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 4 of 14.
“Amendments 24, 25, 35, 36, 41, 76, 77, 80, 82 and 84 could potentially introduce greater subjectivity and inconsistency into assessments, as, from a technical perspective, the removal of references to pressure “by any other person” would risk widening the concept of coercion in a way that might reduce legal clarity, making it more difficult for practitioners to determine the threshold at which indirect pressures amounted to a lack of voluntariness. Amendments 27 and 33 would place new and explicit duties on registered medical practitioners and on the Scottish ministers to identify, consider and provide guidance on indirect pressures.”
“I respectfully say to those who have lodged amendments—for which I am grateful—that I do not believe that we can legislate to prevent coercion. We can legislate to help to identify it, then seek to convict people for it, as we did through the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, but the reality is that coercion will take place, and we need to ensure that we have robust law to deal with it as and when it is identified. Neil Gray: As with previous groups, I can make no comment on the merits or otherwise of the case that has been made in setting out some of the amendments in this group, which, it is clear, are rooted in deep conviction. All that I can do is set out the technical, legislative competence or deliverability concerns of the Government. It will then be for colleagues to decide how they choose to vote.”
“Will Michael Matheson give way? Michael Matheson: I will give way briefly to Murdo Fraser. Murdo Fraser: On the sentencing point, will the member reflect that, first, there is a presumption against sentences of a year or less; and, secondly, even if someone were sentenced to a year, they would serve, under the current automatic early release arrangements, only 15 weeks in prison? Does he agree that that is little deterrent against coercion? Michael Matheson: I should declare the fact that I was the justice secretary who introduced the presumption against sentences of less than a year. However, I think that we should leave the sentencing guidelines to stand as they are without necessarily putting them in the bill, for the reasons that I set out. I believe that one of the significant risks that are associated with the bill is coercion.”
“I am sure that the Scottish Law Commission, which does such good work in keeping our law abreast of developments in society, will continue to do good work in researching those areas. We will, no doubt, return to those points in future but, in the meantime, on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I am pleased to confirm our support for the bill at stage 3. 14:36”
“At the time, I raised concerns about drafting that had been brought to us by the Faculty of Advocates. It is important to note that the bill is just a first step. Further changes to the law will be needed to take account of the growth of digital assets. Changes will need to cover, for example, areas of private international law and insolvency. Where digital assets are traded between individuals living in different jurisdictions, which law should apply in relation to the death of an individual who holds digital assets? What laws of succession should apply to them? Where a digital asset forms part of an insolvency, how should that be treated? Those will all be matters for a future Parliament to consider.”
“As I said during the stage 1 debate, the bill is necessary because Scots law, as it previously existed, did not recognise digital assets as property—or, at least, it did not properly define them. The bill will classify them as incorporeal, moveable property, which is property that is not attached to land and which does not have a physical existence. The bill will allow the trading of digital assets and provide a legal framework for those who transact with them. It will also provide protection to someone who acquires a digital asset for value and in good faith. That is important because, without that reassurance, those seeking to purchase a digital asset in Scotland would be unclear on what their legal remedies might be. There was some discussion during stage 1 scrutiny about what exactly purchasing in good faith would mean in practice.”
“I do not know whether this will be the last bill that the Minister for Business and Employment will bring to the Parliament—I expect that it may well be—but I commend him for the way in which he has approached the bill and the co-operative approach that he has led. As I have done previously, I wish him all the best for the future as he looks to pursue other avenues beyond the Parliament in a few weeks’ time. The bill is significant but is not in any way politically controversial. It represents a significant step forward in modernising Scots law to deal with changing circumstances—in this case, the creation of digital assets. Those assets did not exist at all two decades ago, but changes in technology have led to their creation, and it is important that the law is adapted to take account of those changes.”
“Like the minister, I commend the members who have joined us in the chamber. I am sorry that the public gallery cleared as the minister got up to speak—I am sure that that had nothing to do with the content of his speech. I do not intend to say a great deal about the bill, as my comments in the stage 1 debate a few weeks ago covered all the key points that I would be making. No substantial amendments to the bill have been lodged, either at stage 2 or at stage 3, but some significant technical changes have been made that are welcome. I reiterate the thanks that I expressed at stage 1 to members of the Economy and Fair Work Committee and to the committee clerks and the Scottish Parliament information centre for their assistance in helping members to understand the legislation and scrutinise it.”
