Kenneth Gibson
No Party Affiliation · Scotland
“The next item of business is decision time. There are eight questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Amanda Bland is agreed to, the amendment in the name of Stephen Kerr will fall.”
“The next item of business is consideration of two Parliamentary Bureau motions. I ask Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S7M-00492, on committee membership, and S7M-00505, on membership of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.”
“The next item of business is general question time. Many members wish to ask supplementary questions, so, in order to get in as many members as possible, I prefer short and succinct questions, with answers to match. Artificial Intelligence Data Centres (Planning Guidance) 1.”
“There are seven questions to be put as a result of today’s business. I remind members that, if the amendment in the name of Tom Arthur is agreed to, the amendments in the names of Daniel Johnson, Murdo Fraser and Willie Rennie will fall.”
“The next item of business is consideration of revised business motion S7M-00480, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, revising this week’s business programme. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button.”
“Speak through the chair, please. Tim Eagle: The Scottish Conservatives recognise that a strong economy is not some optional extra but the foundation on which everything else depends. I actually agree with Reform, and others, that it is all about the economy.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Kenneth Gibson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 17.
“I have set out the Government’s position today in order to contribute to the discussion that is under way across a range of European and western countries on how, collectively and collaboratively, we can assure the security of Ukraine. If we do not secure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, we will be acting in a manner that will undermine the safety and security of western democracy, and we must not take that step. Therefore, my point to Mr Gibson is about the importance of us contributing to that European dialogue and working with the United States to deliver the security that Ukraine requires. If we do not do that, we will, I fear, see more of the aggression that we have seen from Russia in the future.”
“The US Administration seems determined to appease the Kremlin’s butcher of Bucha and seek a Carthaginian peace that makes the treaty of Versailles look sensible. However, critical to peace is a guarantee of the security, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. In terms of European solidarity, what can the Scottish Government and individuals do to show our continued support for a just peace for the people of Ukraine at this exceptionally difficult time? The First Minister: I think that the importance of a guarantee of security is absolutely fundamental in this discussion. Without a guarantee of security, the suffering of the people of Ukraine in the course of the past three years will have been for nothing, should they be exposed to further Russian aggression. Therefore, the point that Mr Gibson puts to me is vital.”
“Members will hear about ambitions to grow the sector from generating £4.2 billion a year to generating £10 billion a year by 2035, generating 17,000 highly skilled jobs for Scotland. I urge all colleagues to attend. Scotland has a strong track record of attracting investment and driving innovation. We must strengthen ties with global economic leaders, expand international trade and support high- growth industries. Reaching our full potential demands bold forward-thinking policies and the economic freedom to shape our future. By embracing ambition and seizing new opportunities, Scotland can build a more prosperous, competitive and resilient economy that benefits businesses, communities and future generations alike. I thank Daniel Johnson for his fair-mindedness earlier this afternoon. 16:17”
“For example, Singapore’s precisely designed innovation districts and Ireland’s aggressive research and development strategies have catalysed waves of investment and technological breakthroughs. By significantly scaling up our R and D funding, strengthening university-industry collaborations and expanding targeted support for high-growth start-ups in key sectors such as artificial intelligence, fintech and green tech, Scotland could follow suit. On Wednesday 12 March, I will host a reception with more than 200 guests from Scotland’s critical technologies supercluster, which involves photonics, quantum and semiconductor technologies, to highlight its vital role in enabling our industries of the future, including on net zero, health, security and space.”
“Meanwhile, Scotland’s international offices, which are often a target of criticism from Tory politicians who fail to grasp the value of soft power and economic diplomacy, must be scaled up in order to improve Scotland’s global footprint. As recommended in the 2023 Scottish Government international trade report, offices in Mumbai, São Paulo and Singapore will improve our presence in emerging markets and provide launch pads for investor engagement, business summits and partnerships. Scotland has a huge opportunity to draw inspiration from other global economic powerhouses, such as Singapore and Ireland, both of which have expertly levered cutting-edge infrastructure and Government-backed innovation to create more dynamic and investment-friendly environments.”
