Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 14.
“I hear what Patrick Harvie has said about global reliance on oil, but does he acknowledge that peak oil extraction from the North Sea was back in 1999, that such extraction is on a downward trajectory and that there is a balancing act, because we will rely on hydrocarbons for some time to come and continued extraction will be necessary to facilitate the transition? Patrick Harvie: The Scottish Government is also dragging its feet in relation to the pace at which we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, because it is watering down its heat in buildings agenda. Even in domestic terms, Rosebank will not help the Scottish or UK economies. It is viable only with millions of pounds in subsidies, with taxpayers being asked to shoulder 80 per cent of the costs.”
“The member referred to the fact that the Minister for Public Finance has already written to the other parties on the subject. We will keep that communication going. In the meantime, as I said in my previous answer, anyone who is affected by the issue that the member raises should speak directly to the City of Edinburgh Council. However, the backdrop is that many discussions continue to take place between the Scottish Government, COSLA and the relevant sectors.”
“I say to the minister, with all due respect, that the answers that he has given have been about the principle, but the issue concerns a point of detail in the legislation. Providers in Edinburgh are concerned that they are breaching the law because the amount that they will have to charge will be different from the amount that they are advertising. Ivan McKee has written to spokespeople across the Parliament and to members of the Economy and Fair Work Committee and the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee about a proposed expedited bill. Is that bill ready to go? Will it address the issue that has been highlighted? Can we have a statement on the issue? It is fast becoming the case that there is no clarity on what the Government’s position is. Richard Lochhead: The short answer to that is, of course, yes.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member has only 30 seconds left to speak. Daniel Johnson: I reiterate Murdo Fraser’s point that we need to look at reform. Much as Lorna Slater said, we need to look at how we flex our training and apprenticeship system. The problem with the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill is that it is a reshuffling of quangos without any clarity about direction, strategy or intended outcomes for the skills system. For those reasons, we will be supporting the amended Conservative motion. It is also why we oppose the bill in its current form. 16:24”
“For the Government to stand to one side and wring its hands about the state of the college sector, when it brought the colleges under its direct control, is not credible. We know that 30,000 fewer Scots are getting places in colleges and that some of the more flexible funding that was available through the flexible workforce development fund has been withdrawn. That is all fundamentally linked to a college funding regime that everyone knows—we can talk to anyone in the sector about it—is well past the point at which it needs reform. I know that this is getting a bit technical but, if we look at it in any detail, it is clear that the college credit system is no longer fit for purpose. If we were going to have a serious debate, we would be looking at those deficiencies. Brian Whittle: Will the member give way?”
“I know that he is a serious- minded person. I believe him when he states what he wants to do in that job and the importance of skills. However, it is not treating Audit Scotland’s work with seriousness if its key findings are expunged, which is what the Government’s amendment would do, and nor is the subject treated seriously by using essentially misleading figures. Let us be clear that the situation is serious and has been led to in part by the Government’s mismanaged and poorly handled college reform agenda. It is no good for the Government to say, “We work in partnership with colleges.” The Government brought colleges under its direct control, hobbled their financial flexibility and made it essentially impossible for them to deliver part- time courses.”
“One wonders what might have happened if history had been different. That position also stands in contrast to the Government’s presentation. We cannot support the Government’s amendment because—I say this with some trepidation—it is misleading. First, the use of the figure of 39,000 individuals in training might make members think that there has been an increase in the number of people in apprenticeships, but we know that the numbers of starts and completions have never recovered to their pre-pandemic levels. The figure is also misleading in another way, because it is not the most up-to-date number. There has been a subsequent iteration of the statistics, and the current number is actually 37,215. I say gently to Mr Macpherson—because I deeply respect him—that this is not a good start to his time in his role.”
