Mark Griffin
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“Driving down child poverty is a key priority of the Government and of the Parliament as a whole, but reviewing the targets that the Government is failing to hit does not seem to align with the rhetoric. The Scottish Government’s impact assessment of the child poverty delivery plan is that it will not meet the targets.”
“The minister set out the damage that is taking place in this country as a result of leaving a political and economic union, and there is nothing in his statement that I can disagree with. In his conclusion, he asked what we are prepared to do about it.”
“As I have said to others, I have engaged with and will happily continue to engage with Nick Thomas-Symonds, but if we consider that the potential benefits are 20 times less than the loss that we are sustaining, we see the impact.”
“We are content that there is a credible path to do so, despite everything that is happening in the rest of the UK and internationally. I go back to what I have announced, which is a review of the type of targets.”
“Our targets have driven our focus and delivery, but it is important to reflect on the investment that the Government is making in areas that do not impact directly on those targets.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities regarding the pay negotiations for 2026-27.”
The complete record
Every one of 217 lines we hold for Mark Griffin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 2026 may be presented by the Scottish Government as a success, but the reality for local authorities is far more troubling. Yes, the 2026-27 budget offers a modest real-terms uplift, but, in the context of the pressures that councils face after more than a decade of cuts, and financial trouble in the year ahead, the settlement does not meet the challenge that local government faces. We will support the order tonight in order to make sure that funds reach councils, but COSLA leaders “agreed that this year’s settlement is a very poor settlement for local government”. Those are not my words but the words of SNP councillor Ricky Bell. If the SNP Government cannot persuade SNP councillors that this is a good deal for local government, I am not sure why we should believe it either.”
“The afternoon that I spent in Barlinnie, when I walked around the prison and talked to so many people about their experience of how they ended up there, what life was like and what was causing them to come back over and over, was crucial for gathering evidence and making policy. Addressing substance misuse in Scottish prisons requires systemic reform. We need to break down barriers between the justice system and the health system, invest in prevention and treatment and ensure that prisons become places of rehabilitation rather than a revolving door. 16:26”
“The disparity between the treatment that they received outside prison in community healthcare and what they receive in prison starts to exacerbate the mental health issues that they have. The transition from custody to community is a period of heightened risk for overdose, relapse and reoffending. Every person leaving prison should have a comprehensive release plan that includes housing, healthcare and support services, including those on remand, who sometimes do not go through a planned release programme, as I mentioned. Without that, the cycle of addiction, reoffending and imprisonment will carry on. Many other members have mentioned the importance of involving lived experience in shaping poverty.”
“However, the point that prison management made to me was that those issues were down to overcrowding, to those who were on remand not qualifying for the purposeful activity courses, and to the numbers of prisoners on remand exacerbating the overcrowding issues. The remand figures cause real problems. The committee’s report highlights that enforcement measures alone will not solve the crisis. Security measures such as body scanners and anti-drone technology are clearly important, and we need to tackle supply, but that has to be matched with prevention, treatment and recovery services. We need that whole-system approach. Mental health care clearly needs improvement, too. Many individuals in custody struggle with mental health and substance use disorders but, as Elena Whitham pointed out, their access to treatment becomes inconsistent.”
“Over the years, I have had the privilege of visiting HMP Grampian fairly regularly, and it provides some absolutely wonderful purposeful activity. One of the issues and challenges that it faces is access to third sector funding, given that many of the organisations that are involved are external organisations that come in. I put on the record that it is not just the issues around overcrowding and suchlike that are a challenge around purposeful activity. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will give you the time back for the intervention, Mr Griffin. Mark Griffin: Thank you. I appreciate the points that Audrey Nicoll has made.”
“When I visited Barlinnie a number of years ago, the then governor told me that the prison had, in his words, the biggest methadone queue in Europe. I spoke to some of the men in custody and a lot of them told me the same thing—that they did not take drugs or methadone before prison. They told me that life in prison with no access to courses or meaningful training due to overcrowding or because they were on remand and did not get access meant that they spent the vast majority of the time in a cell, completely bored, and they felt that the best or the only option for them was to take drugs and pass out in order to pass the time. That speaks to a justice system almost forcing people on to drugs just to pass the time. Audrey Nicoll: The point about purposeful activity has been raised by, probably, all speakers in the debate.”
