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 7 of 19.
“We will set out specifically which benefits we would scale back once we hear from the Scottish Government in next week’s budget, when we will discover just how much more the cabinet secretary is set to snatch from working households to blow on Benefits Street. Let me be clear to workers and businesses. In recent years, the SNP has made the decision to increase taxes to pay for ever more benefits. It has the cheek to say that those tax increases fall on those with the broadest shoulders, when we all know that teachers and nurses are paying more. As my colleague Russell Findlay said this week, the Government is not asking workers to pay—it is demanding that they do so. They have no choice in the matter.”
“Worse still, those stealth tax raids involve taking money from pay packets to fund billions in extra welfare spending. The benefits bill is set to reach £10 billion by the end of the decade. When I met Mr McKee and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Shona Robison rightly asked how we would pay for our proposals. Let me tell the minister how we would do it. In cutting waste in Government, we would go further than the £1 billion that Mr McKee has allegedly identified. We would cut the benefits bill while ensuring that those who are in genuine need would continue to secure proper support.”
“Today, we propose to reverse that, to lift thresholds in line with inflation and to use a new zero rate to increase the point at which Scots start paying income tax, not just this year but in each of the five years of the next parliamentary session. I will tell members why we must do so. If the thresholds remain at their present levels, most Scottish workers will be paying the higher rate of tax by the end of the decade. A tax that is meant for high earners will be paid by workers on average incomes. Under Labour and the SNP, there will be higher-rate tax for the many, not the few. That is the reality of the SNP’s fiscal policy, which is, of course, aided and abetted by Scottish Labour. We are talking about the pernicious effects of prolonged fiscal drag, which raises taxes on hundreds of thousands of Scots through the back door.”
“It is an approach that focuses on widening the tax base and not hitting the same people harder each and every year. That is what our motion sets out to do. At its core is the same call that we made in relation to last year’s budget. We are calling for income tax on lower and middle-income workers to be cut by scrapping the Scottish basic and intermediate rates of income tax and replacing them with a single Scottish income tax rate—a flat 19 per cent rate on earnings up to the higher-rate threshold of £44,000. However, we need to go much further than that to deal with the damaging effects of fiscal drag. In her first budget, Rachel Reeves said that freezing tax thresholds would hurt working people, but, barely 12 months later, she froze them for three years, following in the footsteps of the Scottish National Party.”
“I wish you a happy new year, Deputy Presiding Officer. This year, 2026, must be the year in which Scotland’s politicians tackle the cost of living crisis. People across Scotland are under pressure, and many families are struggling to get by. Their bills are rising and everyday costs keep going up. In a matter of weeks, after years of Scottish National Party tax rises and wasteful spending, voters will face a clear choice. The SNP and Labour want people to keep paying more through higher taxes and they want to increase the benefits bill. Reform joins them in wanting to increase Scotland’s soaring social security bill. All of that adds to the pressure on hard-working Scottish families. However, there is a different way—a commonsense way that focuses on bringing bills down and making work pay.”
“Business owners have spoken to me about their anxiety, uncertainty and genuine fear for their futures.”
“That has left many firms in Scotland at a competitive disadvantage. Today, I visited an Edinburgh hospitality venue, where I and my colleagues heard about crippling tax rises as a result of the current business rates revaluation. Alongside business groups such as UK Hospitality, the Association of Scotland’s Self- Caterers and the Scottish Hospitality Group, my party is urging the SNP Government to pause the proposed changes to non-domestic rates; we heard the same plea from Fergus Ewing today, too. There has to be a cross-party approach, but the Government urgently needs to review the methodology. If the rates rises go ahead and businesses see their bills rise dramatically, it could ruin so many small enterprises—and that is not me talking, but people who have written to me with their case studies.”
“Businesses have cited the hike of 3 per cent in employer national insurance contributions as incredibly challenging, and they are not investing in their workforces as they used to do. Businesses are dealing with persistent workforce challenges, including skills shortages and the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff in key sectors such as hospitality, care and tourism. Footfall on the high street has not fully recovered since the pandemic, placing further strain on retailers who are already competing with online giants. On top of that, as Craig Hoy has said, the national insurance hike has been particularly painful. For years, Scottish businesses have also had to contend with the Scottish National Party’s failure to pass on business rates reliefs that companies elsewhere in the United Kingdom have benefited from.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Rachael Hamilton: If it is quick, because we have to “Hark the Herald”. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Craig Hoy for a very brief intervention. Craig Hoy: Rachael Hamilton will be aware that, in many small businesses, the owners are the last to be paid, and are the lowest paid. Does she agree that it is disgusting that Labour’s attack on jobs, with the increase in employer national insurance contributions, comes at the cost of the last of the wages of some of those people around the country who are working hard— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rachael Hamilton. Craig Hoy: —to deliver for our communities? Rachael Hamilton: I completely agree with my colleague, Craig Hoy.”
