Kate Forbes
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“We are committed to securing a just transition for Grangemouth. We have provided more than £12 million in funding to support the creation of up to 279 jobs. We are also committed to supporting workers who have been made redundant as a result of commercial decisions at Grangemouth.”
“The unions, especially Unite the Union, have been constructive throughout and have put the needs of their members before anything else. What role has our Government played to create a future for the workers who have been abandoned and discarded by the United Kingdom Labour Government?”
“It has worked with us to establish the Grangemouth jobs prioritisation scheme, which ensures that redundant workers are prioritised for new opportunities arising at Grangemouth as a result of the Grangemouth just transition fund.”
“Kate Forbes: I agree that attracting a varied and diverse range of investors who are able to meet the needs of companies across all projects and stages is vital. We have seen huge growth in start- ups, and now the focus needs to turn to scale-ups.”
“High streets are going to be hammered again by inaction on business rates that, in many cases, are doubling or trebling. Has the Government done any analysis of the impact of those increases on business closures and vacancy rates, and what they will do to the streets? Should the Government not look again at pausing the process?”
“Oliver Mundell: I associate myself with comments from colleagues across the chamber about the Deputy First Minister. I am concerned that the Scottish National Party- led Dumfries and Galloway Council is undoing all that hard work by continuing with its obsession with wasting £70 million of taxpayers’ money on the deeply unpopular Whitesan…”
The complete record
Every one of 615 lines we hold for Kate Forbes, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“It has worked with us to establish the Grangemouth jobs prioritisation scheme, which ensures that redundant workers are prioritised for new opportunities arising at Grangemouth as a result of the Grangemouth just transition fund. I put on record my enormous thanks to all the unions that I have had the pleasure of working with over the past few years. Bus Routes (Local Authority Powers) 3.”
“The unions, especially Unite the Union, have been constructive throughout and have put the needs of their members before anything else. What role has our Government played to create a future for the workers who have been abandoned and discarded by the United Kingdom Labour Government? Kate Forbes: The Scottish Government has engaged extensively with those workers. Mr Kidd’s question allows me to put on record my enormous appreciation of the constructive and positive role that unions at Grangemouth have played. They have brought ideas and solutions to the table and given help to their members and other workers in order to secure a chance of a better future. I thank Unite the Union in particular.”
“We are committed to securing a just transition for Grangemouth. We have provided more than £12 million in funding to support the creation of up to 279 jobs. We are also committed to supporting workers who have been made redundant as a result of commercial decisions at Grangemouth. We have established a programme of skills support that is assisting redundant workers to retrain, upskill and transition to new employment. Up to £2 million has been made available for that by the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments. Engagement has been high, with more than 300 individuals being supported to date. Bill Kidd: The Westminster Labour Government has shown whose side it is on by stepping in to save steel at Scunthorpe but abandoning the workforce at Grangemouth.”
“[Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Deputy First Minister. I could squeeze in question 7 if the question and supplementary are brief. Real Living Wage 7.”
“I feel as though I have squeezed multiple lifetimes into the past 10 years—certainly, I barely recognise the young woman who was elected 10 years ago, aged 26, to represent the constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch. Above all else, I have always enjoyed intelligent debate, good-natured disagreement and constructive engagement and, sometimes, I have even been able to make a difference. I leave with enormous respect for colleagues across the chamber, many of whom argue their case robustly but with respect and wisdom. Our democracy relies on debate, and debate requires at least two people who disagree. Disagreement does not require bitterness, animosity or malice. I hope that the next Parliament can exemplify the joy of dispute and debate in the service of our constituents.”
“I am aware of the member’s concerns. However, there are issues to do with reducing flood risk and enhancing recreation and active travel opportunities. Ultimately, as I understand it, it is a decision that the local council has made. Therefore, the member’s comments should be directed to representatives of the local authority. This is my last planned comment in the chamber before I leave my post as an MSP so, if I may, I will take a brief moment to thank, from the depths of my heart, everyone who has enabled me to serve our country and the communities of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch over the past 10 years. I thank the staff and officials of the Parliament and the Government, colleagues across the chamber who have become friends and everybody who has an interest in the decisions that we make.”
“Oliver Mundell: I associate myself with comments from colleagues across the chamber about the Deputy First Minister. I am concerned that the Scottish National Party- led Dumfries and Galloway Council is undoing all that hard work by continuing with its obsession with wasting £70 million of taxpayers’ money on the deeply unpopular Whitesands flood scheme, which will see vital town centre parking being removed and the setting of the River Nith diminished. Surely the money could be better spent on maintaining vital local services and improving the upkeep of the town centre? Kate Forbes: I am aware of the Whitesands flood protection scheme. Its purpose is to combine major flood defences with significant public realm improvements. It is set to start this spring after receiving approval from Dumfries and Galloway Council.”
