Ben Macpherson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“It would be helpful to understand from the member’s supplementary question what he means by degrees that “offer limited value”, so that we can understand the point that he is trying to make. Thomas Kerr: I will get a list over to the minister. I am always happy to educate the education front bench about pointless degrees.”
“I am sure that, collectively, we all want to congratulate the 2024-25 school leavers, 93.5 per cent of whom were in a positive destination nine months after leaving school. We will also, I am sure, want to recognise together the dedication of the practitioners who supported them to achieve that.”
“Can he guarantee that every pound that has been allocated to apprenticeships is being spent on apprenticeship training, rather than elsewhere in the education budget?”
“This year, building on previous work and initiatives, the Scottish Government has introduced a new Government-led skills planning model—which has been developed in close partnership with stakeholders, including those in industry—to ensure that our post-school education and skills system becomes even more responsive to Scotland’s strategic…”
“We want to support all our young people to choose a pathway that suits their strengths and enables them to fulfil their potential to the greatest extent, developing their skills and critical thinking. Our all-age careers support, delivered by Skills Development Scotland and other partners, promotes every pathway to our young people.”
“Ben Macpherson: Daniel Johnson knows that I like to be constructive in my dialogue in the chamber, but I must gently point out that one of the key problems that those in industry have emphasised to me is the impact of the national insurance increase, as well as other pressures and costs that have affected the number of apprenticeship star…”
The complete record
Every one of 643 lines we hold for Ben Macpherson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 13.
“The amendment is in keeping with the other content of the code, which is about encouraging people who are acquiring a dog to think about the practicalities and realities of dog ownership. Ross Greer: I am finding much of the minister’s contribution deeply confusing. I have only one question: will the minister bring forward regulations before the end of this parliamentary session to ban shock collars, as the Government’s advisers recommended unequivocally two years ago? Jim Fairlie: Ross Greer is correct to say that, since the bill has been published, people have been writing to us to ask us to ban electric shock collars, but there are also people who have asked us not to ban them. It goes back to the point that Finlay Carson made: let us have a proper debate and discussion about what that would look like.”
“Rather than the Parliament scrutinising legislation properly, this is another example of the Greens proposing something at the last minute, as was the case with the proposals on mountain hares and kelp harvesting, that would not achieve the outcomes that members in the Parliament would want. The proposals should have been properly debated, and there was plenty of opportunity for similar amendments to have been lodged at stage 2. Jim Fairlie: In the spirit of the consensus that, I hope, the debate will deliver, I will not agree with any of that, but I hear the points that Finlay Carson has made. I can support Ross Greer’s amendment 16 on ensuring that the acquirer of a dog “is committed to training the dog in a safe and healthy manner”.”
“To be clear, the proposed amendments do not constitute a ban on any particular training device, so they would not have any practical effect in prohibiting the use, supply or possession of a specific sort of training device. They would simply complicate the code and cause unnecessary confusion. Furthermore, the code does not have the effect of criminalising behaviour, as, I believe, is intended through the amendments. Therefore, I ask Ross Greer not to press or move his amendments. Finlay Carson: I rarely ask whether the minister agrees with my position, but does he agree that this is another example of the Greens expecting the Parliament to make legislation on the hoof or, in this case, on the paw?”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Jim Fairlie: I will take Ben Macpherson’s intervention. Ben Macpherson: I appreciate what the minister has just laid out to the Parliament. Can he clarify that the undertaking that was given in 2018 by the previous cabinet secretary Roseanna Cunningham will be honoured? He has already set out the different ways in which that will be done but, for those of us who have campaigned on the issue in previous years, it would be helpful for that undertaking to be re-emphasised. Jim Fairlie: I am not aware of the undertaking that Roseanna Cunningham gave, but I will find out exactly what Ben Macpherson is talking about.”
“A report on the key themes that were raised is being produced and a further cross- party discussion is intended. Road Safety 5.”
