I am pleased to contribute to the debate and thank Carol Mochan for bringing it to the chamber.

This is an important opportunity to highlight an issue that does not receive the attention that it deserves. As we know, alcohol-related brain damage can have a devastating impact on individuals and their families. Despite that, the condition is still not well understood and is sometimes missed by health professionals. Alcohol Change UK has highlighted that the condition can lead to the double stigma of brain impairment and alcohol addiction, and the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland has said that alcohol-related brain damage often affects groups that are already marginalised in society. The motion is therefore right to speak about an holistic approach to tackling the issue. Part of the solution must be to challenge common perceptions about alcohol-related brain damage, and alcohol use disorder more generally. As the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland highlighted, there is often a perception that assessing and helping people with alcohol problems is a difficult and lengthy process.

Early detection is another important issue. As it stands, many cases of alcohol-related brain damage go undetected for years, with some clinicians misdiagnosing the condition as a mental health issue or dementia. Although improving awareness of the condition among clinicians is important, we have to be aware of the public’s ability to recognise the signs and symptoms of alcohol-related brain damage in friends, family members or even themselves, so that there are opportunities for diagnosis.

As the condition can affect each individual differently, specialist care centres are often the best approach. In my region, there is the NHS Forth Valley substance use service in Stirling and Clackmannanshire and, in Fife, there is the alcohol and drug partnership. Those vital services support individuals and social care partnerships, but many of them are struggling. They do not have the funding and budgets that are required to offer support to individuals.

It is disappointing that alcohol-related brain damage does not receive the coverage or attention that it needs. I hope that the debate gives us an opportunity to address that issue. Failure to tackle the condition will put a significant burden on health and social care across the country, and I hope that the minister will talk about that when she sums up. We have heard this evening about some of the problems that individuals in Scotland are having accessing services. We need to ensure that those who are suffering are given a support mechanism. I join members in asking the Scottish Government to consider an evidence-based solution, because that is what we need.

Scotland’s shocking history of drug deaths is a national shame and a national scandal. We cannot allow alcohol-related brain damage to go down the same route. We have heard tonight how many individuals have lost their lives because of the alcohol culture in our country. That has to stop, and the only way that it can stop is with an evidence-based solution across the country.

Thank you, convener, and good morning, consul. In your opening statement, you had three asks: weapons, economic sanctions and diplomacy. Those have all played, and will continue to play, a part in the process that you are going through. Your courage, determination and resolve are outstanding, and we commend and congratulate you on what you have achieved. As you said, they said that Ukraine would not last for three days, but you have lasted for three years, which is a major achievement.

Scotland has played its part in supporting Ukraine, and we are looking at what the future holds. What other support do you think might be required once the change that we hope for is made? If we are able to do so, should we send people back to Ukraine, or should they stay in Scotland for longer in case things do not progress? We all hope that, one day, everything will be resolved, but we cannot sit back and wait, because things might not go in the direction that we want them to. We need to ensure that your people are safe and secure. If some progress is made, what is your view on what we should do? If things do not progress, how should we resolve any difficulties?

Thank you.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives in the debate on this year’s local government finance order. The motion before us today is necessary in order to allocate funding to each of Scotland’s 32 councils. The Scottish Conservatives will not oppose the motion.

However, it is important that this parliamentary time is used to highlight the current state of local government finances and the fact that councils are experiencing pressures from several different directions. A recent report from the Accounts Commission made for concerning reading. More than a third of councils made unplanned use of their reserves in 2023-24 to manage budget pressures, and more than half of councils do not have in place a long-term financial plan.

Councils are also facing pressure from the increase in employer national insurance contributions as a result of the UK Government’s tax grab. We welcome the additional £144 million of funding to address that, which was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government earlier this month. However, COSLA has warned that that still leaves a gap of £96 million, which councils will have to find from their own budgets. Discussions with the UK Government on that issue continue, and the Scottish Government should stand ready to pass on any additional funding that the UK Government at Westminster makes available.

More generally, it is clear from engagement with local government that many councils have difficult decisions to make. In many cases, those will involve reducing or cutting important local services. I trust that, if the minister has engaged with councils throughout the budget process, he will be fully aware of all that.

As the weeks roll by, councils will finalise and set their budgets for the coming year. Some of them have agreed council tax increases that are higher than 10 per cent. In my region, there will be an increase of 9 per cent in Stirling and of 9.5 per cent in Perth and Kinross; the increase is as much as 13 per cent in Clackmannanshire.

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this afternoon’s debate. I will support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser.

The motion mentions the importance of increasing investment in Scotland’s economy and it says that that investment is vital to improve public services, support a thriving economy and create jobs. There is no doubt that those are all worthy points, but the Scottish public should be surprised to find them at the beginning of a motion that was lodged by the high-tax, anti-business SNP Government. Although it wants to shout about the importance of investment in Scotland, it is hard to believe that it really means it.

