Official Report 978KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20199, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Tuesday 6 January 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee Debate: Civil Legal Assistance in Scotland
followed by Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Debate: Petition PE2018: Recognise the Value of Swimming Pools and Provide Financial Relief to Help Keep Pools Open
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 7 January 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business;
Justice and Home Affairs
followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.10 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 8 January 2026
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:
Education and Skills
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill
followed by Financial Resolution: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
Tuesday 13 January 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Ministerial Statement: Scottish Budget 2026-27
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill
followed by Financial Resolution: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 14 January 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic;
Finance and Local Government
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 15 January 2026
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 5 January 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Graeme Dey]
17:18
I wish to add to the proposed business a ministerial statement on the forthcoming rates revaluation. I have intimated the substance of my argument to Mr Dey, Mr McKee and the First Minister. If the draft valuations for several sectors were to take effect from next April, they would result in the mass closure of thousands of Scottish businesses and threaten the viability of high streets.
I gather from Stephen Montgomery of the Scottish Hospitality Group that the increases in values for some hotels and pubs are up to 300 per cent. However, I wish to direct my remarks towards the self-catering sector. There are 16,513 such properties in Scotland and they face an average increase of 120 per cent and, in some cases, increases of up to 300 per cent.
Is Fergus Ewing aware that, this morning, the Scottish Conservatives met with organisations, including the Scottish Hospitality Group, UKHospitality Scotland and the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers, to hear at first hand their very real concerns about the revaluation process, and to launch our campaign for an immediate pause in the increases that will stem from it?
Does he agree that ministers simply cannot proceed, given that they are now aware of the devastating consequences that the tax increases will have on hospitality and tourism operators, jobs, the business-operating environment and the Scottish economy more widely, and will he—in the spirit of cross-party solidarity—visit scottishconservatives.com today and sign up to our campaign to halt this Scottish National Party business tax hike? If the Government does not listen, it will be “Last Christmas” for many of our cherished businesses.
I think that there should be a cross-party approach, and I gather that there is a good prospect that that is what is going to happen. It is the right thing to do, so I am happy to sign any motion that sets that out. There we are.
Are those businesses doing so well? No. A survey of 444 businesses that was carried out by the ASSC found that 47 per cent said that they were doing worse than before. Some said that bookings are falling off a cliff for the forthcoming year.
The Scottish Assessors Association determines and fixes the valuations. I took up the case in writing with its president, Heather Honeyman, who replied:
“In relation to the methodology of the valuation, reference to rents is key ... The primary evidence is rents”.
However, only 3 per cent of the 16,513 businesses have rents, because those properties are self-catering. They are not private rents. They are let on a weekly basis. There is no yardstick at all. The rent is not an arm’s-length arrangement—it is very much between connected parties.
The clincher is that it is not only the trade bodies across the sector that object to this; it is the Valuation Office Agency in England, which does the same job as the Assessors Association in Scotland. What does it have to say about the method that is being used by Heather Honeyman and the Scottish assessors? It said:
“When we value a property, we generally look at the market value”
and rent.
“However, this way of valuing would not be suitable for self-catering holiday homes”.
That is the what the Valuation Office Agency of the UK said. Let me repeat that. It said:
“this way of valuing would not be suitable for self-catering holiday homes.”
because of a lack of rental information.
It went on:
“We look at the annual income that the property is expected to generate when let at its full potential. We request details of income and expenditure from different types of self-catering operators to see what the fair maintainable trade would be.”
That is exactly the method that the assessors in Scotland used to use. The Scottish Assessors Association has abandoned the method that works in England.
I understand what Fergus Ewing said about the difference between the assessors in England and the assessors in Scotland, but, as the Scottish ministers will say, assessors are independent. It is the Scottish ministers who have the power to make the change, and that is where we should be looking.