“She has accepted that the answers that she gave to Parliament last week were incomplete and insufficient, as she did not give Parliament a full picture, because she had not looked at all the papers that were available to her. That in itself should be a matter of concern to”
“This morning, I lodged an amendment to the business motion, to seek to insert in next week’s business a statement from the Lord Advocate and an opportunity for members to ask her questions. I lodged that amendment, before my colleague Stephen Kerr had his urgent question accepted, so that the Lord Advocate would come to the chamber to answer questions. I had hoped that we would now be in a position where I would not have to move my amendment. [Interruption.] If the First Minister could be quiet for a moment. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Members, let us carry out our business respectfully. Murdo Fraser: I regret that the answers that we heard from the Lord Advocate are insufficient.”
“Any responsible individual would understand that it would have been quite wrong for the serving law officer of the day, in a live case and in relation to such a sensitive issue, to respond with anything less than the fullest understanding of the consequences of the issue. Therefore, yesterday, members were given a wide range of examples, including the March 2025 document, and I have now provided the Parliament with the fullest information available.”
“All I ask is for common decency and the ability to answer a question that I have been asked to respond to. I am seeking to do that. The question relates to why I did not mention the March 2025 document, and I have said why I did not. I said that, in the time before answering the question, I had not seen the March 2025 document. I had not seen the document since it was sent in March 2025, nor any of the other examples, nor—critically—had I been given advice on the impact on proceedings if information were released. I therefore undertook to consider the point in more detail, to provide examples and to respond in full and in writing, and I have done that.”
“I do not believe that the Lord Advocate is corrupt, but I fear that, in her dealings on the matter, she has been unwise in the way that she has acted. Twice, Stephen Kerr has put a question to her, and Michael Marra has put the same question to her, but she has not responded to that question. She has not responded to the question about whether, given that she told the chamber last week that the justification for sending a minute to the First Minister was that it was after the service of the indictment, that applied when she sent a memo in March last year. Did that apply then—yes or no? The Lord Advocate: I have answered the question. [Interruption.] All I ask is for common decency and for me— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Thank you. The Lord Advocate: —to be given the opportunity to answer a very important question.”
“As Jackie Baillie said, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we are already seeing in this budget what will be a real-terms cut to health services. That is not something that the SNP wants to talk about, but that is the reality. Stephen Kerr was right to say that the benefits bill is spiralling out of control. Local services are being slashed, council taxes are soaring and the income tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK is widening. That is the SNP’s legacy, and that is why we must reject this budget. 18:02”
“The announcements that we have heard in the budget to help businesses that are struggling, particularly with the current non-domestic rates revaluation, are welcome as far as they go. However, they simply do not go far enough. Businesses in hospitality are currently closing at the rate of one per week, and that will continue to be the case unless this Government thinks again. If the Northern Irish Executive can announce—as it did just two weeks ago, in response to pleas from the business community there—that it can halt the revaluation process, Scottish ministers can do the same. Even at this late hour, I would encourage them to do that before we see more job losses. Without a growing, dynamic economy, and without thriving businesses, we will not have the jobs and the revenues to fund the public services that we need.”
“Compared to the rest of the UK, we are not growing the number of taxpayers— in particular, the number of higher earners— quickly enough. That is why the Scottish Fiscal Commission is saying that we are £1 billion behind where we should be. If we could grow the economy faster and attract more people, we would fill that £1 billion gap. That would give us more money to spend on all the pet projects that Mr Greer has. Imagine if we could grow faster than the rest of the UK—we would have not £1 billion but more than £1 billion. We are challenged over the argument for making tax cuts to grow the economy, but that is why we should. If we grow the economy, we widen the tax base and we increase the tax take by the Scottish Government. In previous debates, I have raised the need for action to support struggling businesses.”
“Ross Greer’s recipe, which is to tax the rich more, would have the opposite impact and would diminish the Scottish budget, because we need more higher earners here. Ross Greer: Will Murdo Fraser give way? Murdo Fraser: I will give way to Mr Greer, given that I mentioned him. Ross Greer: For the past 10 years, Murdo Fraser has claimed that every tax rise that we have already delivered on high earners would result in some kind of colossal exodus. However, over the past 10 years, the number of people on higher salaries in Scotland has grown and tax revenues have grown. Does he reflect at all on the fact that there is no evidence of the catastrophic impact that he claimed there would be? Murdo Fraser: Ross Greer has not listened to a word that I have said.”
