Claire Baker
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Motion, as amended, agreed to, That the Parliament condemns xenophobia, racism and hatred in society, including recent instances of intimidation, violence and disorder; further condemns the actions and language of those who seek to stoke such sentiments and division; agrees that such beliefs and actions do not reflect those of the vast ma…”
“The UK Government has updated its planning policy, and there is a clear strategic approach to where data centres are sited, which is what members are calling for in Scotland. On the question around environmental impact assessments, at the moment, it is not mandatory for local authorities to carry out such assessments.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S7M-00461, in the name of Neil Gray, on the National Security (State Threats) Bill, which is United Kingdom legislation, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Please cast your votes now. The vote is closed.”
“We need to be clear that climate change is an emergency that affects communities across the world and increasingly here in Scotland. We are seeing more extreme weather events, increased flooding, risks to biodiversity, pressures on food production, and growing risks to public health and infrastructure.”
“The Scottish National Party Government will go even further, putting in place the £2 bus fare cap across the whole of Scotland by the end of this session of Parliament. Climate action is improving the quality of our lives.”
“As I have made clear, collectively across the Parliament, we have agreed that we need to make progress on the targets, which are also legally binding by an agreement made here, and the committees have an important role to play. However, ultimately, the Government has to show leadership on the issue.”
The complete record
Every one of 360 lines we hold for Claire Baker, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“Those are my amendments. I look forward to our discussion and hope that Parliament is able to support them. I move amendment 98. Ross Greer: Amendments 64 and 65, in my name, make a technical but important adjustment to trade union representation on the apprenticeship committee. The change in wording will ensure that the SFC has regard to the desirability of appointing a person who is representative of all trade unions for apprentices, rather than the person representing a particular trade union. It would not be practical for every trade union to be represented in person on the committee, given the cap on its overall size, but it is important that a trade union voice is represented. My amendments simply clarify that position. Ben Macpherson: I ask members to forgive me, because I have quite a bit to say about the amendments in this group.”
“Amendment 104, which I hope the Government will be able to support, would require the Scottish Funding Council to ensure that the representatives on the apprenticeship committee have an understanding in the apprenticeships space. Amendment 106 is important with regard to the concerns from Universities Scotland. Graduate apprenticeships often do not get the focus, attention or time that modern apprenticeships have had under the current arrangements. Universities are concerned to ensure that the system is smooth and fast and that it runs well, so that the new frameworks that we were discussing earlier can be generated swiftly, in contrast with the slow and bureaucratic process that we had previously. Amendment 109 would require the minister to issue guidance with regard to “the appointment of the chair of the committee”.”
“Amendment 99 aims to direct rather than just advise the council, which would give the apprenticeship committee real authority to ensure that it is setting policy rather than being subservient to the Funding Council. Amendment 100 would bring “work-based learning” into the remit of the apprenticeship committee. For example, that would ensure that the whole area of foundation apprenticeships would come under consideration by the committee. Amendment 102 would require more than half of the committee to be employers of apprentices or to come from that space, and amendment 103 would ensure that the chair has “experience of employing apprentices”.”
“Amendment 97 agreed to. Section 17—Apprenticeship committee The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 14 is on apprenticeship and skills committees and boards. Amendment 98, in the name of Willie Rennie, is grouped with amendments 99 to 104, 64 to 69 and 105 to 112. Willie Rennie: These amendments are all designed to strengthen the authority of the apprenticeship committee. Members will recall from my previous contribution that many businesses and employers are concerned about the abolition of SAAB. My amendments would effectively bring additional powers to the apprenticeship committee and would almost replicate the powers of the advisory body that many employers and businesses so deeply respect. I will quickly run through a number of my amendments. I hope that the Government will support some, although I know that it will not support others.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jackie Dunbar] Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 108, Against 8, Abstentions 0.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Baker. Your vote will be recorded. Davy Russell: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app did not connect either. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Russell. Your vote will be recorded.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how many people in Mid Scotland and Fife who are eligible for the pension-age winter heating payment have not yet received their payment for winter 2025-26. (S6O- 05372)”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville will set out the next child poverty delivery plan in March, and that will include a raft of measures to give us the best chance of hitting that relative poverty target, which this Parliament signed up to. I hope that Claire Baker, who feels so strongly about the issue, and given the measures in the budget to tackle child poverty, will find a way to support the budget and the resources that are included in it, rather than just sitting on her hands.”
