Liz Smith
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against.”
“As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient.”
“I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech: “Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.” It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building stand…”
“As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of produ…”
“That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action.”
“It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Liz Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“It includes continuing to support the most generous social contract in any part of the UK, which includes things like free prescriptions and free higher education and support such as the Scottish child payment. It also supports the revitalisation of our NHS by delivering a record £21.7 billion of funding for health and social care, including an increase of £2 billion for front-line NHS boards. Finally, it will enable us to capitalise on new green technologies that will provide future prosperity across the country by funding the expansion of our offshore wind capacity to the tune of £150 million next year. Those are just some examples of the investments that the proposed income tax policy that I have set out today supports.”
“Members should make no mistake about what that means: more money for nurses, general practitioners, teachers and the police as a direct result of the decisions that we have taken on tax. A full-time public sector employee in Scotland earned, on average, around £1,250 more than the UK average in 2024. If members across the chamber wish to recognise the hard work of Scotland’s vital public sector workers, they need to support our income tax policy, which raises the revenue required to agree fair public sector pay settlements. Let me set out what that means in practical terms. Our progressive approach to income tax policy underpins the entire budget settlement that we have been debating in the Parliament this month.”
“We do not intend to introduce any new bands or increase the rates of Scottish income tax for the remainder of this parliamentary session, and we commit to uprating the starter and basic rate bands by at least inflation. We will maintain the higher, advanced and top rate thresholds at their current levels, and we will continue to deliver on our pledge to protect lower-income households, ensuring that more than half of taxpayers pay less than they would elsewhere in the UK for the remainder of this session. The SFC has confirmed that, as a result of those decisions, our income tax policy will raise an additional £52 million in 2025-26, and it estimates that Scotland’s income tax policy will raise a record £20.5 billion in total for the Scottish budget in 2025-26—that is £745 million more than it forecast for the Scottish budget last year.”
“Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, when it comes to the question of stability, one of the big issues that the Deputy First Minister has cited recently is the fact that the Scottish tax base is not sufficiently wide and that there is considerable uncertainty as a result? Shona Robison: At the start of my statement, I set out the performance of the Scottish economy. Allied to the action that we are taking to grow the Scottish economy and, therefore, the tax base is the fact that we have positive net in-migration to Scotland, across all tax bands. That is something that we want in order to continue to grow the tax base, because we recognise its importance.”
“In relation to the financial literacy of young people, does the Scottish Government now regret removing the funding from Young Enterprise Scotland in October, given how much work it does with primary and secondary pupils to improve financial literacy? Shirley-Anne Somerville: Kate Forbes has answered many questions on that and has reassured members—including, I hope, Liz Smith—that there are many opportunities for young people to be assisted, encouraged and inspired by the role that enterprise can play in schools. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 5.”
“Figures from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Fraser of Allander Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies all show that implications arise from the UK Labour Government imposing tax rises and from the Scottish Government hiking taxes, which Craig Hoy mentioned in his opening remarks. That matters, too. The combination of a high-tax scenario in Scotland and the implications of the national insurance changes in the UK is having a detrimental effect when it comes to rewarding entrepreneurship, innovation and job creation, which we need to be very careful about. I cannot stress enough just how serious this issue is at the very time that Scotland needs to create economic growth. 17:00”
“The increase in employer national insurance contributions will have a very serious impact on many people in Scotland, as well as businesses and disability charities, which provide extremely important services to our most vulnerable in society, and it will create negative externalities in the market. Michelle Thomson, who knows all about negative externalities, as well as elasticities, will perhaps agree with that point, because they are serious. We might talk about grand economic theory, but such issues matter on the ground to the people who are running businesses. That is the problem that Labour must face, because, as other members have said, businesses are having to reduce staff and cut salaries and working hours, which is not acceptable. I will finish on a point about the Scottish economic context.”
“I do not understand the policy, and the university sector feels extremely strongly about it. Labour’s rationale for the tax hike was that it would plug what it described as a £22 billion black hole, although that statistic was greatly disputed by various economists and commentators. Labour believes that it will ensure that money will be available for investment in public services, especially in schools and the NHS. It also told us that there were other policies that would help, so nobody should get too worried about it. Frankly, I find that bizarre.”