“Graeme Dey: The Scottish Government also values youth work highly, and I agree that working in collaboration helps to achieve positive outcomes for young people. As I mentioned in my initial answer, the Scottish Government continues to fund a range of projects and programmes that directly support youth work, in addition to funding the local government block grant. Included in that is £20 million from phase 6 of our cashback for communities fund, which has supported 29 partnership organisations. I say to Ben Macpherson that, so far, the spend in the Edinburgh local authority area in phase 6 is circa £700,000. On the youth violence summit that Ben Macpherson referred to, we are considering what more can be done to prevent and reduce harm from violence.”
“Ben Macpherson: We know that youth work, in all its various forms, can be preventative investment that reduces spending in the long term. Examples include the work of the Citadel Youth Centre, the Spartans Community Foundation and others in my constituency. I recognise all the good work that the Scottish Government is funding and appreciate the pressures on the public finances, but will the minister say more about how the Scottish Government is working across portfolios and with other organisations to consider additional support for youth work as part of the response to the recent youth violence summit, particularly in areas such as Edinburgh, where, unfortunately, youth violence that is perpetrated by a very small minority has become more prevalent recently?”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting and investing in youth work. (S6O-04237) The Minister for Higher and Further Education; and Minister for Veterans (Graeme Dey): The Scottish Government is committed to supporting youth work and continues to fund it in a variety of ways. The block grant funding that is provided to local authorities affords them significant autonomy in allocating resources for youth work, to meet the specific needs of young people in their local areas. The Scottish Government, across portfolios, also directly funds a range of youth work initiatives, projects and programmes. Those initiatives aim to support diverse youth work models, promote partnership working and enhance the quality of youth work, supporting the best possible outcomes for the young people of Scotland.”
“It is that ability of Burns to bring people together that is the magic so many years on. I have found that the power of Burns to bring people together is so important wherever I have been—whether it was when I was in Paris in the British embassy in 2019, or in Brussels in the Scottish Government hub just after Brexit—internationally, domestically, in Parliaments, in embassies and in our communities. We must treasure that power, we must celebrate it, and we must not take it for granted. 18:04”
“It’s time you gained oor poet’s savvy, An’ better shared the feast.” That connection from my family was profoundly moved in me when, in 2019, as a Scottish minister, I had the great privilege of presenting the Robert Burns humanitarian award at the Alloway cottage. As well as being an environmentalist and, many would argue, a socialist, Burns was an internationalist, and, of course, that is best encapsulated in the song “Auld Lang Syne”, which is sung not only at Hogmanay, but is the second most famous song in the world, being surpassed only by “Happy Birthday”. Indeed, I will never forget when I was in China in 2003 telling my class that I am from Scotland, to which they said, “Well, where’s that?”, and so I whistled the tune of “Auld Lang Syne”, and they instantly remembered what that was.”
“This week, we have seen one of the world’s biggest polluters pull out of the Paris agreement, so I want to read a few verses that my father wrote of a modern moose’s reply to the ploughman poet. He said: “We mice, might whyles express opinion, On ‘Godly’ Man’s assumed ‘dominion’. For time has shown, yer sairly wantin’ In stewardin’ skills— Nae savin’ nature’s precious union, But causin’ her ills. Ye wanton tykes cause devastation. Wi tae much business exploitation, Pollutin’ water, air and oceans For greed o’ cash, ‘Til soon the planet’s fragile balance Will tip and crash. Beware then, brainy homo saps, Wi’ gadgets, phones an latest apps, This earth is here for a’ tae nourish, Baith human and beast.”
“My father, who is from the small town of Crosshill in Ayrshire, spoke passionately about Burns throughout my childhood and he continues to do so to this day. Indeed, given that he was a professional exhibition and museum designer who designed a number of exhibitions in years past, including the exhibition in the National Library of Scotland, he would support the efforts to create more exhibition and museum experiences for people to enjoy Burns. My father’s experience of that period developed in him—as Burns has done for many others—a passion to write in Scots and to use the style of Burns to express his own messages and the things that he thought were important.”