“Another key opportunity for Scotland lies in our proven ability to nurture unicorn start-ups: Edinburgh-born giants such as Skyscanner and FanDuel are prime examples. By placing greater emphasis on incentivising high-growth companies to scale globally while they remain rooted in Scotland, we can strengthen our position as a leading hub for innovation and entrepreneurship. The Fraser of Allander Institute recommends that the Scottish National Investment Bank take on a more ambitious role as a co-investment partner for global venture capital firms, using targeted financial strategies to reduce risk in early-stage investments.”
“Those successes are worth celebrating, but Scotland’s ambitions should not stop there. The potential for economic growth is far greater and now is the time to push even further. We must forge better ties with Brazil, India, China and South Africa, which collectively account for almost 30 per cent of global GDP and may drive the next wave of economic expansion. Deepening Scotland’s engagement with them will open the door to fresh investment and consolidate our place in the fast-evolving global economy. India’s booming tech sector could dovetail with Scotland’s strengths in fintech data analytics and software development. Brazil and South Africa, with their rich natural resources, present fertile ground for Scotland’s expertise in offshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture technologies.”
“In renewables, Scotland provides 60 per cent of UK offshore wind capacity; that success is attributable not only to location but to forward- thinking policies and investments that are aimed at achieving net zero emissions by 2045—the Seagreen offshore wind farm alone is poised to become one of the world’s largest, with a staggering 1.1GW capacity. Renewables are merely the tip of the iceberg. Scotland’s tech scene is thriving, particularly in artificial intelligence, software development and quantum computing. Our cities benefit from foreign-backed tech start-ups, which are fuelled by institutions such as CodeBase and the Scottish technology ecosystem fund. In financial services, global heavyweights such as JP Morgan and Barclays are expanding their operations, drawn by Scotland’s exceptional talent pool and investor-friendly landscape.”
“In 2023, the Fraser of Allander Institute said that Scotland’s economic future depends not just on its ability to attract investment but on the strategic vision to shape its own destiny. Fortune does not just favour the bold; it backs ambitious and prudent planning. I trust that the debate will spark discussion on ways in which we can enhance our investment potential. Currently, Scotland stands at a crossroads. There is no shying away from the long-standing impact that Brexit and the 2008 crash have had on investment, as laid bare by the Institute for Government. However, Scotland is not sitting quietly in the back row of progress and has never been content to do so.”
“Alongside having a strong pipeline and improving investor engagement, we need to ensure that we have at our disposal a full range of financing models and instruments that can be used to de-risk projects. Perhaps I can give just two examples: we are working with the bank and others to consider how public sector guarantees can best be used, and we are taking forward at pace the work on a Scottish bond.”
“Within the Government, we have focused resources to co- ordinate activity across portfolios, to identify and tackle problems and to work across organisational boundaries to ensure that the system delivers more than the sum of its parts. To make a difference, we need to understand investors’ needs and priorities. In recent months, I have been engaging personally with major investors with an interest in our priority areas, and that activity will continue to intensify. Next month, the First Minister and I, together with ministerial colleagues, are hosting a global offshore wind investment forum here in Edinburgh, bringing together 100 senior investors and developers to discuss specific opportunities and to further highlight what we have to offer.”
“To date, its investments of some £700 million have crowded in £1.4 billion from others, and support from our enterprise agencies for businesses and infrastructure is leveraging significant private sector investment. Alongside development of the pipeline, we are working to improve the way in which we engage with investors to deliver a more agile and seamless response to them, especially when they want to discuss specific opportunities. To achieve that, we are reviewing roles and responsibilities across the public sector ecosystem, we have improved information sharing and co-ordination and we have established a new approach to relationship management.”
“Hear, hear. Kate Forbes: I hear cries of delight at that from Mr Gibson, who is sitting behind me. Two weeks ago, Highlands and Islands Enterprise announced £5 million for the Scapa deep water quay project, and just this morning, SNIB announced an investment of £6.7 million for Subsea Micropiles, alongside £2.5 million from Japanese investor Marubeni, to develop technology that will unlock opportunities in floating offshore wind. Over the coming weeks, I expect that pace to pick up further still. The momentum is there, spurred on by this Government’s willingness to support investment, the clarity of our policy and our regulatory environment. At this point, I want to emphasise the bank’s wider contribution. As Scotland’s impact investor, it plays a critical role, not just on offshore wind but right across the economy.”
