Murdo Fraser
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament.”
“After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight. That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances.”
“I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once.”
“Murdo Fraser: I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament.”
“Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total.”
“He will know that there is a necessity in the case of individual judgments for those involved to consider whether there is any basis on which an appeal should be mounted in a particular case.”
The complete record
Every one of 699 lines we hold for Murdo Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 14.
“What that means, in simple terms, is that hospitals and schools, and all public sector workplaces, must have single-sex facilities where women and girls can wash and change without males present. To fail to provide that is unlawful. Better lawyers than me have made the case that the protection of the characteristic of gender reassignment under the Equality Act 2010 does not supersede the 1992 regulations, nor does the 2010 act provide a hierarchy of rights. The rights of an individual with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment do not, in law, outweigh the rights of another individual with the protected characteristic of sex. Despite that—despite the clear statement of the law— Mercedes Villalba: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Murdo Fraser: Not just now.”
“Right across the public sector—across NHS boards, in schools, in the police and in universities—a de facto policy of gender self- identification has been introduced when it comes to accessing washing, changing and toileting facilities. Just this week, we learned that the University of Edinburgh has introduced a new policy that says that those who were born biologically male can use women’s toilets if it aligns with their gender identity. The decision has caused outrage among staff and students and is clearly contrary to the legal protections that exist. The legal position here is entirely clear: both the Equality Act 2010 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, to which Fergus Ewing referred earlier, provide for single-sex facilities for sanitation, washing and changing in all public buildings.”
“They are infuriated that public funds are being spent in that way, when NHS Fife has a financial black hole in the tens of millions of pounds and constituents of mine are stuck on waiting lists for vital treatments that they are being told there are not the resources to provide. To make matters worse, NHS Fife will not even tell us how much the case is costing it. I pay tribute to The Courier newspaper for its campaigning efforts to try to get answers on what is clearly a legitimate matter of public interest, and I hope that the Scottish Information Commissioner will, in due course, obtain that information for us. It is not just in NHS Fife where we have a problem.”
“I stand with Sandie Peggie, and so should every member in the chamber. Her case has shone a light on the issue of single-sex spaces across Scotland’s public sector, and we should be grateful to her for the stand that she has taken. It would not be appropriate for me to go into all the details of that case in today’s debate. A very experienced judge is considering the tribunal evidence that has been heard so far, but we know that NHS Fife appears to have been operating a policy that is simply unlawful. In order to defend that policy, it has been spending what must now be hundreds of thousands of pounds on legal fees, literally defending the indefensible. As an MSP representing Fife, I have had flood of concerns raised with me by constituents.”
“I would like to bring a little light, balance and positivity to the debate, for the benefit of the SNP front bench. I hold no candle for the current UK Labour Government and will let my Labour colleagues who are sitting opposite defend what it is doing. The biggest concern that I hear from the business community is about the increase in employer national insurance contributions that is coming in just next month. I want to concentrate my efforts on what Conservative Governments did over the previous 14 years, from 2010 onwards.”
“It is going to be a long afternoon, given what we have just heard. However, I am pleased that we are having another economy debate—the second in a week. I hope that the trend will continue, because I like nothing more than discussing the Scottish and UK economies. I am going to enjoy these exchanges if we are going to more have more of them. In particular, I look forward to debating the vital role that the UK Government and its spending play in supporting the Scottish economy. In last week’s debate, the Deputy First Minister accused me of being “relentlessly negative”—I think that was the term she used. It sounds like the tables have turned today, because the relentless negativity is coming from the Scottish National Party front bench in terms of what the UK Government has done.”
“Air links are very important in promoting economic development. What is the Scottish Government’s current policy on the devolution of air passenger duty? Is it still working towards that? If so, and if air passenger duty becomes air departure tax, what is the Government’s policy on adjusting the current rates upwards or downwards? Richard Lochhead: Air links are very important for Scotland’s global connections and internally. We continue to have discussions on the issues that Murdo Fraser mentions. Speaking as the minister for tourism, I know that my transport colleagues have assistance available to establish new direct links from Scotland. That is important for business and tourism. A96 Dualling 4.”
