Chamber and committees

As we are talking about house building, let us look at the final house building statistics for 2025, which were published this week. All sector new house building completions are down. Private sector new house building completions are down. Social sector new house building completions are down. Affordable house building approvals, starts and completions are down.

How confident is the cabinet secretary of completing 110,000 affordable homes by 2032, or is it the case that the Government has completely given up on that target? By the looks of its statistics, it is not hitting its house building targets.

During a radio interview this week, the Cabinet Secretary for Housing appeared to call for refugees and asylum seekers to remain in hotels for longer, to ease Scotland’s housing crisis. Will the minister clarify and confirm whether it is now the Scottish Government’s position that hotels should be a long-term solution for housing asylum seekers and refugees? Will she also ensure that the priority need and local connection loopholes are closed, so that our cities are not disproportionately affected?

The minister has rightly raised all the varying types of businesses. In doing so, he is making the point that I was trying to raise about BIDs. Some businesses will not benefit as much as others. Is it time to review the BID process, to see whether it can be made fairer?

rose—

This evening’s debate, secured by Rachael Hamilton, has been really important, and it is an opportunity for all of us to acknowledge the fantastic small businesses that we have in our constituencies and regions.

I will take the debate in a different direction, however, and talk about business improvement districts, or BIDs as we know them. I acknowledge the value that they can bring to our towns and city centres, but very real concerns have been raised by businesses right across Scotland about how the programmes operate in practice. Many BIDs have delivered positive outcomes: they have supported local events, improved town centre marketing and enhanced public spaces, and they have helped to create a local sense of pride. Where they work well, they are driven by committed people with a shared vision for town centre regeneration. However, we have to listen very carefully to the voices of businesses that feel that the system is not always fair, is not always representative and is not always delivering value for money for all those who are required to contribute.

One of the most consistent concerns raised by businesses is about the fairness of how BIDs are applied. Typically, the levy is based on rateable value, yet the benefits are not always felt equally. Many small businesses tell me—other members are probably told this, too—that they struggle to see a clear return on their contributions, particularly at a time when operating costs remain high and economic pressures persist. We have heard a lot about that in this evening’s debate.

There is also a growing perception that BIDs tend to favour shops that sell goods over businesses that provide services. Retail businesses may benefit directly from footfall-driven initiatives, such as marketing campaigns, festivals, street furniture and seasonal events. However, that contrasts with the situation of service-based businesses, such as accountants, mortgage advisers, tradespeople, childcare providers and professional services, which often operate on an appointments basis and rely less on passing trade. For those businesses, there is less of a link between the BID levy that they pay and the benefits that they receive, and it can feel almost as though they are not part of the BID system. They are asked to contribute equally, but their business model means that they are less likely to benefit from initiatives that are designed primarily to promote retail visibility. That imbalance raises legitimate questions about equity and whether the BID structures are sufficiently flexible to reflect the diverse nature of our town centre economies.

Concerns have also been raised about the transparency of the BID process and the engagement that is undertaken as part of it. Some businesses report that there is limited consultation beyond the initial ballot that takes place, and decisions are perceived to be driven by a narrow range of interests. I hope that that is not the case, but that reflects what businesses have told me. If BIDs are to remain credible, it must be ensured that there is on-going engagement with all levy payers, particularly small businesses, which often feel less heard.

There is a point that I want to put directly to the minister. I spoke to South Lanarkshire Council about the issue, which referred me to the Scottish Government, but when I spoke to the Scottish Government about it, I was referred back to the council. What I am trying to figure out—I hope that the minister will be so kind as to provide an explanation in his summing-up remarks—is who is in charge of the BID policy, who can amend that policy and who can make exemptions for businesses that do not benefit from BIDs, if it is the case that that is happening. Enabling such exemptions would be a good way forward. It would show our small businesses that we support them, but that we also recognise that not all initiatives benefit them.

I thank the minister for her answer and for taking the time to meet me yesterday to discuss concerns relating to neonatal care.