“It gives me great pleasure to follow Lorna Slater, who gave several very useful insights. This is a useful debate and—dare I say it—it stands in contrast to the previous motion that the Conservatives moved. It is not only that this debate is important but that the motion is based on the facts. The issue is too important for us to ignore the facts, which is why we did not lodge an amendment. It is important that we let the facts speak for themselves, because a 20 per cent real-terms cut in funding is of concern, and it speaks to the direction of travel of the skills system, which is vital for us to achieve economic growth. That case was made strongly and in a matter-of-fact way by Murdo Fraser—in contrast to the presentation by the person who beat him to the Scottish Conservative leadership.”
“It should not have to be said, but it is also not racist to say that countless women have been trafficked and enslaved into prostitution by evil criminal gangs.”
“For the sake of everybody understanding the position, I say loudly and clearly that talking about immigration is not racist. We welcome people, such as Mr Syed senior, who arrive legally and who respect our freedoms of both speech and religion—those who want to work hard to build a better future for their families, and who cherish democracy, equality and the rule of law. It is not racist to recognise that our country has failed in its fundamental duty to control its borders. Too many have come here illegally or have overstayed their welcomes. Too many are here not to give, but to take. Too many do not share, or even actively oppose, our country’s values. It is not racist to say that we should remove foreign killers, paedophiles and rapists from our country.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Russell Findlay: I would be delighted to do so if there is any guarantee of getting the time back. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We are tight for time. You will get some of it back, but not necessarily all of it. Russell Findlay: Okay. I will take the intervention. Daniel Johnson: I welcome Russell Findlay’s comments about having a welcoming approach to people who come from other countries. However, would he endorse the statement that Robert Jenrick made at the weekend about walking in certain communities and seeing the complexions of people there? Would he support that comment? Russell Findlay: What Mr Jenrick meant was that we want communities that are assimilated. We do not want people to be isolated or ghettoised. That is an entirely reasonable position to take.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on legal enforcement measures being taken with regard to retailers committing age-of-sale offences when selling age- restricted items, such as vapes and cigarettes. (S6O-05036)”
“The Presiding Officer: The final question is, that motion S6M-19035, in the name of Shona Robison, on the appointment of commissioners to the Scottish Fiscal Commission, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees with the recommendation of the Scottish Government and the Finance and Public Administration Committee that Dr Eleanor Ryan and Justine Riccomini be appointed to the Scottish Fiscal Commission. The Presiding Officer: That concludes decision time. Organ Donation Week”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any expenditure of a kind referred to in Rule 9.12.3A of the Parliament’s Standing Orders arising in consequence of the Act. The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-19067, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament, for the purposes of any Act of the Scottish Parliament resulting from the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund in consequence of the Act.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Johnson. Likewise, we will ensure that your vote is recorded. 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) 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) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Abstentions Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division on motion S6M-18687, in the name of Shona Robison, on a financial resolution for the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, is: For 63, Against 18, Abstentions 23.”
“We need to stop and rethink the bill, because unless we are clear about what we want to achieve and we have a road map, structural change may well be costly and get in the way of the very thing that we are seeking to achieve. 16:43”
“Moreover, the Government does not provide those figures on an annual basis—we are well behind England and Wales in that respect. The Economy and Fair Work Committee, of which I am now the convener, held a number of evidence sessions on skills, and the voice of employers was pretty clear. At best, they were confused by the proposed change, and, at worst, they rejected it outright. Paul Sheerin of Scottish Engineering said, “Don’t do this. The things that we need to do are too urgent, and this will be a distraction.” We should listen to organisations such as the CBI, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and Scottish Engineering.”
“Today, we should have been debating how we fix colleges’ funding and how we make sure that colleges’ funding helps the skills system instead of debating how we merge the skills system with college funding. I think that the debate that we are having is the wrong way round. Stephen Kerr: The point that Daniel Johnson is making goes to the heart of the lack of parity of esteem in the different directions, which the bill does nothing for. Daniel Johnson: Absolutely. We need to have a clear framework for how people can study at university and acquire skills and apprenticeships and how they can study at college and do the same thing. Critically, graduate apprenticeships, which are the only part of the skills system that the Scottish Funding Council has been responsible for, have been static for a number of years.”