“That knowledge also tells us that increasing employer national insurance contributions makes hiring staff and creating new jobs, especially in labour-intensive industries such as retail and hospitality, much more challenging, which, in turn, is likely to have a negative effect on the very thing that we so desperately need—economic growth. We know what housing associations are saying about the effect that that will have on the market. Where is the logic in a policy that our universities have said will cost them more than £45 million, on top of the very serious funding gap that they all face, which most vice-chancellors in Scotland have been warning about for months? Where is the logic, given that we want our universities to be leaders in innovation and development?”
“It is a policy that explicitly breaks Labour’s manifesto commitment, despite what Daniel Johnson—who is not in the chamber at the moment—said. I remind him that, in 2022, Ian Murray, who is now Secretary of State for Scotland, and Jackie Baillie said that the national insurance rise would have a significant detrimental impact on working people. That is an important point. A knowledge of the most basic economics—never mind Michelle Thomson’s advanced understanding of elasticity, for which I give her great credit—tells us exactly what will happen: costs will rise, jobs will be lost and prices will rise for consumers.”
“When we debated the issue just three short months ago, I reminded members of the time in 2010 when 50 prominent Scottish business leaders told Gordon Brown, the then Prime Minister, that the main threat to Britain’s economic recovery was that of putting a tax on jobs, which is exactly what has happened with the move that we are debating today. The late Alex Salmond protested vehemently alongside those Scottish business leaders, because he feared that such a tax would have the worst effects on the Scottish economy. The tax on jobs that is now in place thanks to the UK Labour Government means that employers will have to fork out £900 extra for each employee on median average earnings and £770 extra for those on the minimum wage.”
“Frankly, SNP members need to inject a little bit more honesty into their arguments. When it comes to passing their budget, they often charge members on the Opposition benches who have come forward with proposals for additional expenditure with saying how they would pay for it. Where would the money come from? What else would they cut? Those are the questions that I pose to them. If they do not want to increase employer national insurance contributions, what would they cut? They do not want to increase tax and, I presume, they do not want to increase borrowing. Are they saying that we should reject the £5.2 billion from the block grant that the measure delivers?”
“The SNP is not only calling for changes to national insurance contributions. In addition, SNP ministers and members have proposed almost £70 billion of additional public expenditure in the lead up to the budget without having a single idea about how to pay for that. There is no spending decision that the SNP is not in favour of, but it is without a single proposal about how it would pay for them. At the general election, the SNP called for an increase in borrowing to pay for additional public expenditure, but without any credible plan for how to deliver that. There is a parallel with that—Trussonomics. Unplanned borrowing leads to financial chaos and to the instability that members on the Government benches are all too keen to criticise the Conservatives for.”
“That is not something that I would advise at this time, when people are struggling to make ends meet and to pay their monthly utility bills. Would SNP members increase employee national insurance contributions? That would have exactly the same effect. Would they put up VAT, which is the most regressive form of tax and the one that hits the poorest people hardest? We have heard no alternatives from the SNP. The only contribution has been from the First Minister, who suggested that the UK Government should raise UK income tax to match levels in Scotland. It seems that the First Minister, who helped to negotiate the fiscal framework, has forgotten how it works. According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, that would reduce the amount of money that would be available to the Scottish Government by £636 million.”
“In Germany, employer contributions are 50 per cent higher than they are in this country and those in France are double what ours are. The decision was not easy and was not one that the UK Labour Government wanted to make, but it was necessary—which brings me to the question about what SNP members are proposing as an alternative, because that is not clear. They reject the fiscal measure of increasing employer national insurance payments, but they also voted against the windfall tax and against changes to the loophole for people with non-domiciled status. What would the SNP do differently? What fiscal measures would it take? This may be where we need to exchange stern looks. What would the SNP do? Would it increase personal income tax?”
“The choices that the Labour Government had to make to fix the foundations of the economy were not cost free. As someone who was an employer before coming to Parliament, I understand the difficulty that the measure will cause for employers who have to make payroll payments every month. I understand that, but the measure was necessary. I also note that, although larger employers are being asked to contribute more, those who employ five people or fewer will benefit because the increased thresholds will remove altogether 57,000 SMEs from making national insurance contributions. It is also important to note the international context. The rate of employer contributions puts us absolutely in the middle among countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.”