“The cabinet secretary has repeated the claim that child poverty is at a 30-year low, but she should know that that is not the case for children in relative poverty, that the 2023-24 interim target was missed and that the Government is not on track to meet the 2030 legal target. Table 5.07 of the budget shows that the budget for Social Security Scotland is set to go up by a third, which is an increase of some £125 million and is more than the sum of the resources freed up by the UK Government’s decision to scrap the two-child benefit, an issue that much of the debate about using this budget to tackle child poverty has focused on. How is that increase justified? Shona Robison: On the issue of children living in relative poverty, that is why we have focused so much of our effort, resources and policy on tackling child poverty.”
“I want to acknowledge the survivors and advocacy organisations that have long highlighted non-fatal strangulation as a critical issue. They are often sharing their lived experience at a time when it is unfashionable to challenge the culture and when there is a minimisation of the experience that being strangled can be terrifying and life- threatening and is never minor. This debate reflects a conversation that has been building in Parliament for a few years. I hope that it marks the point at which we move from recognising the problem to actively exploring solutions, which should be grounded in evidence, informed by survivors and driven by the shared aim of preventing a further loss of life. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 12:56”
“In a previous meeting that Tess White and I sponsored, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service set out the argument that one cannot consent to harm in Scotland, so the offence already exists. I accepted that, and I would be reluctant to legislate unnecessarily. However, the research from the University of Exeter adds weight to the calls for a stand-alone offence. If criminalising non-fatal strangulation as a stand- alone offence could help to prevent escalation, improve recording and prosecution and, ultimately, save lives, I believe that Parliament has a responsibility to consider it. We should engage seriously with the evidence that is before us and ask whether our existing offences capture the reality of harm, risk and intent associated with strangulation, particularly when there are no visible injuries and no weapon.”
“They suggest that when the law clearly recognises non-fatal strangulation as serious, dangerous and criminal in its own right, it can disrupt patterns of escalation and coercive control. Scotland has made important progress in recognising domestic abuse as a pattern of behaviour and not a series of isolated incidents. However, the evidence raises a legitimate and pressing question: does our current law sufficiently recognise non-fatal strangulation within that framework, or is there a gap that leaves victims at risk? We should examine whether existing offences adequately capture the harm, risk and intent that are associated with non-fatal strangulation.”
“It is the first known international study to examine the impact of stand-alone non-fatal strangulation laws on intimate partner homicide rates across multiple jurisdictions, and its findings are striking. In US states where non-fatal strangulation has been criminalised as a distinct serious offence, intimate partner homicides fell by double-digit percentages. Female victim homicides declined by around 14 per cent, and male victim homicides fell by 27 per cent. The researchers estimate that more than 1,500 lives have been saved as a result of those laws. Those represent people—overwhelmingly, though not exclusively, women—who are alive today because earlier intimate-relationship violence was recognised, taken seriously and interrupted before it escalated into something fatal.”
“Non-fatal strangulation in intimate partner relationships is too often minimised, misunderstood or treated as a lesser form of assault, but the evidence that is being presented today often recognises it as a strong predictor of future lethal violence. Consent does not exist in a vacuum, and where there is fear, coercion, power imbalance and risk of serious harm, the concept of consent becomes problematic. The survey shows that 46 per cent of respondents consent to being strangled or strangling others because their partner enjoys it, not necessarily because they enjoy it. Treating strangulation as normal, mutual or harmless risks obscuring abuse and silencing victims. The research that is highlighted in today’s motion reinforces why that matters.”
“The Centre for Women’s Justice said that the findings showed the “growing pressure on young women to consent to violent, dangerous and demeaning acts”. I have pressed the Scottish Government to undertake research into the normalisation of violence and sexual activity, including choking, reflecting the evidence and unease that acts that carry a high risk of serious harm are being continually framed as routine or expected. In Scotland, there should be a multidisciplinary approach that encompasses public health, education and justice. It would appear that that is not the case and that there is very little recognition of the prevalence of the practice and its consequences.”