“Willie Rennie made the very important point that the current situation has not arisen in the absence of other considerations. We have a university funding crisis, which the Scottish Funding Council is having to look at urgently. Does it have the capacity to take on board a very significant merger? I would go further than Willie Rennie. It is not only a university funding crisis that we face. Many of the speakers in the debate treated skills funding as a problem that needs to be solved, but that issue is dwarfed by the colleges’ budget. Part of the problem is that colleges’ spend is incredibly rigid. Anyone who has taken any time to look at the credit funding mechanism for colleges will realise that it is simply not structured to help the skills system.”
“There are voices that say that we need to get on with it, but that urgency has been created by a lack of urgency on the part of the Scottish Government for almost a decade. Furthermore, it is clear from the work that Audit Scotland did that there were some issues between SDS and the SFC. Maybe the bill will sort those out. However, Audit Scotland also made the point that structural change was not necessary. The Audit Scotland report was explicit in saying that there needed to be changes in ministerial direction; more importantly, it said that ministers needed to provide clarity and oversight in holding the two agencies to account. We can amalgamate them, but, unless the Government provides oversight and direction with a view to guaranteeing delivery, we could well end up having the same problem with a single body that we have with two.”
“I appreciate that my predecessor gave reassurance on that to the committee. I am happy to give an undertaking to Parliament now that I will follow up on that issue and give further reassurance and information on that important point. Daniel Johnson: I am very grateful for that, because that is absolutely central. The other issue is the question of whether the Scottish Funding Council is the right vehicle—the right custodian—to take the system forward, given both the SFC’s track record and its other challenges. Ross Greer was absolutely right to delve back into the Audit Scotland reports and some of the other work that was done. Indeed, I did the same thing. The genesis of what is being proposed was in the enterprise and skills review that was undertaken in 2017.”
“If it is going to be effective, a skills system has to include the voice of industry not just as a consultee or as part of on-going engagement, but at the heart of its governance. Stephen Kerr rightly pointed out that the systems in Germany and Switzerland have exactly that. The bill will scrap the Scottish apprenticeship advisory board without providing any clarity on its replacement and, critically, without putting industry’s voice at the heart of the system’s governance. To articulate clearly what I mean: that will leave out the voice of not just employers, but of trade unions and wealth in the shaping of the system’s content and direction. For that reason, we have a major problem with the bill. Ben Macpherson: A number of members have raised the issue of the board.”
“The skills system is vital for young people because it gives them the right start in their careers; however, given the changes that are happening in the economy, the change that we need to see is a skills system that is just as much about giving people who are already in the workplace the ability to upskill and reskill as technology changes how they do their jobs and makes certain industries and sectors obsolete. The need to make that change to the system has become equally important, but, frankly, I do not see that in the bill. As I said to Graeme Dey in private—and I will say it again to Ben Macpherson if we have the opportunity to speak together—the Government badly needs a route map, whether it is in a green paper or a white paper, because we do not have that clarity. There are other fundamental objections to the bill.”
“Our fundamental objection is that there is a real risk that, without a road map and a vision, the bill will deliver a change in form without providing any clarity around a change in function—and let us be clear that it is the function that we need to change. I intervened on Jackie Dunbar, and I ask her forgiveness for pressing her on a point that maybe I did not make clearly enough. A number of members who articulated their positions on the skills system made the assumption that the skills system is about young people almost exclusively. That is precisely where the change needs to happen.”
“Two points were made in the debate that united everyone in the chamber, the first of which was the welcome of the new minister. At times, it felt like the front step of the Caledonian hotel, because so many welcomes were issued, although I think that the minister will need to reflect on the fact that most speakers went on to commiserate with him on the job that is in front of him. He can make of that what he will. I also agree with the more fundamental point that was made, which is that there absolutely is a need for change in the skills system. It needs to do an awful lot more. The issue is whether the bill will deliver that and whether it will provide clarity.”