“I remind Mr Johnson what the UK Labour Government’s manifesto said in 2024. It said that a UK Labour Government “will not increase taxes on working people” and “will not increase National Insurance”. How does that tie up with what he has just said? Daniel Johnson: The manifesto said, “taxes on working people”. The reality of the fiscal context was that there were difficult decisions to be made. This is not a magic bullet for public sector reform but, with one in six Scots on NHS waiting lists and with attainment falling in schools, we need additional public funds—although I also argue that we need reform and that we must modernise delivery of public services. I am not going to stand here and say that the decisions were easy, because they were difficult.”
“They are critical to tackling inequalities by providing wide-ranging learning resources to people who could otherwise not afford them. However, we all know that libraries go far beyond just simple access to books and intellectual stimulation; they are social hubs and are important for local networking. That is even more the case in rural areas and, as Mark Ruskell rightly said, it has been so true following the Covid pandemic. We all owe a debt of gratitude for the facilities that libraries provide to our campaigners. I am happy to support the motion in the name of Mark Ruskell. 17:43”
“Both young and older people who were there spoke, and many others who had been doing their shopping in the city centre joined in as the demonstration was taking place. That diversity has been reflected in the correspondence that members have received from people who—rightly, in my opinion—have been venting their frustration. Part of that frustration came about because they felt that there had not been a proper consultation process. By some accounts, some fairly frequent library users had been unaware of that so-called consultation process, which was deeply regrettable. Earlier in the debate, we heard why library facilities are so important to our local communities. There is substantial evidence that they generate meaningful economic, educational and social value.”
“All have made the point that, in a budget year that could see quite substantial council tax rises, they want their services to reflect those payments. If we are asking constituents to pay more, they do not want to have fewer services. That is a valid point that many of them have made. The demonstration in Perth had somewhere between 200 and 250 attendees. That is credit to the campaigners in the Save Our Rural Libraries group, who have done such an excellent job in raising the profile of the issue and garnering the widespread support of MSPs and local councillors. It was obvious to all who were in the crowd that day that—to come back to Christine Grahame’s point—the love of libraries transcends generations.”
“I add my thanks to Mark Ruskell for securing this extremely important debate. Like Mr Ruskell and several other members in the chamber, I attended the recent rally in Perth city centre. My inbox has been full of emails from constituents expressing, in vivid terms, how upset they are about potential library closures. That is why I raised the issue at First Minister’s question time on 12 December. I was grateful that John Swinney recognised the role of libraries, but I hope that the Scottish Government recognises just how strongly local people feel about the issue. My constituents, many of whom are in the public gallery, are facing local library closures in Comrie, Auchterarder, Alyth, Scone and Birnam.”
“Annabelle Ewing was quite right to raise that issue, because it is extremely important. Does the minister agree that the provision of out-of-hours services in St Andrews, which has been under considerable pressure, also deserves Government attention to ensure that its widespread use is continued? Ivan McKee: As I indicated, the process that we have in place means that health boards identify their local priorities and they will be considered as part of the whole-system NHS infrastructure plan. I am sure that the requirement that Liz Smith identified in St Andrews will get due consideration as part of that process.”
“When it comes to the welfare spend, it is absolutely essential that we do not go on with the current system, because we simply cannot afford it. There is a spiralling set of benefits in this country, yet the Scottish Government does not have the money to pay for them. To me, that is simple arithmetic—it is simple economics—and that is where the Scottish Government should listen a lot to what the Finance and Public Administration Committee is saying. 15:59”
“However, there are lots of other areas in which that is not the case. For example, many more people in Scotland are now staying on the welfare benefits case load, which is not happening down south. In addition, over the course of just one year, the budget for the child disability payment will increase by 37 per cent, but, as far as I can see, we have not yet had any explanation as to why that is. There is a balance to be achieved, and it is important that, when we look at the welfare side of things, we make a calculation that is based on where the evidence shows that the benefits are helpful and not where it shows that they have quite clearly put us on a trajectory whereby we simply cannot afford them. I will finish on this point.”