Indeed so. That is why the solution is not rates relief or tinkering around with the valuations—there is not enough time to do that. The solution is postponing the revaluation. It was done in 2022. It has been done before and it should be done again. That is the only way that this can happen. The First Minister acknowledged the serious problem last Thursday. If the revaluation is not postponed, the assessors will be akin to assassins; they will destroy businesses because the business rates will exceed the whole annual income of thousands of businesses. How on earth is that allowed to happen? The Government must step in.
The revaluation must be postponed by the Government, or it will cause commercial Armageddon.
17:23
I am seeking parliamentary time to scrutinise the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture on the findings of Audit Scotland’s section 22 report on Historic Environment Scotland.
This issue begins with Historic Environment Scotland itself. [Interruption.] Whatever the hilarity on the Government’s front bench is, surely it is not happening because of the state of Historic Environment Scotland.
Historic Environment Scotland is not a peripheral body. It is the steward of more than 300 historic properties and the guardian of national collections and archives. It is central to Scotland’s cultural identity and to a tourism economy on which many communities depend.
Across the country, around 1,600 people work for HES. Many of them are highly skilled professionals who are entrusted with assets that, once damaged or lost, are gone for good. When governance fails in such an organisation, the consequences are real. They are felt by staff, communities and the public, who expect those national assets to be protected properly.
That is why a section 22 report matters. Audit Scotland does not issue section 22 reports lightly. They are reserved for situations where the Auditor General feels that Parliament must be alerted to serious and systemic concerns. In this case, the report describes unacceptable weaknesses in governance, failures of control and risks to value for money. The Auditor General is clear that strong controls are now critical to prevent the risk of fraud and to restore confidence. Those are not minor or technical issues. The report points to long-running problems in procurement, data handling, financial discipline and leadership arrangements. It highlights the absence, until very recently, of a substantive accountable officer, and it describes an organisation where basic disciplines are not applied consistently or enforced robustly.
What gives the report its real weight is what it says and what it confirms about people. Staff and whistleblowers warn that Historic Environment Scotland is at risk of collapse. They speak of a toxic culture, deep frustration and concerns that, although raised repeatedly, have not been acted upon. The Auditor General acknowledges that issues have been persistent for years and have been covered up rather than resolved. This is not an abstract debate about structures; it is about how people are treated, whether warnings are listened to and whether those who speak up are protected.
Whistleblowers take personal risks when they raise concerns, and Parliament has a duty to ensure that those warnings lead to scrutiny and reform, not silence. When a section 22 report echoes what whistleblowers have been saying for years, ministers must be prepared to explain why earlier intervention did not happen.
I rise as the convener of the Public Audit Committee. Is Stephen Kerr aware that the Public Audit Committee will be taking evidence on this section 22 report, and is he aware that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee is also taking evidence on this section 22 report?
I did not realise that there were limitations to the scrutiny of Parliament. I did not realise that it was somehow out of order for a cabinet secretary to be brought to the chamber to account for his failings in the discharge of his responsibilities, according to no less an authority than the Auditor General for Scotland. Historic Environment Scotland is a non-departmental public body and the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture is the responsible minister. He appoints the board and oversees the sponsorship relationship. He is accountable to this Parliament for how that system of governance operates, and I think that Richard Leonard knows that.
In that context, the Auditor General has identified a failure by the Scottish Government to appoint an accountable officer. That is a clear statutory duty, and Parliament must be able to examine, in the chamber and through the committee structure of the Parliament, how that duty was allowed to go unmet and what damage that failure has caused. That is a responsibility of the cabinet secretary that cannot be delegated away; it cannot be blurred by process or shifted on to civil servants.
Thank you, Mr Kerr. You must conclude.
It is the cabinet secretary’s responsibility, and he is answerable to Parliament. Therefore, I strongly suggest to the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans that parliamentary time be made available for the cabinet secretary to come to the chamber and address the findings of the Auditor General’s report, which is of critical importance to our country.
I call the minister to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.