“That said, we believe that there is an opportunity here for the new minister, and I hope that he will genuinely work with MSPs from across the chamber to try to fix the bill. He will find an open door from Scottish Conservatives if he wants to do so, but we cannot support the bill at decision time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to open on behalf of Scottish Labour. 15:22”
“I welcome what the minister has outlined, and I am sure that he will provide more details on graduate apprenticeships to members. I agree with the concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, which were mentioned by Willie Rennie, that the bill has the potential to dismantle what already works and leaves employers in the dark in relation to the future of apprenticeships and the wider workforce system. As Scottish Conservatives believe that the bill requires significant amendment, we will not be supporting it at decision time this evening. As drafted, it is problematic and poorly costed, and I believe that it represents a missed opportunity to take forward a radical and ambitious new approach to skills in Scotland.”
“The potential loss of the apprenticeship advisory board, as Douglas Ross mentioned, would have represented a backwards step, so I welcome some of the changes that the Government has outlined in that regard. However, there is nothing in the bill that focuses on the skills shortages that our national and local economies face. There is also nothing about targets that will help achieve the skills, the jobs and, ultimately, the economic growth that we hope that they will drive. We must acknowledge the significant and important contribution of private training providers, particularly in the delivery of certification and registration services. Universities Scotland stated in its briefing that “The current operation of the framework approach for new GAs effectively prevents universities from responding” as well.”
“Colleges Scotland states in its briefing that “there is nothing else on the horizon which would bring significant change to the apprenticeship landscape in particular: this needs reform and colleges can support more people to gain an apprenticeship”. During the committee’s evidence taking, it felt as though the Scottish Government did not have a vision of where it wanted apprenticeships in our country to go. I feel that the bill has not provided a route map for a genuine transformation of the delivery of apprenticeships. Fundamentally, the Government has not answered the question of what is wrong with the system; after all, we are currently delivering 25,000 apprenticeships when, last year, the demand was for between 35,000 and 40,000, according to the number registered.”
“It has been well documented that, under this Scottish Government, we have seen the loss of more than 100,000 college places. I have met representatives from colleges across Scotland, and they expressed real concern about the limits that college credits are putting on many institutions. Indeed, the waiting lists for people to get on to courses often mirror directly the skills shortages that face our local and national economies. Therefore, I believe that we need a review of college credits and a more agile delivery of credits for courses that are clearly needed in our economy today, net zero being one of them. Many meetings are taking place in the Highlands, for example, to discuss that very issue.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Miles Briggs: Yes, very briefly. Daniel Johnson: Although some sectors might well value the delivery of the skills system through alternative provision, specifically private provision, is there not also a risk that they will see a reduction in the flexibility in what skills funding delivers, if it is given to the SFC? Miles Briggs: Yes, and I will come on to that. That is, as the committee highlighted, one of the main concerns. According to Audit Scotland’s report “Scotland’s colleges 2024”, colleges face increasing financial challenges and a lack of clarity on their role from ministers, which hinders reform and sustainability. Funding has decreased in real terms since 2021, forcing colleges to cut costs and staff.”
“Daniel Johnson will be well aware of the number of bills that are working their way through the Parliament over the coming weeks and months—indeed, we are staying very late tonight to take a bill through stage 3—so finding a slot is the challenge. We would like to do this earlier, but, realistically, I think that it will happen after May next year.”
“It is to put in place regulations that will allow the percentage scheme to be taken forward. Those are listed in the response that I sent back to the committee. I am very happy to engage, and for my officials to engage, further with Daniel Johnson to go through the details of that, which is quite a complicated technical area. Current schemes can absolutely continue—I have been very clear about that. The City of Edinburgh Council, or any other council that is bringing forward a proposed scheme on a percentage basis, is absolutely able to continue to do that to the current timescales. We are proposing to make changes that will broaden out the scope, so that a tiered flat-rate scheme can also be introduced. With regard to timing, as I have made clear, we are looking for a legislative vehicle that will allow that change.”
“The move from the Government to simplify the scheme is welcome. However, the minister has stated that the Government’s position has been clear for a period of time. Unfortunately, that period of time is just a matter of days, and local authorities are proceeding to implement the scheme in the coming weeks. I would like clarification on the following points. Will the legislative change that the minister has set out be in addition to the existing legislation, and, therefore, will current schemes be able to proceed? Will that be a legislative change in the coming parliamentary session—will he clarify that remark? There was also some discussion of a regulatory change through secondary legislation. Has that now been ruled out? Ivan McKee: The regulatory change is a separate issue.”
