Michelle Thomson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We cannot lose sight of the human stories behind that—there has been not just uncertainty but financial worry and a loss of confidence in what should be their safest space: their home.”
“Even though section 104 orders are commonplace, like others, I remain unconvinced by the UK Government’s reasoning. It is a sober reminder that power devolved is power retained. I caution those who believe that, should the bill pass, the choice that they hope for will be immediately and seamlessly available.”
“Willie Rennie: I understand some of the changes that have been made, and I welcome some of the ones that have been introduced, but the issue is still incredibly sensitive. We do not yet have the investment that the changes are designed to bring. That is why acting carefully must be the first priority.”
“To that end, I thank the minister for the Government’s acceptance of my amendment 15. First-time buyers already face significant barriers, and it would have been unfair for the levy to have created further obstacles. I am grateful to colleagues and the minister for ensuring that fairness is at the centre of the legislation.”
“On the other side, we are reminded by philosophers such as Marcus Düwell that “in the concept of human dignity questions about the role of humanity, the rights of individuals, and the structure of our normative social and political orders are interconnected.” In essence, we confront a profound fault line between two fundamental considerat…”
“I will start my short remarks by popping in the intervention that I hoped to make on Willie Rennie. I hope that he will join me in my calls for an adjustment to the fiscal framework to remove the ridiculous limits on the Scottish Government’s capital borrowing powers, because that is a fundamental aspect of being able to improve our infra…”
The complete record
Every one of 425 lines we hold for Michelle Thomson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 9.
“I, too, very much welcome this £25 million. It is quite clear that the announcement laid down the gauntlet to the UK Government to do something and to come to the table after a period of some seven months, when it could have used National Wealth Fund moneys in the first place. I am also pleased to note that it is what I would consider the proper use of ScotWind funds, to build a future. In terms of how quickly we can get projects on the table that can provide a return, investment at pace will be vital. I am pleased that this money will be available immediately in the new financial year, and I hope that that can start the process of enabling— Stephen Kerr: Does the member have any concerns about how the money will be distributed—the process by which that will be done? Does she have any concerns about the involvement of GFIB?”
“I agree whole-heartedly that giving the Acorn project the go-ahead is the next intervention that the UK Government should make, and I think that it should be made immediately. I hope that all members will support me on that, because it would be a game changer.”
“Gillian Martin: What Michelle Thomson has just outlined is absolutely critical. I welcome the response from the Prime Minister to the First Minister’s call for the UK Government to provide its fair share of support for Grangemouth, but I agree that we need policy certainty, particularly on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. I have had repeated discussions with the former and current UK Governments and remain deeply frustrated that there is still no clarity on timelines, funding and criteria for the Acorn project, which, I think, will provide that policy certainty and, as I have been told by people who have an interest, ramp up the investability that is in the plant.”
“I, too, welcome the additional moneys, although I note that the UK Government application process will be time consuming, with money being made available as debt or equity on the probability of a sufficient return on investment to the UK Government. For businesses to make applications at pace, there must be, as the minister stated, considerably more policy certainty. I know that she has been pursuing the matter, but has she had any advice on it thus far from the UK Government? Will there be a shift in its current attitude to carbon capture and storage and the Acorn project, which is a critical enabler of green hydrogen, or the possibility of Grangemouth and the associated work becoming a test site for sustainable aviation fuel? I repeat that policy certainty will be needed as much as finance to encourage confidence in business investment.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app failed to connect; I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Thomson. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“Therefore, I must insist that members stick to their allocated speaking time, which is up to four minutes. 12:56”
“The legacies of PFI and PPP are a stark reminder of the danger of prioritising short-term gains over long-term sustainability. We must never return to wasting tens of billions of pounds on PFI and PPP deals in Scotland, and we must ensure that future generations are not burdened by the same mistakes. That Labour would even consider the return of PFI shows that it cannot be trusted with Scotland’s finances. The UK Government should rule out any return to PFI, and Labour in Scotland should make its own opposition crystal clear. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. I advise members that we are tight for time, given this afternoon’s 2 pm start, and we must also leave sufficient time for security staff to clear the chamber.”
