Once again, it falls to the Scottish Conservatives to highlight the ever-increasing benefits bill that Scottish taxpayers face. My motion highlights the unsustainable social security spending commitments that the Scottish National Party Government has made since it received significant powers over benefits in 2016.

I will make it clear: when we say that the SNP’s rising benefits bill is unsustainable, we mean it. The SNP spends more on benefits than it does on our schools or our police. One in seven pounds of the Government’s spend goes on the benefits budget.

The Scottish Fiscal Commission has forecast that the Scottish benefits bill will rise to £9 billion by 2029-30. The SNP has already spent £1.2 billion each year on top of what it receives in block grant adjustments. By 2029-30, the figure is forecast to hit a shocking £2 billion.

Audit Scotland has said:

“The Scottish Government has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending within its overall budget.”

That is a damning indictment. However, it is not surprising, because the SNP has so far shown no intention of getting its benefits bill under control. It does not see doing so as a priority.

I think that you will find that the Conservatives did vote for it, but you have to understand that your light-touch approach, which I will come on to speak about later—

I am running out of time.

If that decision does not sum up the SNP Government’s high-tax, high-welfare approach to government, I do not know what does.

Having spent years complaining about the previous UK Government’s approach to benefits, the SNP is now discovering that it is not as easy as it looks. In 2017, the estimated cost of setting up the Scottish Government’s in-house benefits agency, Social Security Scotland, was £300 million and, by 2023, that had blossomed to £700 million.

The Government refuses to learn any lessons and, judging by Shirley-Anne Somerville’s amendment, that will not change any time soon. The amendment not only ignores the £2 billion spending gap, but calls for the UK Labour Government to increase the UK’s benefits bill even further.

The Labour amendment at least acknowledges the funding gap that exists. However, it also celebrates Labour’s decision to remove the two-child limit by increasing taxes on working people. We therefore cannot support the amendment.

Scotland’s benefits system should be an essential safety net for those who need assistance. We can all agree on that principle. The Scottish Conservatives believe that this system must be fair and affordable. We must ensure that the spiralling costs are not balanced on the backs of hard-working Scottish taxpayers. That is where we differ from all other parties in the chamber, because the left-wing consensus does not want to accept those principles. The scale of the problem is such that it is too big for the SNP Government to ignore. Instead of burying its head in the sand, this is the time for the Government to be honest with Scottish taxpayers about how it will fix the mess that it has created.

I move,

That the Parliament believes that social security spending by the Scottish Government and its future social security spending commitments are unsustainable; notes the report published by Audit Scotland in September 2025, Adult Disability Payment; further notes that the Audit Scotland report highlights a “funding gap for devolved social security spending of £2.0 billion by 2029/30”; calls on the Scottish Government to explain why, according to Audit Scotland, it “has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending”; believes that raising taxes in order to remove the limit on the child element of Universal Credit was not the right priority for either the Scottish Government or the UK Government, and calls on the Scottish Government to use the money that it will save, as a result of the UK Government's decision, to lower costs for people across Scotland by instead cutting income tax.

How are you managing to contribute to the best value and public service reform agendas? You have identified that you cannot cover everything so you need to cherry pick the areas that you believe represent the most severe risks to the organisation and to what you need to achieve. In relation to encapsulating those agendas and what your organisation does as the regulator, how do you square that circle? How do you fulfil your obligations while ensuring that the funding is levelled and that, at the end of the day, there are some best value and public service reforms in the organisation?

In light of inflation, which is putting pressure on staff salaries and other on-going costs that you have to bear, it would be good to get a flavour of how you are managing your budget and what you see as the short to medium-term issues that you might need to address.

I thank my colleague Sue Webber for bringing this important debate to the chamber. Her motion highlights the growing problem of the dangerous and antisocial use of e-bikes and e-scooters, and I welcome the fact that Parliament finally has the opportunity to debate the issue. The dangers that we are seeing from these vehicles are becoming a frequent concern in many communities. Members are quite right to highlight that they are hearing about many such issues from concerned constituents.

It is true that the problem appears to be worse in our large cities—Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee and Glasgow—but it is also clear that the problem is not confined to urban areas. Concerns have been raised repeatedly across my region about these vehicles, in areas such as Clackmannanshire, Stirling, Fife and Perthshire.

Earlier this year, a 19-year-old was arrested after a collision involving an e-bike in the village of Fallin, in Stirlingshire. Accidents are happening regularly, and individuals are requiring medical attention. We often hear reports of these vehicles being ridden dangerously along pavements and paths, and—as we have heard this evening—the riders wear balaclavas or face coverings to conceal their identity.

Despite the fact that it is illegal, as we have heard from other members, these vehicles are becoming an increasingly common sight on our streets and pathways.

In the previous decade, we became used to seeing motorised scooters being used for crime, including in drive-by thefts and vandalism. Those scooters were small, manoeuvrable and fast, and they were easy to get hold of and to get rid of. For many criminals, they were an ideal partner in crime. E-bikes and e-scooters are smaller and more nimble to manoeuvre, and they are better able to be modified, which makes them even more dangerous and fearsome. Naturally, that means that it is even harder for the police to deal with them, and they are sometimes difficult to trace. Vehicles have to be designed in a better way to ensure that we manage that.

There are areas—across many constituencies and regions, as we have heard—that are quickly becoming known for these problems. A tough approach from Police Scotland is needed to tackle the issue. In some cases, it will also require innovation from Police Scotland, because new technology often calls for new approaches. I look forward to hearing whether the minister, along with Police Scotland, is considering any new approaches to tackle the issue.

As Sue Webber’s motion highlights, Police Scotland’s approach should include seizing these vehicles permanently, without giving them back; we do not want them to be returned. The use of CCTV in crime hotspots also has a role to play. I am aware that the Scottish Government has been encouraging further anonymous reporting of these vehicles through the Crimestoppers service. That is also a valuable tool, but further measures have to be put in place to ensure that there are tough consequences for these individuals if they are using e-scooters and e-bikes. Local police must be allowed to tackle the issue in the way that they see fit, in order to manage their communities.

As I have said, we also need political leadership on the issue. The bikes can move at excessive speeds, and they run the risk of starting battery fires. They are dangerous to our communities and to individuals.

In conclusion, the onus is on the Scottish Government and Scottish National Party ministers to come up with a detailed, comprehensive action plan and to ensure that Police Scotland is given the resources that it needs to take those actions. The public are demanding action to keep communities safe, and it is our important responsibility, as MSPs, to provide that. It is high time that people were listened to and that a plan was delivered and acted on.

Thank you for that.

Previously, the committee recommended the instigation of a programme of externally verified customer satisfaction data. It would be good to know whether you have progressed that and, if so, whether any lessons have been learned from it.

We will move on to Meghan Gallacher, who joins us remotely.

Item 3 is formal consideration of a Scottish statutory instrument. When the committee previously considered the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2025 on 18 November, we agreed to seek further information from the Scottish Government following a submission that we received from the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland. We have now received the Government’s response.

As members do not have any comments, does the committee agree that we do not wish to make any recommendations in relation to the instrument?

Members indicated agreement.