“Like others, I warmly welcome the opportunity to come together to mark the third pillar of the winter festivals that we celebrate in Scotland, together with St Andrew’s day and Hogmanay. The legacy of Burns is immense, as the motion states and as other members have said. Every week I am reminded of that, because the Burns statue on Constitution Street in Leith looks on to my constituency office. Indeed, there are statues of Robert Burns all over the world—his international footprint is matched only by that of Taras Shevchenko from Ukraine. As well as the passion that there is for Burns in Leith, north Edinburgh and around the world, I have a personal connection with our national bard.”
“I also encourage the Government to continue to support organisations such as Multi-Cultural Family Base in my constituency and others in the third sector that do such important work to support people when they arrive in Scotland. There is a sense that Scotland is a place that is growing its population well through migration and that it is inclusive and allows integration. There is a sense that everyone is proud to be Scottish, alongside their heritage from the different places that they have come from. We have something special in that and we have a good opportunity to build on it. I commend the Government’s motion. The debate is important for us all, because migration is one of the issues of our time. We should all come to this debate with solutions and with a sense of how we can work together to improve things. 15:59”
“Canada and Australia have much more decentralised immigration systems. The UK is not necessarily normal in the way that it handles migration so centrally and with such homogeny. We could have a better way of doing things. I am glad that there is more constructive engagement with the UK Government and that there is an openness to think about these issues. Whether from Adam Tomkins in the previous session of the Parliament or from Labour MSPs, there has been good constructive discussion across political parties about how we could better approach migration in Scotland with tailored solutions under devolved power. The migration service that the Government has introduced will absolutely help to support people when they arrive in Scotland, which is important.”
“It was about maintaining aspects such as border control as reserved issues but enabling the Parliament to take responsibility for and show innovation in how we attract more people to Scotland. Craig Hoy referred to the example of an American migrant. One of the problems that potential American migrants face is that the cost of the visas allowing them to come to the country is extortionate. If Scotland could approach that differently, would that not have an impact? There are practical, creative solutions that we could come up with if we had the flexibility to do so. As a result of the constitutional changes with the Scotland Act 2016, we have the advantage of having a tax code; we have a way to build a more tailored migration system around something that is already in place.”
“It has been good to hear the different perspectives from members of all parties in the chamber about how we do that. I am interested in solutions on how we move forward. I refer colleagues to the fact that, as is noted in the Government’s motion, “the Parliament has previously endorsed a motion calling for the development of differentiated, more flexible migration policy , tailored to meet Scotland’s specific needs”. The 2020 paper, “Migration: Helping Scotland Prosper” was the culmination of a lot of work that was done cross-party and cross-sector to propose solutions that could be achieved with creativity and with a new constitutional position on immigration policy.”
“My constituent Paul Singh’s organisation, Building Bridges, does great work. I refer members to his contribution to time for reflection on 22 February 2022. The story has been a good one and we have a good place from which to build, because, as has been said by members on the front benches and many others, our demographic challenges are real. I do not think that migration is a panacea for our demographic challenges; no one in the debate has argued that. However, migration is part of how we respond to that challenge, not just in Scotland but in most western economies and democracies. The need to attract more people and to bring more people to Scotland is an essential part of how we orchestrate our public policy going forward.”
“Whether it is in Edinburgh Northern and Leith or across Scotland more widely, the story of migration is enriching, not just for our culture and our inclusive Scottish identity, which I will say more about in a minute, but factually, because migration makes a positive contribution to our economy and our public services. Scotland is not perfect by any means: racism exists, and our challenges with sectarianism go back to challenges with migration in decades and centuries past. Generally, in Scotland—although, again I am not in any way saying that it is perfect—inclusion has been reasonably successful. BEMIS describes it as our intangible cultural heritage and our inclusive identity; new Scots become proud Scots very quickly. We do not just have multiculturalism but interculturalism.”