“In simple terms, that means that we are not attracting enough new people, particularly high earners, to come to Scotland to address that gap. The Scottish Government will say that Scotland’s population is increasing, as are the number of people of working age. That might be true, but what matters to the Scottish budget is not the absolute numbers but the numbers relative to those for the UK as a whole. Relatively speaking, the population of the UK as a whole is growing more quickly than the population of Scotland. As a consequence, there is a negative impact on the Scottish budget. Therefore, we make no apology for saying that we need to focus on economic growth and, in particular, attract more higher earners to Scotland.”
“Murdo Fraser: It might be performing marginally better than the dismal performance of the UK economy under Labour, but what really matters to the Scottish budget is comparative tax receipts. In that regard, we must consider what the Scottish Fiscal Commission refers to as the “economic performance gap”—or, rather, the devolved tax gap—and consider how Scotland’s performance compares to that of the UK as a whole. The figures show—not according to me, but according to the independent Fiscal Commission—that there is a staggering gap of £1 billion. So, £1 billion is being lost to the Scottish Government because our earnings growth is not as high as that in the rest of the UK. John Mason: Will Murdo Fraser give way? Murdo Fraser: I cannot give way at the moment. I do not have time.”
“If there are more economically inactive people, less money is raised in taxes and more support must be provided through the benefits system. What really matters in relation to the block grant adjustment is not how Scotland performs on a stand-alone basis, but how we perform relative to the rest of the United Kingdom. John Mason: Will Murdo Fraser give way? Ivan McKee: Will Murdo Fraser take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: I have a choice. I will give way to Mr McKee. Ivan McKee: Murdo Fraser makes a fair point about Scotland’s economic performance relative to that of the rest of the UK. What does he have to say about the fact that Scotland’s economy is now consistently growing more quickly than that in the rest of the UK?”
“The third part—the block grant adjustment—is crucial because, ultimately, that is what decides the overall size of the Scottish budget. Under the fiscal framework, which was agreed by the First Minister and recently renegotiated and signed off by the Government, the block grant adjustment depends on the relative performance of Scottish devolved taxes compared with what happens elsewhere in the UK. Scottish Conservatives make no apology for talking about Scotland’s economic performance, because that is crucial to determining the block grant adjustment and, therefore, how much public money there is to spend. A growing Scottish economy not only delivers greater wealth and more secure, well-paid jobs but leads to better public finances. If there are more working taxpayers, more taxes are paid.”
“As others have done, I will start by saying a few words in tribute to Shona Robison, given that this will be her final budget debate. I wish her well in the future. I know that, in her job, she has put up my taxes, but I do not bear a grudge. I assure her that, in my role as a trustee of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme, I will work very hard to secure her financial future. Before I get into some of the issues that have been raised in the debate, I will provide a bit of context to the budget and say why the performance of Scotland’s economy is essential. As we know, the budget has three component parts: the Westminster block grant, the money that is raised from devolved taxes and the block grant adjustment.”
“For example, a resident of Glasgow who is sent to Aberdeen for a few days’ work as part of their job and has to stay overnight will pay the visitor levy, as will someone who visits a family member in hospital and has to stay nearby overnight. A family whose property is damaged by a flood or a fire and who has to stay in a hotel or a B and B on a short-term basis will pay the visitor levy. It is not a tourist tax, as it is sometimes classified. It is paid by everyone who stays somewhere other than in their own home, regardless of the reason.”
“Staying in static caravans is an attractive option for low-cost holidays in the United Kingdom and is particularly important to those who are struggling with the rising cost of living. However, as the association has made clear, a levy set at the modest sum of £2 per person per night would add the significant extra charge of £168 to the cost for a family of six of staying in a static caravan for a fortnight. For people who are already struggling to meet the cost of a family holiday, that is a very significant additional tax burden. There are other issues with the visitor levy that the bill does not address. The levy catches not only people who are tourists but those who have to stay away from home for work or for a variety of other purposes.”
