrue to the public purse. I urge all members to support the bill at stage 1 at decision time today and to engage constructively with the Government on any amendments that they want to lodge at stages 2 and 3.”
“The public outside will be looking at today’s debate and making up their own minds, but what will they see? They will see Tory, Labour and Liberal Democrat politicians whose parties in the UK Parliament voted to put in place measures that would take from developers in England some of the costs for the substantial cladding remediation programme that must take place. Then they will see their compatriots in this place voting against a funding levy to support building safety remediation in Scotland. That proposal was not taken forward by just one party; it was developed under the previous Conservative Administration at the UK level and taken forward by a Labour Government at Westminster. The public will see that frankly blatant hypocrisy. We would never guess that there was an election round the corner.”
“I need to know from the Government when the cladding remediation directorate changed the content of its letter of support to residents, who approved that letter, whether it was seen by Scottish Government ministers and how many people have been sent different types of letter. The inconsistency means that there will be different levels of support, which is, frankly, wrong. Ivan McKee: I am happy to take up the specifics of that constituency case if Meghan Gallacher wants to write to me about that. To clarify the position, the Scottish Government will pay for essential works relating to cladding to address risks to life but clearly will not pay for on- going maintenance or other building management costs. In conclusion, it is important to get some clarity by taking a step back to look at what is actually happening.”
“As things stand, the bill will be implemented in 2028, during the financial year 2028-29, so we are at least two and a half years away from any cash flowing into the public sector finances as a consequence of the bill. It is important to recognise that. We are not talking about money that will be spent now; we are talking about money that we will be spending in two and a half to three years’ time, and anyone would recognise the need to be able to raise those funds. I will take Meghan Gallacher’s intervention. Meghan Gallacher: In my earlier contribution, I raised the issue of letters that I received from two residents of the same building who received two different responses from the Government, one of which was fully supportive of funding cladding remediation, while the other was lukewarm at best.”
“The service supported the levy as the only viable option, given the UK Government’s position in acting unilaterally. Peter Drummond of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland, who was quoted by Richard Leonard, has said that architects support the levy as being the most pragmatic solution available. John Mason made a number of points about the specific details of exemptions, which show that the Government is absolutely willing to engage. We have already reviewed the exemptions and made changes and are happy to look at other constructive suggestions from stakeholders or members about the details as we take the bill through its next stages. Michael Marra called for a delay to the bill.”
“I understand that the Building Safety Act 2022 made amendments to the prescription periods in Scotland, allowing developers to make claims on the same basis as in the rest of the UK. We have offered to work with the sector on any specific examples of barriers to doing that. No specific cases of a developer being unable to take forward claims for compensation within the supply chain have yet been identified, but, as I said, we are happy to engage separately with the member on that issue. Meghan Gallacher: Will the minister take an intervention? Ivan McKee: I would like to make some progress. The committee heard a wide range of evidence not only from the sector but, for example, from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, which we should listen to when it comes to matters of building safety.”
“It is my understanding that any housing funded by councils through powers in the Housing Act 1988 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001 would be covered by that exemption, but if he thinks that there is an issue that needs to be clarified, I am happy to pick that up. A number of members raised the issue of having a sensitivity analysis. The Government is absolutely committed to producing and publishing updated impact assessments when we publish the rates later this year. Those assessments will be developed along with the expert advisory group, which, of course, includes representatives from the sector. Michelle Thomson made a point about developer compensation in the supply chain, which I am also happy to pick up separately if necessary.”
“[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Ivan McKee: Anybody who is watching this can understand the numbers and can understand that that potential £3 billion spend has to be funded from somewhere. If Richard Leonard thinks that it should come from somewhere else in the public purse, people can judge his comments on that. I will talk about some of the comments made by members, starting with a couple of points raised by the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s convener. I am happy to pick up separately with him the point about having an exemption for affordable housing.”
