Chamber and committees

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.

If the aim is to support family life, effort should go into providing families with practical support at the point at which they need it most. The Scottish Government should not be asking ridiculous questions about which benefits need to be cut; it should be giving people the tools to succeed.

Working people are paying more, services are delivering less and the Government that is responsible for this mess wants yet another parliamentary term. It does not deserve it. Scotland cannot afford a Government that spends first and thinks later. It is time to put competence before chaos, honesty before spin and taxpayers before wish lists. Scotland needs a Government that respects the people who fund it, not one that treats them as an afterthought.

Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point?

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children advises that the Scottish Government needs to show leadership. The cabinet secretary has responded to questions on grooming gangs in the chamber, but when it comes to any question that involves correspondence between herself and Alexis Jay, she is either nowhere to be seen or not at her post to answer questions.

Given that the minister was not able to answer questions that Pauline McNeill put to the Government, I ask again: who is leading on the review into grooming gangs? It is still not clear. Does the minister believe that the behaviours of the cabinet secretary jeopardise the non-inquiry review, even before it gets off the ground?

Residents of Bothwell in my region have been left shaken by the spate of targeted firebombing attacks on restaurants in the area. Four premises have been targeted by arson attacks over the past six years, with two taking place in September. People living in Bothwell have expressed fear and frustration, with one individual saying:

“it feels like it is becoming a no-go area socially.”

There are now empty plots where restaurants once stood; jobs have been lost; and families have been impacted by recent events.

Bothwell residents deserve not just answers but reassurance. What reassurance can the First Minister give my constituents that Police Scotland is taking those events seriously? Will he ask the relevant minister to make inquiries to ensure that all information that can be made public is being circulated within the community?

I, too, thank Jamie Hepburn for bringing this celebratory event to the chamber. In planning terms, 70 years is practically adolescence, but in Scottish political terms, it is several boundary reviews, a few economic cycles and at least one argument about whether the A80 was finished properly.

Cumbernauld was founded in 1955 as a bold experiment—a vision of post-war optimism that was designed to house Glasgow overspill and create a forward-looking, pedestrian-friendly community. Opinions will differ as to whether the town centre looks like a modernist masterpiece or a crash-landed concrete spaceship, but nobody can deny the ambition or the personalities that reside in Cumbernauld. The town’s achievements are far greater than its architectural quirks, and it has produced remarkable people including musicians such as Jon Fratelli, actors, athletes and artists. Jamie Hepburn mentioned a few of the local legends in Cumbernauld—they are, of course, the folk who can find their way out of the town centre on their first attempt.

However, Cumbernauld’s greatest strength is not concrete. It is community, and nowhere is that community more alive, vibrant and vital than in Cumbernauld theatre. For decades, the theatre, in both the old and new buildings, has been the cultural heart of the town—a home for local drama, youth arts, live music, pantomimes, poetry and civic pride. It has nurtured talent, inspired generations and kept culture alive in the town, yet today this vital institution faces the threat of closure. A funding package involving the Scottish Government, Creative Scotland and North Lanarkshire Council hangs in the balance.

Without real, practical financial support, the doors of this beloved theatre may close. Shutting Cumbernauld theatre would not be an efficiency; I believe that it would be an amputation within the town. It would silence one of Scotland’s most community-centred cultural venues at the very moment when we should be celebrating its contribution and investing in its future. A town that was built on bold ideas deserves better than to have its creative lifeline cut. Frankly, if a town centre with a confusing landscape can survive for 70 years, surely a theatre full of laughter, creativity and hope can survive a funding shortage.

I hope that colleagues across the parties, councils and agencies will recognise the value of this cultural cornerstone. We all need to come together to ensure that Cumbernauld theatre not only survives but thrives. It has to be a place where young people can discover confidence, where older residents can find community and where everyone, regardless of their background, can come together to create something meaningful.

As Cumbernauld celebrates its 70th year, this debate allows us to show that the spirit of the new town—the spirit of optimism, innovation and sheer determination—is still alive. Let us commit ourselves to safeguarding the theatre that embodies the spirit of the town. In 50 years’ time, when Cumbernauld marks its 120th anniversary, I want future generations not only to say, “What’s it called?”—I apologise to Jamie Hepburn—but to say, proudly, “That’s a town that kept its culture alive.”

Thank you.

That was a helpful answer. Perhaps customers or complainants are frustrated because they might have had to deal with a complaint that has lasted for one or two years with whatever body they have been dealing with and then, when they come to the ombudsman, they are hit with a further 16-week wait just for someone to pick up their case before beginning to investigate the complaint itself. You can understand the potential frustration and how desperate people are for the ombudsman to step in and help in those circumstances. I know that that is what you are hoping to do in your time at the SPSO.

The annual report shows that only 3.4 per cent of the total number of complaints considered went through to the full investigation stage. To go back to my original question about the 16-week wait, given that only 3.4 per cent of those complaints went through to the full investigation stage, how can the SPSO say that complainants are now receiving a better service? It does not add up.

In relation to lessons to be learned and how to improve the system, what follow-up support is given to people when the SPSO has not progressed their complaint to investigation stage? I am sure that you have a lot of feedback from people who have contacted the SPSO and who are struggling to work out what measures are in place to ensure that the organisation is not acting unreasonably in relation to complaint resolution. There is also a question about signposting such people to other areas where they might be able to seek help.