“That is the what the Valuation Office Agency of the UK said. Let me repeat that. It said: “this way of valuing would not be suitable for self- catering holiday homes.” because of a lack of rental information. It went on: “We look at the annual income that the property is expected to generate when let at its full potential. We request details of income and expenditure from different types of self-catering operators to see what the fair maintainable trade would be.” That is exactly the method that the assessors in Scotland used to use. The Scottish Assessors Association has abandoned the method that works in”
“The primary evidence is rents”. However, only 3 per cent of the 16,513 businesses have rents, because those properties are self- catering. They are not private rents. They are let on a weekly basis. There is no yardstick at all. The rent is not an arm’s-length arrangement—it is very much between connected parties. The clincher is that it is not only the trade bodies across the sector that object to this; it is the Valuation Office Agency in England, which does the same job as the Assessors Association in Scotland. What does it have to say about the method that is being used by Heather Honeyman and the Scottish assessors? It said: “When we value a property, we generally look at the market value” and rent. “However, this way of valuing would not be suitable for self- catering holiday homes”.”
“If the Government does not listen, it will be “Last Christmas” for many of our cherished businesses. Fergus Ewing: I think that there should be a cross-party approach, and I gather that there is a good prospect that that is what is going to happen. It is the right thing to do, so I am happy to sign any motion that sets that out. There we are. Are those businesses doing so well? No. A survey of 444 businesses that was carried out by the ASSC found that 47 per cent said that they were doing worse than before. Some said that bookings are falling off a cliff for the forthcoming year. The Scottish Assessors Association determines and fixes the valuations. I took up the case in writing with its president, Heather Honeyman, who replied: “In relation to the methodology of the valuation, reference to rents is key ...”
“Is Fergus Ewing aware that, this morning, the Scottish Conservatives met with organisations, including the Scottish Hospitality Group, UKHospitality Scotland and the Association of Scotland’s Self- Caterers, to hear at first hand their very real concerns about the revaluation process, and to launch our campaign for an immediate pause in the increases that will stem from it? Does he agree that ministers simply cannot proceed, given that they are now aware of the devastating consequences that the tax increases will have on hospitality and tourism operators, jobs, the business-operating environment and the Scottish economy more widely, and will he—in the spirit of cross-party solidarity—visit scottishconservatives.com today and sign up to our campaign to halt this Scottish National Party business tax hike?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the long-term impact of battery energy storage systems on biodiversity and fire safety, and the long-term landscape and visual impact. (S6O-05290)”
“I should have declared that I am on higher- rate ADP and, happily, am in employment as well. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Balfour. That is now on the record. Road Network (Connectivity and Economic Growth)”
“I am on the side of people who work hard, want to get on in life through their own efforts and want to leave something behind for their children and grandchildren. I also want to make sure that people in genuine hardship get the help that they need. However, we are in favour of a hand up, never just a handout. That is why we must have a welfare system in Scotland that encourages and incentivises work and self-reliance, not a life on benefits for some that is paid for by everybody else. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on controlling the rising benefits bill in Scotland. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business. Jeremy Balfour: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I intervened a couple of times on ADP.”
“I knock on doors every day, and the reality is that many people understand that people who require social security are in need. If we want to make things fairer, we need to look at the way in which the economic model runs in this country. Craig Hoy: I was rather hoping that Carol Mochan would say why Keir Starmer, having said during the election campaign that he would try to bring down the benefits bill, has run away at the first sign of gunfire from the Labour left. Ultimately, we have to be on the side of those people who put more into the system than they take out. If someone has worked hard during their lifetime, saved, paid their taxes and done the right thing, they deserve dignity and a decent standard of living when they retire.”
“Ultimately, as a country, we have to live within our means. For example, the introduction of the two-child benefit cap has saved taxpayers millions of pounds. Our benefits system should be there to provide a safety net—a hand up, not a handout. However, by Labour’s own admission, removing the two-child benefit cap will cost £2 billion next year, rising to £3 billion by the end of the decade. Again, that will have to be paid for by taxes from hard-working Britons. Carol Mochan: Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: I will not, unless I can have the time back. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is very limited time. Craig Hoy: I will take a very brief intervention. Carol Mochan: I want to speak about the way in which we approach this issue. We cannot accuse people.”