“However, it might not leave visible marks, and the absence of visible injury can affect how incidents are recorded, investigated or prosecuted. It can be used as a tool of control and coercion. Survivors describe how terrifying the experience can be, not only because of the physical danger but because of what it represents—an assertion of total control over breath, consciousness and life. As a Parliament and as a society, are we prepared to challenge the normalisation of strangulation within sexual relationships? What are we going to do about it? In 2019, research for BBC Radio 5 Live found that a third of women under 40 had experienced unwanted slapping, choking, gagging or spitting during consensual sex.”
“While 70 per cent of people said that consent was established before choking and 38 per cent reported that they enjoyed it, 27 per cent said that there was no consent and 36 per cent felt scared by the action. Although the focus of today’s debate is the research that seeks to strengthen the legal framework, we must recognise that IFAS research shows that 29 per cent think that there are safe ways to strangle, 38 per cent enjoy it and 18 per cent think that it is a normal part of sex. We can legislate more, but that will not necessarily stop non-fatal strangulation in intimate relationships. Non-fatal strangulation is not risk free. It can cause serious internal injury, brain damage or loss of consciousness within seconds. It can cause incontinence, coughing, neck pain and confusion, and can lead to anxiety and depression.”
“Their work has brought new evidence into focus and it gives renewed urgency to the discussion. Non-fatal strangulation is not a new concern. It is an issue that I and others have been raising in the Parliament for a number of years with successive justice secretaries and First Ministers, as well as in debates and through questions. The normalisation of non-fatal strangulation, driven by pornography, should be challenged. I welcome the intention of the Online Safety Act 2023 to outlaw choking in online pornography, making it a priority offence. The Institute for Addressing Strangulation has carried out two surveys. In less than a year, there was an increase, from 35 to 51 per cent, in the number of people aged 16 to 34 who reported being choked during sex.”
“I thank the members who signed my motion so that it could be debated in the chamber. I particularly thank Tess White and Michelle Thomson, whom I have worked with to raise the profile of non-fatal strangulation. As both members have indicated that they will not seek re-election, I recognise their commitment to fighting violence against women and girls in Scotland. I look forward to hearing their contributions as well as those of others from across the chamber. At the outset, I commend the researchers whose work has prompted the debate. Led by Professors Sonia Oreffice and Climent Quintana- Domeque of the University of Exeter, the research on intimate partner homicide and non-fatal strangulation is not only academically rigorous but profoundly human in its implications.”
“There are strands in the equally safe strategy that directly address work on the radicalisation of people, particularly young people and young men. [Kaukab Stewart has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]”
“Will the minister join me in utterly condemning the individuals who gathered on the steps of Kirkcaldy town house with raised right hands and a flag with Nazi symbolism on it? Locals have reported that those individuals were a group of teenagers. Although there has been one arrest, about 40 people attended the gathering. In work to promote community cohesion, what focus has been placed on tackling the radicalisation of young men in our communities? Kaukab Stewart: I condemn any behaviour that raises tensions and creates division in our societies—there is no place at all for that. It is perfectly possible to have the right to free speech, but we need to be mindful that there is clear hate crime legislation.”
“Audit Scotland has raised serious concerns about a £2 billion funding gap in devolved social security spending by 2029-30, and it has highlighted the absence of any detailed Scottish Government plan to deal with that.”
“It is absolutely fine that the current benefit system provides for those who are most in need. The issue is the system’s attraction for other people who could well be in work but are not seeking it, because there is no incentive for them to go to work. That is what the debate should be about, is it not? Claire Baker: The evidence shows that, unfortunately, the two-child cap just led to more people living in poverty; it did not do anything to incentivise people into employment. I agree that the way out of poverty is through employment, but the policies that the previous UK Government introduced did not manage to achieve any of that. The Labour amendment sets out the challenges clearly.”
“I begin by addressing the framing of the debate. Titling the motion “Controlling the Rising Benefits Bill” is not just unhelpful; it misunderstands the purpose of social security. Social security is not a discretionary pot to be constrained according to political taste. It is a lifeline—it should be demand led, it is rights-based and it is essential to supporting people through hardship with dignity. When we talk about social security, we are talking about families who are trying to keep their heads above water, people who are sick or disabled and children who deserve the security and opportunity that far too many are denied. Reducing the debate to a question of control risks stripping away the humanity and responsibility that should underpin these decisions. Liz Smith: The debate ought to be about incentives.”