“It brought together 78 representatives of the tourism and hospitality sector and said: “Without swift and coordinated action, we risk an unworkable system that will damage confidence and compliance across the sector.” Others, such as Fiona Campbell of the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, David Weston of the Scottish Bed and Breakfast Association, and the Federation of Small Businesses, among many others, joined in with those calls, and it is good to see them being listened to. Although the bill is welcome, it does not fix all the issues with the visitor levy. The Holiday and Residential Parks Association has raised concerns about the proposed per-person, per-night charging mechanism, which it says will fall heavily on families.”
“Back in 2024, we lodged amendments to the bill to allow a flat fee to be presented, but those were not supported by other parties. At committee, the Scottish National Party and the Greens voted against our amendments and Labour abstained. It is good to see that our concerns were vindicated and the changes being introduced now, but it would have been far better if that had been sorted out at the time, rather than our having to introduce remedial legislation. I pay tribute to all the industry bodies that pushed the Government for action. The Scottish Tourism Alliance co-ordinated a joint letter to the Scottish Government in May last year expressing concerns.”
“That is a welcome change that local authorities and others have been pressing for, and it will allow much greater local flexibility. Secondly, the bill fixes an error in the original legislation, whereby third-party providers were not able to properly set and collect the visitor levy. That led to complications where platforms such as Booking.com were asking accommodation providers to manually process refunds to those staying more than five nights in their accommodation. That was an entirely foreseeable mess created by the original legislation, and it is good to see it fixed, although it should never have happened in the first place. Many of those difficulties could have been avoided if we and others had been listened to at the time.”
“Let me make it clear from the outset that the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 1. The bill is a welcome step in the right direction and it follows sustained pressure from the Scottish Conservatives and the tourist industry. For years, we and the sector have been arguing that the visitor levy as proposed in the original legislation is potentially deeply damaging to a tourist industry that is already under severe financial pressure elsewhere. It is good that we are finally seeing recognition of that—at least in part—from the Scottish Government. As we have heard, the bill does two things. First, it gives local authorities flexibility to introduce a flat-rate charge, or a tiered flat-rate charge, as well as having a percentage scheme.”
“The motion mentions Prestwick airport and its use by US military flights. Thank goodness that the US military is using Prestwick, and paying handsomely for that benefit. It means that the airport, which is in public hands, is at last now showing some profitability and benefitting the Scottish taxpayer. Banning US military flights would achieve nothing if those flights simply divert elsewhere, but it would cost the Scottish taxpayer millions of pounds.”
“Where is the Greens’ criticism of the terrorist state of Iran, which is oppressing its own people, murdering civilians who simply want to support democracy and free speech, and supporting terrorism in the middle east and elsewhere? Where is the concern for the victims of conflicts in countries such as Sudan and Myanmar, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have died? I fully understand that there are concerns about aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency but, in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in the world, those pale into insignificance. The student-union obsessives of the Green Party are hitting the wrong target. When it comes to the situation with Venezuela, let us never forget that the Russians are importing Venezuelan oil in order to break sanctions. We should have no sympathy for sanction-breakers, in any circumstance.”
“Instead, the Greens come to us with a rant against the United States of America, our longest-standing and most reliable ally as a country, and a fundamental part of the NATO alliance. If the Greens want to debate international affairs, why do they not attack the real rogue states? Where is the mention of China, with its myriad human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities, its attacks on free speech and its imprisonment of those who dare to speak out against the regime? Ross Greer: Will the member give way? Murdo Fraser: I am sorry, Mr Greer, but I have only four minutes, due to the Greens’ scheduling of the debate. Where is the attack on Russia and on the evil Putin regime, which is sponsoring terrorism and has unleashed a horrific war on the innocent civilians of Ukraine that is approaching its fourth anniversary?”
“I was astonished but maybe not surprised to see the Scottish Green Party’s motion. It is like being back at a student union debate, with ranting about issues that are well outwith the remit of this Parliament. I enjoyed my time in student union debates many, many decades ago, but this Parliament should be focusing on issues within its remit. We should be looking at, for example, the pitiful level of economic growth that we have in Scotland and across the United Kingdom and at what that means for living standards; the high cost of renewable energy driving up consumers’ bills; waiting times in the national health service; falling standards in education; or a soft-touch justice system. We could have been debating any one of those topics this afternoon.”
“Closures are a choice that locally elected representatives make. Often, I hear calls from Mr Fraser’s side of the chamber that there is too much centralised control and that there should be local decision making— on this issue, I agree with those members. This is an area in which local authorities have responsibility. We will work in partnership with them, because I want to protect culture and arts services across Scotland, but we will do that only through partnership and local government delivery, just as the Scottish Government is delivering for culture and the arts. Free-to-air Television Broadcasting 4.”