17:29
The Scottish Government very much recognises the importance of the self-catering accommodation sector, and the hospitality sector more broadly, to Scotland’s economy. The valuation of all non-domestic property is a matter for the Scottish Assessors Association, which is independent of central and local government.
However, the Minister for Public Finance is absolutely alive to the issues that Mr Ewing raises and will be meeting stakeholders to discuss the matter—in fact, he met the Association of Scotland’s Self-Caterers today.
I know that Mr Ewing has highlighted those issues to ministers, as he has repeated. The Minister for Public Finance will respond directly and will be happy to meet Mr Ewing and others following the recess. Of course, non-domestic rates and reliefs will be announced at the Scottish budget on 13 January.
On a more general point, members are all too aware of the pressure on the parliamentary business schedule, although that may not always be apparent, judging by the volume of additional asks for statements and debates that land on my desk weekly. A significant volume of bills—both Scottish Government bills and members’ bills—are still being considered, and those proceedings must be prioritised for chamber time. In addition, standing orders require that a certain amount of chamber time is allocated to committees and to Opposition parties.
Taking all of that together, it is clear that, following recess, there will be little—if any—time for additional activity led by the Scottish Government.
I recognise that the Parliament is under huge pressure with legislative requirements. However, an increase in rateable values of up to 300 per cent, as we have seen, is even more of a pressure on businesses. We might not see those businesses operating into the spring, so we need to put them before us.
I have already identified the importance that Ivan McKee places on the matter. However, I point out to Rachael Hamilton that we constantly hear from members, particularly on her side of the chamber, about late sittings and then they come back to Parliament and demand that more be added to the programme. [Interruption.] I think that Kevin Stewart’s comments were heard by members.
The business motion that is before us includes committee and Opposition debates in the first week of January, and, across the first two weeks, there are four stage 1 debates and a stage 3 debate. I think that that supports the point that I have made.
Given the genuine engagement that the Minister for Public Finance has undertaken on the matter, and given the pressures facing the business schedule, a statement on the topic will not be scheduled at this time. As I said, however, Ivan McKee will engage directly with Fergus Ewing and others post recess, in advance of the budget.
Turning to Mr Kerr, I am not clear whether his latest demand, while challenging the business programme, is for a statement or a debate. However, I point to the fact that he serves on the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, which has been looking closely at the matter that he raised and which will—as I understand it—provide further opportunities for him to progress it.
As Richard Leonard pointed out, the Public Audit Committee is also considering the matter that Mr Kerr highlights. I have great respect——seemingly more so than Mr Kerr—for the committee process; I think that it is the engine room of the Parliament. We have not one but two parliamentary processes under way, and, given the pressure on parliamentary business, I would not be inclined to schedule the item that Mr Kerr is seeking.
The question is, that motion S6M-20199 be agreed to.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees—
(a) the following programme of business—
Tuesday 6 January 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee Debate: Civil Legal Assistance in Scotland
followed by Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Debate: Petition PE2018: Recognise the Value of Swimming Pools and Provide Financial Relief to Help Keep Pools Open
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 7 January 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, and Parliamentary Business;
Justice and Home Affairs
followed by Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party Business
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.10 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 8 January 2026
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.30 pm Portfolio Questions:
Education and Skills
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill
followed by Financial Resolution: Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
Tuesday 13 January 2026
2.00 pm Time for Reflection
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
followed by Topical Questions
followed by Ministerial Statement: Scottish Budget 2026-27
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill
followed by Financial Resolution: Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill
followed by Committee Announcements
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Wednesday 14 January 2026
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic;
Finance and Local Government
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
followed by Members’ Business
Thursday 15 January 2026
11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions
11.40 am General Questions
12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions
followed by Members’ Business
2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions
2.00 pm Portfolio Questions:
Climate Action and Energy, and Transport
followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill
followed by Stage 1 Debate: Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill
followed by Business Motions
followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions
5.00 pm Decision Time
(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 5 January 2026, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.
Previous
Pension Schemes BillNext
Points of Order