“He is usually the last person to be looking for cuts to other areas of public spending. I want to go through and clarify some of the points that have been made by members. Richard Leonard: Will the minister take an intervention? Ivan McKee: Yes, of course. I will be absolutely delighted to do so. Richard Leonard: Just for the record, I am not calling for cuts to other areas of public expenditure. I would like to see more public expenditure, but I would like to see you using the public expenditure that you have to remediate cladding. The Presiding Officer: Please always speak through the chair. Ivan McKee: Richard Leonard is another member I am going to have to lend the calculator to. We are talking about a small number of tens of millions of pounds compared with the more than £3 billion that is required for the programme.”
“The minister must know that it is pathetic. Craig Hoy said that it will take a decade to work through the money. It is going to take 40 years—that is what it will take at the current rate of attrition on the money. Why does he not just get on with it? Ivan McKee: Again, Stephen Kerr is struggling to add up the numbers—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us not shout at one another. Ivan McKee: The point is that the programme is being taken forward and the money is being spent, but the whole programme in its entirety could cost more than £3 billion, and that money has to be found from somewhere. If the legislation is not put in place, that money will have to come from public spending. It is time that members around the place, including Richard Leonard, recognised the impact.”
“If I heard him correctly, Craig Hoy asked for the funding to come from other parts of the budget just a few minutes ago. Other members have not been so honest, because they know that the total cost of this is indicated to be somewhere between £1.7 billion and more than £3 billion. The money that is being spent as we speak does not touch the sides of that. We are talking about less than £100 million compared with something potentially in excess of £3 billion. If Mark Griffin needs me to lend him a calculator to work that out, I am very happy to do so. Stephen Kerr: Everything that the minister is saying is whataboutery. He has had £97.1 million for five years. He has spent £14 million of it and he has £83 million sitting there. The idea that it is going to cost more than that, so we are not going to do anything, is pathetic.”
“Mark Griffin: Surely the minister must accept that not a single member has asked the Government to take funding from public finances; he is simply being asked to recognise that a pot of tens of millions of pounds has been allocated by the UK Government, which is available to spend, and the Scottish Government has been asked to bring forward a levy proposal that we can support, which has the clarity that we still need and which adheres to the polluter-pays principle. Not a single member has asked the Government to take funding from public finances. The Government has simply been asked to think again about the levy proposal and to use the funds that it already has at its disposal. Ivan McKee: Some members have been honest about that.”
“Craig Hoy might want to lodge an amendment to proposals in the budget next week to propose that that will come from another part of the budget at the same time as he is proposing £1 billion in tax cuts. To take that money from public spending other than from the levy would mean less money for hospitals, roads, schools and, of course, affordable housing. The point that we need more affordable housing has been made widely this afternoon. We know from research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others that, if we cut public spending in that way, the impacts will be felt most by lower-income households, and I consider that to be an unacceptable trade-off.”
“In 2024, the Parliament unanimously supported the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which was intended to underpin and support the delivery of that programme. The UK Government’s building safety levy legislation also received cross- party support in the UK Parliament. This bill is critical in establishing appropriate funding for that work. If it is not supported, the Scottish Government will have no choice but to look to the existing capital budget envelope for the £360 million to £450 million that the levy is intended to generate over 12 to 15 years. I hear Craig Hoy’s offer to work with the Government to find that in the budget.”
“The Government is wasting taxpayers’ money on many projects, and I am sure that, if it came to the Parliament to request £10 million or £15 million to continue the remediation process until such time as we had a coherent system in place, it would find that there would be cross-party support for that. However, at this point in time, the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill is the wrong bill. It would be negligent for the Parliament to pass it, and I hope that it does not reach stage 2. 16:49 Ivan McKee: I welcome the contributions that have been made throughout the debate, and I will address many of them shortly. Before I do that, I draw members’ attention to the cladding remediation programme, which seeks to address the issue of unsafe cladding.”
“For a Government that has conceded that there is a housing crisis, it would be negligent in the extreme to take no account of that. Ultimately—interestingly, there is almost cross- party consensus on this—the Parliament has the opportunity to tell the Government to take some time to go away and come back with a better bill. If, in the meantime, the Government spends the remaining £80 million that it has—at the present run rate, I think that that money will probably last for a decade or more—it could reach out to other parties with a view to funding the necessary work through general taxation.”
