Lorna Slater
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“I am grateful to the minister for highlighting the impact of Green policies such as free bus travel and free school meals. The Scottish Greens have always maintained that progressive public services should be underpinned by sustainable and fair sources of revenue, which is why we have consistently supported changes to Scotland’s income ta…”
“It is also worth stating that the ask in this country is great, but the offer is even greater, with free tuition, free prescriptions, the baby box and the child payment, which the UK Government has followed suit on. There is also free bus travel and free interisland ferry travel for under-22s.”
“It is a matter of urgency that Scotland’s land register be completed so that a comprehensive and publicly accessible online map can be created. I would be very interested to hear the cabinet secretary’s view on the importance of that aspect.”
“If the public purse is stretched, that is the first place that we should look for money. It might involve taxing polluters or using extended producer responsibility schemes such as the deposit return scheme, but in any case it is clear that we can no longer afford to subsidise polluters. The same goes for carbon emissions.”
“In the previous session of Parliament, I was part of the cross-party SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee. I would like to highlight to the cabinet secretary two of the recommendations that resulted from that committee’s work.”
“We therefore recommend that the Scottish Government urgently undertakes a strategic mapping exercise to identify the functions of all Scottish public bodies and where they overlap, to inform decisions on future size, structure, and coherence across the public sector.” Michael Marra: It strikes me that that is precisely what Scottish Labou…”
The complete record
Every one of 468 lines we hold for Lorna Slater, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
“He is anything but congratulatory about the strengths of the Scottish economy. We make points in our motion about an EY survey saying that Scotland is “outpacing the UK” as a whole, and about the ranking of three Scottish cities in the UK’s top 10 locations for FDI outside London. Even if he does not credit the Government with that success, will he not at least recognise the success of the Scottish economy in attracting investment, or will his speech entirely downplay our potential? Murdo Fraser: I am pleased that the Deputy First Minister has raised the EY survey. I read a very interesting quote from Ally Scott, who is the managing partner of EY Scotland.”
“When the cross-party group on Scotch whisky visited Islay the summer before last, we heard that the biggest brake on the expansion of the whisky industry on that island—which is already seeing substantial additional investment and new facilities being formed—is the reliability of the ferry service. That is the biggest concern there and, again, something that is entirely in the Scottish Government’s gift. Connectivity is not just about transport. We were promised that every address in Scotland would be connected to superfast broadband by 2021. That is another promise that has been broken. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: Yes, if she will tell me what will happen on that point. Kate Forbes: I will just make a comment. The member talked about our motion being too self- congratulatory.”
“However, for products that are produced in places that are not close to a railhead, such as the products of the Scotch whisky industry, that would burden industries with substantial additional costs. Rail is not a panacea, but the general point is fairly made. While we are talking about rail, let me say that we still have a substandard service. I have raised the service and connectivity that my constituents in Fife get between Fife and Edinburgh in the chamber so many times. The situation is holding back economic progress. As we are talking about whisky, let me also mention ferries.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: Oh my goodness. They are coming from all sides, Presiding Officer. I agree with Mr Johnson. Let us hear what Lorna Slater has to say, which might not be so agreeable. Lorna Slater: We all want infrastructure so that we can move goods and people around the country, but there is no particular reason why those goods could not be moved by rail if our rail system was upgraded. Investing in roads this late in a climate emergency is not a sensible use of money. Murdo Fraser: I simply disagree with Lorna Slater on that last point, but I agree that, where there is the capacity to move goods by rail, we should take that opportunity. Many companies, Tesco being one of them—we often see its goods moving by rail—use that facility.”
