Lorna Slater
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the minister for highlighting the impact of Green policies such as free bus travel and free school meals. The Scottish Greens have always maintained that progressive public services should be underpinned by sustainable and fair sources of revenue, which is why we have consistently supported changes to Scotland’s income ta…”
“It is also worth stating that the ask in this country is great, but the offer is even greater, with free tuition, free prescriptions, the baby box and the child payment, which the UK Government has followed suit on. There is also free bus travel and free interisland ferry travel for under-22s.”
“It is a matter of urgency that Scotland’s land register be completed so that a comprehensive and publicly accessible online map can be created. I would be very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s view on the importance of that aspect.”
“If the public purse is stretched, that is the first place that we should look for money. It might involve taxing polluters or using extended producer responsibility schemes such as the deposit return scheme, but in any case it is clear that we can no longer afford to subsidise polluters. The same goes for carbon emissions.”
“In the previous session of Parliament, I was part of the cross-party SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. I would like to highlight to the cabinet secretary two of the recommendations that resulted from that committee’s work.”
“We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government urgently undertakes a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and where they overlap, to inform decisions on future size, structure, and coherence across the public sector.” Michael Marra: It strikes me that that is precisely what Scottish Labou…”
The complete record
Every one of 468 lines we hold for Lorna Slater, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 10.
“The Labour Government should absolutely reform support for people who are ill and disabled, but it should do so in such a way that they can get well, so that they are not forced out of work by an inflexible and punitive system in which their confidence and skills decline nor forced to continue to work without support while ill such that their condition continues to decline. Callously cutting money for the sick and disabled without compassionate reform is horrifying. Changes to the assessment for personal independence payments mean that people will qualify for the daily living payment only if they face major barriers to performing everyday tasks, meaning that people who require assistance to wash, or supervision, or prompting to go to the toilet will no longer be eligible.”
“It could have chosen to consider raising new revenue from the very wealthiest through land value taxes, carbon taxes, taxes on private jets and other wealth taxes. However, the Labour Government did none of those things. It was founded on the need to tackle gross inequality through the redistribution of wealth, but it has betrayed its roots and has come after the sick and the disabled. Statutory sick pay in the UK remains among the lowest in Europe, at just £116.75 a week. That is inadequate and leads to employees being forced to choose between working while unwell or suffering financial hardship. Neither scenario supports people to get well.”
“Having recognised the need to adapt to this new world, the UK Labour Government has options and choices. The UK is a wealthy country. The UK spends a lot of money on defence and security, including the abomination of the so-called nuclear deterrent, which soaks up money towards a hypothetical scenario in which, somehow, we are okay with threatening civilians with extermination while depriving ourselves of funds that are needed to address urgent issues such as protection from cybercrime and real support for Ukraine. The Labour Government could have chosen to reallocate or reprioritise defence spending. It could have chosen to stop the massive subsidies for fossil fuel companies and high-polluting industries such as aviation.”
“As I was saying, there is no question but that Europe, and therefore the UK, faces increased risks now that America has reneged on its security commitments and appears to prefer to appease authoritarian Russia than defend democratic Ukraine. Unlike my colleague across the chamber, I will call an authoritarian regime an authoritarian regime, and—make no mistake—that is the direction in which Donald Trump is taking America. There is no question but that the UK needs to re-evaluate its relationship with Europe and with America and no doubt about what commitment to the security of Europe the UK should be making. I can only hope that a security rapprochement with Europe will be the first step in the UK coming to its senses and rejoining the European Union.”