“That project is of vital importance to my constituents in Mid Scotland and Fife, the Deputy First Minister’s constituents, others across the Highlands, and the vital Scotch whisky industry, which relies on both the A9 and the A96, for which dualling is on the back burner, to get their goods to market. The point that has been made regularly by representatives of the whisky industry is that those two infrastructure projects are vital.”
“That is where the cabinet secretary is quite right to say that there is a role for investment—that said, the Scottish Government’s motion is, for us, as ever, simply too self-congratulatory. There are substantial issues in relation to the level of investment that we need to attract to deliver the faster economic growth that we all want. I will break my remarks into two parts. First, I will talk about the investment by the public sector. Public spending has a vital role in investing in the infrastructure that our economy needs to succeed. For too long, we have been waiting for the promised delivery of the dualling of the A9.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. I derive some income from a private rented property and I have received hospitality from the Scotch Whisky Association. The Scottish Government is correct to recognise the value of investment in driving forward Scotland’s economy. Economic growth is vital to us all, both as a good in itself and as a generator of the tax revenues that we all want to see to fund our vital public services. As we know, our growth has been too low for too long. Even the relatively historically low levels of growth in recent times at a UK level have not been matched by the performance of the Scottish economy, and that has to change.”
“Activity is gaining pace, following on from last year’s landmark commitment by Sumitomo to build a £350 million cable manufacturing facility at Nigg and Haventus’s groundbreaking £400 million plan to redevelop Ardersier port. I visited the port last week, and I have to say that it took my breath away. Seeing is believing. I am sure that Haventus could accommodate visits from interested members from across the chamber, because nothing that I say today can truly convey the scale of the facility or what it can achieve for Scotland’s supply chain. I am also particularly delighted that it is located in the Highlands. However, the opportunities are national. Last month, the Scottish National Investment Bank announced an investment of £20 million in subsea cable manufacturer XLCC, which is part of a wider transformation at”
“Work on the internal pipeline is proceeding well, drawing on detailed, on-the-ground intelligence held by delivery bodies. When fully operational, it will give us a single source of truth on the most important opportunities, enable us to take a more targeted and proactive approach to engaging with major investors, and help us identify and tackle potential barriers and blockers to investment. Over the coming months, we will launch a new outward-facing investor portal as a single shop window for current opportunities across the country. In parallel, we will continue to roll out our strategic investment of up to £500 million to leverage additional private investment of £1.5 billion in the infrastructure and manufacturing facilities that are critical to growth in the offshore wind sector.”
“However, before I explain the substance of the work that we have done, I extend an invitation to cross-party spokespeople to have a meeting with me and officials who can answer any questions on the programme. I know that we all have an interest in attracting investment and in making Scotland a great place to work, and we all have the opportunity to amplify the positive message about Scotland. I am happy to get in touch shortly after the debate to arrange such a meeting. Our programme of work has three main strands. First, we are creating a single national pipeline of strategic investment opportunities. Secondly, we are improving the approach to investor relations across the public sector. Thirdly, we are examining how we can use financing models and instruments in the most effective way to de-risk projects.”
“Our approach has been guided by the First Minister’s external investor panel, which reported just over a year ago. It challenged us to be clearer in our strategic direction, more sure-footed in engaging with investors, and swifter and more decisive in acting to support delivery. That is why, last summer, we published the green industrial strategy and, in our programme for government in September, committed to delivering a co-ordinated programme to attract private capital investment at scale in three priority areas—net zero, housing and infrastructure—and to align the whole of the Government and its agencies in support of that goal. The First Minister asked me to lead the work across the Government to meet that commitment. That work is well under way, and I welcome the opportunity to update members on it today.”