“Today, the Scottish Parliament recognises three years of Ukrainians standing strong in the face of Russian aggression and three years of immense suffering, displacement and loss of life. From the very beginning, Scotland has stood in solidarity with Ukraine, with our people welcoming Ukrainians into their homes and communities. I am proud that, as a Parliament, we are just as united in that support today. I want to see Europe and the UK standing strong behind Ukraine, its people and the virtues of democracy. I wish for peace for the people of Ukraine with all my heart, but on their terms and with them at the table. [Applause.] 12:05”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: As ever with these debates, we have next to no time in hand, so members will be expected to stick to their time allocations. 14:58”
“I move, That the Parliament notes with concern that at least £8 million of Scottish Enterprise grants have been awarded to 13 companies involved in arms dealing and manufacturing since 2019, including £700,000 to Leonardo and £500,000 to Raytheon Systems; further notes that a number of these businesses have directly supplied weapons and equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza; understands that, despite this, no company has failed the current Scottish Enterprise human rights due diligence checks; believes, therefore, that the current due diligence process at Scottish Enterprise is failing to ensure that Scotland upholds its international obligations, and calls on the Scottish Government to end all public funding to companies complicit in the arms trade with Israel.”
“The Scottish Government has called clearly for an end to all United Kingdom arms sales to Israel, but Scottish public money is still being granted to companies that are complicit in the manufacturing of arms that are used by Israel. The Scottish Government must urgently overhaul the human rights due diligence process so that every penny of public money that is handed out by Scottish Enterprise goes towards making the world a better, fairer place in which human lives and human rights are respected. Many of my colleagues in the chamber have backed calls for a ceasefire and condemned the destruction in Gaza. I hope that they will join me in saying that enough is enough and calling on the Scottish Government to end all public funding to companies that are complicit in the arms trade with Israel.”
“BAE, which reported £3 billion-worth of profits last year alone, is profiting from human suffering. Our public money is increasing suffering and misery instead of building a fairer and better world, but it is not at all clear to me that mega corporations that rake in that kind of profit need public money at all. BAE, for example, is already the biggest arms company in Europe, and Raytheon is the second biggest in the world. Scottish public money would be better spent on supporting small businesses, co-operative businesses, social enterprises and rural businesses. Scotland’s small clean energy, nature restoration and organic food businesses could have made very good use of that money.”
“It is not honest for the Scottish Government to dismiss that by saying that the grants do not go directly towards weapons or munitions manufacturing. What is the moral distinction between funding the bomb and funding the bomb factory? The Scottish Government is still choosing to give public money to companies that profit from the sales of arms and technologies that are currently being used by the Israel Defense Forces to commit human rights abuses in Gaza. BAE Systems, Raytheon and Leonardo have all received grants from Scottish Enterprise, and all three have been involved in arms sales to not only Israel but Saudi Arabia, which has used them to inflict a humanitarian crisis on the people of Yemen. In 2019, the Court of Appeal found those arms sales to have been granted illegally. Many of the companies are reporting mega profits.”
“Amnesty International has called the current human rights due diligence process “inadequate”, and it states that the process is “failing to ensure that Scotland upholds its international obligations”. If companies that are arming war crimes are not beyond the pale, who is? The Scottish Government might say that its hands are tied but, following the invasion of Ukraine, it rightly introduced measures against companies that trade with Russia. Why is Israel different? When we invest public money in our economy, we have a responsibility to use it to shape the future that we want to see and invest in the kinds of organisations that share our vision for a fairer and greener future. It should go without saying that companies should not be profiting from human suffering or the war crimes that we have seen in the past 15 months.”
“The Scottish Government must put its money where its mouth is and stand up for human rights. This morning, Oxfam and Amnesty International joined the calls for that funding to be stopped, with Oxfam describing the Government’s position as “morally incoherent”. In 2019, the Scottish Greens secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that all Scottish public bodies would conduct human rights checks on companies, including arms companies, before funding them. In November 2023, The Ferret revealed that, despite Scottish Enterprise having conducted 199 human rights checks, not a single firm had failed, despite some having armed states that have been widely accused of war crimes, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.”
“Foreign policy is not devolved to Scotland. Scotland cannot control what the UK Government does on the world stage, but we can control where our public money goes and which companies and industries we choose to support. The principle of our motion is very simple: if a company has profited from the sale of arms and weapons to countries that are complicit in war crimes and genocide, it should not receive public money from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has said that no public funding should be going to supply arms to Israel but, since 2019, at least £8 million in Scottish Enterprise grants has been awarded to 13 companies that are involved in arms dealing and manufacturing. A number of those businesses have directly supplied weapons and equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza.”
