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 6 of 14.
“As Sue Webber said, the dualling of the A9 was supposed to have been completed last year. We are already 10 years behind where we should be, and too many lives have been lost in the meantime. I hope that the latest announcement will not turn out to be yet another broken promise from the SNP Government to the people of Perthshire and the Highlands. In her statement, the cabinet secretary said that there are projects in the north section which have been brought forward. Has that been done at the expense of any projects in the south section? If so, which ones? Fiona Hyslop: I am sure that the member will have been in the chamber in 2023 when the then cabinet secretary set out the 2023 delivery plan. I reassure him that all the milestones in that delivery plan had been approved.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to assist businesses that have seen a significant proposed increase in rateable value as a result of the current revaluation for non- domestic rates. (S6O-05367)”
“However, we really need to see that accelerated and for it to have more momentum. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can take two more supplementaries, but I need briefer questions and responses.”
“They have all have cited the energy profits levy as a factor. It is clear to me, as it is now to the Conservatives, that the energy profits levy is having an extremely damaging effect on companies’ ability to retain workers. The whole point of a just transition is that new jobs should be created before old ones are lost. The two arguments are that we should retain the old jobs and create new ones. On deindustrialisation, as I said in my response to David Torrance, there have been no fundamental changes to some of the key industrial policies, particularly for energy, the cost of doing business, and so on, which are largely determined at a UK-wide level. Quite soon, we need to see a fundamental shift. The member may also be conscious of the announcement of the outcome of allocation round 7, which will create new jobs.”
“This morning, the Parliament’s Economy and Fair Work Committee heard evidence from trade unions on their concerns about the deindustrialisation of the Scottish economy, of which the closure at Mossmorran is the latest example. They are also concerned that we have well-paid workers in the oil and gas sector who are currently losing their jobs when vacancies in renewables and the new green economy simply do not exist to allow those workers to progress in a just transition. Where is the Scottish Government’s skills strategy to ensure that workers who are losing their jobs are not thrown on the scrap heap? Kate Forbes: I will take those points in turn. I am sure that Murdo Fraser has looked at the commentary from employers in the north-east and oil and gas industry who have regrettably had to relieve workers of their jobs.”
“There is a process of pre-agreement discussion with assessors and a system of appeals, but the reliefs that I have announced today—transitional reliefs and reliefs for retail, hospitality and leisure—make up a package of £322 million to support businesses, which I would have thought Murdo Fraser would welcome. I have also been clear that, if there is further funding for the hospitality sector from the UK Government, further Scottish Government funding will go to the hospitality sector in Scotland. Again, I hope that Murdo Fraser will welcome that.”
“As the Scottish Conservatives raised in the chamber last week, businesses across Scotland currently face increases in their rateable values of up to 400 per cent as a result of the current revaluation. Any hopes that the revaluation might be delayed or scrapped altogether have been dashed today, and the reliefs that have been announced will come nowhere close to compensating for the increases that are coming down the track. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the number of businesses in hard-pressed sectors such as hospitality that will go to the wall as a result of the choices that the finance secretary has made? Shona Robison: Revaluation is an independent process, which Murdo Fraser knows full well. We understand the concerns, which is why Ivan McKee has engaged with assessors and businesses to listen to those.”
“The latest blow is the non-domestic rates revaluation, with an average rise in rateable values of 123 per cent. Some businesses in the hospitality sector are facing rises that approach 400 per cent—a sum that is totally unrealistic. I am sure that all members in the chamber can quote examples of such rises from local businesses that have contacted them. To give just a few examples from my own mailbag, there is one owner of a self-catering premises in Fife for which the rateable value is increasing from £4,850 to £16,000—nearly quadrupling in total. There is a holiday lodge park in Perthshire that has seen an increase from £12,000 to £26,200; for another, the amount has nearly doubled, from £21,400 to £49,500.”
