Good morning. On 15 June, the chief planner wrote to authorities about the application of NPF4 policy 22, which concerns flood risk and water management. Why was it necessary for that letter to be sent? Following the issuing of the letter, what changes do you expect planning authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to make to how they assess flood risk?

Fiona Simpson, do you want to add anything to that?

Good morning, cabinet secretary. The event was hailed as a massive success by the UK Government. The Prime Minister indicated that

“Britain is back in business”

with the EU.

As we heard, however, the reset involved huge difficulties and tensions with fisheries—you have gone into that, for which I thank you. We have also heard that there are opportunities with regard to defence and security, food and drink and energy co-operation. However, those are still just opportunities rather than agreements, because the member states still have to endorse or ratify some of them to ensure that they come into force.

What meaningful engagement would we expect from the Scottish Government and the UK Government on food and drink, energy co-operation and defence and security as we move forward? You explained some of the difficulties that you encountered with regard to fisheries. If there is a reset in those three areas that gives Scotland an opportunity, what is that opportunity and what kind of meaningful negotiation and engagement would you, as the Scottish Government, expect?

Thank you. I will let others come in now.

In the statement, you indicated that the Scottish Government is ready to go further and faster, but how can that be achieved when you already know that workforce planning requires a massive reshaping to enable services to be reformed? That can be achieved only by reducing head count. When will we see the proposals that are to be set out in the Government’s fiscal sustainability delivery plan?

Numerous trains have been cancelled across my region in the past year. That has a massive knock-on effect on individuals, organisations and businesses. It has been more than three years since the Scottish National Party Government took over responsibility for ScotRail, but, unfortunately, we have yet to see real improvements.

If the First Minister wants to reduce carbon emissions, and get people out of their cars and on to public transport, the Scottish Government must provide a reasonable and reliable service. When will that dream become a reality?

Our motion demands an end to the high-tax and low-delivery agenda that the Scottish Government has been pursuing for the past 18 years.

The Scottish Conservatives accept that the Scottish Parliament should have a wide range of powers over taxation to support Scottish businesses and taxpayers and to incentivise strong economic growth. Those are both things that the Scottish public would no doubt support. However, since receiving powers over Scottish income tax, the SNP has used them to turn Scotland into the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. After years of endless tinkering with Scottish income tax, the Scottish Government has left us with a system in which anyone who earns more than about £30,000 pays more in tax than they would if they lived in any other part of the United Kingdom

The Scottish tax system has no fewer than six separate bands, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described the system as being “unnecessarily complicated”. The Scottish Parliament information centre has pointed out that, since 2017-18, the higher rate threshold has remained largely unchanged, which has dragged thousands more taxpayers into the higher tax bracket. About 22 per cent of Scottish taxpayers now pay the higher rate, with that percentage having doubled over the past eight years.

Our motion mentions the economic performance gap that the Scottish Fiscal Commission has identified. The SNP’s tax system is no doubt responsible for some of that gap. The Scottish Fiscal Commission’s findings assume that the changes to the tax system will have certain behavioural impacts. Further analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the behavioural changes might be even worse than the Fiscal Commission’s assumptions. That means that much more spending is being wasted and that people are getting a worse deal. I very much doubt that that is what the Scottish public wanted as a result of taxation being dealt with in this Parliament.

What are taxpayers getting in exchange for their higher taxes? Scotland’s education system is now internationally average. Scotland has record NHS waiting lists. There has been a litany of broken promises on upgrading roads. It is clear from those things, combined with a bloated and costly public sector and the millions of pounds that have been spent on ferries, that the Scottish public are getting a raw deal.

Our motion sets out what a better deal for taxpayers would look like. As well as cracking down on waste, we would abolish the basic and intermediate tax rates. That would ensure that every Scot would save up to £444, with those earning up to £43,662 paying 19p for every £1 earned.

As Sir Tom Hunter recently warned, Scotland is not reaching its full potential. We need a new approach to the country’s finances instead of the old-fashioned left-wing approach that has dominated the Scottish Government for far too long. A package of commonsense changes such as the ones that we have proposed would be the first step in making progress.

The Scottish Government needs to stop managing decline and start rewarding success. We have lots of successful businesses across the country, but that success is being stifled by the Scottish Government’s measures. We would empower Scotland and give Scottish taxpayers the value for money that they deserve, rather than them paying more and getting less.

It would be good to ascertain your attitude about the impact of the adoption of NPF4. There has been a plethora of associated working groups, guidance and advice. How has that affected the ability of communities to meaningfully engage with the planning system? Would you say that it has helped or hindered the development of local place plans?

You touched on the local development plans, so I will ask my second question. The committee has heard concerns that several LDP evidence reports have been rejected at the gate check and returned to planning authorities for further work. We are ascertaining why that is happening and what needs to change to ensure that planning authorities are submitting evidence reports that meet the requirements.

You have touched on the fact that some larger authorities have a large team of people working on the issue and smaller ones have only a small number of people doing so, but something must be fundamentally wrong, because even the larger ones are having their reports returned because there is a mismatch at the point of the gate check. It would be good to get a flavour of what you think of that.

In his statement, the cabinet secretary talked about local government supporting health inequalities. Accessing information is critical, and having effective digital tools is vital. Partnership working and frameworks must be the goal, but how can they be achieved without major reforms taking place?