“There are International Criminal Court arrest warrants out for the architects of the crisis and on-going investigations for breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The Scottish Government has rightly spoken strongly against the killing and against Donald Trump’s plan. The Scottish Government has been clear in its support for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza—something that was supported by the Parliament back in 2023. Yet, since the assault began, the Scottish Government has given more than £1 million to companies that have armed Israel and that have enabled that destruction. We could debate the shameful role of the United Kingdom Government, which has approved those arms sales to Israel, and I expect that there would be a lot of unity among MSPs from across the chamber.”
“I was very proud to be part of the Scottish Government under First Minister Humza Yousaf when he spoke up so movingly on the plight of the Palestinian people, who were being subject to collective punishment for the brutal atrocities that were committed on 7 October. The suffering that they have endured at the hands of Israeli forces has been horrific. Ordinary citizens, half of them children, have been subject to bombardment for months and deprived of food, water, electricity and medical care in some of the worst war crimes of the 21st century. Tens of thousands of people have been killed; schools, hospitals and homes have been bombed into rubble; lives have been cut devastatingly short; and more than 1 million people have been displaced. Now, in front of the world, the Trump Administration is calling for widespread ethnic cleansing.”
“We have plenty of evidence of it in the Parliament, and I want to be one of those individuals who stand up for the clarity of information, who speak truth to the Parliament and who express in detail—”
“Does the First Minister agree that political leaders everywhere must stand up to disinformation? Will he ask Keir Starmer to demand an urgent apology from the White House when the Prime Minister meets Trump next week? The First Minister: The Prime Minister is well able to engage in dialogue with the President of the United States. I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement in the European dialogue that took place earlier this week on the situation in Ukraine. That was a very welcome step, and I also welcome what the Prime Minister said last night on the Ukrainian situation into the bargain. On Lorna Slater’s general point, we are living in an era in which disinformation is regularly circulated in our political discourse, which is harming that discourse.”
“On Lorna Slater’s point about what the Government is doing on the issues, ahead of the act coming into force, we published clear guidance on NHS Inform and the Scottish Government website. We also issued letters to householders who were affected by the zones about what the act meant for their localities. I urge anyone with questions to read the online guidance that is available. Lorna Slater: The White House manufactures mistruths, tech billionaires profit from them and bad-faith actors spread them. Disinformation is playing an increasingly dangerous role in our communities and our global politics. Promoting lies and misinformation at home and abroad can have serious consequences for all our communities. Friendly countries do not tell lies about one another.”
“The First Minister: I recognise the seriousness of the points that Lorna Slater put to me. In relation to the protests yesterday, those are live issues in the criminal justice system, so I will not comment on them, for the same reasons that I gave to Russell Findlay earlier. Obviously, the remarks that the Vice-President of the United States made last week about the safe access zones legislation in Scotland were untrue. They were incorrect, so I am grateful to Lorna Slater for providing the opportunity for me to say that to the Parliament openly and to clarify the position. The idea that private prayer in an individual’s home is in any way contradicted or constrained by the legislation is just not correct.”
“This week, US Vice-President JD Vance spread misinformation about laws that were made in the Scottish Parliament. His claims about my colleague Gillian Mackay’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Act 2024 are grossly misleading. Emboldened by Mr Vance’s comments, anti-choice groups have already started to target patients outside the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, and more actions are planned in the coming weeks. Last summer, members of the Scottish Parliament agreed overwhelmingly that everyone should be able to access abortion services free from harassment. What is the First Minister doing to correct false claims and to provide clarity to the public on what buffer zones mean for them? How will he protect safe access to healthcare in Scotland?”