“The pressures are particularly acute in sectors such as hospitality and retail. In the area that I represent, across Perthshire and Fife, I can visit communities where once-thriving local hotels and pubs now lie empty and boarded up or have “For Sale” or “To Let” signs attached. Some of those businesses have been on the market for years without any significant interest. Some hoteliers tell me that they would bite the hand off anyone who came along with a serious offer to purchase. The situation is not helped by the prospect of a visitor levy that adds further to the cost base. Those businesses that operate in the provision of self-catering accommodation for visitors are still dealing with the impact of short-term let licensing, with all the additional costs that that brought in.”
“Today, businesses across Scotland face an existential threat, with dramatic increases in rateable values as a result of the recent revaluation. The Scottish Conservatives are taking the issue to the chamber today due to its urgency and the very serious concerns that so many businesses have raised directly with us. This is an issue on which the Scottish Government must act urgently, before we see a whole slew of business failures. The latest blow comes against a backdrop of difficult trading conditions for businesses across Scotland. The cost burden has risen dramatically due to a combination of inflation, increases in energy prices and wage pressures. Labour’s tax on jobs—the increase in employer national insurance contributions—could not have come at a worse time.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the use of artificial intelligence in the composition of judicial judgments. (S6O-05338)”
“I give him an undertaking that, through that process, I will reflect on his point about the support for local reporting, which provides a valuable service, particularly in communities and in relation to the covering of local government democracy. I will happily give an undertaking that I will keep him apprised of that. The Scottish Government is involved in relation to BBC charter renewal, and I will definitely bear in mind the points that Murdo Fraser has raised today.”
“The cabinet secretary will be aware of the network of local democracy reporters who are funded by the BBC through the licence fee and who provide a very valuable service across the country by reporting on, for example, local council meetings and activities that would otherwise not be brought to public attention. In any engagement that the cabinet secretary has with the BBC on charter renewal, will he reinforce to the BBC the importance of the network to ensure that it continues after any charter renewal? Angus Robertson: Murdo Fraser’s question is very timely because of the BBC charter renewal process, which he raised in his question.”
“It is not a question of taking from Grangemouth to support Mossmorran; it is one of retaining the jobs in Scotland. Where one site may not be a perfect fit, there may be more appropriate sites, such as at Mossmorran. We are keen to use the Grangemouth process to support industrial assets generally. We have our green industrial strategy and, at a point such as this, it is a matter of actively delivering for the sites and retaining the jobs as far as we can. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes questions on the Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic portfolio. Finance and Local Government Local Government Services (Community-led Initiatives) 1.”
“I listened intently to the Deputy First Minister’s response to Willie Rennie, and in particular to what she said about the project willow projects— which, if it involves taking potential jobs away from Grangemouth to give them to Mossmorran, sounds like robbing Peter to pay Paul. However, there is a wider concern, which is that Grangemouth and Mossmorran closing represents the loss of our industrial base. Where is the Scottish Government’s industrial strategy for the future? Kate Forbes: Murdo Fraser said that he was listening intently, but perhaps he was not listening enough. The point that I made was that some of the businesses that have been exploring the prospect of locating in Grangemouth are recognising that Mossmorran may be better suited to their needs.”
“Neil Gray: The tribunal has still to proceed to a remedy and the parties involved still have 14 days to appeal the decision. I note that four claims were upheld out of the 47 claims, and it is important that serious consideration is given by NHS Fife to those four claims that were upheld out of 47. I will be corresponding with NHS Fife in order to hear its response and how it will respond to those claims being upheld.”
“The conduct of the senior management of NHS Fife throughout this entire episode has been disgraceful. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money has been spent in legal fees defending the indefensible, and more money has been spent on media management. The character of Sandie Peggie, a nurse with a 30-year unblemished record, was traduced in court. A bizarre media statement was issued attacking Sandie Peggie’s legal team, which later had to be withdrawn and which we now know was instructed personally by the chief executive. Carol Potter, as chief executive of NHS Fife, has lost the confidence of the people of Fife and does not deserve to continue in that role. She should not be allowed to retire next year on a healthy pension. Will the health secretary now sack her and remove her from a job that she is not fit to do?”
“To ask the First Minister what funding is in place to ensure that the A9 dualling project is completed by the target date of 2035. (S6F-04502)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what recent assessment it has made of the impact of the visitor levy on businesses operating in the hospitality and tourism sectors. (S6O-05247)”
“We would be grateful to have the support of all parties in the chamber on that. Freedom of Information Requests (Appeals) 2.”