“The world has changed. There is no question but that the re- election of wannabe dictator Donald Trump has broken the backbone of the world order that, rightly or wrongly, we have taken as read for three generations. There is no question but that Europe, and therefore the UK, faces increased risks. Craig Hoy: Does the member think that this inflammatory language will help or hinder the UK and Scottish Governments’ attempts to reach a deal on tariffs with the United States of America? Lorna Slater: Anyone who thinks that Donald Trump is their friend or adheres to trade deals has not been paying attention to the news. Donald Trump is bad news for Scotland and for every country he deals with.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the deposit return scheme, including whether it will be appointing a deposit management organisation on schedule in April 2025. (S6O-04464)”
“What mechanisms are in place to track and report on the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations and any further recommendations that it may bring as the inquiry progresses? How will patients and the public be kept informed of the progress of that implementation? Neil Gray: We will respond formally to the inquiry’s 11 recommendations in due course. In that response, we will set out some of the progress that will already have been made against some of the recommendations—some of that will be wrapped up in the work of NHS Scotland assure. As Lorna Slater asked for, we will be able to track progress against the recommendations and anything else that comes in from the remainder of the inquiry in relation to the sites in Edinburgh and in”
“Lorna Slater: I am so sorry, not only that the Conservatives have been mansplaining women’s rights to us, but—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Conclude, Ms Slater. Lorna Slater: They want— The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Slater. You must conclude. Before I call Paul O’Kane, I remind all members that, if they have taken part in a debate, it is a matter of courtesy that they be in the chamber for the closing speeches. 16:47”
“There is no evidence anywhere in the world, including in places where self-ID laws exist, that policies that allow trans people to access single-sex spaces and services in line with their lived sex increase harm to others. There is none at all—not a shred. It is quite the opposite. There is evidence that not allowing trans people to access such spaces increases the harm that they face. I would not subject a young trans woman to having to change in a men’s locker room. That would simply not be safe for her. It is more likely that trans people would end up being unable to participate in normal activities—exercise, socialising and all the things that every human needs in order to thrive. It is not okay to discriminate against people who have done no harm. The Presiding Officer: You must conclude, Ms Slater.”
“Jackie Baillie: Will Lorna Slater take an intervention? Lorna Slater: I need to make progress. Pam Gosal gave evidence of boys behaving badly as a reason to discriminate against trans people. We cannot discriminate against a whole class of people because boys behave badly in school. Rachael Hamilton, too, listed a whole bunch of horrific crimes, none of which would have been prevented by stopping trans people using the toilet. It is hateful to associate crimes with a whole group of people who have not committed them. Trans people are not associated anywhere or in any way with increased risks or dangers to women and girls.”
“Murdo Fraser: I have been asked to give an example, so let me give one specific example from the area that I represent. Back in 2018, Katie Dolatowski, a trans woman, was caught and convicted of filming children in the Asda toilets in Kirkcaldy; she also assaulted a 10-year-old girl in the female toilets of the Morrisons in Kirkcaldy. That is just one example of many. Lorna Slater: That is a horrendous example. Murdo Fraser was right to highlight it. I will highlight an example from my own life. My sister was assaulted in a women’s toilet by a man who had just walked right in. We do not stop people from going into toilets. Jackie Baillie, for example, listed a lot of sexual and horrific crimes, but she did not even pretend to claim that those were committed by trans people; she just listed them, to make us worried.”
“Trans people using our facilities is not a new thing. Trans people have existed all along, and they have been using our toilets all along. The Equality Act 2010 does not allow us to discriminate against people just because we do not like them. A trans person correctly using public facilities is causing no one any harm. Fourthly, and finally, the most pernicious words in the Conservative motion are those that refer to “jeopardising” the “safety, dignity and privacy” of women and girls and to “horrific incidents of sexual abuse and harassment”. The Tories, although they could not give a single example, want to get us all to associate in our minds the existence of trans people with dangerous crimes—crimes that have been committed by men, not by trans people.”
“However, does Lorna Slater not accept that there are circumstances where biology matters, such as in healthcare and sport? For example, what does she think about the Olympics, where we saw biological males punching women in the face? Is that where we are? Lorna Slater: Brian Whittle will, I am sure, have read very carefully the Equality Act 2010 before he made an intervention of that kind. Therefore, he will know that, under the act, there exist places where exemptions are allowed—for example, in sporting, medical care and prison environments. However, outwith the exceptions that exist, we do not allow discrimination against people where there is not a really good reason. I am sure that he has read the Equality Act 2010, and so he will know that those exemptions exist, and I support the provisions in the act.”