“We owe it to them, and to every woman and girl experiencing abuse, to redouble our efforts to end this violence in all its forms, including online. The Parliament must unite in its commitment and act decisively. Only then can we hope to build the safer and more equal society that women and girls deserve. 16:15”
“I wish to close by speaking about the case of Demi Hannaway, whose family I have been supporting. A fresh investigation is now under way, and I will not comment on its progress, but I want to acknowledge the recent reporting in the Sunday Post on misogyny and sexism in Police Scotland and the very real concerns that Demi’s family have about whether those attitudes influenced the initial investigation. Demi endured domestic abuse, and, despite police call-outs, charges were pursued only due to the persistence and courage of her family, under the most awful circumstances. Demi’s family were among those who gathered outside the Parliament recently at the vigil for women whose lives have been taken by male violence.”
“Research into the impacts of smartphones and social media on wellbeing, particularly for girls and young women, is still emerging, and policy makers must not lag behind the technological realities that are shaping young people’s lives. The rise in misogynistic content across social media and mainstream online platforms has serious consequences. It normalises abusive language, harmful behaviours and even physical violence. The normalisation of non-fatal strangulation, linked to depictions of choking in mainstream pornography, contributes to the culture of abuse that we must challenge. Banning the depiction of strangulation in pornography is a necessary step, but we cannot stop there. Broader action is required to confront the commercial structures and cultural norms that fuel online misogyny.”
“It calls for co- ordinated action across Governments, tech companies, institutions and individuals. It mirrors the approach that we must take: requiring transparency about harms such as cyberbullying, online abuse and harmful content; promoting digital environments that are resilient to disinformation; and ensuring that Ofcom delivers on its role in safety by design, transparency, agile regulation and inclusivity. We should not underestimate the difference between the online world today and the environment in which many adults grew up. Children and young people navigate risks that did not exist even a decade ago.”
“In the digital sphere, we know that online platforms have become fertile ground for misogyny, harassment, grooming and coercive control. I recognise the steps that have been taken by the UK Government through the Online Safety Act 2023, which, though not without implementation challenges, is a necessary and important step in delivering stronger protections for young people. Online spaces have been difficult to police precisely because safety was not built into platform design from the outset. Holding platforms accountable for the content and behaviour that they host is overdue. The motion highlights the UN Women “UNiTE to end digital violence against all women and girls” campaign, which rightly asserts that digital safety is now central to gender equality.”
“Tomorrow evening, I will join the Fife reclaim the night march in Dunfermline and the “Let’s talk” event afterwards, which is part of an on-going community effort to end violence against women and girls. Across schools in Fife, many pupils participate in the mentors in violence prevention programme, which equips young people with the language and confidence to challenge the attitudes and cultural norms that underpin gender-based violence, bullying and abuse. It encourages active bystander behaviour and empowers young women to support their peers. Although I understand that all local authorities engage with the programme, delivery is not consistent across all schools. Time pressures and competing priorities create challenges, but we must ensure that schools are supported to deliver that vital preventative work.”
“The RESPECT women framework, with its seven strategies and range of interventions, highlights successful interventions that prioritise women’s safety, challenge unequal gender power relationships, are participatory and start early in life. If we are to achieve lasting change, we need to enact and enforce legislation, allocate resources to prevention and response, and implement policies that promote gender equality. As elected members, it is our responsibility to push the Scottish Government to deliver on those principles. It is equally important that we support education and awareness within our own communities. I am grateful to the many survivors who, despite trauma and loss, continue to empower others and help to create change.”
“We are also witnessing a rise in misogynistic abuse in transport, healthcare and education settings—and, of course, online—yet, despite the commitments that have been made, the Scottish Government has not prioritised the roll-out of the equally safe strategy, nor backed it with the long-term resources that are required. The decision to drop the planned misogyny bill was a profound disappointment. Given the First Minister’s stated commitment to tackling misogynistic abuse, it was a moment when actions failed to match words. If we are to protect women and girls effectively, we need legislation, proper funding and decisive leadership. There is growing evidence on what works to prevent violence against women.”