“Kate Forbes: I am often struck by the point that Liz Smith has just identified, which is that the Conservatives obviously have a different approach from that of the SNP on matters of taxation and budget spend but are always consistent in pushing us to go further in spending more on welfare when it comes to specific examples. Does she think that it requires a little bit more financial arithmetic to understand that, when the Conservative party pushes the Government to go further on certain spend, which probably happens every day, that cannot be married with a reduction in tax? Liz Smith: What matters is what the evidence is saying. When it comes to welfare benefits, we are clear that payments should be made where the evidence shows that the benefit is decent, which is the case when it comes to the child payment.”
“I come to the Scottish Conservative policy on benefits. Are we committed to the welfare state? We absolutely are, in order to provide a helping hand to those who are most in need. Did we vote for the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018? Yes, we did, because we believed that the new devolved benefits would be better administered in Scotland, even if many of the principles underpinning the system are much the same as those underpinning that of the Department for Work and Pensions. Kate Forbes: Will Liz Smith take an intervention? Liz Smith: Let me just finish this point. Did we vote for the Scottish child payment in 2021? Yes, we did, because we agreed with the sentiments of the Scottish Government on addressing child poverty. I believe that recent evidence shows that that was the correct decision.”
“That social contract could be very important, but there is no point in having a social contract with the people of Scotland if we cannot fund all the payments that we want to make. We are certainly in no position at the moment to be able to do that, which I think the cabinet secretary knows well as she debates the issue. It is all well and good to promise the earth when it comes to free benefits and mitigations, but the Scottish Government is simply not able to fund all that, given the current expenditure forecast. It keeps telling us that there will be significant savings to come from public service reform, digitisation and better workforce planning, but, as the Finance and Public Administration Committee said, it is very hard to see the evidence of that, and it is clearly not going to happen in time for this budget.”
“In response to the committee, the Scottish Government said that it will “continue to take a responsible and capable approach to Scotland’s finances as new budget pressures emerge ... monitoring all areas of expenditure during the year, prioritising ... and maximising efficiencies.” It is little wonder that the committee— unanimously, I may say—did not consider that to be an adequate response, because, quite frankly, it tells us nothing, except perhaps that the Scottish Government really does not know where the money is coming from to pay for the very high social security budget, which has ballooned out of control in recent months. Michelle Thomson is not in the chamber just now, but I was interested in the debate that we had about the social contract.”
“We know that the Scottish Parliament information centre has said that “Scottish Government decisions on social security have cumulatively added significant cost pressures to its budget.” We know, too, that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has calculated that social security payments in 2025-26 will cost £1.334 billion more than they would have done had we remained at UK levels, and that the figure will rise to £1.463 billion in 2029-30—and that is not accounting for inflation. That is why the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, in his speech last week, repeated the committee’s question to the Scottish Government on how it will “assess the long-term affordability and sustainability of its social security policies and their impact on other areas of spend”.”
“Perhaps the biggest concern for the Finance and Public Administration Committee, as it is for the Scottish Fiscal Commission and Audit Scotland, is the lack of long-term planning for fiscal sustainability and, just as important, a complete lack of clarity from the Scottish Government when it comes to the committee’s repeated requests as to how ministers will create that financial sustainability in the future. I want to put this in the context of social security.”
“The Parliament will be very well aware of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concern about several key issues over the course of the budget process. There is no discernible improvement in widening the tax base—something that I rightly hear the Deputy First Minister referring to quite regularly. The persistently higher tax rates levied on medium and higher earners are not delivering the extent of the tax revenues that are needed to pay for the projected increases in public expenditure. A further concern is that public sector reform is too slow, and there is a lack of convincing evidence in that regard.”