“Lorna Slater: It is possible—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us be courteous, members. Let us hear Ms Slater. Lorna Slater: It is possible to design toilets that are functional and offer privacy, and which can be used by people of different sexes and genders. If a room is badly designed, the correct solution is to redesign the room, not ban people from it. Thirdly, the Conservative motion specifically uses the words “biological woman”, which signposts us to the party’s real incentive here, which is its discomfort around the existence of trans people. Well, I have bad news for the Conservatives: trans people exist. Brian Whittle: Just to assert my position, I think that rights are available to everybody, and we believe that everybody should be able to live their own lives.”
“The Conservative motion for this debate deliberately blurs and distorts four different things, and I assert that it does so deliberately as part of the party’s campaign against the acceptance and safety of trans people. I will unpick them. The first is the matter of women’s rights. The fight for women’s rights is a fight for equality—the right to fully participate in life, which is part of a larger struggle for every human to have their rights respected. There are no special rights associated with one sex. Secondly, the Conservatives confuse a question of architecture with one of ideology. I am very confident that every Conservative member in the chamber has in their own home toilets that are used by both men and women. [Interruption.] There is no fundamental problem with that. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear Ms Slater.”
“The fear is that lawyers are now queuing up for even more public money in similar anticipated cases—money that should be spent on front-line services. All of that is happening because self-styled political progressives on the left are, in fact, deeply regressive, sacrificing women’s rights on the altar of their beliefs. The imposition of gender ideology thinking in schools is the most insidious part of it.”
“The truth is that, by the time the bill passed in 2022, self-ID had already become entrenched in many of Scotland’s public bodies and state-funded agencies, including prisons, schools, hospitals, the police and sporting groups. Even though that dangerous legislation was, quite rightly, blocked by the then Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, it has since become even more deep rooted. Mass adoption of self-ID is why we are witnessing an extraordinary employment tribunal in Fife, which will conclude in due course. A female nurse who spent decades treating NHS patients was told that a male-bodied colleague was allowed into the female-only changing room. When she raised concerns with her bosses, she was subject to disciplinary action. It is little wonder that the NHS’s taxpayer-funded lawyers wanted this case played out behind closed doors.”
“Trans lobbyists, funded by the SNP Government, saw voiceless and vulnerable women in prison as an easy first target. They succeeded in getting the Scottish Prison Service to adopt self-identification in 2014, eight years before the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was lodged. Lorna Slater: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Russell Findlay: I am sorry, but I am going to make some headway. I will come back to the member on that. This insidious campaign has been waged for more than a decade, and the same lobbyists also targeted the police, the judiciary, the national health service and many other branches of state.”
“The SNP’s belief in the purity of self-identification without condition collapsed under Nicola Sturgeon’s inability to answer that question. It has since been reported that SNP MSPs were assured during those long and late sittings that the issue was a storm in a teacup and that, once the law passed, all the fuss would die down by the new year. How very wrong that was. We are still talking about it, because we need to be talking about it. That is why my party has decided to hold today’s vital debate. The SNP has said that a rapist being in a women’s prison was nothing to do with its law. In fact, it is right about that, although that does not make it any better, because the Scottish Prison Service’s decision to put a rapist in a women’s prison was due to the SNP pushing gender ideology long before the bill passed.”
“Not only that, but Parliament also rejected my commonsense amendments to prevent sex offenders from exploiting gender self-identification, as they inevitably would. Not long after the law passed, a man called Adam Graham was convicted of rape. He said that he identified as female and wanted to be known as Isla Bryson. He was initially sent to a women’s prison, before a public backlash forced his removal. That episode ignited the public awareness in Scotland and beyond and, when Nicola Sturgeon was unable to answer whether Bryson was a man or a woman, the game was up. She could not concede that Bryson was a man, even though everyone else could see it as plain as day. However, nor could she say that Bryson was a woman, despite his self-declaration.”