“It is clear from reading the findings of the Criminal Justice Committee’s inquiry into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scottish prisons that the issue is not just a justice problem but also a public health issue with far-reaching consequences for individuals, families and communities. Substance misuse in prison reflects deeper issues such as poverty, trauma, inequality and untreated mental health needs. Those needs often begin long before imprisonment and are made worse by the prison environment. Those points have been made by multiple speakers in this afternoon’s debate. Overcrowding, limited access to mental health services and a lack of purposeful activity create conditions that amplify harm in Scottish prisons.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what funding it provides to support research into finding a cure for motor neurone disease. (S6O-05564)”
“The committee’s work has highlighted the need for clarity, consistency and proper communication as the bill progresses. There is an opportunity to create a model that supports local priorities while sustaining a strong visitor economy. That will need genuine engagement, careful amendment and constructive dialogue with the sector in the weeks ahead. Scotland deserves legislation that has been thought through and that is properly costed and competently delivered; it does not deserve legislation that needs fixing before it is even implemented. 15:24”
“However, we must be clear that councils have endured years of underfunding under this Government and that the visitor levy cannot and must not become a substitute for core funding for local authorities. We will scrutinise the bill carefully to ensure that it delivers genuine flexibility for councils and certainty for tourism businesses. However, I must put on record our frustration at having to revisit this legislation in such a rushed manner because the Government failed to get it right first time. Holding a stage 1 debate a little more than a month before the end of the parliamentary session is not good governance. After 19 years in office, the Government should be capable of producing workable legislation and managing a coherent timetable. Instead, we are correcting avoidable mistakes at the 11th hour.”
“The committee previously supported councils having flexibility to develop more than one scheme, while stressing the need to avoid unnecessary complexity. However, it remains uncertain whether a single transaction could fall under more than one scheme and, given the proposed flexibility across localities, that lack of clarity is unhelpful. The committee was right to recommend that that be addressed through amendment at stage 2. Ivan McKee: I confirm that that will not be the case. That will be resolved. Mark Griffin: I thank the minister for confirming that, and I look forward to supporting that amendment at stage 2. We need a visitor levy that works for local communities while allowing Scotland’s world-class tourism industry to thrive. On that basis, we will support the bill.”
“The committee was also clear at the time—as it is now—that any levy system must be clear, manageable and proportionate for businesses and local authorities. Smaller operators and those with limited administrative capacity must be confident that compliance will not become an undue burden. Cost is therefore central to the bill’s success. It is evident from the committee’s report that the Government has not sufficiently clarified its implementation cost estimates or adequately explained discrepancies between the financial memorandum and stakeholder evidence. I welcome the opportunity to work constructively at stage 2 to ensure that we establish a realistic and robust financial framework. Another key issue is the possibility of multiple levy schemes.”
“I can remember not the current minister but the previous minister coming to the Parliament to say, “We couldn’t make a decision on this, so we passed the decision to committee.” The committee took evidence, realised the difficulties in making that decision and said, “No, thanks, that’s for the Government to decide.” The committee did not do so without highlighting the difficulties in deciding between a percentage rate and a flat rate; that was made very clear at the time, and we would have expected the Government to do its due diligence and research and to provide the proper leadership, instead of saying that it was the Parliament’s fault. The committee and the Parliament gave a clear steer to the Government that it was ministers’ decision to take.”
“We support full devolution to councils and their having the flexibility to customise the system so that it meets local needs. We are not here to debate the principle of a visitor levy, which was thoroughly examined during the passage of the original bill. However, we should also not be here to discuss implementation through further primary legislation. One law should have been enough, particularly given this Parliament’s already crowded legislative timetable. The Government argues that the amending bill addresses issues that could not have been predicted, but that does not quite chime with my recollection of the original debate.”
“I thank the organisations and individuals who provided evidence during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the bill and the original visitor levy legislation, whose contributions were central in shaping the committee’s deliberations. I also thank the committee clerks for supporting us in reaching the conclusions that we reached in our stage 1 report. Labour agrees that the bill is absolutely necessary. Visitor levies will be an important tool for public authorities, and the bill seeks to ensure that those levies will operate within a workable and transparent framework. It recognises the diversity of Scotland’s visitor economy and the different pressures and opportunities that are faced by local areas.”