“Before the Government says that some benefits support people getting into work, let me say that we accept that point—Liz Smith has accepted that—but much more data needs to be collected on the impact of benefits on people’s working patterns and on the number of people on adult disability payment who are actually also in work. The Government does not have that data, and it is not going to look for that data. The £5.4 billion that is spent on adult disability payment alone is unsustainable. I am very sympathetic to some of Jeremy Balfour’s points but, ultimately, we must seek a methodology to reduce the number of people who are dependent on that benefit. If that means giving them the skills they need and more support to get into full-time work, that is what the Government should be doing, rather than cutting the skills and colleges budget.”
“One week it is immigrants, the next week it is poor people, and then it is disabled people—I wonder who it will be next week. There is one thing that is guaranteed: the doors he is chapping on are not voting Tory next time round, are they? Craig Hoy: Reflecting the very real concerns of the people whose doors I have knocked on in Dumfries is not othering people; it is simply telling the minister what is happening out there in the real world. I am talking about people who do not have chauffeurs to ferry them from meeting to meeting. Carol Mochan: Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: I do not have time.”
“The people whose doors I knock on often tell me that they resent working so hard, feeling that they are forgotten about, in order to pay for this Government’s misguided priorities. They do not resent paying taxes, but they point across the street to the family on benefits, who have just returned from a foreign holiday, when they themselves cannot afford a night out. They resent that not enough is being done to get people off benefits and back to work, creating a dependency culture that I suspect is being created for crude political purposes. Getting up, going to work— [Interruption.]—having a—[Interruption.] The minister keeps chuntering away. If she wants to intervene, she is very welcome to. Shirley-Anne Somerville: I am genuinely flabbergasted at the Tories’ continuous attempts to other people.”
“For too long, this has been the SNP’s way: stifle growth, ramp up the benefits bill and just hope that there are enough taxpayers out there to pick up the tab. However, out there, in the real world, the people I speak to—people who have real jobs and real pressures—are working harder and getting less in their take-home pay after they pay the SNP and Labour taxes, while those living on benefits all too readily seem to get it all too easily. Sadly, Rachel Reeves is now drinking the same Kool-Aid as the cabinet secretary, with the benefits bill in England soaring at the very time that growth forecasts are being cut and taxes for businesses and workers are soaring. The point of no return has not yet been reached, but both our Governments need to act now and act urgently to prevent public finances spiralling out of control.”
“I also tried to intervene on the cabinet secretary, but they do not do debate over there. I wanted to ask whether the Scottish Government has any concerns whatsoever about the £2 billion social security spending gap in Scotland. I wonder whether my colleague Craig Hoy could perhaps enlighten us, as I am none the wiser—because they do not do debate. Craig Hoy: I absolutely agree with Russell Findlay. It is simply staggering that the cabinet secretary is ignoring the fact that she has a £2 billion overspend and that, by the end of the decade, she will have a £4.7 billion budget black hole. We cannot expect working people— Scotland’s taxpayers—to foot the bill. For clarity, let me say this to the minister: benefits rising to that level is not affordable, but it is also not desirable.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been an important debate, and one that we should not shy away from, despite attempts by our political opponents to mischaracterise our motives. It was interesting to hear Jamie Hepburn, in one of the worst speeches that I have heard since I came to the Parliament four years ago, lecture my colleague about bravery. He would not be brave enough—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Hepburn! Craig Hoy: Mr Hepburn is only reinforcing his reputation as a thug, but we will leave that there. The main thrust of the debate is about the spending patterns in Scotland. Russell Findlay: I tried to intervene on the wildly blustering diatribe of Jamie Hepburn. At least, on this occasion, it was only a verbal assault on us.”
“I move amendment S6M-20056.3, to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert: “reaffirms its commitment to the social security principles contained in the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 and unanimously adopted by the Parliament, including that social security is an investment in the people of Scotland and is itself a human right; welcomes the abolition of the two-child limit across the UK; calls on the UK Labour administration to go further and scrap other damaging welfare reforms implemented by the previous UK administration, including the benefit cap, and supports the Scottish Government’s commitment to reinvest funding to end the two-child limit in further measures to tackle child poverty in Scotland.” 15:01”
“I am sorry that the Scottish Conservatives feel that they wish to turn their backs on the people of Scotland; that perhaps points towards some of the polling evidence that we have seen today. Nevertheless, we will continue to bring forward a social security system that works for, and delivers for, the people of Scotland, and I am proud to take that to the people next year.”