“Does the member recognise that it was Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May who sought to reform the Gender Recognition Act 2004 because she wanted trans people to have an easier life and wanted to make sure that they did not have to suffer through medical interventions and discrimination? Russell Findlay: That was a bold attempt, but this legislation was a completely different thing. The bill was about the removal of women’s rights. It is no wonder that women were angry that evening. I remember it well. Parliament had passed a law that would allow anyone from the tender age of 16 to legally change their sex based on nothing more than self-declaration. In the eyes of the state, any man could be a woman, regardless of the inevitable impact on women’s rights.”
“Let us take the lessons of respect for essential workers, of helping our neighbours and of making sacrifices to help others, and use what we have learned to build a better future. 14:44”
“We got to see what it looks like when we decide to house the homeless. We got to see who really is essential to our society and how much we take them for granted at all other times. We got extra space to walk in our towns and cities safely, without cars, noise and pollution. We got to show that we care about our neighbours, checking in on them and wearing masks to keep one another safe. We got to see how transformative vaccines are in protecting us from lethal diseases. Everybody who lived through the pandemic will remember it their whole lives. People affected by long Covid or poor mental health or who lost someone close to them will live with the pandemic their whole lives.”
“Many people still face debilitating symptoms, with repercussions for their life and work. We pay tribute to the dedicated work of the health and social care staff and essential workers whose grit, valour and vital work saved lives and kept the country running. We will forever be in debt to the front-line workers who died during the pandemic. We were all affected by Covid, but, as is always the case, people whose lives were already hard suffered even more—disabled people, people on low incomes, people who live in crowded housing, older people and people with suppressed immune systems. No child or parent will forget the impact of the pandemic on their schooling and family life, and no young person will forget how Covid hampered their start in adult life. Difficult times can bring out the best in us.”
“This year— 2025—marks five years since Covid-19 changed our lives, our communities and our world. In March 2020, we did not know what was ahead of us. We could see the rows of coffins in news footage from Italy, and we knew that something was happening, but we did not know how profoundly it would affect our lives or how many friends and family members we would lose. Some people say, “We made it through the pandemic.” We did not, though, did we? We did not all make it, and I am so sad for everyone whom we lost. Each life taken was a beloved family member, friend or colleague. Their absence leaves a void that words cannot fill, but their memories live on in our hearts. Today, we reflect on the sacrifices that were required and the ever-changing impact that the pandemic had on the nation and on people’s daily lives.”
“Today, members in the chamber speak with one voice—for peace, for security and for a Europe, and a world, bound by the values of decency, democracy and human rights. Scotland stands with Ukraine. We stood by Ukraine at the beginning of the war, and we stand by Ukraine now. 17:36”
“My sincere thanks go to everyone in Scotland who made space in their homes for Ukrainian refugees, and my sincere welcome goes to everyone who has come to Scotland to escape war and persecution. I thank colleague for their contributions to the debate, and I associate myself with all their words of solidarity. It is so important that we come together with one voice in the Parliament to call out Russia’s aggression and reaffirm our support for Ukraine, and I thank everyone for doing so tonight. Support for Ukraine is wide and deep. Not since the end of the cold war have Europe’s values been tested as they are being tested now. In the face of Russia’s aggression, however, we are resolute.”
“Donald Trump and his politics are not welcome in Scotland. I do not think that any of us yet know what kind of world we are living in and what kind of future we will have, but difficult times can bring out the best in people. This is Europe’s moment to step up—its chance to become stronger and to renew its commitment to a common economic future, to democracy and to co-operation between nations. I am glad that the UK is participating in that project. Although I remain deeply sad that we are no longer a full member of the European Union, I would like to think that finding common cause in the defence of Ukraine may start us on the journey of finding our way back. Perhaps, in the not-too- distant future, we and Ukraine may both be members of the EU.”