“Leith, with its docks, often tells the story of Scotland’s migration journey, whether it is of the Italians who first started selling ice cream in the port of Leith, the proud Indian heritage that we have with our Sikh community, the Pakistani community, the Chinese community or the eastern Europeans who have made Edinburgh Northern and Leith and the city more widely their home from the 1950s onwards. That story also includes the recent Syrian community, the Lebanese community, various aspects of the African story of migration to Scotland, the historical story of Irish migration and, most recently, our growing Ukrainian Scot community. All those new Scots, as well as people who have come from the rest of the UK, such as my mother, who worked for more than 30 years in our NHS, are part of the make-up of our society.”
“Our population—its make-up, health, diversity and distribution—is arguably the most important aspect of all our considerations in the different policy areas that we contend with. Of course, migration is a significant part of that; it has been historically, is today and will be going forward. That is why it is important and right that we debate these issues today. My constituency has often symbolised and been at the forefront of Scotland’s migration story. I was reminded of that on Christmas morning when I joined Street Soccer Scotland’s annual football game, with people from across the world who did not necessarily have other things to do that day coming together, playing in friendship and doing something that everyone can enjoy.”
“Ben Macpherson: Does Jeremy Balfour acknowledge the fact that inward migration from the rest of the UK has been positive—in that more people have come from the rest of the UK to Scotland than have gone elsewhere in the UK— and that the overall levels of migration to Scotland are pretty similar to those in the north of England? I am not sure that the argument is as clear as he has made out. Jeremy Balfour: I do not accept the member’s second point because, if we look at the numbers, we see that they are lower than they are for any other part of the UK. We have been brought to this point by the SNP’s failed leadership on countless matters—not least on taxation.”
“Instead of focusing on providing high-quality public services, the Scottish Government would rather grandstand on reserved policy areas and deflect attention elsewhere. The consequences of that are plain to see: a suffering national health service, an ever-growing housing crisis, the social care sector on its knees, and the wider third sector looking for life support. Should we be surprised that Scotland is struggling to attract migrants? If the Scottish National Party is not willing to put in the work to make Scotland an attractive prospect, why should migrants be willing to move here? Scotland is home to 8.4 per cent of the UK population, but we receive only 6 per cent of net UK migration. Regardless of the SNP’s attempts to deflect from that, the blame lies squarely at its feet.”
“Will Mr Balfour take an intervention? Jeremy Balfour: Ladies first, if that is okay. Shirley-Anne Somerville: How very gallant of the member. I am already gravely concerned by the tone that the member is taking. As my colleague Mr Arthur pointed out, this debate is about how to improve the economy and our public services and about how to have surviving and thriving communities. I am deeply disappointed that, once again, the Conservatives do not see the importance of migration to the economy, our communities and our public services—all of which are devolved responsibilities. Jeremy Balfour: With respect to the cabinet secretary, I think that she has slightly jumped the gun. She might want to reflect on what I will say in the next few minutes.”
“If we dance around those things rather than deal with them head on, we are very likely to make things worse, not better. We need to attach a greater importance to this; we need people to be held accountable for it; we need measures that measure change; and we need the economy to be front and centre in the performance framework rather than skirted around. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Murdo Fraser to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 16:40”
“More importantly—this relates to what the Deputy First Minister said earlier—the NPF cannot simply be a collection of measures that tell people how things are. There has to be a theory of change embedded in them. They need to tell people not only how things are, but how things are changing. Right now, as I see it, there is nothing in the NPF on that, and there are too many fudges. I absolutely agree with Mr Hoy that the NPF dances around the economy. Yes, I believe that things such as tackling poverty are fundamentally important, but unless we have a clear-eyed view of how our economy is performing—that it is helping people into better jobs, better wages and better work—we will never be able to deal with things such as poverty or homelessness.”
“Lots of other things are important, too, such as how good the quality is when people arrive at the point of treatment and how efficiently that treatment is provided and the expertise is deployed. However, waiting times are a good indicator of how well other parts of the system are performing. If the Government is serious about this stuff, it needs to do two things. First, there needs to be a much greater focus on performance. Simply publishing a report once a year does not cut it. We need to get ministers in front of Parliament to report on performance against the indicators. Furthermore, there need to be meetings of groups within Government, so that they can understand how things work and hold people to account.”