“We have a Labour Party Government that came to power by attacking to the centre and beyond; that is unsure of what it believes in; that promises investment to repair Britain’s crumbling infrastructure, balanced against self-imposed fiscal rules that are aimed at wooing the City; and that has a large enough parliamentary majority to override scrutiny or backbench rebellions, albeit that 19 newly elected Labour MPs have already been expelled, suspended or resigned. The attractiveness of PPP to Governments looking to keep debt off book diminished as Eurostat rules on accounting for European Union member states led to the majority of such projects being classed as public debt. However, following Brexit, there is nothing to prevent the UK from deviating from that in order to reconcile contradictory electoral promises.”
“Had the projects that were funded through NPD been carried out under PPP, the Scottish taxpayer would have been on the hook for an additional £7,735 million over the life of those contracts. Holding this debate is not just about giving a history lesson or taking a trip down memory lane, though; it should sound a warning. Although our current chancellor’s CV might not be as impressive as Gordon Brown’s, the situation in which she finds herself has parallels with his.”
“Research by BBC Scotland revealed that there are 11 PPP contracts expiring in which the public sector will have to shell out tens of millions to actually own the buildings that it has spent years paying through the nose for. Thankfully, once in government, the SNP took swift action to abolish PPP. Through the non- profit-distributing model, schools and hospital construction projects were financed through conventional means or via the Scottish Futures Trust, with private profits capped at 5 per cent and surpluses directed to the public sector. NPD projects average 58 per cent of the repayment costs of PPP projects, with most of the costs going on interest payments.”
“PPP remains a millstone around the neck of Scotland’s public services. To put its impact on local authority finances into perspective, 31p in every pound of council tax raised in North Ayrshire goes towards the council’s PPP obligations. Stuart McMillan will be interested to know that, in Inverclyde, it is 45p in every pound of council tax raised; in Clackmannanshire, it is 52p. As Michael Marra is the only Labour member present in the chamber, I advise him that, in Dundee City, 32.4 per cent of all council tax raised will go in PPP payments this year. In many cases, the public will not even own the buildings by the time that the contracts end.”
“The member is making a splendid speech. I remember my time in Westminster, when Meg Hillier, who was at that point the chair of the Public Accounts Committee, noted that the issue of debt in that type of contract was primarily to remove it from the balance sheet of UK plc, because neither Government wanted the people to know just how broke the UK was. Does the member agree? Kenneth Gibson: I agree. I touched on that earlier in my speech, and I will touch on it later. Kilmarnock prison was built for £32 million and went into operation in 1999. By the time the contract ended last year, taxpayers had shelled out £367.64 million. The contract for a £45.5 million waste water project in Levenmouth required an astonishing £721.2 million in repayments, which is a shocking 16 times the original cost.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to local authorities to sustain and expand Gaelic-medium education. (S6O-04333)”
“As we know, there are many such small businesses in every constituency in Scotland. At the start of my speech, I referenced unintended consequences. It is disappointing that the UK Government knows fine well the consequences and that it has chosen to direct those consequences at employees. Its elasticity with the truth is perhaps no surprise. It is up to us in Scotland to expose the uncomfortable truth and support as best we can businesses and workers alike. 16:43”
“Both of those moves can only limit growth, which is the antithesis of what the UK Government states that it wants. We are not talking about marginal effects, as the Government expects to raise an additional £24.5 billion annually. We are told that some smaller businesses will benefit from a rise in the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That is true, and it is very welcome. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail. If someone’s business is doing more than half of its work in the public sector—which, most notably, might be for local councils and NHS services—they are barred from claiming the allowance. That will exclude thousands of Scotland’s small businesses. A very small company with only one director who is the only employee and is liable for secondary class 1 NICs cannot claim either.”
“It is trying to hoodwink the workers, who, along with the public, will pay. The negative effect of the employer national insurance hike will not happen all at once. The OBR forecasts that workers will bear around 60 per cent initially, rising to 76 per cent in the medium term. Employers, too, will have to find other ways of absorbing the remaining costs. The immediate reaction of business demonstrated a waning of confidence. As we know, business confidence is critical for growth; a lack of it also leads to a postponement in recruitment and the shelving of investment plans. There is not only a rise in the employer rate from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent; there is a huge drop in the earnings level threshold from £9,100 to £5,000.”