“Lorna Slater: I am grateful for those tax powers, given that we have used them to put in place progressive taxation, but today we are talking about the UK internal market act, which is a mechanism for taking powers away from the Scottish Parliament. I remember protesting that state of affairs at an intergovernmental meeting when I was the Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity, and I was thundered at by a UK secretary of state that a devolved system is not a federal system, meaning that our powers are not protected by the constitution. Well; quite. The Scottish Greens maintain that Scotland should cease being part of the union and single market and instead be an independent nation inside the European Union and its common market, and everything that the Labour Government is doing reinforces that position. 16:36”
“Scotland and Wales will continue to have their ambition to protect the environment curtailed, which is forcing us to move forward at the rate of the slowest nation—or, rather, at the rate of England—which is contrary to the whole principle of devolution. There is to be no more innovation and no more moving first for Scotland, and no more trying out policy ideas in Scotland to see whether they work well before the rest of the UK can take them on. Jackson Carlaw: Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: Certainly. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly. Jackson Carlaw: It was a Conservative Government that transferred taxation powers to this Parliament, which is now able to diverge from the rest of the United Kingdom in the tax policies that it implements. Is the member completely oblivious to that?”
“Even the most basic and simple of things, such as starting a recycling scheme for bottles and cans a few months ahead of the rest of the UK, was blocked. Labour is, indeed, approaching the issue as if it can never imagine itself being in government in Scotland. If it could imagine being in government in Scotland, it would see itself as being yes men and women to Westminster, never using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to lead, make a difference or diverge in any way. Scottish Labour was desperately hoping that a Labour Government in Westminster would undermine the case for Scottish independence, but it has done the opposite, by demonstrating that it does not matter who is in power in Westminster: the UK Government will retain the power to veto legislation that is made by the Scottish Parliament in fully devolved areas.”
“Lorna Slater: I recall that the regulations covering the scheme were passed by Parliament in 2020. It was the will of Parliament that that scheme be put in place. I note that in the past few weeks the UK Government has passed similar regulations that are based on the ones in Scotland, because UK Government officials worked closely with our officials here to develop them. Those are coming for the entire UK, whether Fergus Ewing supports them or not. Emma Roddick put it best in the debate. She outlined, as I did, that we are talking about attempts by the Scottish Parliament to use the powers that it has, or should have, under devolution, and that we are demonstrating where they have been and could be blocked.”
“I want to reassure Willie Rennie that I am happy to talk about the deposit return scheme any time, and to discuss it and debate it in the chamber. If any members wish to make interventions during my closing remarks, I would be happy to accept them. Fergus Ewing: Does Ms Slater recall that, in an unprecedented expression of condemnation of the bill that she was then in charge of as a minister, around 600 businesses across the entire range that would have been affected by the deposit return scheme said that it was unworkable and unachievable and, quite frankly, that it should have been scrapped? Does she believe that the scheme should have gone ahead as planned? Were all those businesses throughout Scotland wrong? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. I think that we have got the gist.”
“The mechanism that was developed is called the common frameworks. Those were agreed by all nations, with the intention to bring the nations into alignment and to grant exemptions from the IMA where that was not possible. In the case of the deposit return scheme, although the process was followed to the letter, it failed, because the common frameworks process is not binding on the UK Government. Despite saying for years, including in published documents as late as January 2023, that Scotland’s DRS could contain glass and diverge from England’s, the UK Government delayed and delayed in granting the necessary exemption, and ultimately refused to grant it at the 11th hour.”
“That example is important, because it demonstrates exactly how the 2020 act limits wider ambition to protect the environment and how it can be used for political ends to undermine the devolved powers of the Scottish Government and the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament. Back in 2019, all the nations in the UK had the intention to bring in such schemes. Boris Johnson stood for election that year on a manifesto promise to deliver a deposit return scheme that included glass. Scotland went first, with the Scottish Parliament passing the regulations for Scotland’s scheme in 2020, which was before I was elected and before the internal market act was passed. It was recognised that, post Brexit, a mechanism would be needed to figure out how repatriated EU powers would be used by the UK where they clearly infringed on devolved powers.”