“I was about to say that perhaps the minister could reach out to Scottish Land & Estates, because it has suggested some criteria that would aid the Government in relation not only to the bill but to rural pubs and hospitality, which similarly fall foul of the Government’s incoherent approach to defining rurality. I am aware that I am running out of time, but I want to talk about a key issue, the importance of which was made clear in the evidence that was given to the committee—that of the fragility of the Scottish housing market. Those who said, “There’s a similar scheme in England, so it will all be fine,” underplay and underestimate the fragility of the housing market. The building safety levy could be the material change in the operating environment that simply means that developers say no to further development in Scotland.”
“I will give way to the minister, as he is looking somewhat confused, which is rare for him, although not impossible. Ivan McKee: We are having discussions about the application of exemptions, and we would welcome suggestions on how those might be taken forward. Craig Hoy: We appreciate that certain remote areas will be exempt from the levy, but, as I was just about to say, the issue with a rural exemption is that the Government must first have a coherent definition of rurality, the need for which runs through all aspects of public policy.”
“The bill drives a coach and horses through the principle that the polluter should pay, because we now know that, at the end of the day, the £3,500 will be added on to the cost of a new home, so it will be first-time buyers who will pay the levy, not the building companies and certainly not the rogue builders and manufacturers that allowed dangerous cladding to be installed on buildings in the first place. Not enough reference has been made in the debate to rural Scotland. We heard very strong testimony from Scottish Land & Estates and others that the rural housing market is extremely fragile. That is perhaps where the housing crisis is most acute. There is still no clarity on how an exemption for rural areas might be formulated.”
“The Government is treating the matter simply as an issue of tax—in other words, a fiscal matter for the minister to deal with—when we all know that the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and other parts of Government should be on it 24/7 to ensure that people’s properties are safe. I turn to some of the specific concerns that have been raised by the committee and, more importantly, by stakeholders, who were full- throatedly and almost universally against the levy. It is crystal clear to me that there are certain areas in which people have coalesced around the view that the Government must think again. One such issue is that of the polluter-pays principle, which goes to the heart of the matter.”
“As it stands, the bill cannot enjoy our confidence to proceed to stage 2. If the Government is re-elected—I seriously hope that it is not—it could introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament, but, in the meantime, ministers could direct the existing funds to accelerating the remediation process. Meghan Gallacher identified the completely inconsistent and incoherent way in which the Government is responding to those who are seeking to remediate their buildings at this point in time. That suggests to me that there is a lack of direction from the Government. I get the sense that the minister is being hung out to dry. There has been no sign of the Cabinet Secretary for Housing.”
“This is the dilemma that has been put before the Parliament today: does the Government actually need this money to accelerate the remediation process? It is clear from Audit Scotland’s evidence that it does not need it. What the Government needs is the political will and the nous to get on and do it. The debate today and the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s report, which I welcomed, show that there are significant concerns about the bill. I am not going to do what Jamie Hepburn and others did and simply roll over and say that we will give the Government the benefit of the doubt and that it will all come good in the end. As Liz Smith clearly articulated, the proposed building safety levy might not be the right mechanism for remediating Scotland’s cladding problem.”
“The first phase of the Grenfell inquiry examined the immediate causes of the fire and how it spread with such lethal effect. The second phase explored the underlying causes of the fire, including the fire safety standards, the response of the emergency services and the building design. It also set out a simple question: what happens next? That blaze took place 10 years ago and many of those questions have been answered. However, as today’s debate has shown, there are other questions: after all that, why has Scotland been so slow to remediate those buildings where cladding still poses a fire risk and why, despite having been given that £97.1 million, are we finding out today that only £14 million has been spent? Why introduce a levy to raise money urgently if the Government is sitting with a pot of money that should be spent urgently?”