“Although digital violence is our specific focus today, it sits within the wider continuum of gender- based violence that pervades homes, communities, workplaces and public spaces. Globally, the scale is devastating. Around one in three women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. More than a quarter of women aged 15 to 49 who have been in a relationship report that they have been subjected to physical or sexual violence by a partner. As many as 38 per cent of all murders of women are committed by intimate partners. Humanitarian crises, displacement and emergencies heighten those risks and, as we saw during the Covid lockdowns, existing inequalities can quickly escalate into new forms of harm. Here in Scotland, sexual violence and domestic abuse have persistently increased.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The 16 days of activism campaign remains a stark reminder of the violence and abuse that far too many women and girls continue to face. As we mark this period in Parliament each year, we must do more than acknowledge that that is unacceptable. We must ask whether we are truly doing enough to change the realities of women’s lives and ensure that they are better protected from violence and abuse in all their forms. This year’s focus on digital violence, which is now the fastest-growing form of abuse worldwide, is both timely and necessary. Digital spaces are increasingly central to young people’s lives, to women’s work and to our social interactions, yet they remain hostile environments for too many.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what recent work it has undertaken with the agricultural sector to reduce the number of fatalities within the industry. (S6O-05191)”
“Full devolution would be the best result, but, short of that, I think that we can work with the bill. Draft Climate Change Plan 2026 to 2040 8.”
“The bill includes aspects that, currently, we would be asked about or consulted on by the secretary of state. The situation will be reversed for some issues—for example, we will set the strategy for rail freight—but we will reflect and consult with the secretary of state on other matters. Therefore, in some instances, the roles will be reversed, and good co-operation and understanding will be required. Although I support the bill, as I have said, we will have to go through the legislative consent memorandum process. Of the 90-odd sections of the bill, 27 will affect Scotland, so that is an extensive piece of work that will go to the committee. I hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government can work constructively with the UK Government to ensure that we get the best result for Scotland.”
“That includes the infrastructure that is currently under Network Rail and the infrastructure that we have in public ownership in relation to ScotRail and the Caledonian Sleeper. I have had numerous extensive discussions with the UK Government, and those discussions continue. I am co-operating extremely well—I am sure that the UK Government would acknowledge that. However, I have been absolutely clear, as I was in the Parliament during our debate, that there is no way in which I would countenance any diminution of our devolved responsibilities. We have to chart a way forward, and the bill is part of that. Claire Baker referred to the memorandum of understanding, which will be critical for the issues relating to rail freight, as set out by Sue Webber, and other matters.”
“It would seem that the UK Government takes a more positive approach, because the Railways Bill’s policy documentation says that all three Governments—UK, Scottish and Welsh—support the reforms and will continue to work together to deliver benefits. I urge the Scottish Government to work co-operatively on the bill, and I am encouraged to learn that work is being done on a memorandum of understanding between our two Governments. The issue of freight has already been raised. What benefits can the cabinet secretary see from the Railways Bill in relation to increased partnership working between Transport Scotland and Great British rail? Fiona Hyslop: The bill will give ministers control and direction over railways in Scotland.”
“Scotland cannot afford to waste talent, and we cannot keep relying on a fragmented skills system that leaves too many young people behind and leaves many employers without the workers that they need. We need to pursue a vision for a flexible, lifelong skills system that recognises and supports the role of our schools and colleges, makes apprenticeships more responsive and builds genuine partnerships with employers so that Scotland’s workforce matches Scotland’s economic needs. That is how we raise productivity, close the skills gap and give every young person the chance they need to reach their full potential. 15:40”
“We must be honest, as others have said, that, too often, careers advice is still gendered. Far too many girls are steered away from science, engineering and construction. Women who succeed in those fields are often framed as succeeding despite the barriers, when our job is to remove those barriers. That must be reflected in our classrooms, in our careers services and in the workplaces that young people are stepping into. When we create links between education and industry, it must be with the goal of helping all young people to find the right route for them. Part of that should involve working to close the disability employment gap, but we have to build such an approach into our skills and pathway systems, rather than bolting it on at the end.”