“Since firms’ demand for labour is generally more elastic than workers’ supply of labour, that suggests that most of the burden of employer NICs will be shifted on to employees through a drop in wage growth and a loss of jobs. Daniel Johnson: The member is quite correct—it combines both those aspects; that is why the OECD refers to it as the tax wedge. Will she also acknowledge that, at current levels, we are still competitive with other OECD countries— we are mid-table—when it comes to the tax burden and the tax wedge to which she refers? Michelle Thomson: I think that the crucial words are “at the moment.” I am setting out clearly how that position will shift as a direct consequence of the policy. The Labour UK Government has created in its explanation a new concept: the elasticity of truth.”
“We, in Parliament, know that policy making often results in unintended consequences. However, for this UK Government policy, we can be clear not only that the consequences can be predicted but that they have been planned. The UK Government knew that the rise in national insurance contributions would place a direct burden on the workers that it still wants to pretend that it supports. As any competent economist will tell you, the legal assignment of national insurance contributions—which, in this case, is to employers—is irrelevant to who ends up bearing the cost of them. To be technical for a minute, what matters is the elasticity of labour supply and demand, or how sensitive the decisions of employers and workers are to wage changes and costs.”
“I move, as an amendment to motion S6M- 16488, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert: “welcomes the record £5.2 billion of additional funding for Scotland delivered as a result of the UK Government’s Autumn Budget; agrees with the STUC that the additional positive measures that are set out in the draft Scottish Budget 2025-26 are ‘dependent on UK Government funding’; regrets that the fiscal changes called for by the Scottish Government would significantly reduce the level of funding available to Scotland’s public services; understands that the First Minister has publicly advocated for a cut to Scotland’s budget of £636 million; regrets that the Scottish National Party administration’s failure to grow Scotland’s economy has negatively impacted the level of funding available in the Scottish Budget over many years; understands that decisions around the level of staffing in Scotland’s public services are devolved to the Scottish Government, and calls on the Scottish Government to ensure that the record funding delivered by the UK Government reaches the frontline services that need it most.” 16:15”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Daniel Johnson: I am in my final minute. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is about to conclude. Daniel Johnson: In my view, honesty is a primary responsibility of the Government. This Government needs to be honest about what it is proposing, but I do not believe that it does that in the motion. The maths is simple: the £5.2 billion is considerably more than the additional costs that it is incurring through the national insurance increase. If it cannot do the maths, maybe the SNP is not fit to be in government, and maybe it should make way for people who are.”
“Thirdly, a range of ideas have emerged through the project Willow process, which are welcome, but there is a wish—this is what I am signalling today—to attract other investment to support us in realising economic opportunities in Grangemouth. The Deputy First Minister leads on that for the Scottish Government, and the Government will be open to dialogue on those questions.”
“The First Minister: There are a number of issues to respond to. On skills retention, I have discussed with the trade unions the importance of focused support being available for employees. If Michelle Thomson, as a constituency member, encounters any employees who are finding it difficult to access any of the systems, I would ask her to contact ministers and we will address those issues. Secondly, there are a range of investment possibilities in Grangemouth. We are creating some of the funding infrastructure to enable those to be realised. There are other funding sources, such as the Scottish National Investment Bank and the UK Government.”
“I welcome the moves to, for example, provide PACE support, hold a careers fair and carry out a skills audit, and I absolutely welcome the £25 million funding. If the intention is to expedite potential project Willow proposals, the recent leak of the report points to truly eye-watering sums of money that will be required. Presumably, that funding will come entirely from the UK Government, given that the majority of the proposals would require capital investment. Will the First Minister outline whether he has had the chance to discuss that with the Prime Minister? Given his statement today, will he outline how he thinks that that investment will mitigate the loss of the existing skills base, particularly with regard to the all-important chemical cluster in that area? The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will need briefer questions.”
“Will he set out what specific steps the Scottish Government is taking right now to support the workers and ensure that there remains a skills cluster from which to transition?”