“We are currently consulting on the best way of ensuring that the system strikes the right balance between vital protection for tenants during a cost of living crisis and the need to attract investment that will deliver new and improved rented housing, the supply of which we have to increase. In addressing the challenge that I have set out, Scotland has a wealth of strengths and advantages to build on. We have innovative and dynamic businesses, world-class research and technology capabilities, strong financial services and food, drink and tourism sectors, sustained success in attracting foreign direct investment and unrivalled potential to be a global leader in renewables. However, we also have a Government that is committed to doing what it takes to make Scotland a more globally competitive, investor-friendly nation.”
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that the regulatory framework that is set by the Scottish Government is absolutely essential with regard to the signals that it sends to the marketplace about investment? In that respect, does she share my concern about the fact that, according to experts in the finance and housing sector, we have lost more than £3 billion-worth of investment in the build-to- rent sector because of the Government’s policy on rent caps and rent controls? Kate Forbes: I agree with the principle that the regulatory and policy environment is critical in giving investors certainty. I am in no doubt that investors have no obligation to invest in Scotland—it must be attractive for them to do so. That is why we have listened to the concerns of investors and have adjusted our position.”
“That is why SCOPHRA has been pushing for the resolution of disputes to be moved to the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland, which deals with other housing issues and would not require the same expense or, necessarily, the involvement of solicitors. I have proposed that in an amendment. I have had very good engagement with the minister, as has SCOPHRA, and I know that he is very sympathetic to some of the concerns that have been raised. I hope that this members’ business debate will see the Scottish Government recognise that we need changes to the law in this area to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind all members who are seeking to speak in the debate to check that they have pressed their request-to- speak buttons. 13:02”
“As the Minister for Housing knows, I have lodged some amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Bill, which we will meet to discuss next week, as I think that it would be reasonable to extend the existing law on adaptations to allow those who live in a park home that is their permanent residence to be eligible for those grants. The other important amendment that I would like to progress relates to the resolution of disputes. At the moment, when park home owners are in dispute with the site owner, their only remedy is to go to the sheriff court. As we know, that is a very expensive and bureaucratic process. Civil legal aid is almost impossible to achieve, and finding lawyers with a knowledge of and specialisation in this area is immensely difficult.”
“I will mention some other concerns that have been raised with me that affect park home residents. Typically, utilities are paid for centrally by the site owner and billed back to the tenants, which gives rise to concerns about additional charges and profiteering. In some cases, residents who wish to alter or extend their homes or carry out landscaping work such as installing decking or patios are permitted to have that done only by the authorised contractor of the site owner and it is done at an inflated cost. When a park owner sells their property, it is typical for 10 per cent of the sale price to be taken by the site owner as a fee. Residents who are elderly or have a disability are not eligible for local authority grants for improvements or adaptations because park homes are not treated as permanent buildings.”
“I do not disagree at all with the thrust of what he is saying, but does he agree that, in some instances, local authorities could make more active use of the existing powers at their disposal? The fit-and-proper-person test could be used in relation to those operating the sites and would afford better protection for park home owners, at least in the short term. Murdo Fraser: Graeme Dey makes a reasonable point about the enforcement of existing powers. Bendochy park was not treated as a caravan site, which meant that the fit-and-proper- person test did not apply in that particular case, but there are other cases to which that would apply, giving local authorities a legitimate role in intervening, which they could, in some cases, do more energetically. That is a reasonable point.”
“As members can imagine, that is an extremely distressing situation for those affected, who have had to apply to the local council for accommodation elsewhere and are being treated as potentially homeless. I have raised the issue with Perth and Kinross Council and with trading standards, which were pursuing it with the company that carried out the development. That company has now gone into liquidation and the park has been transferred to another company that cannot be pursued, which is very unfortunate. The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): I appreciate Murdo Fraser raising this very important issue in Parliament.”