“I note the comments from the Auditor General for Scotland, when he said: “We assess that this has been a successful project.”— [Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 1 October 2025; c 4.] I note that the Resolution Foundation, in an update that it published on Monday, said: “the introduction of ADP shows that improving the claimant experience is not at odds with keeping caseloads and costs under control”. It also said that “By 2025, there is no evidence that ADP is a more leniently-awarded benefit than PIP”, and that “the latest data does not suggest that ADP is a ‘soft touch’.” We have a benefits system that is robust but fair. It is an investment in the people of Scotland.”
“On future spending, it is important to emphasise that the proportion of the resource budget that the Scottish Government has chosen to invest in enhancing social security—compared with the proportion invested in England and Wales—is projected to increase by less than 1 per cent by 2029-30 compared with the current financial year. Other than retaining the two-child limit, we have still to hear—despite the point being raised this afternoon—which one of the benefits the Conservatives would cut. Would they cut benefits from disabled people or their carers, whom I met this morning, or from those on low incomes, including those who are in work? Mr Stewart mentioned the adult disability payment in particular. The expenditure on ADP is indeed forecast to exceed the value of the block grant, because we have chosen to take a fairer approach.”
“We balance our budget every year, despite more than a decade of welfare cuts from successive UK Governments. We recognise the fiscal challenges that face the public finances, which is why we have a strategy and a plan in place for a sustainable path. Let us be very clear that the budget process is under way, but this SNP Government will stand resolutely behind the support that we deliver for people. Unlike Westminster, we will not be cutting support for disabled people, and we will never accept cruel policies such as the two-child limit.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I will make some progress, if Mr Hoy will forgive me. Who knows what will happen in our lives? A marriage break-up or caring responsibilities could make it very difficult for a family that had been coping well financially to deal with subsequent circumstances. I am not going to turn my back on those children, even if the Scottish Conservatives are. Our benefit investment is fully funded, and that is exactly because we balance our budget every year. Craig Hoy: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shirley-Anne Somerville: If Mr Hoy had wanted more time, he should have given the whole afternoon to this debate, and I would have been delighted to discuss the issue with him in further detail.”
“Ivan McKee: The revaluation process is carried out by independent assessors, but I am aware of the concern and have had communication from businesses on the points that Craig Hoy raised. We continue to look at the challenging economic conditions and the pressure that rates bills put on businesses. Family Protection Insurance Plan 6.”
“The minister will be aware that, across South Scotland and beyond, reassessments of non-domestic rates bills are causing very real concern to businesses, particularly in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. One small pub in a rural community has been given a draft rateable value of £24,700, up from £9,474; last week, a restaurant in Edinburgh that faced a rates increase of 54 per cent announced its closure with immediate effect; and a bed-and-breakfast business that has been operating for 17 years faces a 116 per cent increase that could well put it out of business. Will the minister now urgently intervene and ensure that bills do not rise for businesses next year, otherwise it will be the last Christmas for many pubs, restaurants and shops?”
“They are not. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We do not need any sedentary interventions. Kate Forbes: Colin Beattie is absolutely right to talk about the Scottish Government’s rates relief being some of the most generous anywhere in the UK. That is particularly important when it comes to our high streets, where businesses benefit from the small business bonus scheme in particular. The visitor levy is designed to help to reinvest levies that are raised in popular tourist destinations. The choice of whether to introduce a levy is a matter for local authorities. Living Wage Places 2. Bob Doris: To ask the Scottish Government how it supports Scotland’s living wage places to encourage the uptake of the real living wage amongst employers. (S6O-05260)”
“That should encourage us all to recognise not only the talent in the yard, but its potential to secure work as it nears the completion of the Glen Rosa— Paul Sweeney: [Made a request to intervene.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: The Deputy First Minister is concluding. Kate Forbes: Leadership will help enormously, and I have talked about the real progress that the yard has made. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Greene to close the debate on behalf of the Public Audit Committee. 16:30”
“It must be an appropriate and lawful route to market, and Transport Scotland is currently considering the business case and next steps in relation to the replacement for MV Lord of the Isles. Deputy Presiding Officer, I am assuming that I am out of time to talk more generally about reputation— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have 50 seconds. Kate Forbes: Wonderful. In general, with regard to reputation, this is critical. We recognise the reputational challenges that have been caused by past delays. There are clear signs that Ferguson Marine’s standing has improved. The yard’s technical bid for the first phase of the small vessel replacement programme was rated as very strong; cost was the only factor in the final decision.”