“Now they play politics with issues that are not toys. They cannot be trusted anywhere near Government. For Scotland’s security and the Scottish Parliament’s credibility, the motion should be rejected. 15:38”
“They want a Parliament that is focused on fixing public services and delivering shorter waiting times, access to a family doctor, proper mental health support, safer streets, better schools and action on the housing emergency. However, instead of serious policy, we have slogans. Instead of workable proposals, we seem to have lines from a late-night Reddit forum. We live in serious times. Our duty is to defend international law and our treaty commitments, not throw our toys out of the pram. A Scottish Labour Government will instead commit to testing workable policies to reverse two decades of decline by restoring access to general practitioners, cutting waiting times, rebuilding community policing, banning mobile phones in classrooms and ending the housing emergency. That is serious government. The Greens have clearly failed in office.”
“Denying access would send a message that Scotland is not serious about the defence of Europe, the UK or itself, and it would raise serious concerns about our collective defence of the north Atlantic corridor, which is under extreme pressure from Russia at the moment. Prestwick airport plays a role in supporting allied operations. That includes support for Ukraine as it resists Vladimir Putin’s invasion. The clear and obvious truth is that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could not care less whether the motion passes or falls, because it would do nothing. In serious times, doing nothing and doing so very loudly is a hollow imitation of leadership. The people of Scotland will not care either.”
“Ross Greer: I am confused as to why Mr Griffin thinks that it is outwith the Scottish Government’s competence to dictate the operations of an asset that it owns, when the Scottish Government has already done that. If it was outwith the Government’s competence to do that, how was it able to ban Israeli air force flights from the same airport? Mark Griffin: Ross Greer should know that our airports are complying with international law, and we support that. The UK respects our international obligations, and NATO commitments endure beyond any individual leader—we support all of that, too. If a NATO ally needs to use infrastructure in Scotland, it is essential for our collective security that it is able to do so.”
“Let us be clear that this debate is a waste of parliamentary time. The Greens are using their final Opposition party debate of the parliamentary session, which could have been an opportunity to set out how they would fix housing, health, social care, transport or even the climate crisis, to debate instead something that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have absolutely no control over. This is childish gesture politics from a party that would be an absolute disaster for international security and diplomacy. The Scottish Government does not have the power to implement what is being proposed. Defence and foreign policy are reserved matters. That is a simple constitutional fact, as the cabinet secretary has recognised—although I take it that he might wish that to be different.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to reports that police stations across Lanarkshire, including in Bellshill, will be closed permanently to the public or have their hours reduced from 1 April. (S6F-04667)”
“The bill was universally supported. Passing it promptly should have been the easy part, yet the Government managed to turn that consensus from years ago into delay—six years of it. Local government deserves better, and Scotland deserves better. Today, at long last, we have the chance to put that right, without excuses or constitutional theatre and with the respect that our councils and communities are owed. 17:26”
“Over the past decade and more, councils have faced cuts of around £7 billion, and they are left carrying an unsustainable financial burden. That is not just my view or that of my Scottish Labour colleagues—Scottish National Party councillor Ricky Bell, who is COSLA’s spokesperson for resources, has warned that “local government finances are under severe and growing strain.” He went on to say that councils have already delivered “significant savings year on year” and that “there is a clear limit to what can be achieved without impacting the services communities rely on.” He said that reliance on reserves and borrowing is “not a sustainable long-term solution”, and that the medium-term outlook is for “continued de-prioritisation and the prospect of significant real-terms cuts.” The SNP councillor’s conclusion is that “Urgent action is needed”.”
“He promised engagement with COSLA and with Parliament, but, since that statement, nothing of substance has happened—no amendments, no timetable and, seemingly, no progress. COSLA’s briefing to its own convention in March 2023 highlighted the lack of apparent progress and urged early ministerial engagement. COSLA seemed to be doing everything that it could. The only thing missing was meaningful action from the Scottish Government, which seems to be a pattern. Local government has become an afterthought for this Administration—not a partner, but the body that is expected to administer cuts, absorb blame and take the flak when services are hollowed out. The much-lauded Verity house agreement, once heralded as bringing in a new era of respect, lies in complete tatters, abandoned the moment its political usefulness expired.”
