Ivan McKee
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We understand that the SPSO assesses complaints to identify how they should be prioritised. The SPSO prioritises cases where a complainant is vulnerable or the matter is assessed as urgent and ongoing. The SPSO keeps people who are affected by delays informed. In 2024-25, the SPSO reduced the number of open cases by 15 per cent.”
“As part of our programme of public service reform, we are embedding openness, transparency and accountability into how services are designed, delivered and improved. Our next open Government action plan will set out an anti-corruption strategy and plans for improving public participation in decision making.”
“Will he agree to meet me and other members from across the chamber to discuss how we might work together to provide legal support for the Nolan principle of integrity in public life? Ivan McKee: I am very happy to meet the member to discuss that further. Such issues are hugely important to the Government.”
“How bad does the situation have to get before a full investigation is made? Ivan McKee: That would be a matter for the Parliament, not the Government. As an organisation, the ombudsman rightly sits separate from the Government.”
“More than £300 million has been saved through more efficient procurement in the past two years and we are projecting savings of more than £50 million through the rationalisation of estates—13 core Scottish Government buildings have been closed in the past three years and there are more to follow.”
“I am delighted to open this afternoon’s debate on public service reform, which I believe will be the defining task of this session of Parliament.”
The complete record
Every one of 658 lines we hold for Ivan McKee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“Does the Scottish Government provide any support for local communities to access legal and regulatory advice, or does it expect local people to foot the bill to protect their homes and their local communities? Ivan McKee: The member will appreciate that I cannot engage in discussion about any specifics, including the case that he has raised. Every Conservative member who has spoken this afternoon has called for more resources for local government or tax cuts and, in some cases, for both. [Interruption.] I can get back to the member with the detail that is available on his question. Inverclyde Council (Funding) 5.”
“We know that too many of our councils are struggling under the weight of planning applications for energy infrastructure, and it is becoming an increasing drain on their resources. It is also a massive challenge for those local residents and communities who face having those developments right on their doorstep. On Saturday afternoon, I met residents who will be impacted by the proposed Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks substation at Fanellan. Some are already looking to move away, but they are being told that interest in their homes will be impacted by the development. Others want to stay and fight the development, but they feel that they do not have the resources or expertise to do so.”
“The Scottish Government does not hold that specific information, but I fully recognise the financial and capacity pressures on the system. That is why I raised planning fees last December, with further increases coming into effect next month. When applications for energy developments are made to the Scottish Government under the Electricity Act 1989, planning authorities receive half the fee to cover the cost of their input. In addition, the national planning hub offers support to authorities, including capacity and access to expertise, to help them to determine applications for renewable energy and housing projects. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I am surprised that the minister does not have a figure for that.”
“I am keen to continue to engage with members, local authorities and industry representatives as we seek to take the legislation forward, and as councils seek to implement it in their local areas.”
“Ivan McKee: First, the reason why Ms Forbes did not answer the question is that she has a constituency interest—I think that Douglas Ross will understand that situation. Also, I am the minister responsible for the visitor levy. I am well aware of the concern that has been raised in the Highlands, in particular, and elsewhere. Indeed, I have had a series of meetings with the Scottish Tourism Alliance, the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers and others with regard to the issues that the levy can raise for small businesses in particular. As the member is aware, the responsibility for implementing a levy lies with each local authority, and there is a range of provisions in the act to allow the local authority to design a system that is able to cater to the needs of local businesses.”
“Douglas Ross: I understand that Ivan McKee is the minister responsible for this, but given the portfolio team that is in front of us, it is disappointing that a question about the Highlands was answered by the only minister who does not represent a part of the Highlands. Does Ivan McKee accept the severe criticism about the potential for a visitor levy, including from the Highland Hotels Association, which only this week warned that it is “exceptionally frightening” for a tourism tax to be introduced in the Highlands? Does he also accept that that will impact not only on tourists who visit the area, but on local residents who have to travel from rural areas for overnight stays and potential early- morning hospital appointments? They should not have to rely on clawing that money back—they should be exempt from the very beginning.”
“I am answering the question as the minister responsible for the visitor levy. The Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 requires local authorities to prepare and publicise an assessment of the impact of any proposals to introduce a visitor levy, including on local businesses and residents. I regularly discuss a range of issues with my ministerial colleagues, and I hope to meet Ms Forbes shortly, in her capacity as an MSP, as well as Highland Council representatives to discuss the possible introduction of a visitor levy in the Highland Council authority area, as detailed in the act that was passed last year.”