“Shipbuilding is a competitive global market and any direct award of public contract must comply with applicable procurement and subsidy control rules, and must be capable of withstanding legal challenge. With regard to the small vessel replacement programme—as I have said previously in the chamber—we must avoid having the worst of both worlds, in which there are legal challenges because of the process, and islanders do not end up with ships while, simultaneously, the yard does not have work. We will consider vessel contracts case by case; that includes for MV Lord of the Isles. I hear what the Labour Party has said and what islanders are currently saying.”
“That work has been under way. Thirdly and lastly, it is about future orders. The yard is in constant dialogue about potential future contracts. We will come in and support where we can and where it is appropriate to do so under the governance arrangements. Those are the three things that have to happen, and which are happening, in order to release that funding, but there is certainly no delay on our part. The funding is available—it is about drawing down that funding. There is no challenge in respect of that funding not being available. Deputy Presiding Officer, I realise that I am getting short on time. Can I talk about the direct award? In the debate this afternoon, we have heard from members of all parties about the direct award.”
“Why has it taken so long to get the business plan and to get action for the yard? Kate Forbes: It is for three reasons. First, it is because of the revisions to the business case directly from the board. We engage constructively with the board, but it is the board’s business case—that is important. We have had a new chief executive in the course of those months, and it is important that he is able to own plans for the yard. He brings a very commercial approach to it all. Secondly, some of it is dependent on new work. We have been open to these discussions. The member will know, because it was covered in evidence to his committee and it is in the public domain, that the yard essentially tested the market on questions around pricing and interest. There was talk about it going up into procurement, and that was about testing the market.”
“That funding of £14.2 million is still available— there has been no change in the Government’s appetite to invest—but it has to be invested in line with subsidy control rules and in line with the business case. All those who have spoken in Parliament this afternoon have talked about the need for a future order book, and, if our focus is on the order book, that investment needs to follow the prospect of future orders. That programme is partly under way. I appreciate what Richard Leonard said about the funding. Richard Leonard: I suppose that one of the outstanding things is the length of time that it has taken. The quotation that I gave from the director general for economy, who reports directly to the Deputy First Minister, was from February this year. We are now nearly towards the middle of December.”
“Kate Forbes: Funnily enough, I use the phrase “chicken and egg” quite regularly in relation to investment. That is why we have taken a proactive approach in being very open with Ferguson Marine where there is investment that we can make now. Paul Sweeney referred to some other forms of investment, such as investment in equipment—he talked about panel lines, for example—and we are very open to discussions about that. However, it is the board’s business plan. It has been revised recently, as Daniel Johnson might be aware, and it is very important that the funding is aligned with the prospect of future income in a very sensitive market, in particular with regard to subsidy control limits.”
“I will therefore reflect on those four themes, which are future investment at the yard; direct award or order book; reputation of the yard; and leadership. On the point about investment, we have—as I set out previously to Parliament—committed up to £14.2 million over two years to modernise Ferguson Marine. That is subject to full legal and commercial diligence. Edward Mountain put his finger on it when he talked about the importance of investment with contracts. It is clear, given the responsibilities that we have to abide by, that that investment needs to go hand in hand with the prospect of future income in and around contracts. Daniel Johnson: Does the Deputy First Minister recognise that there is a chicken-and-egg question there— Kate Forbes: Yes—yes, I do. Daniel Johnson: Perhaps she can respond to that point.”
“In fact, I have represented those very same islanders for almost 10 years. I will say unequivocally in my closing speech what I said in opening speech—I apologise and the Government apologises for all the ways in which islanders have struggled with the lack of resilience in the ferry network, as linked with some of the delays at the yard. In terms of assuming responsibility, it is crystal clear—all the debates and the scrutiny that has happened over the Ferguson marine yard and the number of times that I have responded to questions will leave the public in absolutely no doubt—that we take ownership of and responsibility for what has happened at the yard. I was going to respond to every point that has been made. Unfortunately, however, all my scribbles basically demonstrate that the same four themes came through from all the speakers.”