“Roy and Susan Robertson are in precisely that situation. They sold their family home to purchase a park home at Bendochy park, believing that it would become somewhere they could spend their retirement. Properties there were advertised under the strapline “Your dream home built your way” and a prominent bullet point in the sales material stated that the park was “open 365 days a year” and made reference to the units being “homes”. It was only after they parted with their funds that the Robertsons realised, too late, that the planning permission for the property restricted it to holiday use. They, along with a number of other residents, have now been served with planning enforcement notices that require them to find a permanent residence elsewhere or face eviction.”
“Despite the requirement for a written statement, we know that, in practice, there are park home owners who are not given such a statement and cases of statement terms not being met by site owners. One of the most concerning situations that I have come across relates to the park home development at Bendochy, just outside Blairgowrie in Perthshire. In March 2022, Heritage Park Estates Ltd was given planning consent for 43 lodges and 10 glamping pods on the site of a former poultry farm, with the planning consent making it clear that the units would be used “for holiday accommodation only”. In August 2023, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that the site owners had misled the public into believing that the homes could be used as permanent residences, and that a number of people had purchased them on that basis.”
“Accordingly, many purchasers do not involve a solicitor in their purchase, even when parting with substantial sums of money, which can leave them vulnerable to exploitation. At present, the purchaser of a park home has the right to be given a written statement, which is a contract between the site owner and the resident and is enforceable in law by both parties. That statement will set out the details of the location and size of the pitch on which the home sits, the rules of the park and the annual pitch fee payable. That fee typically rises each year in accordance with the retail prices index, although I know that the Scottish Government has plans to change that to the consumer prices index.”
“We are seeing more of those lodge developments springing up, and their existence allows larger family homes to come on to the market and become available for those who need additional accommodation. Park homes are a positive development but, unfortunately, a number of issues that have arisen and impacted their purchasers have led me to the conclusion that the law about the purchase and occupancy of those properties should be updated and reviewed. There are cases of disputes between park home purchasers and site owners going unresolved and of residents feeling threatened and intimidated by unscrupulous developers. Unlike the purchase of a permanent residence, the acquisition of a park home does not involve a formal conveyance.”
“A park home is one that is classed as a temporary structure—what might be better known as a chalet or lodge—whereby the owner of the property pays a ground rent to lease the land on which the structure sits. However, such properties are not insubstantial structures; the average cost of such homes varies between £90,000 and £250,000, and they provide a high standard of comfortable accommodation with all the amenities of a more permanent building. Park home developments tend to be situated in scenic rural areas, often with an attractive outlook, and have become a popular option, in particular for retirees and those looking to downsize who want to be part of a community of like-minded individuals while reducing their energy and maintenance costs and who do not want the worry of maintaining a large garden.”
“I thank all the members across the chamber who signed my motion, allowing it to be debated this afternoon. This issue is clearly of interest to many members. I pay tribute to SCOPHRA—the Scottish Confederation of Park Home Residents Associations—for its excellent campaigning and lobbying work on behalf of its members. Gordon Morrison, the chair of SCOPHRA, is in the gallery this afternoon. I also acknowledge the work of Colin Beattie MSP, who chaired a cross-party group on park homes of which I was a member and which helped to get some changes made. I will put the issue into context. Park homes are a growing component of the housing market in Scotland. It is estimated that there are 100 park home residential sites across the country, which are home to more than 8,000 residents.”
“I urge the Parliament to back the motion granting legislative consent to all clauses within the UK bill, including clause 7A. Decision Time 17:15”
“Can the minister assure us that he and the cabinet secretary will express the ire of this Parliament regarding the fact that we are dealing with this issue very late in the process and that there is not enough time for scrutiny? At the very least, UK ministers need to take into consideration the views of this Parliament on devolved issues. I think that that is part of the problem that was expressed by Mr Mountain earlier. Alasdair Allan: I can confirm that I have already done that and will seek to do so again. We will continue to work with partners to continue to grow the community energy sector, clean energy and supply chain opportunities. We look forward to further engagement to support those important priorities, which are vital for Scotland’s economic growth and net zero ambitions.”