Bliss Scotland has been championing the need to increase bed numbers, which is an issue that must be taken seriously. At present, for every 10 babies who need neonatal care, only one bed is available for parents to stay overnight. I could not imagine being a parent of a newborn baby who was sick and vulnerable and being told that I could not stay with my child in the same location.

It is understood and accepted that the Scottish Government must do everything that it can to increase the number of beds. Would the minister be willing to keep me and other members who are interested in the issue up to date on the progress that the Scottish Government makes and on any discussions that it has with local NHS boards on the issue?

To ask the Scottish Government what progress it has made on increasing the number of overnight beds for parents in neonatal wards. (S6O-05279)

I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. This is a step in the right direction for my constituents in Falkirk, Grangemouth and the wider community. I hope that everyone in the chamber will welcome jobs being created at the Grangemouth site. However, considering that many of those jobs will not be operational for another five years, it falls short of what the workers at Grangemouth refinery deserve.

The SNP’s anti-oil and gas rhetoric affects not just the thousands of oil and gas workers in the north-east, but our industrial heartlands at sites such as Grangemouth and Mossmorran. Although I welcome the jobs that have been created, as outlined in the statement, they are ultimately a drop in the ocean compared with what we need.

The Scottish and UK Governments promised retraining opportunities for those who were made redundant at Grangemouth. Will the cabinet secretary confirm that the retraining opportunities will give them the skills that they need for the new roles that have been created?

Although the new funding is welcome, the project willow report found that billions of pounds of private investment would be needed to secure the long-term future of Grangemouth. Will the cabinet secretary tell the Parliament how much investment the Scottish Government has managed to secure so far and what plans it has to attract more investment in the future?

Would Maggie Chapman give way on that point?

I am quite concerned by the speech that we have just heard, but there are some members in the chamber who do not believe that the rules of economics are completely optional.

Audit Scotland’s 2025 report on adult disability payment should serve as a wake-up call to every member of the Parliament. It sets out in clear and unambiguous terms how unstable devolved social security finances are. The report projects a £2 billion funding gap by 2029-30 across devolved benefits—a gap that the Scottish Government has no credible plan to close. This is not a responsible or sustainable Government and it is certainly not fair to the people of Scotland, who are constantly called on to foot the bill.

Working families—the very taxpayers whom the Government claims to champion—are already paying the price. Middle-income households, teachers, nurseries, police officers and small business owners pay significantly more here than they would pay in other parts of the UK. What do they receive in return? They get a devolved social security system that is overspending by hundreds of millions of pounds a year, with no fiscal strategy or contingency plan in place whatsoever.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that individuals with disabilities and those who fall on hard times deserve help through benefits, but that does not absolve any Government if it avoids fiscal responsibility. People expect their taxes to be managed wisely. Instead, they face the possibility of increased taxation or reductions in essential public services while the benefits system runs at its current scale. Audit Scotland could not have been clearer: the Scottish Government is expanding entitlements faster than it can fund them, and it is doing so without transparency or long-term financial planning.

Speaking of holding people’s taxes to ransom, I note that the UK Labour Government, under Rachel Reeves, has announced that it will abolish the two-child limit on UK-wide benefits. In the budget, she froze income tax and national insurance thresholds—moves that the independent fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, says will push more people into higher tax bands. That is the same chancellor who promised that working people would not pay more in tax, but she now has to admit that ordinary families must contribute more.

That raises a fundamental question for the Scottish Parliament: is providing benefits the only way to support families? We have to be honest—it is not. Instead, our focus should be on supporting families, especially when it comes to raising children.

One of the biggest challenges that families face today is the affordability of childcare. The Scottish Government has all but forgotten the promise that it made to expand funded childcare for those aged nine months and onwards. If it was truly serious about supporting families with children, it would do so, as it promised, providing affordable and flexible early years provision and supporting working parents with childcare. It would not add open-ended benefit commitments funded by even higher taxes.