“Yesterday, 435 workers at the Grangemouth refinery in my Falkirk East constituency were given redundancy notices, and refining will cease at the end of June. Despite statements from the Prime Minister, and from the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, who promised to “step in to save the jobs at the refinery” and “put hundreds of millions of pounds behind it”, the UK Government has instead prioritised eight sites—none of which are in Scotland—for the likes of sustainable aviation fuel. I understand the need to transition, but the “just” in just transition has turned into “just wait” for the workers, the wider cluster and the community. Will the First Minister join me in condemning the United Kingdom Government for its lack of action?”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to invest in the hospice care sector, in light of the £4 million referred to in the draft budget 2025-26. (S6O- 04301)”
“If the public feel that they are not being heard and the Government does not respond with public services that take into account their needs, that Government risks losing legitimacy. The social contract fundamentally underpins trust in our democracy. At the most recent UK general election, the people of Scotland placed their faith and trust in Labour. How misplaced that was. Buyers’ regret is being felt across the board, not least by the newly elected Labour MP for my area, who claimed that my constituents should vote Labour to save the Grangemouth refinery. How did that work out for him? The people of Scotland can put their faith and their trust in this SNP Government to endeavour to do the right thing for them, even in difficult circumstances, instead of using difficult circumstances as an excuse to do nothing. 15:25”
“I quote from a letter from the Scottish Government to the Finance and Public Administration Committee: “Subject to Parliamentary approval, in 2025-26 our investment to mitigate the impacts of UK Government policies will rise to over £210 million per year, an increase of over £56 million.” The term “social contract” is often used in this chamber. It is worth hearing a reminder of what it means. It is about much more than the choices of the SNP Government to ensure that our Scottish students do not pay university fees, that our chronically ill do not pay constantly for prescriptions, that our youth get free bus travel, and so on. A social contract is at the heart of democracy.”
“It is changing the work capability assessment, means testing the winter fuel payment and accelerating the migration of claimants from employment and support allowance on to universal credit. Overall, it plans to reduce the welfare bill by a further £4.1 billion by 2029-30, whereas the few benefits increases that are planned amount to a paltry rise of just £0.2 billion. The UK Government is keeping two benefit rules that have a particularly dire effect on the living standards of the poorest: the benefit cap and the two-child limit. This SNP Government already mitigates, or plans to mitigate, those policies, but the Labour Party in Scotland will not support that. The huge amount that this SNP Government pays to mitigate Tory and now Labour austerity is worth putting on the record.”
“Before the general election, in December 2023, much attention was paid to independent research from the Nuffield Foundation and the centre for economic performance at the London School of Economics, which concluded that the UK had lacked a coherent economic strategy for many years. Since being elected, the Labour UK Government has done its best to cement that lack of strategy into the UK’s DNA. The report bemoaned the cuts to benefits under the post-2010 austerity drive of successive Tory Governments over the previous 15 years, claiming that all forms of cuts had reduced the incomes of the poorest fifth by just under £3,000 a year. However, UK Labour, in picking up the mantle of government, clearly thinks that the Tories did not go far enough.”
“There is a compelling suite of policies across health and social care; support for our most vulnerable in society, including a winter heating payment; a £34 million uplift to the culture budget, which has been very well received by the sector; £25 million to properly focus on green jobs and to build a sustainable supply chain; and more than £300 million of ScotWind revenue, which is, thankfully, protected for investment in jobs. All that is enabled by investment, and we see a real growth agenda in the form of a budget of £768 million for affordable homes, which will enable more than 8,000 new properties for social rent to be built this year. Who would not support that?”
“It takes a special kind of political incompetence to announce months in advance that it will abstain, having achieved absolutely nothing to advance its cause or the interests of the Scottish people. Scottish Labour claims that the bill will “not deliver the change Scotland needs”, and that is why it is standing with the Tories in not supporting this SNP budget. Michael Marra: Does the member not think that £5.2 billion is a worthwhile contribution to the Scottish people? Michelle Thomson: Absolutely, but I make it completely clear that my ambition for Scotland is far more than that. I do not want us to rely on handouts. How about we all grow up and create our own future, in the form of independence? That would sort that. Let us look at some of the changes that are in the budget.”