“Angus Robertson: I note that Murdo Fraser did not raise one of the most significant challenges that the whisky industry faces, which relates to tariffs. I hope that he will join the Scottish Government in endorsing the work of the First Minister and in hoping that the United Kingdom Government does all that it can in its discussions with the US Government on tariffs. He mentioned the scotch whisky industry which, along with American colleagues in the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, is working very hard to ensure that we reduce the threat from tariffs. A balancing act is to be struck when judging questions around alcohol duties and public health harms. I think that the Scottish Government has got that balance right, and we will do all that we can to deal with threats of tariffs to the likes of the whisky industry.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests in relation to the Scotch Whisky Association. I agree with the cabinet secretary’s remarks about Richard Demarco, whom I congratulate on his well-deserved award. On the substance of the question, although I agree with Mr Gibson about the negative impact of the chancellor’s increase in alcohol duty on the Scottish economy, which was very unfortunate and unwelcome, I am not sure that the Scottish Government’s track record is so tremendous when it comes to supporting the spirits industry, given the introduction of minimum unit pricing and the plans for alcohol marketing. For example, distilleries would have been unable to advertise tours due to the Government’s draconian proposals. Can the cabinet secretary update us on where exactly we now stand with that?”
“I welcome the recognition of the seriousness of the issue, and the need to move at pace to address the challenge, from the Labour Party, the Green Party and, I believe, the Liberal Democrats, although I cannot see any of their members in the chamber. All those parties support our taking forward this measure. That represents a mature approach and an understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves. As a Parliament, we need to work together to address the issue, which is what those in the outside world would expect us to do. That contrasts with the approach of members on the Conservative benches, who have—to be frank—taken this as an opportunity to grandstand, coming up with no answers and looking for— Craig Hoy: Will the minister give way?”
“I believe that, if we pass the bill, the matter will almost certainly go to court, because, given the very large sums involved, people will feel that they have a justifiable legal claim to make. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Murdo Fraser: It is not the job of the Scottish Conservatives, as the principal Opposition party in Holyrood, to help the failing SNP Government to clamber out of the hole that it has dug for itself. If other parties want to come to the Government’s rescue, so be it, but we will not. 18:08 Ivan McKee: I thank members who have taken part in the debate.”
“Martin Whitfield: Are the exceptional circumstances that everyone understood what the law ought to have been from that date? Murdo Fraser: I fear that, under the law, that is an entirely irrelevant matter, because the court will consider what has actually been legislated for— the letter of the law is what is important. Why are we in this mess? Who is taking responsibility? Why did nobody in the Scottish Government, the civil service, the ministerial team or the legal directorate spot the mistake? It is hugely embarrassing for the Scottish Government, and we have yet to hear an apology for the errors that have been made. I am genuinely sorry that the Labour Party is supporting the bill. Mr Griffin referred to his concern about costs—if the matter ends up going to court, the costs for the taxpayer will mount up and up and up.”
“Having looked at the case law, I can say that the case that the Scottish Government makes in the bill’s policy memorandum is, in my view, hard to sustain, because the case law refers to exceptional circumstances. In this case, the exceptional circumstances relate to legislative incompetence on the part of the Scottish Government. I find it very hard to believe that a court in Scotland would uphold that as a justification for breaching the very strong presumption against retrospective legislation taking away the property rights under article 1 of protocol 1. Martin Whitfield: Will Murdo Fraser take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: Do I have time, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will need to be very brief, Mr Whitfield.”
“A case is made in the policy memorandum, but that statement in that judgment reflects a series of other judgments from the European Court of Human Rights—including the case of the holy monasteries v Greece in 1994, the case of the former King of Greece and others v Greece in 1994 and the case of Jahn and others v Germany in 2001—so we are talking about a settled law. Jeremy Balfour: I seek clarity from Mr Fraser. Does he believe that there is no legal way for the money to be retained, or does he believe that, if further time was provided for scrutiny, a legal way around the situation could be found? Murdo Fraser: We simply do not know the answer.”