“As I outlined in a previous answer, we continue to deliver on our long-standing commitment to regeneration, with investment of up to £52 million next year. It has long been a commitment of mine to support local regeneration, which is why we have worked hard to safeguard capital investment, because it supports the revitalisation of our towns and town centres. That is one of the ways that we have supported Dumfries town centre, alongside other forms of support. Since 2014, Dumfries and Galloway Council has received nearly £21.5 million in regeneration capital funding, including £4.5 million for the award-winning Midsteeple Quarter, which has revitalised a previously vacant town centre building into a community event and enterprise space and seven homes.”
“Kate Forbes: It is important for me to say at the outset—because I have a declaration of interest to make—that my primary responsibility when answering these questions is to Alexander Dennis and that I have no role at all in ScotZEB 3, for very important proprietary reasons. ScotZEB 3 is led by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, because Transport Scotland is the procuring authority, as it were. It has made the decision to extend the ScotZEB 2 programme. It will be for the transport secretary to announce the conclusions and outcomes of ScotZEB 3, which opened for applications on 5 December. I appreciate the question, but that will be disappointing to Stephen Kerr, who wants something a bit more robust, but I hope that he appreciates that it is critical that I am kept at arm’s length from the ScotZEB 3 process.”
“The order paper for today’s questions says that I have a registered interest in this area. I do not think that I do, so I think that it is a mistake. The registered interest that I definitely have and wish to register with everyone is in those highly skilled jobs in Larbert and Falkirk, which we should retain. The Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund 3 programme is the real test of the Scottish Government’s claims on social value, because £45 million of public funding is about to be allocated. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that not a single pound of taxpayers’ money will go towards Chinese-built buses and that that funding will support Scottish jobs and Scottish manufacturing?”
“We continue to work closely with Alexander Dennis Ltd following our award of a time-limited company furlough scheme that is designed to retain jobs in the firm’s manufacturing capacity in Scotland. The agreed terms and conditions of the grant require the business to provide the necessary evidence to access that support. Yesterday, we accepted in principle a formal furlough extension request from the company, and we stand ready to discuss all possible options beyond that. I spoke with the company yesterday, and I reiterated the Government’s full commitment to continue to do everything that we possibly can to protect those skilled jobs and bus manufacturing in Scotland. Stephen Kerr: I thank the Deputy First Minister for the important update that she has just given.”
“The critical element is that they do not leave Scotland. If they cannot attract investment while being headquartered in Scotland, that becomes a risk. As I said in my opening remarks, I have always thought that the right approach is to build up the density of investable businesses, which naturally attracts capital, rather than to focus on the capital initially in the hope that there are investment propositions as a result. Alexander Dennis Ltd (Support) 4.”
“Kate Forbes: I agree that attracting a varied and diverse range of investors who are able to meet the needs of companies across all projects and stages is vital. We have seen huge growth in start- ups, and now the focus needs to turn to scale-ups. A number of innovative private sector equity investors are active in Scotland, and they have sometimes been able to complete investment deals partly due to support from public bodies. We cannot completely exclude that from the equation, but the average VC fund size has increased significantly in recent years, particularly among US-based VC investors, meaning that the highest- publicity VC investors and deals are operating on a larger scale than the Scottish business investment market. The point is that our focus is on scaling businesses. They will attract investment from a range of sources.”
“I have enjoyed our constructive engagement over a number of years. On that note, I wonder whether she would agree with me on what I am about to say. We see an issue with start-ups that are looking to grow and that struggle to get venture capital to move to the next stage. There is a lack of availability of venture capital in Scotland, and that is because there is a lack of venture capitalists in Scotland. We need to attract more venture capitalists to come to Scotland and invest. Therefore, contrary to what is said by the Green Party—which I notice is boycotting this session on the economy, perhaps not surprisingly—we do not need to drive billionaires out of Scotland; we need to attract more billionaires into Scotland, with their investment, to support our economic growth. Does the Deputy First Minister agree?”
“That is an important question, because expanding access to private investment is a critical element in seeing Scotland grow. Scotland has a strong public sector investment ecosystem, with our enterprise agencies and the Scottish National Investment Bank focused on investing alongside private investment to achieve the best outcomes for Scottish businesses. Since its launch in 2020, the SNIB has committed more than £1 billion in investment, which has, importantly, leveraged £1.7 billion in investment from the private sector. I have seen that, where there is a density of investable propositions, it attracts increasing levels of venture capital. Murdo Fraser: I suspect that this might be our last ever exchange in the chamber, so I wish the Deputy First Minister all the best for the future.”