“Park home managers consider that commission to be important and argue for its role in supporting site facilities. However, the near-unanimous feedback from residents is negative; they see the commission as being more like a feudal levy. Often, residents are opposed to the commission in principle, as they consider it unfair or because they do not see a commensurate investment in site infrastructure. The Scottish Government has pledged to review site licensing before the current session of Parliament ends. I trust that the minister is taking on board the concerns that colleagues from all sides of the chamber are raising today and will progress changes to better protect residents, thereby ensuring that park homes remain a viable and attractive housing option for our elderly population. 13:27”
“The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets limits the maximum price at which gas and electricity can be resold to residents by site owners. However, that limit does not apply when an inclusive charge is made for accommodation— for example, when a park home pitch fee includes all amenities—or for the resale of liquefied petroleum gas. When the previous UK Government awarded households £400 off their energy bills, park homes were excluded, and Patricia Gibson MP had to take the matter to the floor of the House of Commons. Residents have also had difficulties with adding an electric car charging point to their park homes. With regard to the 10 per cent commission on sales, in days gone by, the site owner often assisted in selling a park home, acting much like an estate agent and partly justifying the fee.”
“Site maintenance and safety is a common complaint. A prominent example is site owners allegedly failing to spread grit during cold weather despite being asked to do so by vulnerable elderly residents. Such safety measures should be included in the licensing conditions to ensure compliance. As colleagues across the chamber have touched on, park homes are excluded from legislation on adaptations to help people with disabilities, because they are not a permanent structure. That is despite more park home residents being older and therefore more likely to have mobility issues. Residents are concerned about the high cost of utilities such as gas and electricity, which are often metered by park owners. There are allegations of overcharging, and residents feel vulnerable to exploitation.”
“The licence fee does not cover the cost of any enforcement action; instead, the local authority has to recover that from the business that is operating the park home. I have constituents who believe that that has held their local authority back from taking enforcement action where it is necessary, because site owners can refuse to communicate with residents associations and individuals, making it difficult to resolve issues and causing significant frustration. There are also concerns about the lack of designated park managers to handle issues when site owners are away, which leaves residents without support during emergencies. SCOPHRA and individual constituents question whether the fit-and-proper-person test is weeding out unscrupulous site owners—we have heard from colleagues today of a number of alleged such owners.”
“However, it is clear from today’s debate that there is strong cross-party support for the Scottish Government to take action to protect park home owners. Residents own their home but not the land that it is built on. They do not enjoy the rights that owners or renters of bricks-and-mortar homes have. Instead, any recourse in the event of a dispute is covered by consumer rights legislation or the park home licensing regime. The Mobile Homes Act 1983 requires that site owners must give the proposed park home occupier a written statement that sets out the rights and responsibilities of both parties and other relevant information. However, there is no standardisation of that important document. Some residents may not even have been given one, and there is no independent register of ownership.”
“I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing this debate and I thank the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations for its briefing. I also thank many of my constituents who are among the 70-plus residents of Bruce Court, Willow Park and Millglen Lodges for sharing their views with me in advance of this debate. Park homes are a growing and welcome component of our housing stock, and residents are typically retired and looking to downsize and enjoy their retirement among like-minded people in a peaceful and attractive setting. In the midst of a housing emergency, park homes can offer a low- cost way of expanding the housing stock while freeing up traditional bricks-and-mortar homes for young families.”