“Mr Mason has made a number of interventions in which he has asked whether we need to reduce the number of outcomes. Is the NPF too complicated or is the list of outcomes too short? I say with respect to Mr Mason that that is the wrong question. The question is whether the national outcomes are given enough importance. Measuring things can make a difference when we attach sufficient prominence and importance to them. We talk about waiting times in the health service. If there is a number that makes the Government flinch, it is that one. As well as its being given prominence, people understand what that number means. People understand that waiting times performance is not a perfect explainer of how good their healthcare is.”
“We need more than just a measure; we need a theory of change and to give prominence and importance to those measures. John Mason: I agree, to an extent, with what the member is saying, but given that there has been such a push to have reference to care and other issues added to the national outcomes, does he accept that it is clear that some people in the third sector and beyond think that it makes a difference to have such issues included in the national outcomes? It should probably make more difference, but it is making a difference. Daniel Johnson: It is absolutely correct to say that such matters are important, but will including them in the national outcomes make a difference? No, it will not. The issue is not what we measure.”
“No one is disputing that housing should be included. It absolutely should be, because, as speakers have highlighted throughout the debate, if we do not have good housing, we are just going to make poverty worse. We are going to make it harder to meet our objectives, whether those are explicitly on the economy or even on healthcare. If we do not have secure housing, how are people ever going to access good healthcare? John Mason: Will the member give way? Daniel Johnson: I will give way to Mr Mason in a moment. Will simply having a metric in the national performance framework make a difference to outcomes? It will not, because simply reporting on a figure—and, as we heard from Ariane Burgess, we do not even have those agreed measures in the NPF—will never make a difference.”
“16:35 Daniel Johnson: Yes, I am afraid that it is true that members will have to listen to me twice in this debate. I will follow on directly from the last two speakers. Ben Macpherson is right: in these challenging times, we need to concentrate on substance, not personality. This debate goes to the very heart of that. Done right, this stuff could make a difference—but it does not, and that needs to be challenged. There has been some acknowledgement, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and diplomacy, that something is not quite right with the national performance framework. Alex Rowley hit the nail on the head when he asked whether it would make a difference if something were to be included in the national performance framework or not and whether it will make a difference if housing is included.”
“Ben Macpherson: Clare Adamson has said that absolutely brilliantly and I could not disagree with anything that she put forward. The issue gets to the heart of both the parliamentary and the public domain. We may disagree on the constitution, financial policy and taxation, and we may disagree on different issues of devolved policy. However, where are the shared pillars, anchors and agreed outcomes that we are determined to get to and that we know are right for all of Scotland? That is both the opportunity and the challenge as we take forward the national performance framework. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the closing speeches. I call Daniel Johnson to close on behalf of Scottish Labour. You have around four minutes.”
“We allocate these Scrabble tiles but we do not actually have an understanding of the priorities. The CEEAC Committee’s report talks about a feminist foreign policy, which touches on the issues that Ms Gosal was talking about and the promotion of human rights, which runs throughout the work of the Parliament in what we do globally. It also touches on climate justice, which Mr Mountain talked about, but I do not know whether the international understanding of climate justice— the large vision—is ever discussed in the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee. Therefore, do you think that, as a Parliament, as well as politicians and parties, we have to examine how we deal with these issues, too? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please always speak through the chair.”
“I have said for some time that we need to get into a different political space, particularly as the challenges are getting more and more acute. They include the reform that is needed in our public services, financial challenge and economic competitiveness and a geopolitical situation that is becoming increasingly challenging. The whole question of the ability of democracy to deliver for people is receiving more attention than it has throughout my lifetime. This is an amazing opportunity for us all. Clare Adamson: In this afternoon’s debate, a lot of us have been speaking as committee conveners. One of the things that my committee highlighted in its report was a lack of a shared understanding of the goals within the committees themselves. Mr Johnson also spoke about that.”