“Ukrainians are giving up their lives, and the west must continue to provide that material support if they are to have any chance of survival. We all know that we live in a different world today from the one that we lived in before 20 January this year. We now live in a world where America cannot be trusted to uphold treaties, and where the President of the United States is embracing Vladimir Putin, a ruthless dictator and the traditional and historical enemy of American democracy and free markets, and throwing Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the elected leader of a democratic allied nation, under the bus. The US President rewrote history in his own mind to make Russia a victim and to deny what Russia has done, and is doing, in Ukraine. I, too, think that the invitation for a state visit must be rescinded.”
“We condemn, in the strongest possible terms, Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine. As in all conflicts, it is ordinary people who bear the brunt of brutality— dead family and dead friends; no medicine, food, water or electricity; loss of homes; and living in constant fear and danger. The Geneva conventions require parties in a conflict to “distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives.” Attacks on civilian objects are forbidden, but some civilian-owned infrastructure can be military objectives. Needless to say, the daily pictures and videos from Ukraine clearly bear out that those basic tenets are being broken continually and without a shred of concern. It is essential that support remains consistent at the international level. That includes financial support, medicine and munitions.”
“We need the UK to remove the subsidies and tax breaks for high-polluting industries, crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that global corporations pay their taxes and their employees properly. To rebalance our economy, we need to defund the billionaires. 15:30”
“History will tell the tale in the end, but I am sure that the lurch to the far right in America and the distrust of institutions, and even of democracy, that has led to the second election of Donald Trump is, at least in part, due to the disconnect that Americans feel about the story that they are being told about their economy—“Look at that growth”—and the reality that they face every day of not being able to get affordable, good-quality healthcare, food, education or public services. We need to rebalance the economy towards ordinary people by taxing extreme wealth and the pollution that the very wealthy produce at a rate that far exceeds that of any ordinary person, with private jets, luxury cars and frequent flying.”
“What we cannot afford is billionaires. We cannot afford to let a few individuals hoard the wealth of millions. The rebalancing of the economy that I would like to see would be a move away from enriching a few people while constantly whittling away at the services that everybody else needs. It would be a move away from subsidising polluters and high- emission industries and investing that money into environmentally sustainable sectors. It would be a move away from a fanatical obsession with GDP growth and a move to a broader focus, ensuring that everyone in society can thrive.”
“When you take the costs for essentials out of the public domain and put them into the private domain, inevitably, the rich can buy them and the poor cannot. That is sometimes called cost savings, but an essential service is not optional. People who are forced, through poverty, to go without heat, timely healthcare, good-quality education and training and good-quality food still need those things and they are harmed by not having them. Even if the heartless discount the cost of human suffering, they cannot discount the cost to society. Poverty is expensive. People who experience poverty have higher mental and physical medical needs and they are able to contribute less due to lower achievements in work and study. We hear a lot of nonsense about this or that public service or benefit being unaffordable. Rubbish!”
“With that lower growth, Germany and Japan managed to provide full-coverage public healthcare and had lower poverty rates and significantly greater longevity. The differences in outcomes for these countries are down to the policy choices that they are making and not to how much growth they have or have not achieved. To rebalance the economy, we need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve. Increasing pollution, cutting back on the social safety net and cutting back healthcare and benefits might increase your GDP number, but at what cost? The cost is that of lives cut short, of health ruined and of damage to the environment that cannot be undone or that it will be very costly to reverse—the cost of allowing the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer.”
“Maurice Obstfeld, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, wrote yesterday in the Financial Times, in an article on the ills of the American economy, about “appropriate economic policies to help America.” He said that “Better targeted policies could include a more redistributive tax system, limits to corporate market power, further healthcare reform, and workforce development.” It does not matter if you have the highest growth in the world, you still need to do those things. Even with the lower rate of growth that Germany and Japan had between 1980 and 2023, gross domestic product per capita grew at a rate of 1.4 and 1.5 respectively, compared to America’s rate of 1.8.”