“The Scottish Government continues to engage regularly with Scottish Opera and the other national performing companies on evolving consensus on how the shared international touring fund can best be utilised to contribute to their touring ambitions and enhance the reputation of brand Scotland on the global stage. My officials recently met all five national performing companies and welcomed their views on the purposes of the international touring fund, which officials are taking forward in their discussions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is a brief question from”
“Scottish Opera has received backing from the international touring fund, which is very beneficial in supporting its activities abroad. However, only events outside the United Kingdom qualify for ITF funding, which seriously restricts the viability of performances before audiences in London and elsewhere in the UK. Will the cabinet secretary say what work is being undertaken to widen the fund’s scope to enable Scottish Opera to perform in other UK nations? Angus Robertson: The Scottish Government is providing an uplift of £1 million in funding across our five national performing companies in 2025- 26, which includes a boost to the international touring fund. That investment takes our core funding to its highest level since 2011-12.”
“Furthermore, 75 per cent of that is on pay and, at £850 an employee, those on low wages are disproportionately impacted. The remaining 25 per cent is lost business investment. Michael Marra: I recognise the member’s opposition to the increase in employer national insurance contributions. What measures would he have taken to raise that money in this year? I am not talking about a future wealth tax—it is about this year. Kenneth Gibson: First of all, raising a huge amount of money only to have to use some of it to subsidise public services is not necessarily a good idea. However, the Government could have looked at taxing gambling, gaming and big tech or at reversing the tax cuts on big banks, land taxes and online sales taxes. There are a lot of innovative things that could be done this year.”
“That contrasts with Westminster Labour decisions, not least its U-turn on £800 million promised for Edinburgh’s supercomputer and the failure to deliver £1 billion of promised carbon capture investment. Labour’s Scotland branch office was ignored over the women against state pension inequality—the WASPI women—the cuts to pensioners’ winter fuel payments and the two- child cap, and the voters know it. Michael Marra might believe that Scotland is at the heart of the UK Government, I doubt that many others do. Labour promised not to increase national insurance, but it has. Its tax on jobs is an act of economic stupidity, introduced despite the Office for Budget Responsibility warning the chancellor that raising the levy would impact on wages and investment.”
“Ultimately, however, to deliver public services we must grow the economy and our tax base. There is much in the budget for businesses to welcome. The 100 per cent relief for hospitality premises on islands continues. SNP Government action ensures that 4,100 businesses and community organisations across North Ayrshire will receive £17.4 million in rates relief, with 3,500 of them paying no rates at all. The Scottish National Investment Bank’s 13.2 per cent funding uplift to £200.4 million will help to attract private sector investment such as the £2 billion earmarked by XLCC for Hunterston in my constituency. The establishment of a Cabinet sub- committee on investment and the economy will help to drive growth.”
“I urge those who have bumped their gums about harbour redevelopment to help make it a reality by backing the budget. Scottish ministers will deliver funding in areas where the UK Government will not, such as free prescriptions, free university tuition and seven social security payments with no UK equivalent, including the Scottish child payment. That will rise to £27.15 per week for a third of a million Scottish children. In previous years, of course, Labour MSPs called for it to be £40 a week. With Labour in power now at Westminster and with the equivalent in England under a Labour Government being precisely zero, we now seldom hear such calls. The budget delivers for our public sector workers, median hourly pay in Scotland being almost 5 per cent higher than in the rest of the UK.”
“The budget delivers record funding for health and social care, including £1,006.6 million for NHS Ayrshire and Arran, which is an increase of 13.9 per cent or £123.1 million; an additional £57 million for Police Scotland; £768 million for affordable homes, which is a 57 per cent increase on this year; more than £15 billion for local authorities, including an additional £22.8 million— a 6.3 per cent increase—for North Ayrshire Council, which will certainly help to meet next year’s public-private partnership costs of over £16 million, bequeathed by Labour almost two decades ago; and ferry services capital allocation rising by 49.3 per cent, from £158.9 million to £237.1 million, which shows that the Scottish Government has put its money where its mouth is to buy and redevelop Ardrossan harbour.”
“I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on delivering the budget and on her efforts to seek support from Opposition MSPs. There is now a clear divide between the grown-ups, who are willing to work together, despite policy disagreements, for the wellbeing and progress of Scotland, and those who obstinately refuse to meaningfully engage with Scottish ministers. I struggle to see how disengagement can be other than detrimental to the interests of constituents.”