“This is, indeed, a budget that is made in Scotland for Scotland, and I add my voice to those who welcome the contribution of the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and Alba. The Tories, as ever, are taking their job of opposition so seriously that they seem to oppose everything that the Scottish Government does, everything that this Parliament does and pretty much everything that Scotland does. But what of the bridesmaid party, also known as the Scottish Labour Party, which never quite gets the white dress? It aspires to government, yet is unable to accept that being in government brings responsibility and choices. Stuck between its lack of policy ideas and the missteps of Sir Keir Starmer, Scottish Labour has chosen to sit on its hands.”
“I draw members’ attention to the SFC’s report “Fiscal Sustainability Perspectives: Climate Change”, which makes clear that in no way can the framework be considered adequate for the scale of investment needed to get to net zero. Any further review must bear that in mind. 16:27”
“In the FPAC’s report, there are multiple calls for that, as either an MTFS—a medium-term financial strategy—or a fiscal sustainability delivery plan. There has been considerable uncertainty due to various events but, as the old mantra says: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. I have a thought about the issuance of bonds, which I am aware continues to be actively looked at. As well as a best-value test, bonds also have the benefit of embedding skin in the Scottish game. Investing in worthy public-realm projects can also provide an emotional commitment and be a draw for bodies run by affinity Scots or our global diaspora. My final point is about reviewing how the fiscal framework operates.”
“Ideas are shared in a calm and rational manner, away from the hurly-burly of political posturing. I am struck by the fact that all the committees that have reported have, invariably, agreed on their reports without division. That is certainly the case for the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is heartening. Many points have been brought out ably in the debate. Zero-based budgeting is still an area of interest to me. During our trip to Estonia, the FPA Committee heard evidence of its use in the public realm. It has its critics but—perhaps because my previous experience in the commercial world had a sharpness around budgeting—I think that it has merit. I add my voice to the calls to publish a variety of forecast information in a form that is described as a strategic approach.”
“My concern is that many retail investors may not vote, perhaps because they do not realise that the proposed takeover represents a fundamental risk to Scottish jobs and our financial ecosystem. I appreciate that the Scottish Government cannot and should not take a stand on legitimate commercial activity. However, it can and should take a stand to value Scotland’s important professional services. Will the minister join me in encouraging all investors to register to vote now and make their voices heard to protect that vital sector? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Thomson, I encourage you to keep your remarks to the subject of the debate. Michelle Thomson: I will move on to my other remarks—I have finished that section. During the budget process, I always enjoy this particular debate, which I feel brings out the best of the Parliament.”
“As an aside—if you will indulge me, Presiding Officer—this is not a Scottish Government responsibility, but it could have a clear impact on our economy, I want to raise my concern about reports of an aggressive takeover bid of the Edinburgh Worldwide Investment Trust by Saba Capital, a hedge fund based in New York. Scottish investment trusts established a crucial tradition that can still be seen in the DNA of successful Scottish investment firms: a long-term approach. Saba Capital declared its intent just before the Christmas break, and it requires an extraordinary general meeting in early February. That deliberately left little time for organisation to ensure that all sides of the debate could be heard.”
“This is the open debate, so I get to be a little more free with my comments than everyone thus far. In my opinion, this is a good and clever budget, and it reorientates John Swinney and Kate Forbes’s Government with the right priorities, including tangible steps to ameliorate child poverty, a much more realistic spend figure for housing, the protection of Scotland’s funds for the originally intended use and so on. However, growing the economy is a key part of the budget, and that must include growing the tax base to fund vital public services.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Falkirk Council is to consider a motion calling for immediate action by the Scottish Government to support the Grangemouth chemical cluster and the future of its industry. (S6O-04273)”
“I note the earlier question and answer about Forth Valley royal hospital and am pleased that a full investigation is under way. However, there are conflicting reports about the exact length of time for which the generators were offline, with those varying from the short period of time noted in the original statement to the hour outlined by the cabinet secretary. Will the investigation establish the exact length of time, which some anecdotal reports suggest was closer to two hours? Angela Constance: I will, of course, discuss that with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care so that we can provide the member with assurance of the breadth and depth of the investigation that will take place. I will also ask Mr Gray to write to the member in the interim.”