“In fact, the Court has treated retrospective legislation that was designed to rescue the state from its own error with particular suspicion. In my letter to the Presiding Officer, I referred to the case of Maurice v France from 2006. Paragraph 87 of the judgment states: “the Court has already found that the taking of property without payment of an amount reasonably related to its value will normally constitute a disproportionate interference, and a total lack of compensation can be considered justifiable under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 only in exceptional circumstances”.”
“The bill seeks to retrospectively extinguish the existing right in Scots law that, as the law stands, would give people the right to make a claim under the principle of unjust enrichment. The European Court of Human Rights is very clear about the matter. I have read the Scottish Government’s policy memorandum, which makes the case that the public interest in relation to the financial consequences for the state outweighs the property rights under article 1 of protocol 1, but let me state what the European Court of Human Rights has said. It is clear that financial considerations for the state, or the wish to avoid the consequences of a Government mistake, do not of themselves constitute a sufficient justification for extinguishing private law rights.”
“Do we know whether there are fewer empty properties now than there were in 2020, when the legislation was passed? High streets are full of empty retail and office premises. Labour market changes and increased working flexibility mean that there is less demand for office space, whereas retail is under pressure. As Craig Hoy mentioned, landlords are actively demolishing perfectly sound properties because they cannot find tenants in the short term and cannot afford to pay their rates. The policy has not delivered on its ambition, but if the minister wants to correct me with some numbers in winding up, I will listen to him. I come back to the legal question. It seems that the law in this area is quite clear. We cannot pass retrospective legislation to take away people’s rights, except in extreme circumstances.”
“Murdo Fraser: I absolutely do not want to see a hole in the public finances, but there is no point in passing a bill that is not going to achieve that because it will be defeated in the courts, and I believe that there is a very real risk that it will be. The issue is all down to SNP incompetence and incompetent drafting. We should not have to spend parliamentary time sorting out the SNP’s mistakes because someone did not do their job properly. I will look at the substance of the issue. If I remember correctly, the rationale behind removing empty property relief—which was simply another tax raid on businesses—was the belief that it would incentivise landlords to let empty properties more easily. I am interested in knowing whether that has been achieved—maybe the minister can address that in his winding-up speech.”
“Douglas Ross is right that this is a shambles; it is an absolute shambles. We have dealt with emergency legislation in the Parliament before. Emergency legislation proceeds on a very tight timescale in situations where there is a political consensus about fixing a problem that needs to be fixed urgently. We do not have a consensus now because, in the past few hours, we have unravelled the fact that there are key legal problems with the bill. My colleague Douglas Ross pointed out that the information that the Scottish Government has provided about timing has been inaccurate. It has had since June, potentially, to resolve this, but it is trying to force the bill through Parliament in 24 hours. Martin Whitfield: Do we have consensus across the chamber that we do not want to automatically reimburse £350 million?”
“The bill will enable the charging of non-domestic rates to owners of unoccupied non-domestic properties, subject to any reliefs that local authorities might choose to put in place, backdated to 1 April 2023. The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020 was intended to provide greater fiscal powers to local councils, and this bill will ensure that the Parliament’s intentions in the original legislation are realised to their fullest. 17:50”
“We know that it has been identified that a mistake was made. If the bill is passed, it will apply the necessary changes retrospectively for all levies charged since April 2023, thereby ensuring that the statute book is brought into line with the Parliament’s original intention. If the changes were not applied retrospectively, some ratepayers would have an unexpected windfall, but, significantly, around £350 million in public revenue would be lost. At a time of extreme pressure on the public finances as a result of political decisions by Labour and Tory Governments at Westminster, I welcome our SNP Scottish Government’s approach to ensuring that every penny of public revenue is recovered and allocated appropriately.”
“Is Mr FitzPatrick seriously telling us that we should pass a law that might be illegal and could be struck down by the courts? Joe FitzPatrick: No. It is clear that a legislative error was made. That has been identified in amendments to the relevant act. The purpose of the bill is to rectify that error, which is why we should do the responsible thing and support it. I understand that there is politics to be made of the issue, but the Conservatives should step up to the plate and do the responsible thing, in the same way that the Labour Party has done. I get that the Labour Party will use the issue to make things difficult for the Government more widely, but, as Mark Griffin said, it is really important that the bill is passed, so that our local authorities do not lose a significant sum of money.”