“The bill has always had a simple and widely supported purpose: to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into Scots law. In practice, that means giving local authorities clear legal rights, requiring the Scottish ministers to act in line with the charter and ensuring that Scotland meets the democratic standards that are expected across Europe. It will strengthen local autonomy, improve transparency and allow councils to challenge actions that undermine their role. This was never a constitutional provocation; it was a practical measure to protect and empower local democracy. The Supreme Court did not strike down that purpose; it struck down the drafting. The then Deputy First Minister promised in May 2022 to work at pace to lodge amendments.”
“A Scottish Labour Government will deliver a credible, progressive council tax reform; provide a sustainable, long-term financial settlement; and rebuild a genuine partnership with local authorities that is based on respect and shared purpose. Scottish councils are the backbone of our communities, and they deserve better than sustained cuts and consultations. The Conservative Party motion identifies the symptoms, but the amendment in the name of Michael Marra identifies the cause and the way forward. 16:57”
“SPICe confirmed that fewer than 1 per cent of homes would be affected; the plan would raise only £12 million to £16 million a year, which is around 2 per cent of last year’s funding gap; and the revaluation needed to deliver it would cost roughly £10 million. Legislation will not even be introduced until 2027, with implementation in 2028. That is not reform—it is delay, disguised as action. When it comes to funding local services, what Scotland needs is leadership, which has been lacking over the past almost 20 years. Even with majority and near-majority Governments, the answer is consultation after consultation, commission after commission and no real leadership on the reform of council tax.”
“Ring-fenced funding is now at 24 per cent, council debt has risen sharply and usable reserves have fallen. Sixteen councils relied on unplanned reserves last year and, despite delivering around 90 per cent of planned savings, a third of councils still overspent their revenue budgets. Those are the direct consequences of long-term underfunding, and they are being felt in every community, high street, town, village and city in Scotland. Against that backdrop, the Government has brought forward council tax proposals that are unclear and low impact, and are years away. As Michael Marra said, we support those proposals in principle, but we asked very basic questions about the plans—how many households would be affected, how much revenue would be raised and how the revaluation would work—and the Government could not answer.”
“The debate has highlighted that Scotland’s councils are under pressures created not by a single year’s decisions but by nearly two decades of sustained underfunding and centralisation by this Government. Scottish Labour’s amendment reflects that reality. Local services are at risk because of political choices that have weakened local democracy and stripped councils of the resources and flexibility that they need. Councils have faced year-on-year real-terms cuts, rising responsibilities without rising match funding and a steady erosion of their ability to respond to local needs and priorities. The Scottish Government speaks of empowerment, but the lived experience for councils has been less autonomy, more directed spending and an ever-tightening grip from the centre, and the Accounts Commission’s latest bulletin reinforces that.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the statement by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that the draft budget 2026-27 “represents a very poor settlement for local government which fails to address the financial situation being faced by councils across Scotland”. (S6O-05459)”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on finance and local government. Points of Order 14:52”
“The Scottish Fiscal Commission has modelled that local government will receive a real-terms budget cut of almost £500 million between 2025-26 and 2028-29. What analysis has been done on the impact of that cut on the budget of North Lanarkshire Council and of councils across the rest of Scotland? Shona Robison: I will, again, be clear that we estimate that, by the conclusion of the 2026-27 spring budget revision, the local government settlement will have increased by at least £650 million in comparison with the 2025-26 budget, because of the in-year transfers. That is what members should look at. The spending ability of local government has seen a real-terms increase for the second year running. Those are the facts, as set out to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities over the course of yesterday and today.”
“Analysis also suggests that the levy could add around £3,500 per home and would have a disproportionate impact in rural areas. The Government needs to address that. We are not opposed to a mechanism that makes those who profited from unsafe cladding help to fix it. However, there is not enough evidence that the levy will achieve that aim. A levy without a clear evidence base or a coherent strategy is a bad levy. Therefore, we echo the committee’s finding that significant further work is required, particularly in relation to the impact on the house-building industry in the context of the housing emergency. For those reasons, we will not support the bill today. If it passes at stage 1, we will seek substantial amendments, but we cannot vote for it in its current form. 15:30”
“As I said, we accept the principle that organisations have profited from the installation of dangerous cladding, and it is right that they should bear the cost of putting it right. That is a question of fairness and restitution, and I think that it commands broad support across the Parliament. However, the bill does not deliver that in a clear or credible way. The polluter-pays principle is sound, but there is no guarantee through the bill that the polluter would actually pay. Many organisations involved in the installation of dangerous cladding are not covered by the bill; meanwhile, some companies that had no involvement at all will be liable for that burden. That is a disproportionate burden on the wrong businesses, which undermines confidence in the levy’s fairness.”