“Total remaining PPP debt in Scotland is projected at £12,483 million for 2025-26. North Ayrshire Council will have to pay more than £16 million next year for four secondary schools that were built nearly two decades ago—schools that still had snagging problems two years after completion. That sum limits the council’s ability to invest in jobs and services. By the time the contract ends in 2038, it will have cost £443.4 million for schools worth £83 million.”
“In this Parliament’s first-ever SNP-led Opposition debate on 24 June 1999, Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSPs came out to bat for PPP. Speaking in that debate, I took seven interventions from such illustrious colleagues as Jack McConnell, David McLetchie and Keith Raffan. Protests about PPP’s obvious flaws were dismissed, with claims that if someone was against PPP, they must also be opposed to the new school or hospital in their area. Thus, Labour blithely condemned Scottish public services to unprecedented debt levels for decades. Even now, nearly 18 years after Labour left office at Holyrood, the extent of its PPP profligacy is staggering. Labour built a debt mountain so high that we have yet to reach the top, but we will soon. Annual payments are still rising and will peak at an eye-watering £1,250 million this coming financial year.”
“When new Labour proposed changes to reinvigorate PFI, the unconcealed glee of financiers should have been an early warning sign. Under the new regime, the private sector would be allowed to earn profits without bearing any risks. The new PFI contracts—renamed public-private partnerships— lacked clauses allowing the Government to recoup windfall profits. Under those lucrative terms, the private sector gorged itself on PPP deals, while Labour boasted that projects worth £14 billion would be agreed by the end of 1999, all while local authority capital budgets were cut and Chancellor Gordon Brown stuck to Tory spending rules. PPP fervour trickled down the Labour Party, and its parliamentarians, too, were amazed by the level of investment and not concerned enough to ask many questions.”
“Exemplifying the worst of the pre-devolution political order, PFI was imposed despite widespread opposition from Scottish civic society, trade unions and every political party bar the Tories. The 85 SPVs that run Scotland’s PFIs have 51 shareholders. Only seven companies own more than half the stock and debt: Barclays, Innisfree, Bilfinger Berger, Balfour Beatty, ABN AMRO, John Laing and HISL. PFI was derided for waste, poor value for money, inflexibility—particularly in reference to highly complex contract termination procedures— and the huge profits generated. However, there is no zealot like a convert. Having railed against PFI in opposition, Labour in office opened the floodgates with an evangelical enthusiasm that few could have foreseen.”
“The idea was that private companies would fund, build and operate public infrastructure using special purpose vehicles that would involve a consortium of companies, in return for long-term payments from the public sector. Sold as a way of financing public projects without immediate capital spend by the Government, the real purpose of PFI was to keep UK Government debt off the books in order to comply with the debt limitations that were set out in the Maastricht treaty of 1991. In Scotland, PFI began under the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Forsyth MP. The publication in 1996 of “Public Services and Private Finance: A Partnership for Scotland” gave the game away by outlining the scope for higher profits that the private sector would have access to.”
“I say to Graham Simpson, “Come on in— the water’s lovely.” [Laughter.] I thank Ross Greer, Maggie Chapman and my Scottish National Party colleagues, whose signatures ensured that the motion could be debated. I apologise for an error in the motion. According to updated figures, North Ayrshire Council will actually end up paying £3.3 million more than the motion suggests. In August, the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was considering funding the £9 billion Thames crossing using a private finance initiative-style funding arrangement. NHS England chief executive Amanda Pritchard has made similar suggestions for the national health service. That should send a shiver down the spine of everyone who recalls the new Labour years. PFI was introduced by John Major’s Tory Government in 1992.”