“It is for SNP ministers to now act decisively to end the waste; to finally get a grip of this yard; and to ensure that the governance and accountability arrangements are in place, that the yard is on firm foundations, that it is fit for purpose and that there is an order book to invest in. Otherwise, it will be hard-working Scots and islanders whom the SNP has taken for fools who will continue to pay the price for the SNP’s incompetence. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. You have up to seven minutes, minister. 16:23 Kate Forbes: I will start where Craig Hoy left off by talking about looking islanders in the eye. I want to link that with what Willie Rennie said about ownership and responsibility. To be clear, I look islanders in the eye regularly.”
“If she is to look the islanders and workers in the eye, can she not now say that a minister—any minister—should have paid the price for this? Perhaps the Deputy First Minister may be the leader that the SNP never had—the First Minister that they never had. Perhaps she could look those islanders in the eye and say, had she been First Minister and the leader of her party, whether she would have sacked the ministers responsible for this. I welcome the committee’s view that on-going scrutiny is essential to ensure that public funds are managed appropriately in the future. However, the onus of that should not just fall on the Public Audit Committee or on the Auditor General, because it is SNP ministers who have got taxpayers into this position.”
“Craig Hoy: I think that it is quite clear—get the present vessel finished to a satisfactory standard, get it out the door, get the order book and then seek to invest in order to be able to build the capacity to deliver on that. That would be the logical thing to do, because at present it looks as though we are throwing good money after bad. At the end of the day, we all want to see Scottish industry thrive, but I asked Nicola Sturgeon the same question that I asked the Deputy First Minister. In November 2022, I asked her: “How can it be that painters, welders and cleaners might lose their jobs as a result of the fiasco, but you keep yours?”—[Official Report, 4 November 2022; c 28.] I appeal to the Deputy First Minister again.”
“On this Government’s record, the problem is that, even after all that money has been spent and after the employees, particularly those at the yard whom we met, have poured their heart and soul into keeping the yard alive, it is quite clear that, because of the SNP’s incompetence, there is a question whether the yard has a future. As Mr Mountain said, we have a yard with no order book. I recognise the intention of the Labour Party, but to put a further £14 million into a yard that is, at present, failing would be naive. Daniel Johnson: What should happen? If there is a failure to invest, does the member think that the yard should close?”
“Craig Hoy: The ministers appointed the directors and the boards that allowed those things to happen. If ministers had been more engaged from the outset—in fact, if ministers had abided by the procurement processes that should have been in place, rather than simply giving the contract to their pal—the rot that set in at the beginning would not have continued all the way through. Kevin Stewart: The way that Mr Hoy is speaking at the moment makes it sound as though he thinks that Government ministers should be micromanaging these contracts, which surely in itself would be very wrong? Craig Hoy: I think that what Mr Stewart showed as a minister is that he could not manage anything, micro or otherwise.”
“It is the SNP Government’s inaction and its inability to remain on top of the matter that have led to two ferries costing millions and millions and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money and, all the while, have deprived islanders of their lifeline ferries. The exit payments—the golden goodbyes— should be a matter of very real concern to ministers because, since the yard’s nationalisation, ministers are meant to have been in constant contact with managers at the yard to ensure that such issues do not occur. It provides the minister with no cover to say, “We weren’t aware—we didnae know.” At the end of the day, ministers should have known. They should have had the governance and accountability processes in place to ensure that they knew. Kate Forbes: I clarify that, as soon as ministers became aware, action was taken.”
“Not only has he probed the procurement of the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa, but he has continued to probe the on-going management of FMPG and the wider issues at the yard, because public money is at their core. It is taxpayers’ money, and all taxpayers should be concerned about the revolving door of highly paid senior managers who have sailed through the yard, seemingly incapable of turning it around. When I visited the yard with the convener and the Public Audit Committee in 2022, one worker described the situation as a gravy train—or a gravy boat—that had sapped the morale of the workers, who felt as though they had been used and abused for political purposes. On bringing party politics into the matter, I say to Joe FitzPatrick that he is naive if he thinks that the SNP Government is not to blame.”
“I thank Richard Leonard and the Public Audit Committee for bringing this important debate to Parliament and for their dogged work to make sure that we continue to expose what I think is one of the greatest scandals in the history of this Parliament. It was a scandal of the SNP’s making, because many of the problems that we see in the yard today stem from the initial corruption—I use the word in its broadest context—of the procurement process. As we have heard, those on-going problems include the real concerns about governance and financial management that have been identified by the Auditor General for Scotland, who has rightly taken more than a keen interest in the yard. I commend him for the dogged way in which he has independently ensured that he has kept abreast of developments at the yard.”