“We are currently analysing the responses to inform next steps, and that analysis will be published in due course. We can learn from examples where councils have taken alternative approaches. In Aberdeen, the council and the local business improvement district have led award-winning work to bring upper-floor premises on Union Street back into use. I mentioned in my opening answer the different reliefs that we have available—the fresh start and business growth accelerator reliefs—which specifically give non-domestic rates relief for tenants or owners who are purchasing or moving into properties that were previously unused.”
“High streets are going to be hammered again by inaction on business rates that, in many cases, are doubling or trebling. Has the Government done any analysis of the impact of those increases on business closures and vacancy rates, and what they will do to the streets? Should the Government not look again at pausing the process? Kate Forbes: That is definitely an issue of concern to us. We have looked at a number of different options to try to resolve the issue of empty properties, which is largely driven by a change in trading conditions and the fact that people are increasingly choosing to shop online rather than locally. Back in 2025, we consulted on permitted development rights and compulsory purchase reform—key issues that have an impact on town centre regeneration and, more importantly, the reuse of vacant and unused buildings.”
“Paul O’Kane: I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer, and in doing so, I acknowledge that this will be her last portfolio question time. I say to her: beannachd leat—farewell. In towns and villages in communities such as Johnstone, scores of people have raised with me their sadness about the state of their high street, whether that is due to the lack of upkeep and investment, insufficient public transport to access the high street or reduced activity. In Renfrewshire, the town centre vacancy rate was 19 per cent in 2024-25, which means that almost one in five units sat empty. Successive SNP ministers, including one who represents a town that is affected, have failed to grip the issue and to support our streets.”
“I recognise that many of our towns face challenges with vacant buildings, which is why we are continuing our long-standing commitment to regeneration, with investment of up to £52 million in the next financial year. Since 2014, we have provided almost £169 million of capital regeneration investment for local authorities in the West Scotland region. Some of that has supported town centre revitalisation through the transformation of empty properties and the enabling of community ownership. There is also support for local authorities to address vacant retail spaces, through a non- domestic rates relief package. Two schemes in particular—the fresh start and business growth accelerator reliefs—support the reuse or repurposing of vacant properties.”
“17:15 Liam McArthur: Brian Whittle makes an entirely reasonable and fair point about where we want to get to. We are trying to determine how best to do that and where that decision is best left. The intent is absolutely clear. From the conversations that I have had with the chief medical officer, that is what they would expect as well. Stephen Kerr: [Made a request to intervene.] Liam McArthur: I will not take the intervention, if Mr Kerr does not mind. The intent is absolutely clear, but leaving the matter to the people who are best able to come up with a way of capturing the information that we are intent on capturing—the underlying condition, the substance that is used and the fact that it is an assisted death—is the most appropriate way to proceed.”
“As I said, in discussions with me, the chief medical officer was very clear that the coding already allows for that sort of information to be properly captured. That is what we are looking to have done, and I think that, through my amendments, that would be achieved. Brian Whittle: In the chamber, we often discuss the collection and interrogation of data and how important that is. When the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee was producing its report on the bill, we were looking for data from across the world. Liam McArthur’s amendments and Stephen Kerr’s amendment might not be in contest with each other; it is perfectly feasible to pass them all. Given what the bill is intended to do, it is important that we have clear data that we can interrogate.”
“I hope that the member understands the spirit in which I am offering this concern, on which amendment 225 is based. We need to be clear about how it came about that an individual took the substance in the first place. Liam McArthur: I accept the genuine way in which Stephen Kerr is arguing his case. As I said, I perfectly understand the motivation behind wishing to ensure the transparency that he spoke of in his earlier contribution. I can give him the reassurance that, by framing the legislation the way that I have suggested, as the cabinet secretary has articulated, it would be left to those who are used to developing data gathering to identify ways of doing that in a proportionate fashion.”
“Stephen Kerr: Because we are making here— to say the least—a landmark piece of legislation, we have to consider all the options. It is not impossible that, down the line, some of the substance ends up in the hands of people who self-administer it, but not on the basis of the legal process that is outlined in the bill. We must be able to clearly demark a death that has come about through the assisted death process that will fall under this law, if it is passed, as opposed to a death in which someone may have taken the substance who should not have been in possession of it. How would that be accounted for unless it states very clearly on the death certificate that a death came about through assisted dying, as opposed to some other means?”