“Devolution has led to market interventions in health, environment and welfare, yet our powers are simply not robust enough to defend policies against legal challenges or UK pressures undermining their effectiveness. UKIMA strikes at the heart of devolution, as it is designed to do. UK authority over decisions that should be made here diminishes this Parliament. That deliberate erosion of devolved powers is one that Labour’s branch office—as always, awaiting its orders from London—seems in no hurry to reverse. Sadly, the pitiful lack of ambition of those who back devolution but not independence does not even extend to Scotland having the same powers as Guernsey. It is time that they raised their game. 16:16”
“The Basque Country controls all tax revenues, sending only 6.29 per cent to Madrid for shared responsibilities such as defence and foreign affairs. Quebec’s immigration powers shape its demographic and economic trajectory according to its own priorities. A Scottish equivalent could target labour shortages and attract skilled professionals into vital sectors such as healthcare, aerospace and renewables. As Crown dependencies, the Channel Islands set their own tax rates, including corporation tax and VAT. They set import duties, and they hold responsibility for customs and immigration, deciding—unlike Scotland—who can live and work in their communities. They negotiate international agreements with other countries. The Isle of Man has similar powers. Meanwhile, we face the capricious indifference of London post Brexit.”
“The University of Glasgow centre for public policy said: “UKIMA-driven coordination risks stifling policy innovation at the devolved level, may slow the pace of policy development, and could generate pressure to conform to the standards that the UK Government deems appropriate for England.” Even the ban on glue traps was stonewalled, with the UK Government refusing Scotland an exemption. All that in the most devolved nation in the world—a preposterous claim. For many UK politicians, the union is mistakenly conceived as a unitary state rather than as a voluntary political union of nations, with devolution long perceived as requiring neutering. Despite our supposed nation status, compared to provinces, autonomous communities or constituent territories, our devolved powers are weak.”
“Westminster Tories wasted no time in steamrollering Scottish ministers and flexing their self-appointed new powers, introducing the shared prosperity fund to bypass Holyrood, with meagre resources that were intended to limit this Parliament’s influence over economic development and infrastructure. Efforts to curb single-use plastics met repeated obstacles, with the act allowing Westminster to override devolved policies under the pretence of market consistency. Previously, Scotland could maintain higher standards on pesticides use, agricultural practices and public health, but we can now be forced to accept inferior goods and services.”
“The excuse of establishing a smooth internal UK market seems odd, given the willingness of Brexiteers to leave the much bigger European single market. UKIMA delivered an unprecedented and audacious overreach, affording UK ministers control over devolved spending in culture, sport, education, economic development and infrastructure. The Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly called the act a “red flag symptom of constitutional ill-health” and “The most contentious and glaring manifestation of Westminster’s growing propensity to impose its will upon the devolved nations without democratic consent.” An overwhelming majority of MSPs and our Welsh counterparts decisively rejected granting legislative consent. Nevertheless, the Sewel convention was disregarded and the act was unilaterally imposed.”
“It is a ludicrous assertion in a Parliament that has no authority over broadcasting, currency, defence, energy, foreign policy, telecommunications, postal services, currency, immigration, income tax thresholds, VAT, national insurance, corporation tax, inheritance tax, fuel, pensions, tobacco and alcohol duties and so on, and which cannot borrow prudentially, as local authorities can—we cannot even ban the sale of fireworks in this Parliament. Successive UK Governments have denied Scotland greater self-governance, refusing even to say what, in their eyes, constitutes a mandate for an independence referendum, and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 undermines the existing devolution settlement.”
“The Tories opposed the very existence of this Parliament and have sought to undermine it at every possible opportunity over the past decade and more. The assertion that Scotland is the most powerful devolved nation in the world is the epitome of unionist rhetoric that is often peddled by Tory MSPs—a claim that is wheeled out when legitimate concerns are raised regarding the erosion of Scotland’s devolved powers.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the cross-government co-ordination on islands, including connectivity, what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding support in the draft budget 2025-26 to improve ferry services to Arran. (S6O- 04318)”
“As part of that work, we will look to see whether we can break down any barriers—perceived or actual—to the participation of women and girls in occupations where they are underrepresented. The changes also provide the opportunity to ensure that education and training, including apprenticeships, are readily accessible to young people with disabilities.”
“I welcome the minister’s statement. He is aware of skills shortages in many traditional areas, such as engineering and construction—shortages that impact on economic growth. How will the reset help to deliver the key skills that Scotland requires, and will the Government redouble its efforts to encourage more women and girls to study and seek apprenticeships and employment in those vital sectors? Graeme Dey: Work is under way across the Government with key stakeholders to develop our approach to skills planning. For example, we are in the process of developing an advanced manufacturing skills action plan, and we will engage with the sector to assess options and agree a package of interventions aimed at increasing skills supply. We are progressing with the apprenticeship reform that we have heard about today.”