“The fact that the minister seems to be incapable of or unwilling to answer the question of how much money has been spent so far on the challenging issue of remediation is absolutely shocking. It is shocking to those people who cannot yet sell their homes, who cannot move and who, in some cases, cannot remortgage. Worse still, it is shocking for those people who cannot go to sleep at night because they are not certain that the homes that they are in are safe. Minister, you need to up the pace and you need to do it urgently. The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Craig Hoy: The loss of 72 lives at Grenfell was a tragedy. Men and women, young and old, and many children died. After the shock and the pain came grief and questions: how was that allowed to happen and who should take responsibility?”
“I agree with Willie Rennie—[Interruption.] I cannot find my card. Liz Smith: That is the extra time gone. [Laughter.] The Presiding Officer: We will give Mr Hoy a moment. Craig Hoy: I apologise, Presiding Officer—that is some of the extra time gone. I start by agreeing with Willie Rennie: the Government has put this Parliament in a hellish dilemma. However, being put in a dilemma does not mean that you should do as SNP MSPs appear to be doing, which is to take the easy way out and nod something through. In this debate and in the period since the Grenfell tragedy, we have seen this Government— which does not have a reputation for competence—displaying pure, greedy incompetence.”
“I understand the financial pressures that the Scottish Government is facing, but it has already received nearly £100 million specifically for cladding remediation. Can the minister say how much of that has been spent and where the remainder of that money is? Ivan McKee: I have been clear in the numbers that I have just indicated that between £1.7 billion and £3.1 billion will be required for cladding remediation. That money will be spent as part of the programme of works. As I said, we initially called for a four-nations approach to the funding.”
“However, they need to be taken forward with the necessary consultation of local communities, partners, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders, particularly when it is local authority and Scottish Government money that is at risk. Water has shaped Scotland’s history and, with the right choices and the right flood mitigation measures that enjoy public support, it does not have to threaten the future of our country and our communities. 17:35”
“The funding could have gone towards tackling the flooding that affects many roads in the rural south- west or towards the proper dredging of local rivers. It could have helped to replace the Diamond Jubilee bridge and the Cuthbertson memorial bridge, which were both washed away in 2021 when water levels along the River Annan reached a 50-year high. Those are practical measures that would command support in the community, rather than £69 million being squandered on a flood scheme for Dumfries in which locals simply do not have confidence. Flood defences are essential to Scotland’s future. They protect lives, homes and livelihoods, and they help to ensure that communities can thrive despite climate change.”
“Aside from the physical impact of the proposed scheme, there are widespread fears locally that it could lead to the loss of the Rood fair—one of Scotland’s longest-running festivals, which dates back to the 1500s and makes use of the Whitesands each year. There are also real concerns among local retailers about the disruption and the loss of revenues that their businesses will face during the construction phase. There is an equally widespread view that the costly scheme will be ineffective—a £69 million white elephant on the River Nith that siphons off millions of pounds in investment that could have supported vital local services, including provisions to effectively address other flood-related issues.”
“However, despite that, the proposed scheme, which is estimated to cost potentially a staggering £69 million and possibly even more, has not won the support of local people or of those in neighbouring communities—in fact, it is quite the opposite. Over recent years, thousands of locals have signed petitions against the scheme, which would fundamentally and damagingly alter historic views along the Whitesands, as a raised walkway incorporating walls, glass panels and flood gates is planned to run from the former Dumfries & Galloway Standard offices downstream to Dock park, with additional measures over the river at Welldale and Kenmure Terrace.”
“That is at the heart of what I want to say today. The need to fully consult local communities, partners, businesses, organisations and other stakeholders during the appraisal and consenting process for flood defence schemes is a crucial step, but, all too often, it has not taken place. The most glaring example of that has been the failure to mount a meaningful consultation for the Whitesands flood defence scheme in Dumfries, which was recently given the green light by the Scottish National Party-run council. That there is a serious flooding issue at the Whitesands is not in dispute—it floods regularly, and it can cause severe disruption and damage to businesses and other properties in the area when the Nith bursts its banks.”