“I do not believe that that is a credible position that would survive a legal challenge in the courts. I wrote to the Presiding Officer this morning in more detail to raise my concerns about the legislative competence of the bill in relation to its retrospective impact. I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for her response, which I received this afternoon. Further to that, I would be grateful if you could advise me, Deputy Presiding Officer, what mechanisms are available to members of the Parliament to test the arguments that I have made, particularly given the very shortened timetable for scrutiny of the bill before us, to try to avoid the inevitable legal challenge that will follow if the bill is passed.”
“At paragraphs 41 and 42, the memorandum concedes that the bill retrospectively validates those payments and removes the right to repayment solely to avoid the fiscal consequences of its own legislative error. The law in this area is clear. The retrospective extinguishing of a right of possession under article 1 of protocol 1 without compensation is a serious interference that requires the strongest justification. Case law has determined that such action can be taken without payment of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. The policy memorandum is entirely unconvincing as to whether the arguments put forward by the Scottish Government meet the test of exceptional circumstances. In effect, the Scottish Government is trying to argue that legislative incompetence amounts to exceptional circumstances under the law.”
“There is no legal difficulty in the Parliament legislating that, from this point, liability should change, but the bill is to be retrospective in impact and is to date back to charges that have been levied since 1 April 2023. It is that aspect that causes a legal difficulty. As matters stand, those who have paid non- domestic rates on unoccupied properties since 1 April 2023 have a clear patrimonial right in Scots law to seek repayment under the principle of unjustified enrichment. The bill seeks to retrospectively extinguish that right in order to protect the public finances. That position is stated plainly in the policy memorandum. At paragraph 29, the Government acknowledges that the revenue was collected “without a valid legal basis”.”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I wish to raise a point of order in relation to the Non- Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill, which we are about to consider. As you will be well aware, under the Scotland Act 1998, the Parliament can pass legislation only if it complies with the European convention on human rights. I am concerned that the bill before us breaches article 1 of protocol 1 of the convention and is therefore legislatively incompetent. The bill seeks to change the law on the liability for non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties in order to cure what appears to be a defect in legislation that the Parliament passed in 2020.”
“That is what the Conservatives would have given us. Instead, Labour has let us down. Points of Order 17:15”
“Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which are already being squeezed due to a lower consumer spend in Scotland, and which have actually been given a bonus in England by Rachel Reeves today, are paying much more than their counterparts south of the border. It is little wonder that barely a week goes by without some of them closing their doors. As Liz Smith said, the differential rate of income tax in Scotland continues to damage the economy, making it harder for businesses to attract talent. Further, despite that tax taking £1.7 billion out of the economy in Scotland, the actual benefit to our public finances is only £616 million, as Audit Scotland has made clear. As Alexander Stewart said, both Governments are letting us down. Today, we needed a budget for growth, a budget for jobs and a budget for household incomes.”
“Growth is down, productivity is down, inflation is up, taxes are up, spending is up and borrowing is up. We have no new support for the oil and gas sector, no new oil and gas licences, and the EPL is being extended and will remain in place, even though the OBR says that it is unsustainable. Let us not forget the SNP record, which I will address in the short time that I have remaining. Earlier, I reminded Ivan McKee that, over the past decade, the Scottish economy has grown at one half of the UK rate on average. According to Professor Anton Muscatelli’s recent report, that is costing the Scottish budget £1 billion a year in tax revenues. The SNP has taxed business in Scotland more than they would be taxed elsewhere.”
“There is a new pay-per-mile levy on electric cars, which Jamie Greene and Jamie Hepburn referred to. Someone who has an electric car and lives in a rural part of Scotland will be paying through the nose, thanks to the choices that have been made by Labour. There is an increase in spirits duty. The number 1 ask of the Scotch whisky industry was a freeze on alcohol duty, but what has Rachel Reeves done? She has increased it and slapped on more tax. On that point, I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests. According to the OBR, the tax burden is to hit 38.3 per cent of GDP by 2030- 31—an all-time historic high—which could distort or constrain economic activity by more than expected. All of that is to pay for more welfare spending, which will be up £11 billion by 2029-30.”