“The First Minister and the COSLA president wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the start of January to call on the UK Government to fully fund the costs of all public service providers in Scotland. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government announced an additional £144 million for local government, which is equivalent to the net revenue that would be raised nationally by a 5 per cent increase in council tax, to help councils avoid inflation-busting council tax rises. We now need the UK Labour Government to step up and provide full funding to avoid councils having to make hard choices to impose a tax that goes straight to the Treasury coffers when it sets its budgets later this month. Local Development Plans (Planning Guidance) 3.”
“Will the minister confirm that Scotland’s average public sector pay is £2,300 a year higher than it is in the rest of the UK, amounting to an additional £1.3 billion, much of which goes to local government workers, and that Scotland’s lowest- paid local government employees not only have the UK’s highest basic pay but are liable for lower income tax and council tax? Will he therefore encourage his Labour counterparts in England and Wales to match Scotland’s local government rates of pay? Ivan McKee: I thank the member for pointing out those facts. I am proud of the pay deals that give Scotland’s public sector workers, nurses, teachers and others higher salaries than those in the rest of the UK.”
“In the light of wide-scale public service reform and continuing pressure on Scotland’s public finances, we recommend that future bids include information on the specific actions that the SPCB is taking to deliver reform in the Parliament, such as digitalisation, collaboration and sharing of corporate functions and premises. An assessment of the impact of those actions should also be provided. It only remains for me to thank my committee colleagues and our first-class clerking team for their hard work and our witnesses whose evidence enabled us to deliver our report. 14:48”
“That is partly offset by the delay in appointing a patient safety commissioner for Scotland. Following the committee’s recent inquiry, our “Report on Scotland’s Commissioner Landscape: A Strategic Approach” found that the current commissioner situation is no longer fit for purpose and called for “a moratorium on creating any new SPCB supported bodies, or expanding the remit of existing bodies, until a ‘root and branch’ review of the structure is carried out”. The committee is delighted that the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee has now been established to carry out that review. We seek an update from the SPCB on shared services and how it will enhance the transparency of office-holder governance arrangements.”
“The SPCB’s budget provides for the operating costs of the Parliament, along with the costs of the ombudsman and commissioners, who are termed office-holders and are defined as SPCB-supported bodies. The SPCB’s 2025-26 budget will be £136.2 million, which is a net £9.7 million, or 7.6 per cent, increase on this year’s budget. Changes to employer national insurance contributions account for £1.9 million of that increase. Around 3 per cent of the increase is due to MSP salary rises—which, of course, is the only part of the SPCB budget that is reported on by the media. The SPCB has restated its on-going concerns about the growing share of its budget that is being spent on office-holders. In 2025-26, that amounts to 15.7 per cent, which includes an unforeseen increase for the Electoral Commission of £2.1 million.”
“The committee believes that there would be merit in the Government leading an annual debate on public service reform. After all, the Government has cited reform as a significant priority in achieving fiscal sustainability, and the issue touches on the remits of almost all committees and the lives of every individual in Scotland. We trust that that proposal will be supported by members from across the chamber. I wish to touch on our scrutiny of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. As members will know, the SPCB has a prior call on the Scottish consolidated fund, which means that its budget is allocated before the Scottish Government makes any other commitments.”
“We welcome their efforts to work collaboratively to achieve efficiencies in and improvements to public service delivery. Nevertheless, we share the Auditor General for Scotland’s view that the Scottish Government must demonstrate stronger leadership and bring an overall vision to public service reform if more progress is to be made, including in relation to potentially changing public service delivery models. The Scottish Government’s approach to reform has changed many times over recent years and, as the Auditor General said, it is difficult to scrutinise a moving target. It is therefore hoped that the Government’s new public service reform strategy will bring more vision and stability and enable progress and outcomes to be properly measured and scrutinised for effectiveness.”