“On Edward Mountain’s point about what has been happening since last summer on these issues, I make no apology at all for seeking assurances from the UK Government that would ensure that the interests of this Parliament would be assured in devolved areas when the bill becomes law. By way of conclusion, despite the concerns that have rightly been expressed by members and the justified scepticism from Jackie Dunbar about the Labour Government’s election commitments, it is sensible for us to continue to work with partners, including GB Energy, the UK Government and our public bodies, to continue to grow the community energy sector. Kevin Stewart: The other week, the cabinet secretary said that there had been good conversations with the UK Government.”
“I hear those concerns loud and clear and I share many of them. I reiterate to the UK Government the importance of our parliamentary process and the need to give the Scottish Parliament sufficient time to scrutinise legislation, including late-stage amendments. Given the fact that the bill requires the consent of this Parliament, it is crucial that members are given sufficient time to consider proposed changes. That process has at points not met that test, and I have made that point to the UK Government. To pick up on Daniel Johnson’s very sensible question about why we could not have waited until later in the UK bill’s progress to deal with an LCM, I should perhaps clarify that LCMs have to be lodged within 14 days of a Government amendment being taken, which I hope explains our reasoning on that.”
“However, the main reason for rejecting the LCM is the lack of time to properly scrutinise it. I call on Parliament to back itself and to reject the LCM. 17:12 Alasdair Allan: I thank all the members who have contributed usefully to today’s debate, as well as Mr Lumsden. I recommend that Parliament votes to give consent to all clauses in the bill, including the new clause 7A. As I said earlier, I am very disappointed with the length of time that the Parliament has been given to consider the new amendments by the UK Government. I nonetheless believe that it is important that we look at ways to ensure that the opportunities that GB Energy can provide to Scotland are realised. I believe that the agreement to give consent to the LCM will help to support that effort. Mr Rennie and others have expressed concerns about process and timings.”
“It says: “Great British Energy must keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.” “Sustainable development” could mean whatever you want it to mean. It is very woolly language to use in a bill. The amendment was lodged by energy minister Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who really should have known better. He said: “We see sustainable development as a broad category.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, Vol 843, 11 Feb 2025; c 1204.] He can say that again. The vagueness of the clause makes it so close to being meaningless that it pushes me to say that it should not be in legislation. It might be harmful or it might not be; it depends on how he interprets it, and that is not good enough.”
“None of us, least of all the Labour members, can truly say whether we are any clearer on what GB Energy is for or what it will do. Daniel Johnson obviously did not get an answer to that when he spoke to Michael Shanks earlier. There is no evidence that GB Energy will drive down costs and bills—for that to happen, there needs to be a plan to do so, and there is not one. That is not to say that the state, local or regional authorities cannot do that, because they can. There are examples elsewhere in the world of that happening, but it will not happen here, and we all know it. What is before us is not the whole bill but just one clause—clause 7A.”
“That is treating the Parliament with contempt—something that I thought the Government was against. If this had been a Conservative Government bill, the reaction would have been howls of derision. How times change. I have listened with interest to members, not least to Douglas Lumsden, who went off on one of his regular tirades—for good reason, of course. If we cut through the amusing froth of Mr Lumsden’s strident contribution, he makes a very good point indeed, namely that GB Energy is a myth, a sham. Members—including Jackie Dunbar, in an excellent speech—have spoken about how Aberdeen and the north-east were promised one thing but are to get quite another. Labour told us that it would cut our energy bills, but the reverse is happening, and Ed Miliband’s net zero obsession is more likely to increase costs.”
“I agree with Mr Simpson on the question of parliamentary scrutiny. In that respect, does he share my concern that not a single member of the Scottish Green Party has contributed to the debate? None of them is in the chamber this afternoon. It is as though they do not care about the issue of green energy. Graham Simpson: Yes, I certainly do. It is rather bizarre. I agree with the convener of the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee, who has set out the issues very clearly. We cannot expect a committee to do its work properly with so little time for detailed scrutiny. Committees of the Parliament are not rubber-stamping bodies. When the NZET Committee says, in its hastily written report on the LCM, that the “agreement of this short report amounts to ... an almost literal case of a committee going through the motions”, it is correct.”