“We need to address the failure to deliver the requested number of apprenticeships, which is leaving young people without the routes to employment and opportunities that they need, and leaving employers without the people that they need to plug the skills gaps that persist across our economy. In our schools, careers advice must start earlier and be more ambitious. We know that children, even in primary school, begin to rule out jobs on the basis not of their ability but of their confidence; that might be because of stereotyping or because they simply do not see people like them in certain roles. Parents need support, too. I meet too many parents who worry that their children lack a plan or who default to the assumption that university is the only route. Good advice can open doors to opportunities that they did not know existed.”
“Many of those working at the plant are Fife College students and graduates. The college partners with more than 180 employers, including Babcock and RES Group, and delivers one of Scotland’s largest modern apprenticeship programmes. Its new Carnegie campus is ideally placed to deepen those links, especially with the high schools that it has on its doorstep. Elsewhere in Fife, at Levenmouth academy, we have seen the value of co-location. Young people there are able to get hands-on experience of working on real community projects and they gain an early understanding of the practical skills that local industries need. That is the kind of partnership that we need to see more of, but it cannot be left to chance.”
“That reorganisation should have strengthened partnerships but instead narrowed access by placing restrictions on the broad and inclusive approach where colleges partnered closely with business and communities. As Alex Rowley said, more recent funding changes have also had a negative impact. The consequences have been predictable. Opportunities have been lost, partnerships have been weakened and too many young people fall through the cracks, as James Withers showed in his review. Our colleges are striving to deliver for their learners and local employers, despite the financial environment that they face. Following yesterday’s announcement about the Mossmorran plant, Fife College was swift to engage with Scottish Government officials on its preparations to support affected workers.”
“MSPs have described how they feel that Scotland’s skills system is failing too many young people and is holding back our economic growth. There is a need for a new partnership between education and industry, with better careers advice at its heart and clear, supported pathways from the classroom to the workplace. For too long, the system has lacked coherence, vision and investment. I will begin by talking about colleges, which have a track record of linking education with industry, including through schemes such as the flexible workforce development fund. However, instead of colleges being empowered, they have been placed under limitations. I can remember when college reorganisation was pushed through without the funding that was needed to make it work.”
“When I am led to believe that a business has engaged in good faith with the UK Government since April and that there have been no policy changes, I can assure Parliament that I will challenge the UK Government on those policy decisions, because I believe in standing up for Scottish workers and Scottish industry. The Presiding Officer: I would be grateful if any on-going conversations would cease and we would make sure that we are listening to one another.”
“What discussions took place at that time, and did they address at all the future operational sustainability of Mossmorran? Kate Forbes: I reassure the member that I challenge, on behalf of trade unions and workers, any decision that is taken that affects Scotland economically, particularly when it comes to our industrial base. However, I cannot ignore the fact that, throughout each of the potential redundancy situations I referred to, businesses, independently of one another, have cited the same concerns. Those concerns—particularly the ones around energy prices—can be fixed at source by the UK Government, but they have not been.”
“I am disappointed that the Scottish Government appears to be repeating and accepting ExxonMobil’s claims about its reasons for closure. To be clear, this is a company with huge profits that is making a commercial decision to close the site and cause significant job losses in Fife. This is a company that locked out more than 200 contract workers this morning and has no trade union recognition. It has shown no serious desire to engage with the UK Government, because, in reality, it had already decided to close the site. The Scottish Government is meant to be working on a just transition for Mossmorran. Has that not involved any engagement with ExxonMobil over recent months? Over the summer, there were 150 contractor redundancies at Mossmorran.”
“For example, the big Labour question used to be why we did not use the Crown Commercial Service framework; the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also suggested that approach. Unlike Transport for Greater Manchester, Transport Scotland does not own or operate buses, so there is limited rationale for Transport Scotland to procure buses directly. We will continue to exhaust all the options at our disposal to support”
“A number of members have asked about procurement rules. Since 2022, under current procurement rules, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority purchased more than 160 buses from Alexander Dennis, which is more than four times the number that the Scottish Government’s ScotZEB scheme has purchased from it. Sixty-seven per cent of ScotZEB 2 orders were sent to Chinese manufacturers. Could the cabinet secretary clarify—a number of people have tried to get clarification on this matter—how the current round of ScotZEB funding will prevent that from happening again? Kate Forbes: The Labour Party keeps rerunning that question, despite the fact that we have provided facts in the past and have pursued suggestions that have come to us.”