“Ivan McKee’s Government has declared a housing emergency in Scotland. We are in a materially different place from the rest of the UK. The committee could not get clarity from the Government and has asked for updated figures and a sensitivity analysis. Homes for Scotland wrote to the minister and the committee last night to challenge the Government’s figures, saying that the figures that were used to calculate the value of the new-build housing market in Scotland were wildly inaccurate and overestimated by 44 per cent. Those are figures from industry experts, who I would listen to before I listened to the Government, which has sleepwalked into the housing emergency in which we find ourselves.”
“Instead, we have been given little more than a blind assurance that it probably will not harm house building. That is not good enough when we are talking about a bill that will introduce a levy that could fundamentally impact the housing sector in Scotland. We accept that organisations profited from the installation of dangerous cladding and that they should bear the cost of putting matters right. Ivan McKee: Mark Griffin says that there is no understanding of the impact on the market; I would argue that there is. Will he explain what analysis of the impact on the market—different from what we have undertaken—has been undertaken by the UK Government? Our numbers are broadly similar to the numbers that it has. Mark Griffin: That is a different housing market, and it is an area where the Government has not declared a housing emergency.”
“That is an absolutely shocking dereliction of duty that has left too many people living in unacceptable conditions for far too long. The problem is not only the pace of the Scottish Government’s response but the quality of the proposals that are before the Parliament. The bill seeks to ensure that those who contributed to unsafe cladding also contribute to its removal. We support that aim. However, during committee scrutiny, the Government failed to provide the detail that was needed to support the evidence base for that approach or to demonstrate that it would operate fairly and effectively in practice. We still do not have clarity about how many buildings are affected, which organisations might be required to contribute, what the levy will fund or how long it will be in place.”
“Everyone in the chamber agrees on the importance of removing potentially life-threatening cladding from our homes. Nearly a decade after Grenfell, families still live in fear of the next devastating fire that could cost lives and destroy homes. For many residents, that is a daily reality that affects their safety, mental wellbeing and financial security. We are united in our determination to prevent another tragedy. However, although remediation has progressed elsewhere in the UK, Scotland continues to lag far behind, with a tiny number of homes having had dangerous cladding removed. It has taken the Government almost a decade to begin addressing the problem, while thousands of buildings in England and Wales have had dangerous cladding removed.”
“If it is not in favour of taking forward a levy in Scotland, where does it propose that we find the additional £360 million to £450 million that is needed to support the programme? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mark Griffin, I will give you the time back. Mark Griffin: I challenge the assertion that the Scottish Government is taking forward a levy in the same way as the UK Government is. It is not the same policy. I was going to come on to this later in my speech, but I will say now that I support the principle of a levy. However, how this particular levy has been designed and applied, the vagueness, the uncertainty and the risk of exacerbating the housing emergency means that we cannot support it in the form in which the Government has presented it.”
“It is no small thing for a committee to fail to support a bill at stage 1. It happens very rarely in this place, but in this case it is entirely justified. The Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill contains proposals that are, in my view and, it seems, in many others’ view, disproportionate and vague and, most important, risk reducing the supply of new homes in Scotland, exacerbating the Government- declared housing emergency. For those reasons, Labour will not be supporting the bill at stage 1 today. Ivan McKee: I would like some clarification from Mark Griffin. Is it the Labour Party’s position that it does not support taking forward a levy in Scotland in the same way as its Government down south is taking one forward?”
“[Interruption.] We might be hearing chuckles and laughs, but that is not a trivial sum. It represents resources that could and should be supporting public services, not cleaning up a Government mess.”