“The politics of that aside, from the committee’s point of view, that is an issue of fiscal sustainability. Obviously, budget choices are political choices, and those will be made next week, but the Finance and Public Administration Committee is demonstrating that there are some underlying principles on which we must base our scrutiny of financial decisions within this Parliament for that to be effective. The committee is pretty unanimous on that. Indeed, having all the parties that are represented on the committee to be consistently unanimous on that point tells us something. The Government should consider the issue because, in my opinion, the committee is absolutely right to take that approach to scrutiny. The Presiding Officer: We move to winding up speeches and I call Ivan McKee, who has six minutes. 16:45”
“That is key, because, at the moment, the evidence on public sector reform is simply not there. The most important issue that emerges from our report is the fact that there is a lack of longer-term planning for fiscal sustainability. That is the committee’s greatest concern. Our concern is all the greater, given that this is not the first time that we have had to make that point to the Scottish Government. For all the time that I have been on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, we have been saying the same thing. In that context, the convener rightly made the point that, given the expansion in health and social care budgets and social security budgets, we will have to do something about that, because, at the moment, the increases in those budgets are significantly higher than we can afford.”
“We must have the ability to raise sufficient revenue to ensure that we can do many of the things that we would like to do in Scotland, while improving productivity and economic growth. The second most important issue is that of public sector reform. I think that the Government is trying its best to go down that road, but the committee is saying to it that, at the moment, it is more of a concept, as the Government is not able, in practical terms, to prove to us that it is actually happening. I refer the Minister for Public Finance, who I think will be summing up the debate for the Government, to the paragraph in the committee’s report in which we ask for regular, six-monthly updates on the up-front costs of, and the cumulative benefits from, such reform.”
“At the end of his speech, Ross Greer said that he felt that the format for today’s debate is not the right format. I concur, and I think that several colleagues around the chamber do, too. The Parliament needs to have a finance bill—that is certainly an idea that the Finance and Public Administration Committee would like to consider— as that would enable much more effective scrutiny to be conducted across the board in Parliament, on a consistent basis. If we had a finance bill, that would make it much easier for members to come to conclusions. For me, there are three main issues. Michelle Thomson spoke about the need to widen the tax base—she is right about that.”
“I, too, thank the convener of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, and my colleagues on the committee, because I think that we have had a fairly level-headed focus on the task in hand. Budgets are always important, for obvious reasons, but the 2025-26 budget is particularly important because of the questions about fiscal sustainability for the future and all the uncertainties that that brings. Our budget consideration is set in the context of our facing some very worrying global trends, which are affecting world supply chains. Ross Greer rightly said that, next week, we will all have our political hats on for the debate on the Budget (Scotland) (No 4) Bill, but what is important today is that we consider the scrutiny issues and the other significant issues that the committee has raised in relation to the budget.”
“I intend to give guidance on employer national insurance contributions to all public sector organisations, including local government, as soon as possible.”
“Delivering and supporting high-quality sustainable public services is a priority for all of us across the chamber, which is why the budget provides a record £21.7 billion for health and social care. That investment will increase capacity as well as focusing on driving productivity and optimising existing resources. The budget recognises the importance of local government and will provide local authorities with a funding package of more than £15 billion in 2025-26. The Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee has called for a reduction in ring-fenced funding, and I am pleased to say that the 2025-26 budget baselines a further £524.9 million of local government funding. I appreciate that all budgets in the public sector are under pressure.”
“Growing the economy and delivering on our net zero ambition are strategic priorities for the Government and are of interest to multiple committees. We are almost tripling our investment in offshore wind to £150 million, which will support the economy and help to deliver on our net zero ambitions. To deliver our programme of support for Scotland’s businesses, the 2025-26 budget provides £321 million for our enterprise agencies, which is an increase of £14 million from 2024-25. More broadly, in 2025-26, the budget commits £4.9 billion of investment with a positive benefit for climate. Our strong focus on sustainable transport means that nearly £2.9 billion will be invested in public transport infrastructure and green initiatives.”
“More widely, the new budget will invest £768 million in the affordable housing supply programme next year, an investment that was welcomed by the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which highlighted the lack of affordable housing supply. It is a sad fact that poverty leads to lower achievement at school and beyond. That is why the Government will invest more than £1 billion in high-quality funded early learning and childcare as part of the budget. The new budget also includes £186.5 million for local authorities to maintain teacher numbers and £29 million for additional support needs to support the recruitment and retention of the ASN workforce, the latter of which is of particular interest to the Education, Children and Young People Committee.”