“There was a lot of noise when the announcement was first made in June, and the UK Government promised to work on a pipeline of orders. We await details of that pipeline, which we had been assured would come in the autumn. We were always aware that that period covers the medium to long term, which is definitely important, but that would be too late for Alexander Dennis. I am more than happy to continue to engage with the member on the question of orders, but, in the short term, a bridge is required, and that is what we have secured. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A lot of members wish to ask questions, so I make the usual plea for brevity when asking those questions and, as far as possible, when giving responses to them.”
“Despite £30 million-worth of funding over 10 years from Scottish Enterprise and £40 million from the previous round of the Scottish zero-emissions bus challenge— ScotZEB—fund, only 44 bus orders were obtained by Alexander Dennis. If ScotZEB 2 is being reopened, what lessons have been learned? What will be put right through future Scottish Government funding rounds so that further orders for Alexander Dennis can be won? Kate Forbes: I say up front—this will be a common refrain in response to every answer that I give this afternoon—that I will not go into detail about orders because of commercial sensitivity. The member asked about efforts to secure orders, and I will not go into detail on those. He also asked about our engagement with the UK Government.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for an advance copy of her statement. These have been incredibly difficult times for the workforce of Alexander Dennis, so this is undoubtedly a welcome intervention that provides breathing space for the firm to repair its order book. Surely that must be the focus now. That is why Scottish Labour has been reaching out to colleagues, especially mayors, to see what can be done to win orders. What efforts is the Scottish Government making to secure orders, and what is the Deputy First Minister’s expectation in that regard? The issue raises questions about industrial strategy. The Scottish Government’s efforts are welcome, but surely things should have been put in place up front.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the work of the creative industries leadership group. (S6O-04931)”
“I see that Kenny Gibson has enthusiastically got to his feet to agree with me.”
“I acknowledge that it was initiated by the previous UK Administration, but it has been taken forward as a priority by the incoming Labour Government, because it is worth £4.8 billion to the UK economy and 2,200 jobs. Of that £4.8 billion, £1 billion is the value to the whisky industry. Under the deal, tariffs have been reduced by half immediately—to the world’s biggest whisky market—and will be reduced by half again in 10 years’ time. There is not just the India trade deal. The UK Labour Government has prioritised bilateral deals and discussions with France and Germany, and we have secured the frigate exports worth £10 billion that have already been mentioned. There has been a renewed approach from the Scotland Office, which is seeking to support trade and investment and promote brand Scotland.”
“As reasonable as the Deputy First Minister tries to be, a fundamental stumbling block is that, as long as the Government pursues its constitutional obsession, it will seek to put barriers between Scotland and its biggest market—and to create uncertainty for business, which is undoubtedly damaging for the economy. Unfortunately, what we are seeing from the Government all too often— to be fair, I do not accuse the Deputy First Minister of this—is selective use of data and grandstanding, whereas what we need for trade is pragmatic action, which is what we have seen from the UK Government to date. The India trade deal, which has been referenced in all the speeches so far, is very important.”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—I always enjoy a bit of latitude. Given the rekindled enthusiasm for independence that we have seen from the Government in recent weeks, it is a bit brave to bring an export debate to the Parliament, given that, in my broad view, frontiers put barriers in the way of trade. However, I might be doing the Government a disservice. Given that 70 per cent of our trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom, the Government might think that, with a stroke of the cartographer’s pen, it can treble Scottish exports. The problem with that is that it is clearly bonkers.”