“The report, which I encourage Ross Greer and others to look at, has put in place 49 planning conditions—they address all the issues that Ross Greer has raised—that need to be satisfied before the proposal is progressed, and a legally binding agreement is required to be put in place. As I said, all the issues that Ross Greer has raised have been considered in the report. He should go and read it and look at the 49 planning conditions and reflect on the reality of the decision that the reporter has reached. It is an impartial expert view, and they reached a decision based on the evidence before them.”
“The national park’s own experts recommended refusal, and its board unanimously rejected it on the bases of flood risk, loss of nature and biodiversity and a conflict with the national park’s aims, which are set out in law. That has all now been overturned by an official. Does the minister understand why it looks like the profits of a theme park operator have been put ahead of Scotland’s national interest and our world-famous natural environment? Ivan McKee: As I said earlier, the reporter has gone through the evidence and looked at it in the light of the planning regulations. They have looked at all the evidence that Ross Greer has mentioned and put together their report on the appeal.”
“The reporter has issued its notice of intention, which runs to 80 pages. As I said, it contains the 49 conditions that need to be in place before the approval can be given. That is the reality of the situation. The planning regulations have been considered in this case. The reporter has reached their expert opinion based on the evidence, which is subject to the planning conditions and legal agreement being put in place. On that basis, I have no intention of recalling the appeal. Ross Greer: Flamingo Land’s mega resort proposal was opposed by a record 155,000 people. Objectors included the National Trust for Scotland, the Woodland Trust, Ramblers Scotland and SEPA, our national environment watchdog.”
“In this case, the Government’s own environment watchdog, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, has said that the application clearly breaches flood protection rules and does not meet the exceptions that are set out in the national planning framework. That is not to mention the 250 extra cars an hour that it would bring at peak times to already congested roads, such as the A82. Does the minister accept that the law clearly gives him the power to intervene, and will he do so and reject this mega resort on the basis of the overwhelming expert evidence on the damage that it would do to a world-famous location? Ivan McKee: The expert in this case is the reporter, who is tasked with going through the planning regulations as they apply and looking at the evidence in depth.”
“Ross Greer: As he would expect, I am incredibly disappointed by the minister’s response, in particular the implication that it would not be appropriate for ministers to get involved. To be absolutely clear, paragraph 3 of schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 specifically gives that power to ministers, not officials. In 2008, the Scottish Government intervened to overturn Aberdeenshire Council’s rejection of Donald Trump’s Menie golf course. It was ministers, not officials, who overturned local democracy in order to help an American millionaire trash a sensitive natural environment.”
“I am aware that a reporter has issued a notice of intention to allow the appeal and grant planning permission in principle, which is subject to 49 planning conditions and a legal agreement being reached and put in place. As the appeal remains live, members will understand that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the proposal. However, I recognise that many people have a keen interest in the reporter’s intended decision on the planning appeal. Given the very technical planning issues that are raised in this case and the high level of public interest, I consider that it is appropriate that objective planning judgment is applied. For that reason, I do not intend to recall this appeal.”
“As she also knows well, the Government has provided health boards and local government with record funding this year to enable them, in turn, to fund IJBs, so that they can provide the services that she talked about. We will continue to engage with partners to understand how the Government can continue to support IJB funding through health boards and local government, as the 2014 act requires. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is a lot of interest in asking supplementary questions. I will try to get everybody in, but questions and answers will need to be brief.”
“Across Scotland, cuts are being made. In my constituency, community link workers are being removed and the work connect project, which provides training and work opportunities for people with learning disabilities, is being closed. Money from IJB reserves was clawed back by the Scottish National Party Government, so IJBs are no longer able to fund critical projects. What comfort can the minister offer to the most vulnerable people in our society who are losing their social care support because of the actions of his Government? Ivan McKee: As Jackie Baillie knows fine well, and as I said in my earlier answer, IJBs are funded directly through health boards and local government in partnership. That is the whole point of the integration of health and social care services under the 2014 act.”