“The UK Government is not required to give any advance notice of what its decision might be, to provide any evidence to support its decision or to appear in front of Scottish parliamentary committees to defend or be held accountable for its decision. It is really quite extraordinary that legislation on fully devolved matters, which has been developed over months and years in Scotland and has been passed by the democratic vote of the Scottish Parliament, can be stopped in that way—I will repeat myself, because this is a really important point—without providing evidence or justification or being held democratically accountable. We have an egregious example of that in Scotland’s deposit return scheme.”
“The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is a pernicious piece of legislation that not only alters the devolution settlement without the consent of Scotland; it is limiting in a way that the European common market is not. Within the common market of the European Union, protections for the environment are viewed as a floor, not a ceiling. Therefore, where nations or regions wish to be more ambitious with measures to protect the environment, they may do so. However, within the UK single market, the internal market is used to create a ceiling. Any time that Scotland or Wales wishes to use their fully devolved powers to move more quickly than England does—for example, to ban single-use plastics—the UK Government gets the final say as to whether it allows that.”
“It demonstrates that it does not matter whether the Government at Westminster is red or blue—we cannot build a future that the people of Scotland deserve as a devolved nation— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater, you are over your time by quite a bit. Lorna Slater: We can do it only as an independent country. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Alex Cole- Hamilton will open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. 16:23”
“As long as Scotland is merely a devolved nation rather than an independent nation, we will be held back in our ambitions to be a fairer country. We are forced to do what I am doing now, which is to beg the Government at Westminster to use the powers that it has and that we do not to tax the wealthy, to tax land value, to tax major polluters and to please, please, please provide the funding that it will not allow us to raise, so that the people of Scotland do not have to suffer the consequences. That is a humiliating position to be in. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater, you need to conclude. Lorna Slater: Certainly, Presiding Officer.”
“Through negotiation with and participation in government, the Scottish Greens have ensured that those powers have been used. As a result of that work by the Scottish Greens, more than £1 billion has been raised for public services in Scotland. That use of its limited revenue-raising powers sets Scotland apart from England, with the clear intention to pay public sector workers better and to ensure a more robust social safety net for Scottish people. The Scottish child payment is clear evidence of that, as is the higher pay for nurses in Scotland. I am tired of us being told to eat our cereal while Keir Starmer and his team work to make the rich richer and show a callous disregard for on-the- ground funding of public services.”
“The whole point of ending austerity is to improve public services, not to further damage them and not to put out of business the organisations that deliver them. If it cannot change course and if it lacks the courage to raise the money through taxation, the UK Labour Government must at the very least ensure that it covers the rise in cost for public services in Scotland, including the third sector organisations that deliver such services. I know that all the members in the chamber are familiar with the devolution settlement, but for the benefit of people who might be watching, funding for Scottish public services comes substantially from the block grant—the money that is allocated to Scotland from Westminster and that is calculated by the Barnett formula. Scotland, as a devolved nation, has limited revenue-raising powers.”
“There are immediate changes that could be made to the entire structure of the economy that do not require the specific intervention that we are debating. However, I am not clear that the Labour Government has set out any ambitious changes for the long term, either. The inevitable knock-on effect of adding those employer national insurance contributions to local authority budgets is that the third sector organisations that deliver many public services on behalf of our local authorities will have to close their doors; they will have to reduce staff and reduce the services that they deliver. It is the people in our own communities who will be hurt by that—they will miss out on opportunities for better health, better skills and better inclusion in society.”
“I, along with other members of this Parliament, have had an inbox full of messages from organisations that deliver important, front-line services in communities but will have to close their doors as a result of the rise in contributions. Daniel Johnson: I hear what the member is saying. I presume that she is arguing for a wealth tax, but does she not recognise that there is an in- year financial problem that needs to be addressed? If it is not going to be addressed through national insurance contributions from employers, what is her alternative proposal? Lorna Slater: The UK Government has so many more levers than the Scottish Government has—for example, levers to reduce subsidies for the oil and gas sector and the aviation sector. No company in Scotland pays tax on its aviation fuel.”