“The Understanding Scotland economy tracker shows that 73 per cent of Scots expect the country’s financial situation to deteriorate in the next year, and 69 per cent say that it has got worse over the past year, thanks to Labour. Meanwhile, the public finances are in a dreadful state, with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales warning that the UK is on an unsustainable path. Labour broke its promises to business, to pensioners, to farmers, and to the WASPI women—women against state pension inequality. Now we have the budget headlines from today. Income tax and national insurance thresholds are frozen—that also means a broken promise, because taxes are going up for working people. Taxes on income from dividends, property and savings are up.”
“Despite its promises to cut spending, Labour’s welfare changes are actually increasing it. I say to Michael Marra that UK borrowing costs are surging to a 27- year high under Labour, with 30-year bond yields higher than when Liz Truss was Prime Minister. Let us leave aside the fantasy story that we heard from Michael Marra and look at Labour’s true track record. Economic growth has stalled, with the economy barely staying out of recession. When she presented her budget last year, Rachel Reeves promised that she was going to fix the economy and sort out the public finances. However, she did the opposite. The increase in employer national insurance has been disastrous. We have seen an increase in unemployment to its highest level since Covid, and businesses complain that it is a literal tax on jobs.”
“We have had briefings and counter-briefings, with the chancellor appearing on television one day saying that she was going to do one thing and then, three days later, changing her mind—income tax was going to go up, then it was not, and so on. The chaos has been deeply damaging to the economy, as my colleague Liz Smith said. Andy Haldane, the former chief economist at the Bank of England, said that the situation was a “fiasco”, that it has been “costly for the economy”, that it has “caused paralysis among business and consumers” and that it is “the single biggest reason why growth has flatlined.” That is true. The uncertainty has been deeply damaging. Before the budget, we already had the largest tax burden increase in UK history. The country is facing a £33 billion fiscal gap, which is due to profligate spending by Labour.”
“I will try to wind up the debate and respond to a few points that have been made. I have to start with the Deputy First Minister. I noticed that in her remarks she referenced Tory ineptitude. I wonder whether she has glanced at the Business Bulletin for today and tomorrow and seen that we will be spending the rest of this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon trying to fix a mess that is of the SNP’s making. Perhaps the Deputy First Minister needs to examine the beam in her eye before she extracts the mote from others. Kate Forbes: I will use four words: Liz Truss; Kwasi Kwarteng. Murdo Fraser: Well, Presiding Officer, I will mention Derek Mackay in response to that. We are here to debate the Labour budget. As Craig Hoy said, the handling of the budget—never mind the detail for a moment—has been absolutely disastrous.”
“That has an impact on the growth of industry across the wider economy.”
“Industry leaders across the oil and gas and renewables sectors have united in calling for reform of the EPL, a levy that critics say is risking the loss of 1,000 direct and indirect jobs every month. However, the chancellor confirmed today that the levy will remain in place until 2030. We are all dearly concerned that that approach will have further consequences for business confidence, jobs and investment across Scotland’s energy sector over the coming weeks, months and years. We continue to call on the UK Government to be sensible and to bring forward a sustainable fiscal regime that supports the important just transition. Meanwhile, businesses continue to face significant challenges. Those include high energy costs, which deter investment, drive higher production costs and weaken industry.”
“However, despite all that, there is no doubt about the challenge and difficulty that our economy has experienced over the past few years due to a combination of Brexit, Covid and the war in Ukraine, with the resultant energy crisis and inflation shocks all driving up the cost of living. Labour’s damaging tax on jobs and the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions have had a deeply damaging impact on our economic prospects. The Scottish Government is doing all that it can to support the transition to a low-carbon economy, but the UK Government’s current approach to the energy profits levy is driving an accelerated decline that places the energy transition at risk and destabilises economic growth opportunities.”