“We are sympathetic to the fact that the social care sector faces pressures, and we are working to understand the current financial viability picture. Health and social care services are formally integrated under the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Act 2014, which sets in law the requirement for local authorities and health boards to work together and create a health and social care partnership to deliver services. IJBs must receive their delegated budgets via those partners, as direct allocations to IJBs are not possible under the 2014 act. Under current legislation, a different funding model is not possible. Jackie Baillie: The Accounts Commission reported a £560 million deficit in IJB budgets, which is having a hugely damaging impact on some of the most vulnerable people who need social care.”
“I am happy to provide Gordon MacDonald and other members with a link to the guidance that is published for communities and planning authorities on local development planning and local place plans, which provides further helpful information. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 6 is from Jackie Baillie, who joins us remotely. Integration Joint Boards (Finances) 6.”
“What responsibility lies with the local authority to take into consideration those local place plans, which are the aspirations of local communities? Ivan McKee: Local place plans are a positive way for communities to have a stronger voice in how they want their areas to develop. I commend the communities in Gordon MacDonald’s constituency for producing those local place plans. Planning authorities are required by law to take into account any registered local place plan when they are preparing a local development plan. It is for planning authorities to determine what weight and consideration to give to elements of a local place plan, but I encourage them to do so.”
“Edinburgh city plan 2040 will be the City of Edinburgh Council’s next local development plan, which is at a very early stage in its preparation. We have not discussed it with the council. On 25 March, I met Edinburgh council’s planning convener and its head of planning to discuss matters that are linked to the current city plan, which is Edinburgh city plan 2030. At that meeting, we discussed guidance on developer contributions, an infrastructure levy and future housing delivery in Granton and west Edinburgh. Gordon MacDonald: Many community organisations across the city, such as Wester Hailes Community Trust in my constituency of Edinburgh Pentlands, have produced local place plans for the deadline of August this year, at the cost of great time and expense.”
“Ivan McKee: As I said, we continue to engage with the sector on the visitor levy, but it is important to recognise that the levy will potentially raise significant amounts of money for local government and certain councils in particular. On the one hand, members on the Conservative benches complain that local government does not have enough funds, but they then complain when we take forward proposals to increase that funding, which does not really stack up. As I said, we are engaging in good faith with the sector to explore how we can take forward the visitor levy and address some of the challenges that the sector has brought before us.”
“However, if Scottish ministers are engaging in good faith with tourism stakeholders and genuinely considering amending the visitor levy, that means that people are being asked to have their say on a levy when they have no idea what the final form might be. If the Scottish National Party is committed to pushing ahead with the new tax, which many of us continue to oppose, will the minister at least consider calls from the tourism sector, including the Scottish Tourism Alliance, for implementation to be paused for at least six months to allow better time to engage with the sector on potential improvements, such as introducing a flat fee and reducing further burdens on tourism businesses by removing their role in collecting the new tax?”
“The Scottish Government receives regular input from the tourism sector regarding the visitor levy, and we are well aware of the sector’s concerns with regard to particular aspects of the levy. In March this year, both I and the First Minister spoke and answered questions at the Scottish Tourism Alliance business breakfast, at which the visitor levy was a subject of discussion. In the next couple of weeks, I will meet representatives of the Scottish Tourism Alliance and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers to discuss those matters further. Jamie Halcro Johnston: While the Scottish Government continues to prevaricate, councils across Scotland are pushing ahead with consultations on implementing the new tax.”
“However, we are, of course, still paying for the legacy of Labour’s mistakes.”
“In 2024-25, East Dunbartonshire Council paid £19.6 million in unitary charges for its schools PFI contract. The contract’s procurement began in 2005. The capital value of the project was £134 million. However, by the time that the PFI contract concludes in 2038-39, the council will have paid more than £550 million on it. Rona Mackay: Does the minister agree that Labour’s PFI legacies and the employer national insurance hike attacks on jobs are placing a burden on councils throughout Scotland? Ivan McKee: Yes, of course I do. That is why, in this year’s budget, to help to lessen the burden, we provided local government with one of the largest increases in funding in recent times. We have always made clear that PFI has not delivered best value for the taxpayer, and that is why we brought it to an end.”