“However, instead of setting out a vision for a different future and having the courage of its socialist roots, the Labour Government has shied away from making real change because it is scared to tap into the enormous wealth that our country has generated but that has been hoarded by a few super-rich. The Labour Government, instead of looking seriously at real redistribution of wealth, prefers to continue to allow the filthy rich to get filthy richer—and, indeed, seeks to accelerate that through its focus on removing regulations that protect the environment, communities and workers. It names that ambition “growth”. Having backed itself into a corner between ending Tory austerity and fear of taxation, the Labour Government has made the poor decision to increase employer national insurance contributions in order to raise funds.”
“£364,052 per week.” Craig Hoy: As Lorna Slater rails against the rich, does she not realise that they are the most portable taxpayers and those who can relocate the easiest? Lorna Slater: That is why the Scottish Greens advocate a land value tax as an effective way of taxing wealth that cannot be packed up and moved to another country. The United Nations report from 2018 says: “The experience of the United Kingdom, especially since 2010, underscores the conclusion that poverty is a political choice. Austerity could easily have spared the poor, if the political will had existed to do so.” Step forward the Labour Government that was elected last summer, which, according to Anas Sarwar, was going to end austerity. “Read my lips,” he said.”
“The legacy of 14 years of a Conservative Government at Westminster that believed that it was possible to cut its way to economic success is an increase in child poverty during that time, with more families struggling to house and feed their kids and keep them warm. At the same time, according to the Equality Trust, the wealthy in the UK increased their wealth, with the very richest pulling even further ahead. The Equality Trust says: “The richest 100 families in Britain have seen their combined wealth increase by at least £55.5bn since 2010. An average increase in wealth of ... £2 million each per week.” It also notes: “Since the financial crash in 2008, the richest 100 families in Britain have seen their combined wealth increase by at least £12.57bn. An average increase in wealth of ...”
“She will understand the reservations to the UK Government in that policy area, but we want to work constructively to maximise opportunities for community benefit. On non-legislative interventions, she is absolutely correct. This involves policy and practice as well as legislative aspects. On the inclusive and democratic business models review, we have already committed to taking forward action for the economic democracy group, and I hope to be in a position to update Parliament shortly on how we are taking that work forward.”
“Much of what is needed to grow community wealth and make sure that people have a stake in Scotland’s prosperity does not require primary legislation, so much action is needed alongside the proposed bill. How and when will the minister enact the recommendations in the report “Developing Scotland’s Economy: Increasing The Role Of Inclusive And Democratic Business Models”? How will he ensure that communities that provide the land and coastline where wind turbines, pylons and other pieces of green infrastructure are installed see material benefit from that, including lower energy bills? Tom Arthur: On the point about renewable energy and ensuring that our communities can benefit fully from that revolution, the member will be aware of the work on the review of the good practice guidelines.”
“Rents across Scotland are skyrocketing. Tenants are paying the price while private landlords are lining their pockets. Although the Housing (Scotland) Bill will finally deliver the promise of permanent rent controls to fix the system, the provisions will not come into force until 2027. Right now, tenants are protected by temporary controls that were introduced while the Greens were in government, but those protections are set to expire in two months, which will expose tenants to extortionate rent increases. Despite having the powers to extend those protections, the Scottish Government has pledged not to do so. First Minister, will you do the right thing to protect tenants and ensure that those temporary protections are extended until permanent rent controls are in place? The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair.”
“Get those basic degrees behind you—they are what we need, and I absolutely encourage anyone who might be interested to take those up. 13:16”
“I think that it is, particularly around careers advice and the way that skills are taught and made available to people at different ages. More young people need to be encouraged to take up maths and physics, but also career changers, upskillers and career returners need to have access to engineering skills and the pathways into engineering, whether that is through apprenticeships for all ages or being able to access university and college courses at older ages. I want more people to consider learning the basic engineering skills, whether in mechanical, electrical, civil or computer engineering, because all of those areas lead to exciting careers. You do not need to have a fancy master’s degree in environmental engineering to work in renewable energy and the environment.”