“I move, That the Parliament recognises that demand for Scottish exports is strong due to Scotland’s high-quality products and services, and its excellence in sectors such as food and drink, professional, scientific, and technical activities; notes that global trade challenges, including geopolitical uncertainty, Brexit, and trade tariffs, are having a detrimental impact on Scottish businesses; welcomes the Scottish Government’s Six Point Export Plan, which is supporting Scottish businesses to respond to these challenges; notes that the additional support being provided, builds on effective and continued delivery of A Trading Nation, the Scottish Government’s export growth strategy, as indicated through Scottish Enterprise’s highest ever level of forecast export sales in 2024-25; acknowledges that meaningful collaboration between partners to promote Scotland internationally, using the Scottish Government-led award-winning Brand Scotland collateral, will boost awareness of Scotland’s strengths and increase opportunities for export growth, and calls on the UK Government to fully address the continuing impacts of Brexit on Scottish and UK trade by rejoining the European Union, and reverse its damaging decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions, which is harming business confidence and Scotland’s economy.”
“During recent engagements—for example, on trade and investment in India and with the United Arab Emirates—I have been struck by both the scale of the opportunity and the incredibly positive feedback that I get about Scottish products and Scottish businesses. We want to continue to lead on seizing the economic opportunities for Scotland abroad.”
“We continue to call on the UK Government to fully address the continuing damaging impacts of Brexit on Scottish and UK trade. In that regard, the Government remains firm in its view that the best means of growing Scottish trade in the EU is by rejoining the EU. Presiding Officer, I note that I am out of time. I have not quite finished— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you a bit more time. Kate Forbes: Thank you. I am very confident that Scotland and our exporters have the capacity, potential and ambition to continue to take advantage of the shifting opportunities in international trade, both now and in the years ahead.”
“He put issues such as whisky on the trade deal agenda during that meeting and, of course, in a meeting with the President earlier this week, he continued to press for a better deal on whisky tariffs, which are currently costing £4 million per week. We have also worked closely and collaboratively with the UK Government as we support our exporters, including recently in the assessment and response to the impacts of US tariffs. On some levels, that has been effective. However, on other levels—as was demonstrated through the lack of engagement on the publication of the UK Government trade strategy in June this year—there is a risk that we are not harnessing our collective capacity as we could. More fundamental issues persist.”
“When Scottish Enterprise announced its highest-ever forecast export sales results, it did so at Piramal in Grangemouth—a fantastic example of how a company exporting from Scotland can support jobs and the local economy. We want to work constructively with others— even others in this chamber—as we advance Scotland’s export ambitions. When the First Minister met the President of the United States earlier this summer, he reiterated the Scottish Government’s strong support for efforts to finalise the remaining elements of the UK-US deal and provide long-term certainty and stability to our transatlantic trading partnership.”
“As of August 2025, more than 11 per cent of Scottish businesses reported that they were being affected by new US tariffs. That rises to nearly 23 per cent among goods exporters, who also noted that the most common issues were increased costs and supply chain disruption. A quarter of goods exporters were expecting to be affected in this month of September. The issues that we seek to address are real and are affecting businesses right now. Just yesterday, Richard Lochhead and I met business leaders to discuss their concerns on trade, share some of the details of the additional support that we are providing and take on board any further suggestions that they had.”
“We will publish an export plan specifically for the United States to allow us to focus on the specific areas of that vast critical market that present Scottish companies with the greatest opportunity. With an additional £1.6 million of investment, building on the existing annual support for the “A Trading Nation” strategy and Scottish Enterprise’s work on international growth, we will deliver a 33 per cent increase in the number of chambers trade missions and help an extra 100 exporters to find new customers in order to generate an additional £75 million of forecast export sales. We have also set out actions that we are taking to close the export gap among women-led businesses. Taken together, those actions will help Scotland to maintain its place.”
“Building on all that, on 1 September, Scottish Enterprise announced the highest-ever forecast sales figures, which I mentioned, of almost £2.5 billion. I turn to the six-point export plan, which, specifically, increases our business support offer to exporters from Scottish Enterprise, increases our investment in sector export plans, and increases the scope of our international trade partnership programme, which members will know that we run in collaboration with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce. The plan increases the number of inward trade missions to showcase Scotland’s export strength to international buyers, and it will increase the number of outward trade missions that we deliver, exposing even more Scottish companies to new and emerging international markets.”