“I do not see this as a party-political issue, and I have deliberately avoided any party comment in my motion and speech. I believe that this is an issue on which members of all parties should and can come together to argue for more women to be engaged in net zero leadership and action. I concede that that is not an issue that can be left to Government alone. This issue—our shared issue—is one for all of humanity. 12:59”
“It is not just the energy sector but all sectors of the economy and business that need to change, from the initial small-scale start-ups to large established corporations. The need to focus on net zero is considerable, but action can be accelerated by ensuring that women have a much stronger role to play. Despite its importance in Scotland, it cannot be left to organisations such as Women’s Enterprise Scotland to fight for change, although its pioneering work is to be greatly welcomed. I would like to ask the cabinet secretary two questions. First, what is the Government’s strategy for involving more women in working specifically towards net zero? Secondly, what research into the role of women in pursuing net zero does the Government currently support?”
“The study notes: “Given that women are more likely to display altruism and empathetic decision-making, it is crucial to incorporate this gender group in key societal decisions, actions and plans.” I would argue that how we get to net zero, as well as the actions that we take, are important, and empathy and understanding are surely part of that. We must deliver change through people and not to people. All the prevailing evidence suggests that increasing the engagement of women in net zero policy work, whether in business or in government, will accelerate actions towards net zero. Of course, this debate is about the future, not just the past—a future that I want to see shaped by the active engagement of all sections of our society.”
“I will highlight a practical example. An article by three University of Cambridge scholars, published less than a month ago, entitled “How Gender Influences the Motivation and Action Towards Climate Change: A Qualitative Study of Participants from a UK Construction Company”, reported on the results of an in-depth investigation of a large construction company. The results give us a clear insight into the difference between male and female actions. Unsurprisingly, where male culture predominates, as it does in construction, there is a lower action focus on climate change. Not only that, but the ways in which actions are carried out is important.”
“Last February, Nesta—formerly the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—reported on a United Kingdom Government report regarding public awareness and behaviour towards climate change and net zero. The report revealed that men and women think and behave differently when it comes to climate change. Some 93 per cent of men claimed awareness of net zero, but only 78 per cent expressed concern. In contrast, 85 per cent of women claimed both awareness of and concern about net zero. Furthermore, men are more likely than women to anticipate a negative economic impact from a transition to net zero. In other words, men are more likely to see the transition to net zero as a zero-sum game. Despite women being more concerned, as I have outlined, it is largely men who drive policy making and lead our major businesses.”
“I am extremely grateful to Dr Hannah Salamon from the University of Glasgow for sending me an advance copy of her excellent blog entitled “Where are the women in the UK’s green energy transition?” When looking at the issue of underrepresentation of women, she points out: “This marginalisation of women in green energy is problematic from two perspectives: first, it threatens the success of the energy transition from a workforce perspective. Second, it withholds the benefits that come along with the fast growth of the green energy sector (financial, social, and political) from women.” I am particularly grateful to Hannah for offering to work with me in pursuing the agenda further.”
“Scottish Power says: “The more we can do as an industry and a society to show the opportunities available to women the more beneficial it will be to our journey to net zero.” One of the problems in the political sphere is the dominance of overly simplistic, zero-sum thinking, which is beautifully explained in a blog article by Professor Graeme Roy and Sir Anton Muscatelli that the National Institute of Social and Economic Research published this week. From my perspective, we must not see the encouragement of more women into policy-making or leadership roles as if it is part of a zero-sum game with men. It is all about improving the overall impact for everyone’s benefit.”
“The global consultancy Oliver Wyman published research that claimed that although a fifth of major corporations have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, albeit by 2050, few actively considered or included women in their climate action plans. Although diversity and climate change were viewed as priorities, astonishingly, the research notes that “almost none have considered how linking the two management priorities could accelerate their transition to net zero emissions.” Some companies, such as Scottish Power, are addressing the problem, and they run programmes that range from international leadership to setting up in-company women networks.”
“Its new voices campaign, which is sponsored by Ørsted, provides a year- long series of workshops for 10 participants from underrepresented groups. This year, six of the cohort are women. However, Scottish Renewables knows that there is a long way to go and points out: “Women continue to face wide and varying barriers to equality throughout their careers with a lack of encouragement to enter traditionally male dominated fields, such as STEM ... there has so far been a lack of focus on the women involved in the Renewables supply chain in Scotland”. That must change. Scottish Renewables’ recognition of the issue is supported by international research.”