The Government talks about investment in housing but, as we have heard, its rent cap policy harmed investment in that sector to the tune of £3 billion, and it will make many of the same mistakes with the Housing (Scotland) Bill.

The Government talks about investment in net zero. However, although it is willing to invest in alternative energy sources such as offshore wind, it has turned its back on nuclear energy—a decision that will cost Scotland billions in long-term investment. In reality, the SNP’s insistence on ignoring nuclear power will not only cost Scotland investment opportunities but make net zero harder and much more expensive to achieve.

The Scottish Government is right to talk about the importance of technology in financial services, yet its policies undermine that sector in Scotland. Although the fintech sector has enjoyed impressive growth in recent years, we are now seeing warnings that policies such as higher income tax are making it difficult for the sector to see sustained growth.

Scottish Financial Enterprise has said that its members are finding it harder and harder to attract and retain senior workers. In an SFE survey that received responses from 40 organisations that together employ more than 50,000 people in the financial services sector, 66 per cent of respondents knew of examples where Scotland’s business and tax environment was harming and having a negative impact on business decisions.

At the same time, leading headhunting companies have reported difficulties in attracting top talent to Scotland, particularly since the introduction of the advanced rate of income tax. The chief executive of SFE, Sandy Begbie, has highlighted that cutting taxes to at least the same rates as those in the rest of the UK could lead to greater investment and greater certainty in the Scottish economy. As Conservative members have said often in recent years, high tax does not support business or the economy. If the Scottish Government was serious about increasing investment in public services, it would be willing to listen to the proposals that are being made.

Scotland has the potential to lead the United Kingdom in many sectors, but it will be able to do that only if the SNP Government is willing to unlock that potential. It talks about Scotland being a leading destination for investment, but it is time that it backed up that rhetoric with actions. That means introducing commonsense policies that will attract investment and send a message that Scotland is somewhere that truly values success and talent. That success and talent will lead to the economic growth, investment and prosperity that we want. However, the SNP Government does little about that.

I support the amendment in the name of Murdo Fraser.

I agree with the member that revaluation is the first step in that direction. I hope that that can be looked at.

I referred to the gaps in funding. The Scottish Government claims that the budget should help councils. In reality, the lack of flexibility means that council tax is the only lever left for councils to use to deal with that. It is disappointing to see many councils using that lever, but taxpayers can understand the concerns that councils have, given what they need to do. Councils have spent a decade in this situation.

On that issue, SNP ministers would do well to listen to the Scottish Parliament information centre—our internal research centre—which said:

“the Scottish Government could find itself being blamed just as much as the councils themselves”

for the tax hikes. That SPICe report talks about how local government funding has fallen as a percentage of Scottish Government spending since 2016. In other words, council funding has not kept pace with total Government spend. Although the Government claims to value local government and the important contributions that it makes to communities, and it claims to stand up for that, in reality, its actions do not speak to those claims.

An improved long-term relationship needs to develop and evolve between central and local government in Scotland. The Verity house agreement brought them together to take steps to build a relationship. Although there has been some progress, such as on a small reduction in ring-fenced funding, many councils are still concerned that the agreement will have few benefits for them in the long term.

The agreement was supposed to support “shared priorities”. We want there to be “shared priorities”, “mutual trust” and “Improved engagement”. In reality, none of that has really happened. A huge amount of information is still required and there is still no trust between national and local government in Scotland. That must be looked at as a priority.

More than 18 months on from that agreement, there is still a huge amount to be done to fix that relationship. It is clear that local government cannot continue being treated as such a low priority by this SNP Government. Councils are making difficult decisions to get their budgets over the line and many of them are running out of flexibility within those budgets to manage that process. If Scotland continues with the review, it is important that there is a deal for local government. I hope that the new relationship will acknowledge just how important our councils are to communities in Scotland. They want to be treated with the respect that they deserve. They have a huge amount of work to do in supporting our communities, constituencies and regions, but that can be done only if there is a relationship between the Scottish Government and councils.

The proposed development in Stirling would create one of the largest film studio campuses in Scotland, which would be a game changer for film and television productions. What is the Scottish Government doing to ensure that the project becomes a reality and has the potential to filter down to the wider supply chain, paving the way for a major economic benefit throughout the region?

In Scotland, we have eight bands at the moment. Do you think that the potential exists to develop the bands for properties that are at the top end? There might be a disparity between those that are at the top end and those that are at the bottom end. The majority of properties are in the middle band range. Do you think that Scotland could cope with that? Would that be manageable?

So, there are already benefits from computerisation, and we can make advances in the system with what we have in today’s world compared with what we had in the past. Moreover, you do not foresee too many limitations arising for your own organisations with regard to how your assessors and other individuals in the process would manage these things.

Good morning. You have already touched on some of this, but it would be good to get more of an indication of the limitations and the benefits of a banding system as opposed to the sort of flat percentage capital value system that is used in Northern Ireland. It would be good to hear your views, so that we can take them into account when we look at a banding approach compared with an approach based on a percentage of the capital value.