“In relation to the data gathering by Public Health Scotland that I referred to, and in trying to belatedly respond to Jamie Hepburn’s earlier intervention, I point out that section 24(2)(d) says that the reported information would include, “in relation to persons who were provided with an approved substance by virtue of section 15(1) … the substance so provided, and … where the person died as a result of using that substance, the type of place where the death took place (that is, in the person’s home, in a hospital, in a hospice and the like)”. It may be that further information is added into that process, and I recognise that that is not the death certificate, but it is certainly relevant to our having a clear understanding of how this is working and who is choosing an assisted death.”
“It may be of reassurance to Stephen Kerr and Pam Duncan-Glancy that, in my discussions with the chief medical officer earlier in the bill’s process, I was given some reassurance that the coding that they would use, and which they are used to using, for this process would allow the fact that a death was an assisted death to be properly captured.”
“I do not think that there is any dispute about the public interest in having the fullest possible information and understanding of what is happening, both the underlying condition—for the reasons that Elena Whitham set out clearly—and the fact that the death was an assisted death. However, as well as resting on the cabinet secretary’s argument about where the decisions on how that information is properly captured and framed best lie, as I said in my earlier contribution, I think that that is better left to others to determine. However, it is abundantly clear that the expectation is that both the elements that Pam Duncan-Glancy emphasised will be captured.”
“With amendment 225, we would still have the problem of the bill being too prescriptive regarding how that information is to be recorded, with potential impacts for data gathering that the other amendments in the group are seeking to resolve. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Liam McArthur to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 45. Liam McArthur: I start by thanking Stephen Kerr and Pam Duncan-Glancy in particular, as well as Elena Whitham, for their contributions to the short debate on this group of amendments and for the tone in which they sought to prosecute their arguments, which reflected the debate at stage 2.”
“My preference would be that we record both the underlying condition and the fact that it was an assisted death using a substance, not just the use of a substance and the underlying condition. Neil Gray: I will first speak to Liam McArthur’s amendments 45, 46 and 47. At stage 2, we expressed concern about the prescriptiveness of the provisions on death certification and the effect that that could have on data collection. We have therefore prepared the amendments for Liam McArthur. From a deliverability perspective, the amendments would give those responsible for data collection and reporting the flexibility to determine the best way of ensuring that both the terminal illness and the fact that somebody has had an assisted death are appropriately recorded in the death certificate without negatively impacting mortality data.”
“I know that this point sounds technical, but that information would be really helpful not just for families, but to allow us to properly understand the course of a particular underlying condition and the likelihood of death from it. That is really important. On that basis, I think that Stephen Kerr’s amendments are stronger, because they gather all of that information. I take Liam McArthur’s point that there are other reporting requirements laid out in amendments that we will debate later. Those are necessary, and they are also anonymised, which is also necessary. However, families must understand what happened to the person, and the death certificate is important in that regard. I urge members to consider carefully both amendment 46 and amendment 225.”
“For legislation that deals with matters of life and death, such a level of clarity is not excessive; it is simply responsible law making. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I have listened to Liam McArthur, Elena Whitham and Stephen Kerr on this point. It is obviously important that we record the underlying illness, because that is the condition that the person expected to die from. However, it is also important for us to note that an assisted death caused their death at that moment, otherwise we risk recording the death slightly inaccurately. If we say that the underlying condition caused the death at that moment but it did not do so and it was the assisted death that caused the death at that moment, we could be skewing some data.”
“It is important that we are honest about that, and the clear wording that I am proposing would remove any doubt. It would give clinicians certainty about what must be recorded and ensure that deaths are documented in a way that is consistent with the law that is passed by this Parliament. The wider issue, which I will rehearse one last time before I conclude, is that, if assisted dying becomes lawful in Scotland, the public will rightly expect openness about how the law operates. Accurate death certification is an essential part of that transparency. It ensures that statistics are reliable, that the impact of the law can be properly understood and that nothing is hidden behind vague language. Amendment 225 would simply ensure that, where assisted dying has taken place lawfully, that fact is recorded openly and accurately.”
“I think that Elena Whitham makes a really good point. Just for absolute clarity, would Stephen Kerr’s amendment allow for the underlying condition to still be registered on the death certificate? Stephen Kerr: Yes, it would. That is my intention. I wish to be as collegiate and consensual in my approach to this as possible, because of the sensitive nature of the issue that we are dealing with. I think that it is also important to be explicit that the substance was administered through an assisted death. I do not think that ambiguity in this respect is helpful at all. The reality is that death certificates are a vital part of the official record of our society. Families, clinicians and public authorities rely on them, and they tell us plainly how a person’s life came to an end.”