“What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the cost to the Scottish economy of ripping us out of the UK single market and erecting trade barriers, such as a different currency, with our nearest neighbours and our largest marketplace? Kate Forbes: It is a classic Conservative approach to ignore the damage that is being wrought on our industries and businesses—the very same industries and businesses that the Conservatives like to proclaim that they represent—and turn a blind eye to the damage being done to Scots and our workers, which is, indeed, a major contributor to the cost of living crisis that we are all grappling with. Employer National Insurance Contributions (Public Sector Reimbursement) 6.”
“When the cabinet secretary meets Fife health and social care partnership, will he ask it to assure him that it is complying with the law in relation to the provision of single-sex facilities for its female members of staff? Neil Gray: Obviously, I expect all public bodies to comply with the law to ensure that the rights of all their staff members are being complied with.”
“Despite all the fine words that we heard from the SNP front bench about the need to support businesses, in the SNP’s budget and its choices it has maintained the income tax differential between here and the rest of the UK and has failed to pass on the business rates relief that is available south of the border. According to the Scottish Retail Consortium, which I mentioned earlier, the Scottish budget will add £7.6 million to rates bills in the coming financial year. It is no surprise that business confidence in Scotland is tanking, as it is in the rest of the UK. I agree that Labour is letting us down, but so is the SNP. Martin Whitfield was right that Scotland has two Governments. The sad thing is that we are being failed by both. 17:29”
“As Liz Smith reminded us, Ian Murray said in March 2022: “the Chancellor is choosing to bring in a huge National Insurance rise at the worst possible time that will have an enormous impact on working people and businesses ... under Labour, National Insurance wouldn’t go up”. Jackie Baillie, who is not in the chamber this afternoon, even lodged a motion in Parliament saying that national insurance increases would exacerbate the household difficulties and lead to “rising inflation, increasing food and fuel prices, and high energy bills”. Whether we consider the winter fuel allowance, the farm tax or the WASPI women, Labour has betrayed people and broken its promises. However, it would be wrong of me to forget what the SNP has done in the same period.”
“Long-term borrowing costs are up and economic growth forecasts are down. The latest figures for economic growth across the UK show an increase of barely 0.1 per cent, and the per capita GDP figure is now negative: the economy is shrinking on a per capita basis. Let us remember that Rachel Reeves came in as chancellor promising that she was going to deliver growth. That seems to be so far away now; everything has gone backwards. It was a hollow promise. Let us remember what Labour told us in advance of the election. The Scottish Labour manifesto in 2024 said: “A UK Labour government will not increase taxes on working people and will not increase National Insurance, VAT or the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax”.”
“As has been referred to in the debate, when we came into government in 2010, there was “no money” left, according to the note that was left by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The deficit that was inherited in 2010 by the Conservative Government—I apologise to Mr Cole-Hamilton: I should have said “the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition”—was more than double the deficit in 2024. Also, let us not forget that that was after the Government of the time had to spend huge sums to support the economy and household incomes because of Covid and had then to deal with the consequences of the invasion of Ukraine and the substantial hike in energy costs that resulted. Despite all that, the deficit was still less than half of what it was in 2010. For all that we hear from Labour about economic chaos, let us look at where we are now.”
“The Scottish Hospitality Group estimates that the average hospitality business in its membership will be hit with a cost of £160,000 per year, and the care sector is also deeply concerned about the impact on it, as Liz Smith pointed out. The statistics are clear: the increase will be deeply damaging. Against that backdrop, it has been a very uncomfortable afternoon for Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield, who have had to defend the indefensible. I have some sympathy with them: we have been in that position occasionally in the past. [Laughter.] Now that their party is in government, they are feeling the heat. Martin Whitfield asked us to reflect on the record of the Conservative Government over the previous 14 years, and I am very happy to do so.”