“Regardless of what the cabinet secretary has said about the Scottish Government’s direct funding for the arts, the reality—as Rhoda Grant has pointed out—is that much local arts funding comes from local authorities. At the moment, those local authorities are setting budgets with inflation- busting council tax increases, while slashing services and cutting grants to cultural organisations. Who does the cabinet secretary blame for that? Angus Robertson: The issue is not about blame. There needs to be an optimal working relationship between the Scottish Government and local authorities, which we will achieve through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I find it disappointing that there are arts and culture closures in different local authorities, but that picture is not universal.”
“As for the Lib Dems, this is a preview of what we will get later this year if the SNP ends up as the biggest party, with the Lib Dems selling their souls to put the SNP back into power. Alex Cole-Hamilton has spent the past two years courting Anas Sarwar and now he is suddenly courting John Swinney. He wants to be the Nick Clegg of the current decade. Anybody thinking of voting for the Lib Dems at the election needs to reflect on whether they want to put the SNP back in power. We will not do that—we will stand up against the SNP and oppose this budget. 16:54”
“Professor David Bell, giving evidence to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, said of the council settlement: “The overall position is severe, and it will become critical.”—[Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 20 January 2026; c 49.] We are likely to see record-breaking increases in council tax set by local authorities across Scotland, meaning that it will not be just income tax and business rates that go up. Overall, this budget hikes taxes, damages the economy and sees cuts in local services, and the only gainer will be the welfare bill. It is not a budget that deserves our support, so it is disappointing that it will pass nonetheless. The Labour Party has given this budget a free pass. It will let this ruinous budget go through, damaging local services, hitting councils and ruining the economy.”
“That gap has dramatically increased, because it is just £54.7 million in the current financial year—the figure is going up by more than four times. As Liz Smith pointed out, we have an issue in the rural economy because of the removal of the small business bonus scheme from sporting rates. Sporting rates are charged on sporting rights, whether they are exercised or not. Most farms across Scotland have sporting rights and will be getting a rates bill for the first time ever. They will never have had one before, because they were eligible for small business relief. The Government says that it is interested in rural Scotland, but it does not look like that from where I am sitting. As those taxes go up, services are being cut.”
“The cabinet secretary will preside over the death of Scottish tourism unless she thinks again. SNP members are groaning, but I think that they should get out more, talk to people in the sector and hear the case studies that we have heard, because that is what is going to happen. Businesses that pay nothing at the moment will see increases of thousands of pounds in their bills. Retail is also impacted. The SNP manifesto at the last election pledged to restore parity with England for firms liable to pay the higher property rate. However, for the coming financial year, all premises liable for the higher property rate will pay £226.5 million more than equivalent-sized businesses south of the border.”
“Pubs, hotels and restaurants face horrendous increases of up to 400 per cent in their rates bills. We brought that issue to the chamber last week, asking the Government here to do the same as the Northern Ireland Executive did recently and put a pause on those revaluations. Whether it is self-catering, pubs, hotels or restaurants, the entire tourist and visitor sector of our economy faces a catastrophe. We will see business closures and job losses across the country, particularly in rural areas. We have an SNP Government that is hell-bent on destroying our tourist sector because of the choices that it is making. The reliefs that have been announced today are welcome, but they go nowhere near far enough to address the increases that many businesses face.”
“Earlier this week, I had at my surgery a constituent with a small business in the provision of self-catering accommodation in Perthshire who has seen her rates bill go from zero, because she was eligible for small business rates relief, to £20,000 annually. That increase is simply unaffordable, and she told me that it will leave her having to close her business. That situation is repeated across the self-catering sector. The finance secretary said today—if I heard her correctly—that she will cap the increases at 45 per cent over three years, but that still means that that business will go from paying zero to paying thousands of pounds that it cannot afford. Businesses will close as a result of the choices that have been made by the finance secretary. We see the same situation in the hospitality sector.”
