To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to improve pupil attendance in schools. (S6O-05350)

I am afraid that the annual report exposes the Scottish National Party’s continued failure to get a grip of Scotland’s housing emergency. Record numbers of households remain stuck in temporary accommodation, and the number of people who are rough sleeping continues to rise. I hope that the cabinet secretary shares my view that it is disgraceful that, while we are in the chamber today, 10,000 children are growing up without the security of a permanent home. All the while, councils are left struggling as a result of the savage cuts that the SNP Government has made to council budgets.

Prevention is key, but we also know that, in order to end homelessness, we need to ensure that the supply of homes meets the demand. I have asked the cabinet secretary this question before, and I will ask it again: if the Government is hellbent on dismantling the housing sector brick by brick, how does she believe that the Government will reach its target of providing 110,000 affordable homes by 2032?

The Parliament is designed to stand up for working people in Scotland. However, since the SNP took office, working people have been told—not asked, but told—to pay more, work harder and accept less in return. That is not fairness; it is failure.

Our motion is simple. We are calling on the Scottish Government

“to reduce income tax on working people”,

to uprate

“income tax thresholds in line with inflation in the forthcoming Scottish budget and in future Scottish Budgets”,

and to simplify a system that has become punitive, confusing and deeply unfair. We also believe that the Scottish basic rate and intermediate rate of income tax should be replaced with a

“single Scottish income tax rate of 19 pence on income up to the higher rate threshold”.

I do not think that those are radical demands. They are measures that are designed to put more money back into the pockets of everyday, ordinary, working Scots, to reduce the growing tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and to begin repairing the damage that has been done by years of SNP income tax policy.

Middle earners—the nurses who care for us, the police officers who keep our communities safe and the teachers who are shaping our children’s futures—are all paying more in tax than they would pay anywhere else in the rest of the UK. What do they receive in return? They get fewer services, longer waiting times, crumbling infrastructure and a childcare system that still presents a huge financial barrier for many families.

We have heard from Jamie Hepburn, the minister and others today about all the free policies that are offered in Scotland, but, of course, they did not mention that those free policies are paid for by taxpayers up and down the country. That is the SNP’s record: higher taxes, lower value and broken promises.

Sorry. In my last couple of seconds, I want to say that it is time for a different approach—one that backs working people, that recognises the real pressures that they face and that puts fairness, growth and opportunity back at the heart of Scotland’s tax system.

Well, they are not free then, are they?

That is the approach of the SNP and other political parties to taxation in this country. Their policy is, “If it moves, we’re going to tax it,” but they must know that that punishes ambition and penalises progression. It hits hardest those who are trying to move up the career ladder, take on extra responsibility or secure a better future for their family. The SNP tells us to wait for the budget for clarity, but, as colleagues have conveyed, nothing prevents the SNP from putting out those messages before the budget. A different approach to the taxation system would be welcomed.

For working parents, the situation is even more stark. Too many families are forced to make impossible choices when it comes to childcare in this country—they have to reduce hours, turn down promotions or leave the workforce altogether. They have to choose what they can do, because they do not have the additional money in their pocket to be able to make those decisions of their own free will. For many younger people in this country, the dream of becoming a home owner or parent is made more difficult because of the choices that are made in this chamber.

I know that I am in my last couple of minutes—

The cabinet secretary said that she would rather be held to account, and take the harder road. However, every time an urgent question was brought to the chamber, the cabinet secretary was nowhere to be seen, or if she was in the chamber, the questions were answered by a junior minister rather than by her. In my view, that is dodging accountability and responsibility for her portfolio.

It has been mentioned by colleagues that the cabinet secretary has become a distraction. I agree with them—I believe that she has become a distraction not just from the review but from providing the much-needed confidence that victims need to have in the Government. Will the cabinet secretary now do the right thing and step down from her position to ensure that we have a clean slate and that we can move forward with a review on grooming gangs to get the answers for victims who have been impacted?

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?

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.

rose—