“As we move forward, the Scottish Government will remain focused on its priorities of eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and ensuring that we have high-quality and sustainable public services. Those are our priorities and the priorities of the people of Scotland, but if we are to deliver the full potential of Scotland, we need to have the full powers of independence. Business Motion”
“However, I think that, as is often the case, the prize goes to Kevin Stewart, for working his nautical theme to death. He told us that, as well as being in a sea of British despair and needing to chart a new course and escape from the UK sinking ship, we will be hit by even more waves of despair as we proceed to take that path. It is deeply disappointing that we face the prospect of welfare cuts and reduced budgets as a result of the chancellor’s statement. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will set out our medium-term financial strategy at the end of May, and it is up to all of us in this Parliament to face up to those challenges.”
“We might not be back in at 9 o’clock this evening, but Brexit—a misguided policy supported by both Labour and the Tories— has resulted in a £2 billion hit to the funds available for public spending in Scotland. Just think what we could do with that money. With regard to members’ contributions, Kenny Gibson highlighted very clearly the discontent within Labour ranks; a number of Labour members highlighted the misguided nature of the welfare policies that are being taken forward by the UK Government; and Michelle Thomson expertly unpicked the optimism bias underpinning the UK Government’s spring statement. Liz Smith made, as always, an intelligent contribution, focused on the UK Government’s fiscal rules—it is true to say that we will miss her contributions in the chamber when she retires.”
“However, the data from July last year, when the Tories left office, shows that growth in the UK was at 0.2 per cent, and higher than that in Scotland. In this year’s Scottish budget, we are laying the foundations for the long-term success of our people, places and businesses, including by investing in offshore wind to the tune of £150 million and providing a further £200 million to the Scottish National Investment Bank. However, we need the UK Government to use its reserved powers to support the Scottish economy by supporting tailored migration routes, such as the proposed Scottish graduate visa; accelerating the delivery of offshore wind and hydrogen projects; and giving the go-ahead for Acorn and the Scottish cluster’s carbon storage and utilisation project. I also want to talk about Brexit, which is a hugely important issue.”
“Our unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent remains lower than the UK rate of 4.7 per cent, and proportionally more workers in Scotland are earning the real living wage compared with the rest of the UK. As for inward investment, Scotland has been the most attractive destination in the UK outside of London for such investment for nine years running. Inward investment projects in Scotland grew by 12.7 per cent in 2023, which is more than double the rate across the rest of the UK. Even now, the latest three-month data in Scotland shows 0.5 per cent growth, compared with 0.2 per cent for the UK. The Tories have been talking about how great things were back in the day when they were in office, compared with where Labour has taken the economy since it has been in power.”
“The Government is committed to working right across the economy to maximise the opportunities that lie ahead and to deliver economic growth, despite the constraints and policies of the UK Government. We remain laser focused on the vision set out in our economic strategy, which is to deliver fair, green growth for all of Scotland, and we are making good progress. Since 2007, GDP per person in Scotland has grown by 10 per cent, compared with just 6 per cent in the UK, and productivity in Scotland has grown by an average rate of 1.1 per cent, compared with a UK average of 0.4 per cent. Our economy remains resilient, with low unemployment and strong earnings growth.”
“Since 2022, recruitment controls in the Scottish Government have reduced the size of the workforce by almost half a per cent in 2022-23; by 3 per cent last year; and by a similar number this year. That trend will continue in future years. Liz Smith: Is the Scottish Government in a position to produce some statistics about the savings that have already been made, and which the minister keeps referring to, so that we have a guide to what progress is being made? I am sure that the finance committee would welcome that, too. Ivan McKee: Yes—absolutely. There is a full breakdown of that £280 million. I will send it to Liz Smith after this debate, and I will happily share it with the finance committee, too.”
“Members need to understand the reality of the situation. Indeed, we face the prospect of further cuts and tax rises in the chancellor’s autumn statement, as she struggles to maintain her fiscal rules. I want to talk briefly about our public service reform programmes, which have secured significant cost-avoidance and cash-releasing savings of more than £200 million over the two years up to the end of 2024-25. That is only the beginning; more work is being undertaken on a weekly basis to identify more opportunities to redirect resources to the front line. Our £30 million invest-to-save fund will catalyse efficiency, effectiveness and productivity projects. We are also proactively addressing the need to control workforce size in order to remain fiscally sustainable.”
