This debate highlights the SNP Government’s failure to prioritise economic growth over the past 17 years. The motion calls on the Scottish Government to put growth front and centre in its upcoming budget. For years, the SNP Scottish Government has paid lip service to the idea of economic growth but has acted differently when it comes to changing its policy. Last year, we saw a tax-and-axe budget for 2024-25 that increased income tax and failed to pass on rates relief to small businesses. That was after the SNP had spent two years in coalition with a party that shows complete contempt for economic growth, with an approach that would destroy jobs and investment.

We do not have to look far to see what happens when a Government decides to neglect growth. Scotland is forecast to have the fifth-lowest GDP of the regions of the United Kingdom. That dismissive attitude towards economic growth has had consequences, and it impacts on businesses across Scotland.

Today’s motion mentions £624 million in lost tax revenue for 2022-23, which the Scottish Fiscal Commission calculated. That funding could and should have been put into supporting public services, which we all depend on. Clearly, the SNP should be shifting its focus and implementing growth policies rather than attitudes. One of the biggest obstacles that we face is the SNP’s poor relationship with the Scottish business community. Despite announcing a so-called new deal for businesses last year, there have been no signs that that relationship will improve any time soon.

Members do not have to listen to me or to others on the Conservative benches. They can look at the failings or listen to the Scottish business monitor report by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which says that two thirds of Scottish businesses believe that Scotland’s Government does not understand their needs. Only 6 per cent of businesses believe that the Scottish Government

“engages effectively with the sector”.

Although confidence in the Government is very low across the board, in two key areas—finance and construction—it is exceptionally poor. On top of that, two thirds of Scottish businesses said that income tax policies are having an impact on their business.

The anti-business and anti-growth agenda ran straight through the heart of the Bute house agreement. No doubt businesses were hopeful that the end of that agreement would mean a change in the Government's attitude. So far, there has been no sign of that, and we cannot look forward to seeing anything in the future.

Regardless of the narrative, the truth appears to be that prosperity is very low in the Scottish Government’s priorities for the future. It is time for the Government to change its course, support growth and deliver the Scottish economy’s potential, which is enormous.

Good morning, convener. I am delighted to be a member of the committee, as I was a member of the Local Government and Communities Committee for four years in the previous session.

My only declaration of interest is that I was a serving councillor on Perth and Kinross Council for 18 years, between 1999 and 2017.

The requirement to hold public consultation events for master consent area schemes is limited to those authorising major or national developments. That could exclude consultation on an MCA that authorises up to 49 new homes in a single development. Why is that the case, and what repercussions could there be?

Why is there no requirement for MCA documentation to be made available in public libraries and council offices? That has been the standard approach to local development plans in the past. Why might there be a change for master consent areas?

Ross Greer makes a point but, at the same time, businesses are telling us that they are finding it difficult to recruit people and that they have no confidence in what the Scottish Government is doing in the Scottish economy, so what he says does not add up.

The Scottish Government should be using all its powers to make Scotland an even more attractive place to live and work, and we have been calling for that for some time. This debate brings us an opportunity to ensure that we have financial stability in the future. It is important that we highlight the difficulties that are being faced but, at the same time, we want solutions to them, and the Scottish Government is not providing them. The debate has highlighted just how little of that type of thinking has come from the Scottish Government when it comes to attracting business, creating wealth and ensuring that we have prosperity so that we can support our services.

There is an urgent need for the Government to get a grip, change its strategy and build the economy that Scotland will desperately require in the decades to come so that we have financial stability and can prosper. That is what we all want, but at the moment it is not happening.

I would like to make some progress.

The SNP’s focus while in government has not been on creating a thriving economy or encouraging the creation of wealth. It has not even managed to encourage Britain’s brightest and best workers to move here, pay taxes, create a business hive and support businesses in communities. That has not happened. Instead of becoming the key drivers of Scotland’s economy and prosperity, higher earners have been hammered into submission by the Scottish Government, which has been to the disadvantage of economic prosperity.

There has been short-term thinking by the Scottish Government on the college sector, which has suffered numerous real-term cuts over the past decade. The outgoing chief executive of Colleges Scotland has talked about the contribution of that to the decline in the sector, and ideas about how things will progress in the future are really difficult for the sector.

The long-term approach to Scotland’s tax base has to be right. This kind of short-term thinking is exactly what we do not want to see, and we should be managing that element of our economy. The fiscal side of things has to improve. John Swinney has talked about the economy and the tax base and about medium-term and long-term financial stability. However, as I have said before, his actions and deeds do not respect or support that.

Martin Whitfield makes a sensible suggestion. Many of my colleagues on the Conservative benches have been talking about that for a considerable time, as that would give us an opportunity to do things.

Unfortunately, it is hard to believe the First Minister’s rhetoric, because he has not done that—we have not seen it. The Scottish National Party has spent years making Scotland’s tax offering anything but competitive, and the SNP’s failure to grow the economy at the same rate as that of the rest of the United Kingdom has already cost this country financial stability. Graeme Roy of the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said that more than £600 million of revenue has been lost because of that failure.

The real story is that, on fiscal sustainability, the SNP’s record and its rhetoric do not match.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate, and I will support the amendment in the name of my colleague Craig Hoy.

Fiscal stability and sustainability is about making truly long-term policy decisions. It should be about ensuring that public services are sustainable and can be delivered for years to come into the future. However, fiscal sustainability means accepting when difficult decisions have to be made and ensuring that those decisions are not taken lightly. We on the Conservative benches have championed those principles, and we will continue to do so.

When looking at Scotland’s economy, it is clear that fiscal sustainability is as important now as it has ever been. Last year’s report by the Scottish Fiscal Commission highlighted several significant challenges that public services face in the future. In many areas of Government spending, there are increasing pressures, including from our ageing population—an issue that is not unique to Scotland. Those pressures could result in health budgets increasing to half of all devolved spending in the future, which would be a real issue for us.

It is disappointing that the Parliament has waited so long to debate the issue, as it has been a considerable time since the report was published. The findings of the report should have set alarm bells ringing in Scottish ministers’ minds about what was taking place. More recently, positive noises have come from the Scottish Government on the issue.

Just last week, the First Minister spoke about Scotland becoming an economic springboard, with

“new growth, new opportunities and new hope.”

He has also spoken about the important role of tax and about ensuring that we create a competitive tax offering for Scotland in the light of these challenges.

Good morning. You said that the Scottish Government has a part to play when it comes to the COP, which is about access and understanding.

However, although Scotland continues to have a role as a voice for climate justice, and it leads the campaign in some ways, it is failing to meet its own targets. That creates a potential conflict with regard to our credibility, given where we are. It would be good to get a view from you on where you think that fits in with aspects such as the sustainability of current levels of spend on climate justice.

Yes—thank you.