“The budget proposes tax rises that will cost the Scottish public £1.8 billion next year, although some at the lower end will see a tiny reduction in their bill—not even enough to buy a second-class stamp once a week. Meanwhile, as Craig Hoy pointed out, spending on benefits continues to balloon out of control, rising to £7.4 billion in the coming year. Local government funding is being squeezed and services are being cut. As we heard, NHS spending is being cut in real terms, but the benefits bill continues to grow and grow. My primary concern is about the impact on business and the economy. Today, thanks to the current non-domestic rates revaluation, businesses in Scotland are facing unaffordable increases in the rates that they will pay.”
“Murdo Fraser: Well, I have been here a lot longer than Kate Forbes has and I can well remember the Conservatives supporting Mr Swinney’s budgets, in a previous iteration, when they were delivering good things for Scotland. The problem is that this budget does anything but that, because what it delivers is tax rises for the Scottish public. The First Minister: Will the member give way? Murdo Fraser: Oh yes—I will give way to the First Minister. The First Minister: Was that not at a time when more considered members from the Scottish Conservatives were carrying out the negotiations than the ones who spectacularly failed to get anything out of this budget process? Murdo Fraser: Maybe it was a time when we had a more considered First Minister, who was prepared to accommodate the reasonable choices of the Conservatives.”
“It is always a pleasure to follow Daniel Johnson, and I agree with much of what he said. What really confuses me, though, is that if the budget is so bad, why will the Labour Party not oppose it at decision time? I remember budget debates in the chamber being full of drama. I remember Wednesday afternoons when we were on tenterhooks to see whether the budget vote would pass. Here we are, in a three-quarters-empty chamber on a sleepy Thursday afternoon, and there is nobody out there paying any attention whatsoever, thanks to the Labour Party selling the pass on the budget weeks ago. Kate Forbes: Does the member agree that the one guaranteed consistency that we can rely on is that the Conservatives achieve absolutely nothing out of these budgets?”
“Hundreds of thousands of Scots are on NHS waiting lists, and more than 10,000 children are in temporary accommodation.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir. To compound the mess, we found ourselves in the ludicrous situation in which the finance secretary published a three-year spending review to supposedly provide certainty to public services yet, within days, told the Finance and Public Administration Committee that it was not worth the paper that it was written on and that she fully expected it to change. It is budgeting on a wing and a prayer. The hallmarks of 19 years of John Swinney budgets are creative accounting, financial sleight of hand and swingeing cuts to local government. Craig Hoy: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir. The truth is that the SNP Government has decimated Scotland’s public finances and taken treasured public services, such as our NHS, to the brink.”
“However, I reassure Murdo Fraser that a combination of that record funding for affordable homes, coupled with the greatest multi-annual certainty that we have ever offered and the development of the agency, will mean that supply and demand are brought back into balance.”
“Màiri McAllan: I am exceptionally proud of the Scottish Government’s record on the delivery of affordable homes. Since we came into government, 141,000 affordable homes have been delivered in Scotland, 101,000 of which are for social rent, which is the most affordable form of rent. The recent homelessness statistics, which were published last week, continue to point to the strain in supply and demand of housing in Scotland, which is similar across the UK, but there are signs in those statistics that the Government’s investment is working. In particular, I draw attention to the fact that we are now seeing substantial drops in the number of households with children that are in unsuitable temporary accommodation.”
“The establishment of a new housing agency will advance progress towards our housing ambitions and will help us to deliver our new target of providing 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, at least 70 of which will be for social rent and 10 per cent of which will be located in rural and island Scotland. Murdo Fraser: The reality is that the Scottish National Party has been in power for nearly two decades, and we currently have a record-breaking number of 10,480 children in temporary accommodation. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that crisis requires a significant increase in the delivery of social housing, which has fallen to its lowest level since 2017? Does she recognise that, when housing shortages are so acute, the Scottish Government should be prioritising those who already have a local connection to Scotland?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to help people in homeless households into permanent accommodation. (S6O-05513) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): To support people into permanent homes, the Scottish Government is supporting implementation of rapid rehousing and significantly increasing the supply of affordable and social housing. The Scottish budget will deliver £926 million of investment in affordable housing in the next financial year, which represents the largest single allocation on record to affordable housing. It also includes £15.5 million in measures to address and prevent homelessness, including £8 million to deliver rapid rehousing transition planning, which is vital.”
“It is about looking at lands and buildings that are either derelict or not being used to their fullest potential and bringing them back into more productive use—either economic use or, in this particular case, environmental and sustainable use for the benefit of the community.”