“In East Lothian, for example, in Musselburgh and down the coast, a debate is raging about what sort of flood defences the town and the wider coastline area needs and how much those will cost. In other communities, plans for flood protection have not secured the necessary support of local communities—for example, that is the case with the recent proposals for a scheme in Langholm. In that instance, plans would have included the erection of walls and embankments along the River Esk and its tributaries, but those plans were shelved as a result of strong opposition from within the community, amid fears of spiralling costs. I recognise the strength of local opinion in many instances, and I stress that it must be heeded as ministers and councils across South Scotland consider future flood defence plans.”
“Scientific projections suggest that Scotland can expect wetter and warmer winters in the future, along with more extreme weather events. That will place even greater pressure on existing flood defences, putting homes, businesses, farm land and infrastructure at further risk. Across the South Scotland region, which I represent, some advances have been made in developing better flood defences. However, in communities such as Peebles and Walkerburn there are serious concerns that a continuing lack of flood protection poses a risk to people and property, along with fears that successful funding applications to install schemes in places such as Galashiels, Selkirk and Jedburgh mean that there is now little cash left for further defence schemes in the foreseeable future.”
“As a nation, Scotland is shaped by water: it is central to our landscape, our economy and our identity. The world over, lochs, rivers and long, rocky and rugged coastlines are closely identified with Scotland—as, of course, unfortunately, is the rain. However, plentiful water is not only one of our greatest assets but one of our greatest challenges, and flooding is one of the most acute environmental challenges that Scotland faces today. It is an increasing threat to communities across Scotland, both coastal and inland, and the need for effective flood defences has never been more urgent. Flooding in Scotland is not a new problem, but it is becoming more and more frequent and severe, with an impact on people and their homes, businesses and critical infrastructure.”
“I move, That the Parliament calls on the Scottish Government to reduce income tax on working people in Scotland; commits to uprating income tax thresholds in line with inflation in the forthcoming Scottish Budget and in future Scottish Budgets; further commits to removing the Scottish basic rate and intermediate rate of income tax and replacing them with a single Scottish income tax rate of 19 pence on income up to the higher rate threshold, and believes that these fairer measures would begin to reduce the tax differential with the rest of the United Kingdom, put more money into the pockets of working families, and support economic growth by addressing the cumulative effects of current income tax policy. 15:00”
“The measures in our motion would go a considerable way to closing the corrosive tax differential with the rest of the United Kingdom. They would save average full-time workers more than £600 this year and, by raising thresholds by £1,300 by 2030-31, they would grow the tax base and deliver growth. They prove that the Scottish Conservatives are the only party that is serious about cutting tax and cutting waste, the only party that is serious about cutting the SNP’s bloated benefits bill and the only party that is committed to a fairer deal for Scottish workers.”
“What respect did it show when core details of last year’s budget somehow found their way into the mainstream media before Shona Robison had even got to her feet? What respect did it show to this Parliament when, in 2022, Nicola Sturgeon’s vitally important Covid update was reported by the press long before it was announced to Parliament, which the Presiding Officer said was “disappointing” and “disrespectful”? Just this week, what respect did the Government show to this Parliament when media reports suggested that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs was safe in her role even before the findings of an official probe had been published? It showed it absolutely no respect whatsoever, so let us take no lectures from a party that repeatedly treats this Parliament and the Scottish people with utter contempt.”
“They cannot just turn around and say, “Sorry, Shona—I’ll skip paying your higher taxes this year.” It is a non-negotiable one-way street to ever more tax to pay for ever more welfare. However, it does not have to be that way, because reducing benefits incentivises work. It puts more money into people’s pockets and generates more in tax receipts, which, in turn, delivers more economic growth. Before I close, I will return to the frankly laughable SNP amendment that has been put before MSPs today, which says that the Government must “respect Parliament by outlining its tax policy” only when it publishes its budget next week. Let us reflect on that SNP culture of respect for this Parliament.”