“Ivan McKee: The Scottish Government will very shortly publish our medium-term financial strategy, our fiscal delivery sustainability plan and our public service reform strategy, which will clearly outline how we will continue to balance the budget— something that we have done every year for the past 17 years and something that we will continue to do into the future. The finance secretary outlined earlier how we can expect our funding to be reduced in the years ahead, and that makes it essential that we focus on our priorities and ensure that our budget is spent effectively. All of us in this Parliament need to understand that we have to not call for additional spending—as we heard from Craig Hoy himself, who called for tax cuts in one breath and more funding for public spending in the next.”
“The funding challenges that we face are made worse by the fact that the UK Government is short- changing us on funding for the rise in employer national insurance contributions, to the tune of around £400 million. We have called on the chancellor to commit to fully funding the additional costs, but she has failed to do so, meaning that the Scottish Government faces having to take funding from front-line services to fill the gap. Craig Hoy: As we are talking about taking money from front-line services and putting it elsewhere, if the Government sticks to its guns on welfare expenditure and continues to spend £2 billion more on welfare expenditure than it receives in Barnett consequentials, where is that money going to come from: front-line services or tax rises?”
“That will mean less money to support our priorities and the investment that we are making to strengthen public services and tackle poverty. It is yet another example of the UK Government taking bad decisions that impact on the funding that we have for our priorities in Scotland. The Scottish Government is already spending £210 million this year to mitigate damaging UK Government welfare policies, and we have committed to effectively scrapping the two-child limit from next year, but we are at the limit of what we can do with our current powers. The UK benefit cuts will reduce the funding that we receive for our devolved benefits; indeed, funding from the UK Government for social security is forecast to reduce by more than £400 million in 2029-30.”
“I welcome this afternoon’s debate and thank members for their contributions. I will cover some of them briefly later. As my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government said in her own statement, the UK spring statement has caused widespread concern, as has been evident from listening to members this afternoon. We all have constituents who are very worried about the impact of the chancellor’s cuts to benefits for sick and disabled people, and we all have seen the alarming impact assessment that the UK Government has published on its own policies, which clearly shows the number of people who will lose out as a result of the changes. The finance secretary also described how the UK Government’s cuts will impact on our budget for future years.”
“It does so out of desperation and because Rachel Reeves has run out of the fiscal headroom that she thought she had only six months ago. I warn the UK Government that the Office for Budget Responsibility still notes that the spring statement has only a 50 per cent chance of restoring that headroom, because borrowing is soaring, debt is becoming more expensive to service and the revenues and savings that Labour expects are proving stubbornly difficult to achieve.”
“Although Rachel Reeves will blame anyone and everyone, the fact is that that economic misery is a direct result of her political choices—her choice to roll over to the unions on public sector pay, her choice to change the rules on borrowing and her choice to undermine growth and investment by breaking Labour’s pledge not to increase national insurance. I agree with Labour that the benefits bill in the UK is too high, and that applies even more so in Scotland. Any Government that prioritises benefits over growth is living in a parallel universe if it believes that that is anything other than unsustainable. We need to question why Labour is doing this now. The action is not being taken because the Labour Government has had some Damascene conversion to small-state conservatism.”
“Beyond the two or three items that we can welcome, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s emergency budget was a grim moment for the country, because it is now clear that Labour’s political choices are making Britain worse off. Projected growth for 2025 halved from 2 per cent to 1 per cent. Inflation and unemployment are both set to increase. The tax burden is set to hit a historic post-war high of 37.7 per cent of gross domestic product. Just yesterday, businesses, charities and local government bodies, including the Scottish Government, were hit by Labour’s cynical jobs tax, as well as the change in thresholds, which is impacting many small businesses.”
“Stuff is coming through the system. Craig Hoy: It is coming through the system very slowly, and there are supply and labour issues that the SNP has not addressed through its skills agenda to make sure that we can get houses built. I give a cautious welcome to public sector reforms but, to deliver those reforms, UK ministers must develop a backbone in the face of their union paymasters, and SNP ministers must be bolder in their approach. I listened to the cabinet secretary say that she welcomes the cost savings that the Scottish Government is going to make. I noticed that it is a 0.2 per cent saving over this year. A fifth of 1 per cent is hardly something to boast about.”
“To those who question its necessity, I say that global security underpins economic security, as it prevents the sort of economic shocks that we saw when Russian boots landed on the soil in Ukraine, which here at home meant a £1,000 increase in energy costs for every British adult. We also welcome and recognise the need for reform of the planning laws in England, which could drive much-needed growth, as the Office for Budget Responsibility says. However, how quickly will that happen? Will the same approach follow in Scotland, where, for example, recent data has shown that the number of new-build starts is now running at its lowest for a decade? Ivan McKee: Does the member recognise that, over the past five years, the number of housing units being given planning permission has been 30 per cent higher than the number of housing starts?”