“We know that societies that have gross inequality, such as America, have more crime. Where societies are more equal and people feel that they have a greater opportunity in life, as is the case in Europe and in European countries that have higher taxes and more opportunity for people, there is lower crime. The member is shaking his head at me, but crime rates in Europe are lower than those in America. The inequality that we see in America is part of that story. Growth is not everything—it does not solve all your problems. Even when you have high growth, you still need redistributive taxation, including wealth taxes, and you have to invest money in public services and in reducing carbon emissions.”
“Never mind that the USA, which has had the largest growth for the longest time, has lower life expectations, more citizens who do not have access to healthcare, a higher rate of maternal mortality, more violent crime and poorer work-life balance than European countries that have lower rates of growth. The US child poverty rate is more than double that of the UK, Sweden and France. The average American has a carbon footprint of around 16 tonnes, which is one of the highest in the world, while the average European has a carbon footprint of around 7.25 tonnes. Clearly, growth is not everything. Craig Hoy: Can the member explain the causal link between economic growth and violent crime? Lorna Slater: The causal link is that a focus on economic growth, instead of on tackling inequality, results in crime.”
“When it comes to the motion and the debate, if London is stripped out of the economic data, the performance report for the UK looks different. Certainly, a lack of investment generally in anything north of Cambridge becomes visible, and the signs of the regions dealing with the endemic poverty that was ground into place during the Thatcher years become obvious. However, if we are to speak about really rebalancing the economy, both Scotland and the wider UK have a bigger challenge ahead of them. The fever smell in the air and the sound on the wind is a drive for growth, because growth will magically solve all our problems, right?”
“Some of these matters are reserved, so hopefully the new relationship between the Governments means that we can overcome the regulatory hurdles to move this forward. However, to do that we need to make a strong pivot towards those technologies, and that means clearly turning away from old, declining technologies in declining industries, such as oil and gas. If we want growth, we need to invest in growing industries, not in declining ones. We are risking losing the lead and watching other countries get the jobs and the factories. I am out of time, so I will finish my remarks in my closing speech. 16:00”
“What are her views on the fact that that will require up- front public investment in private enterprise, in many cases, to de-risk projects and to attract the jobs into the supply chain so that they are ready when the developments get their consents? Lorna Slater: That is absolutely what is needed. Members will know from my entry in the register of members’ interests that I used to work for Orbital Marine Power on a project that was funded in exactly that way—with a mix of funding from the Scottish Government and private investors. That is absolutely the way to move the technology forward. Under the Conservative Government, contracts for difference removed tidal energy, for example, for years. That is now back in place, thanks to the Labour Government.”
“Indeed, the risks come from moving too slowly, from falling behind other countries and from letting them take innovation and technology developed in Scotland and build industries based on them. That happened with wind turbines to the point that, although jackets are fabricated here, wind turbines are not manufactured here. I worked on the first tidal turbine in Scotland that generated green hydrogen—both technologies in which Scotland is a world leader. Kate Forbes: The member has touched on the most pressing issue of this year, which is how we invest up front in the supply chain so that we do not have a repeat of the notion that our wind is generating a lot of economic opportunity for other countries, which are producing the turbines.”
“it risks losing out to international competition”. The CBI’s chief economist, Louise Hellem, said: “It is clear, you can’t have growth without green ... 2025 is the year when the rubber really hits the road—where inaction is indisputably costlier than action. We are approaching critical points of no return for achieving essential outcomes in energy security and emissions reduction. Long-term sustainable growth is unattainable without a future powered by clean, affordable, and secure energy.” Members have heard it from the CBI, even if they do not like hearing it from me. There is no contradiction between being ambitious in decarbonising and having a thriving economy.”