“Engineers are right on the edge of that. For me, there is nothing more rewarding than working as part of a team to build something real that you can point at and say, “We created this thing that had not existed before. We have tried something new, maybe we have failed a few times, but we have learned a lot and here is this thing that we have built.” Presenting that exciting vision around engineering has to be the way to encourage more young people into this space, by emphasising the creativity, teamwork and rewards that come from solving the problems that our world desperately needs solutions to. The Withers review of the role of Skills Development Scotland is a timely opportunity to look into this space. I challenge some of my colleagues’ assertions that Skills Development Scotland is not in need of significant review.”
“We have an acute situation, which is set against the needs that we have for our transition. Whether through an apprenticeship, a higher national certificate, a higher national diploma or a degree programme, a career in engineering is exciting. The recruitment of more young people into engineering in Scotland and the rest of the UK is a long-standing issue. I have always thought that part of the problem was because engineering is framed as if it were all about maths and sitting at a computer staring at a screen, watching numbers scroll by like in “The Matrix”. Engineering is very hands on. It is teamworking; it is being creative; it is solving problems that nobody has ever had before. Right now, it is problem-solving that will save our planet—that will change our future and mean that humanity can survive and thrive.”
“That is how acute the shortage of engineers is and has been for the past 20 years in the UK, including in Scotland. My colleagues and I experienced that daily as we tried to build ambitious projects in various parts of the UK, including for renewable energy in Scotland. We were trying to find electrical engineers, electrical technicians and mechanical engineers, but there were just not enough of them. Many of my colleagues were immigrants like me. When we were members of the European Union, we were able to draw on the talents of EU citizens under the freedom of movement. The acute skills shortage in the UK due to a lack of home-grown engineers was previously supplemented by immigrants like me. However, Brexit cut us off at our knees by restricting the ability of a particular pool of talented individuals to come here smoothly to work.”
“I am very concerned by the report on the engineering skills gap. I recognise that this is now a very acute issue as we transition Scotland’s economy to a green one and invest in the opportunities ahead in that green transition—specifically in renewable energy, but also in heat networks and all the other engineering infrastructure that we will need. The shortage of engineers in Scotland, and in the UK as a whole, is a long-standing issue. Two decades ago, when I arrived in the UK, I knew that there was a shortage of engineers here. That is one reason why I chose to come here. I had Canadian student loans to pay off and, at that time, getting $3 to the pound seemed like a good way to pay that off. I had heard that there was a shortage of engineers, so I bought a one-way ticket and rocked up. I was offered two jobs in my first week.”
“Schools and careers advisers must actively encourage all young people, but especially women, to study maths, physics, computing and practical skills. We need to tell a story about gaining the skills to save the world, about the excitement and rewards of working as part of a team, and about problem solving and coming up with creative solutions. An exciting future is waiting for Scotland’s women. The implementation of the recommendations of the Withers review are an opportunity to address the matter seriously. I hope that the Scottish Government will do so. 13:16”
“Apprenticeships should be open to people of any age, to enable everybody who needs it to retrain in key areas. That would support women, career returners and career changers. Every strategy in the green economy—the energy strategy, the national strategy for economic transformation and the climate emergency skills action plan—must have clear, actionable steps to improve gender balance, and not just a footnote of warm, fuzzy intentions that does not actually lead to anyone doing or changing anything. Organisations that are doing well with gender balance need to be asked how they are achieving that and must be given the opportunity to share best practice. Examples from other countries should be investigated, as other countries have much higher numbers of women in engineering and similar trades.”
“Questions are normally met with the response, “Well, we are doing things. They are just not working.” No, they are not working. It takes a critical mass—about 35 per cent women in a space—to change the social dynamic to one where women can start to feel welcome, normal and not singled out. The goal, therefore, needs to be to get critical masses of women into key skills areas, and I have some suggestions that will work. There should be gender quotas for any skills programmes that are funded by public money—apprenticeships, college placements and scholarships. Publicly funded colleges should not be allowed to trap young women into low-paid careers, and they need to review the gender ratios in all their courses with respect to the wages that their graduates are achieving.”