“Dr Gulhane also mentioned dental practices, which contract to the NHS and will not have their costs fully reimbursed. The Scottish Federation of Housing Associations referred to the impact on registered social landlords, which is estimated to be some £15 million. However, those are just the impact on the public sector and on contractors to the public sector. Let us also consider the impacts on the private sector. The Scottish Retail Consortium estimates that the impact in Scotland on the retail sector alone will be £190 million annually. Businesses across the piece will be hit, with the increase having a substantial impact on employment and hitting growth. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, there will be a negative impact on wages, which are expected to be lower.”
“According to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, charities and bodies in the third sector estimate that the change will cost £75 million, and universities estimate that the cost to them will be £45 million. We have already seen the impact of that, with the University of Edinburgh having written to all its staff at the end of last week to share very serious concerns about its finances and to say that nothing is off the table regarding potential redundancies or future cuts to staffing. We have seen the impact on the health service, which Sandesh Gulhane referred to in his contribution. In its briefing for the debate, the Royal College of General Practitioners set out its concerns about the impact on GP practices.”
“Many members have spoken about the economic impact on the public sector. I will rehearse some of the figures, because they are important. It is estimated that the change will cost £750 million each year across the public sector in Scotland. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities estimates the cost to councils to be £265 million, which will be only partly compensated for by the Scottish Government. That is, no doubt, one of the number of reasons why we expect to see double-figure increases to council tax rates across Scotland. The first of those—a 10 per cent increase—was made this afternoon by East Lothian Council. Mr Whitfield might be aware of that particular fact.”
“We do not often come to the chamber and find the Conservatives agreeing with the wording of a Scottish Government motion, but today is a rare exception, because we agree with every word of the Scottish Government motion and will even be voting for it at decision time in a few moments. It might be nice of the SNP to return the favour and vote for our amendment, but that might be too much to ask. It is right to say, as the minister did at the start of the debate, that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will cause deep damage to the Scottish economy and to public services. It is not only we, in the chamber, who are saying that; the Office for Budget Responsibility has clearly said that economic growth will be lower as a result of the national insurance increase.”
“That supports resilience, which, fundamentally, is what we seek to achieve through community wealth building. The work builds on a lot of existing work, including in public procurement. As my colleague Ivan McKee said before Christmas, and as I alluded, Government ministers will shortly set out what the process will be for consideration of the existing thresholds under procurement legislation. The Parliament will be kept up to date on that. Once the bill is before Parliament, I will be more than happy to engage with members on the detail.”
“On the timeline for the bill, it is a matter of respecting parliamentary protocol and procedure. The commitment in the PFG was to introduce the bill in this parliamentary year, which is what we intend to achieve. Again, due to protocol and procedure, I cannot divulge the contents of the bill, but I refer Murdo Fraser to the consultation and to the analysis that was published, which set out very clearly the Government’s thinking on the bill at the time when the consultation was run. I referred to economic growth in my speech, and it is fundamental. We want to see more of the wealth that is generated in communities being retained in communities. To define what community wealth building is, I note that it is about greater retention of wealth in local communities and greater local control being exercised over that wealth.”
“Will economic growth be at the heart of what the Government is trying to do through community wealth building? Secondly, ever since the programme for government was published, in September, we have been waiting for details of what the forthcoming CWB bill will say. We have heard no more information today about what will be in the bill. We are waiting, and stakeholders are waiting. Time is running out in the current parliamentary year, so when will we learn that? Thirdly, in relation to public procurement, we are—again—waiting to hear from the Government when it will decide on the review of thresholds, which businesses are also waiting for—in particular, small businesses that want to win public sector contracts. When will that happen? Tom Arthur: I thank Mr Fraser for his questions and his interest in the topic.”