“I will support the bill, because I recognise the importance of correcting the error that has arisen and the seriousness of the potential consequences if Parliament fails to act. The bill is, in essence, a targeted intervention to rectify a specific legislative error, which is small in appearance but profound in financial consequence. The mistake, frankly, should never have occurred, but had it not been identified— seemingly by a quirk of fate—it could have resulted in the people of Scotland being left with a liability of approximately £350 million. To put that into perspective, £350 million is almost half of the £820 million that, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was secured by Anas Sarwar for Scotland from the United Kingdom Government this week.”
“I thank Mr Balfour for lodging his amendment. It addresses a crucial question that remains unanswered following the stage 1 debate. Local authorities have a strange and unique role in this situation. They are the collection agents and have been collecting the money but, through no fault of their own, have had no legal basis for doing so under the legislation that was passed in the chamber. Like Mr Balfour, I seek an assurance from the Government that it will pick up the costs. There is the potential for a legal challenge on the basis that a local authority was acting without authority as the collecting agent. I would like assurances from the Government that local authority budgets will not be impacted by a mistake that was made by the”
“We cannot ignore the fact that it seems like sheer luck is all that stood between the Scottish budget and a refund bill worth roughly three quarters of the annual Scottish child payment cost. That is not a small slip; that is a near miss of staggering proportions.”
“On the face of it, this emergency bill is a short and simple bill, designed to rectify an error in the Non- Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020. As the law stands, local authorities have had no legal basis to collect non-domestic rates on empty properties since 2023. Had that oversight gone unnoticed, the Scottish Government would now be facing refunds to business property owners amounting to around £350 million. We intend to support the principle of this emergency bill, not to spare the Government’s blushes but because it is necessary to correct the error, to bring the law back into line with the intent of the 2020 act and, crucially, to ensure that Scottish taxpayers do not end up footing a £350 million bill for a Scottish Government mistake.”
“In simple terms, everything would continue as if the legislation proposed by the bill had been in place from the date on which the policy was introduced—everything is applied retrospectively. Due to the importance of bringing clarity to the matter, and due to the sums at stake, I hope that members will support this important piece of legislation. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill. 17:33”
“Will the minister give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: He may do so very briefly. Mark Griffin: I have a technical question to assist my understanding. I understand the position as to the non-domestic rates that have been paid despite there being no legal basis for them to be paid. What is the Government’s understanding of arrears or enforcement action that councils will potentially take against owners who have not been paying their non-domestic rates bills during that period? Does the Government have an understanding of the legal status of that debt? Ivan McKee: I can provide clarification on any specific example that Mark Griffin wants clarification on.”
“However, if Mark Griffin thinks that it would be sensible for the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament to proceed with a bill that pertains to the type of energy and the cost of energy throughout Scotland—at a time when 33 to 34 per cent of households are in fuel poverty— when I do not have clarity from the UK Government on what it intends to do on the cost of electricity, I am afraid that that is simply irresponsible. We have a strong record on delivering on heat in buildings in Scotland. I continue to do that by rolling out further the grants and loans that are available to connect to heat networks, and we will continue to take forward the work on the bill. The Presiding Officer: I ask all members to resist any temptation to contribute when they have not been called to speak.”
“Màiri McAllan: “Irony” is an interesting word for Mark Griffin to choose to put to me today, given that the entire reason that I have had to bring the statement to Parliament is because of the complete failure of his colleagues in the British Labour Party and the UK Government to clarify their position in respect of the warm homes plan. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the cabinet secretary. Màiri McAllan: As I said, Scottish ministers have now pressed UK ministers on no fewer than six occasions since the warm homes plan was first mooted. I have to give UK ministers some due: disruption was caused by the former Deputy Prime Minister having to leave the Government and by ministerial reshuffles having to take place as a result.”
“In 2021, we had a heat in buildings strategy. In 2023, we were promised a heat in buildings bill. Experts said that the bill would place impossible financial burdens on households, but the Government carried on consulting and then withdrew it, saying that it would place financial burdens on households. The Government then announced a new and improved bill in the spring of this year. Untroubled by any sense of irony, it seems that, today, it has given us a draft bill while, at the same time, announcing that there will be no bill. This is beyond farcical. Blaming a Government that has been in office for 18 months while home owners and industry have been waiting for clarity for five years is absolutely absurd. How can this Government say with any credibility that it has shown any leadership in the heat in buildings sector?”