“Will the member take an intervention? Craig Hoy: It is a bit of a cheek to ask for an intervention 20 seconds into my speech when the cabinet secretary would not take an intervention for 20 minutes. I will take an intervention when I am further into my speech. Before I turn to the SNP Government’s choices and the choice that it faces, I need to start with the spring statement, which was another broken promise, because it was the second major fiscal event in a matter of months. I will start with the positives, for there were some, if not many. We welcome the increase in defence spending.”
“On the specifics of the visitor levy, as I have indicated, the Government is absolutely committed to working with the grown-ups in the room, as well as the sector, local authorities, Transport Scotland and others who recognise that a levy is the right step to take to raise more money to support the tourism industry, to work through challenges and to determine the best way to implement the scheme so that it works for everybody.”
“Ivan McKee: It is not surprising that yet another Tory member is standing up and calling for a reduction in funding to local authorities while, probably in their next breath, other Tory members—or perhaps even Mr Halcro Johnston himself—will be standing up and asking the Government to provide more funding to local authorities. The lack of consistency and the level of economic illiteracy across the Tory benches is again on display this afternoon.”
“The levy is a tax on visitors, but it is also a tax on the wider tourism sector, local businesses, local communities and even people visiting family and friends in hospital. At the Economy and Fair Work Committee last week, I was told that Ivan McKee is engaging with the tourism sector to see whether anything can be done on the visitor levy legislation. It is not even a year since it was passed and it appears that the Scottish Government is having to try to make that bad legislation slightly less bad. Does that not just prove that the Scottish National Party got it wrong in the first place?”
“The Scottish Government continues to engage regularly with the tourism sector and local government, particularly councils that have agreed to explore introducing a visitor levy. In addition, we are working closely with VisitScotland to establish a series of discussions with stakeholders to hear their views and to inform the implementation of the levy. The legislation requires a national review of the visitor levy within three years of the first scheme being introduced. We would ensure that that assesses the impact on businesses and communities. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I opposed the visitor levy legislation as it passed through the Parliament, and I oppose its implementation by local councils in my region.”
“I encourage MSPs to promote the use of the fund locally. The rural housing and islands housing funds continue to be available for other organisations, including community organisations, to acquire homes to meet local demand. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (Funding) 6.”
“I was a key worker in a rural area in the 1960s when I moved to a key workers’ house in Galloway as a schoolteacher. However, neither of the councils in my constituency—Midlothian Council and Scottish Borders Council—seem to be aware of the fund. I therefore ask whether it can be given more publicity and made much more accessible, as the councils simply do not know about it. Ivan McKee: I congratulate Christine Grahame on using this platform, because the many people who are watching the live stream of the Parliament’s proceedings will now be very much aware of the fund. I confirm that up to £21 million is available over the next three years to support this demand-led fund. It is available to local authorities and registered social landlords for the purchase of suitable properties where there is identified need.”
“The Scottish Government has committed up to £25 million as part of the affordable housing supply programme from 2023 to 2028 to support the acquisition of homes in rural communities for key workers. To date, more than £4 million has been committed to support the acquisition of 26 homes, including the acquisition of six homes at a cost of more than £1.3 million in the Western Isles, where the local authority is a stock transfer authority. Local authority and registered social landlord partners have identified the potential for a further 40 homes to be acquired, and Scottish Government officials continue to actively work with them to maximise the use of the fund. Christine Grahame: I do not want to disappoint the minister about “actively” communicating. As we know, the issue of recruiting key workers to rural areas is not new.”
“The Scottish Government funds part of that work, which is focused on working with local authorities through peer-to-peer review, identifying best practice, supporting linking up so that authorities can learn from one other, and helping them to improve their processes to be the best in class. Through the planning hub, which is focused on housing, the Scottish Government is working initially to identify stalled sites and where we can provide extra resource and expertise to unlock opportunities across the country—particularly, it must be said, in the local authorities that Mr Mundell identifies, which might not have as much resource in the planning team as other, larger authorities have. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will allow a couple of supplementary questions, but they will need to be brief.”