“Others have said this, but we have entered a period where we have moved beyond the 2014 referendum and what came before and after that. There is still political difference in this chamber and in wider society, but we have to get to a place where, when we discuss issues, we focus less on conflict and the negatives and more on the positives and what we share and agree on. What do we want to do, and how do we reach tangible and aspirational agreed positions, on which we are bound together beyond the election cycle? I say that because a lot of the challenge that we have faced in recent times has been because we have a political culture that is habitually focused on how we win and get the better of one another.”
“What would people say if I walked down into my constituency and when going past them I asked, “What do you think of the national performance framework?” There are quite a lot of civil servants that go up that way—[Laughter.]— but I am not sure that there would be much recognition unless I was lucky enough to bump into one of them. I do not say that to diminish or undermine the work that is being done on the national performance framework but to provide background. When we build on the national performance framework and move forward to whatever comes next, the approach has to be about how we set shared goals that we all know and recognise. What is the vision for Scotland for the next part of the 21st century? We are 25 years into devolution.”
“I say that to provide context, as I think that that is important for how we move forward. I will say more about that in a minute. The 11 national outcomes and 81 national indicators have given us a sense of where to aim for. Some members have said that they are nebulous and others have said that they are nice words, but they have provided a useful and, I think, effective map for stakeholders, civil servants, public bodies, local authorities and the Government itself. Public finance ministers have had to report every year on the Government’s progress towards the outcomes in the national performance framework. The cabinet secretary has provided insight on the process that the Government will undertake in order to move forward. However, there is a question to consider, which I call the Leith Walk test.”
“For me, the national performance framework has certainly made a positive impact since 2018. It is not perfect, but it has provided an overarching framework and focus on the national outcomes, reflecting our shared priorities and the international aspirations of the 17 sustainable development goals that are embedded in it. Together, they have been a north star at a time of challenge. I recognise the points that have just been made by Alex Rowley, but—and this is meant not to make excuses but to provide a reason—let us not forget the context. We have had a period of austerity, with unexpected interruption from Brexit, the pandemic, the current situation with the war in Ukraine and the economic impact of UK Government decisions on the economy in recent times.”
“I seek your guidance on how to place on record that the minister’s statement that, this morning, there were three places available in secure accommodation in Scotland was factually incorrect and that, at 10.46 this morning, there were only two places in independent secure centres listed as being available. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I think that you have answered your own question, Mr Whitfield: you have put that on the record. It is not a point of order. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow members on the front benches to change. National Performance Framework (National Outcomes) 15:22”
“The Scottish Government is also providing funding of up to £380,000 to the Kibble-based interventions for vulnerable youth service, which is a specialist psychological and social work service that offers therapeutic forensic mental health risk assessment and management support to children and young people who present a risk of harm to others. I could go on—there is more that we are doing that I could expand on. I am happy to give Ben Macpherson more information in writing, but I emphasise that mental health is a priority. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. That concludes this item of business. Martin Whitfield: On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer.”
“It will open in late 2025 and will provide four beds for young people who require care in an in-patient setting with medium levels of security. We are also providing just under £3.5 million across the west, east and north of Scotland to support the planning and development of regional elements of the CAMHS national service specification. That includes the development of a four-bed adolescent intensive psychiatric care unit in the west of Scotland and forensic CAMHS and intensive home treatment CAMHS services and pathways.”
“Regarding young people who are in secure care as a last resort, I would be grateful if the minister could say more about what the Scottish Government is doing to support young people with mental health needs, which may not ordinarily be appropriately met in secure care. What other support is being provided or could be provided that they may need or benefit from? Natalie Don-Innes: A number of initiatives are relevant to that. The Government is developing the national secure adolescent in-patient service for Scotland, known as Foxgrove, which was commissioned by the national services division. It will be a medium-secure in-patient service for children and young people aged from 12 to 18 years with appropriate forensic child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS— needs.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is responding to reported increases in instances of youth crime and antisocial behaviour. (S6T-02270)”