“This week, the Confederation of British Industry has reported a 10 per cent increase in the UK’s green economy—double-digit growth. That is what we have all been looking for, right? Green businesses in the UK collectively generated £83.1 billion of gross value added in 2024. The CBI report calculated that, for every £1 of that GVA, an additional £1.89 of GVA was created for the wider economy. In other words, the economic benefits, including that ripple effect, exceeded £157 billion. The future is green. If we are looking for growth, we will find it in the green economy. The CBI report makes it clear that green industries are primed for further rapid growth if policy makers create the right regulatory environment for them. The CBI warns the UK that, should it “fail to capitalise on this opportunity ...”
“I am delighted that we are having this discussion today, because it means that we have shifted the Overton window away from the view that was prevalent in the early days of the Conservative Government at Westminster, which was that economic growth could be achieved by throttling back public investment on the false premise that public investment drives out private investment. We are now in an evidence-based space where we are listening to experts again and where we recognise that public investment draws in private investment and gives private investors and business owners and managers confidence in the direction of travel. When the Government puts its money where its mouth is, it sets out a vision for the future, and when that vision is full of opportunity, people will sign up to it.”
“Murdo Fraser: I am being invited by the Deputy First Minister to be nice, but I am simply encouraging her to make a few minor tweaks to policy. Money would flow into Scotland if only she did so, and one minor tweak to policy could be made in relation to the Scottish Government’s approach to civil nuclear technology. We have in Torness a plant that, for half a century, has delivered reliable, affordable energy to homes across Scotland. Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is bringing his remarks to a close. Murdo Fraser: My apologies, Mr Sweeney. There are investors who are prepared to fund a replacement of Torness. It is only the short-sighted policies of this Government that are preventing that from happening.”
“According to experts in the world of finance and property, we have lost more than £3 billion of investment that could have gone to providing homes for rent but which has instead gone elsewhere. That £3 billion could have helped to solve the housing crisis, provided affordable places for people to live and provided jobs in the construction sector. According to the Scottish Property Federation, it will take more than a decade for investment in rented property in the build-to-rent sector to recover from the mistakes that have been made by this Government. Further, if the policy of rent controls continues, it will not recover. Let me give one more example of where private investment is being deterred. Kate Forbes: Be nice.”
“If that sort of issue is not tackled, we will continue to see challenges in attracting investment. In the housing sector more generally—I made this point in an intervention a moment ago—we have seen investment driven out of Scotland due to the moronic policies that Patrick Harvie put forward when he was the minister with responsibility for tenants’ rights in the coalition. The rent freeze, the rent cap and, now, the proposed rent controls in the Housing (Scotland) Bill have had a disastrous impact on inward investment to Scotland in the build-to-rent sector. We know that there is a housing emergency, and the Scottish Government has accepted that there is, but its choices have contributed to that situation. Lorna Slater: Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: No, I need to make some progress.”
“I commend to ministers—if they have not already listened to it—the evidence that we took yesterday in the Economy and Fair Work Committee in which Jane Wood of Homes for Scotland, among other witnesses, highlighted the key question that is being asked by investors, which is: how easy is it to do business in Scotland? We are in competition for capital with other parts of the UK and other parts of the world, and, unless we have a more business-friendly environment, we will continue to struggle to attract that level of investment. I will give just one example of where private investment is being deterred that was given to us by Homes for Scotland. The average decision time for a major housing application in Scotland today is 59.8 weeks, against a statutory timetable of 16 weeks.”
“He said: “We still hear frustrations from clients and the market that Scotland’s tightening economic policies, including the latest income tax hikes and issues around city and infrastructure quality, are causes for concern.” I am happy to give praise where there is good progress, but there are still issues. I return to the point on broadband. Constituents have told me that they are now expecting that it will be the end of the current decade before they get superfast broadband—nearly 10 years after it was promised—and that that is holding back economic progress. Let me turn to private sector investment. We are losing out on private sector investment that is going elsewhere.”