“The Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s report “UK Poverty 2025” is clear that only Scotland is expected to see child poverty rates fall by 2029, with rates forecast to rise in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is recognition that the action that is being taken in Scotland is reducing child poverty, but more work has to be done. The budget invests significantly to reduce the pressure on household budgets by allocating more than £3 billion a year to policies that tackle poverty and the cost of living. The Government is going further to prioritise action to develop the systems to mitigate the two-child limit, which could lift 15,000 children out of poverty.”
“However, I am aware that the Minister for Public Finance has had quite deep engagement with the committee on his work on public service reform, and I know that he is keen to continue that engagement on the detail of that work. On the PSR invest to save fund, I am pleased to confirm that we have written to public bodies to provide guidance and an application form to invite funding bids. I am happy to write separately to the committee to share that information. I want to move on to recognise some key points that were raised by the other committees in their budget scrutiny. Eradicating child poverty, which is the Government’s top priority, has been of interest to a number of committees.”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary, and I am sure that the committee members are, too. One of the fundamental points that the convener raised in his opening speech was the fact that, time and again, the committee is having to repeat its request for important information about public sector reform. This is not the first year that we have had that—it is probably the fourth year that we have been asking for it. One of the committee’s disappointments is that it takes such a long time to get answers. Does the cabinet secretary accept that? Shona Robison: We take any issues that are raised by the committee seriously, and we will seek to respond to them in as positive a way as we can.”
“Will the First Minister join me in condemning what has been the third data breach by NHS Tayside of patient confidentiality in the Sam Eljamel case, which has further undermined the trust of former patients? The matter is now, rightly, in the hands of the Information Commissioner, but what action can the Scottish Government take to stop such data breaches ever happening again?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Auditor General for Scotland’s November 2024 report, “Fiscal sustainability and reform in Scotland”, which states that “the Scottish Government has not been sufficiently transparent with the Scottish Parliament or the public about the current fiscal situation”. (S6O-04196)”
“Given her questions about overall winter heating payments for those on low incomes, I take it, again, that Liz Smith thinks that we should be doing more than we are already doing and therefore spending more on social security. In my statement, I went through why I think that the principles behind our policy, based on co-design, have provided extra support and financial certainty for people at important times. If Liz Smith wishes us to spend more money on social security, I am happy to have those discussions with her, but we must be honest about the intent behind those questions and about whether she genuinely wishes me to deliver that. If she did, that would involve taking part in budget discussions; to date, that has not happened.”
“In budget debates and in First Minister’s question time, we are continually challenged to cut social security expenditure, but Liz Smith seems now to be asking me to spend more money than we are already providing to a scheme. If Liz Smith genuinely wishes to do that, budget negotiations are continuing, so she can explain to me and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government where the money would come from to deliver that. Previously, we have gone over in great detail the details of the pension-age winter heating payment, and I am very pleased that the Scottish Government will reintroduce a universal winter heating payment for all pensioner households. That is exactly what people would expect their Government to do.”
“I thank the cabinet secretary for her statement, but the Scottish Government’s proposed pension-age winter heating payment for winter 2025-26 is not a reinstatement of the previous UK Government’s winter heating payment. That payment provided £200 to every pensioner—£300 to those over 80 years old—while the Scottish Government’s policy gives £100 as a universal payment. What criteria did the Scottish Government use to make the policy decision that, obviously, does not reinstate the previous payment? Secondly, even if it disagreed with the previous criteria, did the Scottish Government give any consideration to whether the winter heating payment should include extra support for extreme weather situations? Shirley-Anne Somerville: I am a bit confused about the principles behind where the Scottish Conservatives want to go on social security.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is regarding the latest reported concerns on the use of Hikvision CCTV devices by local authorities in Scotland. (S6F- 03677)”
“I will finish on the point that the Auditor General raised with us at the Finance and Public Administration Committee this morning. It has been raised several times—in that committee and in lots of other committees in Parliament. The Scottish Government is getting itself into an awful lot of trouble because it is trying to address policy issues by using short-term fixes. We are told time and again that those short-term fixes will not work because there is no medium-term and long-term planning for financial sustainability. That is a very important message. We will not be able to tackle the root causes of child poverty unless we have fiscal responsibility. On that point, I will finish. 16:58”