“Ensuring consultation with social work services would allow medical practitioners to make decisions with the fullest possible picture. That would strengthen the integrity of the process—”
“This may also lead to arguments about resource implications. However, I want members to note that the Scottish Association of Social Work, Social Work Scotland and the Scottish Social Services Council welcome the amendments. In fact, they insist that we vote for the amendments today, which I will come back to. They welcome the additional work—minimal as it would be—because they believe, as I do, that our primary consideration should be safety, not finance. Another argument is about autonomy and whether someone would wish for a social work referral. I do not believe that the amendment would impede a person’s autonomy, as a person’s choice can be truly autonomous only if it is made free from coercion, free from hidden pressures and with full understanding of their circumstances.”
“My amendment 171 would establish a simple but essential safeguard, which is a duty for the co- ordinating medical practitioner to consult the local authority and ensure that relevant information about safeguarding, capacity assessments or existing statutory processes is taken into account. If members do not think that coercion is a major issue, they should know that the amendment would give added peace of mind to those who believe that it is. If members are concerned about the costs of such a proposal, I would note that, in most cases, it would amount to a simple background check. If nothing is found, there would be no need for further social service involvement. However, if something is found, would that not make the proposal worth while? Is that not what we are trying to identify?”
“As we all know, coercion is rarely obvious. It might not present as an overt force or threat, and it might instead appear through subtle family dynamics, emotional dependency, financial pressure or, as was mentioned earlier, an internalised belief that one’s life has become a burden. Coercion can also be systemic. Societal narratives about the cost of care, the strain on families or the value of independence can shape a person’s decision in ways that are deeply powerful and extremely difficult to detect in a purely clinical assessment. For that reason, safeguarding against coercion requires multidisciplinary scrutiny.”
“The recent review by the assisted dying citizens jury and the review panel in Jersey concluded that clinicians alone cannot always identify coercion, safeguarding dynamics or complex capacity issues without input from professionals with expertise in social care and safeguarding. The Parliament had a lengthy debate yesterday on the existence of coercion. We heard a range of views on the prevalence of coercion and the potential for coercion in other jurisdictions. Whatever side of that argument members may be on, we must try to avoid having confirmation bias, whether that is that coercion is not an issue or that it is a problem that cannot be overcome. If practitioners do not have the tools and resources to identify coercion, it will self-evidently be difficult to confirm that it is taking place at all.”
“I note that the member in charge of the bill, whose engagement on these matters I welcome, has stated his belief that the discretionary inclusion of social services would be a proportionate measure. However, I disagree, because I do not believe that leaving such a referral solely to the judgment of the co-ordinating medical practitioner would resolve the problem. Medical practitioners cannot reasonably be expected to determine whether social work input is required if they do not have the information or the training that is needed to identify safeguarding risks in the first place. Evidence from jurisdictions that are examining similar legislation increasingly highlights the need for multidisciplinary assessment.”
“Local authorities also hold statutory duties and records that might be directly relevant to an assessment of a person’s capacity and vulnerability. Without consultation, medical practitioners would simply not have access to that information. Members should consider what that could mean in practice. A person seeking assisted dying might already be subject to safeguarding inquiries, capacity assessments or protective measures under existing law. However, if the co-ordinating medical practitioner would not be mandated to consult the local authority, those safeguards could theoretically remain unknown, which cannot be considered safe. Amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 recognised the importance of multidisciplinary input by allowing referral to social services.”
“However, the bill as it is currently drafted risks bypassing the safeguarding structures that the Parliament has already put in place. Medical practitioners would be central to the assisted dying process—no one is doubting that— but they cannot be expected to assess alone the complex issues of social risk, coercion or safeguarding that may shape a person’s decision. Those factors are social, relational and often deeply contextual. Social workers and safeguarding professionals hold expertise in identifying coercion, undue influence, domestic abuse, financial exploitation and situations whereby individuals may feel pressure. Those pressures might be from others, from circumstances or even from the self-belief that they are a burden.”
“I commend Fulton MacGregor on his amendments. Social workers are versed in spotting coercion, and we heard from Michael Matheson yesterday about how critical such long- term relationships are. Does Fulton MacGregor feel—as I think that he does from his amendments—that involving social workers will inevitably mean that safeguarding issues are more quickly identified than by some healthcare professionals, who might meet somebody for only a short period of time? Fulton MacGregor: I will come on to that point. The acts that I mentioned were designed to ensure that, when decisions carry profound consequences, they are made with proper scrutiny, appropriate expertise and a full understanding of a person’s circumstances.”
“In so doing, we must acknowledge that that is an imperfect and fallible measure but it is the best one available to us and it is one that is used elsewhere.”
“If we are considering passing the bill, we must understand what we are passing. Amendment 2 is not about forecasting and it certainly cannot be about accuracy, because we are dealing with matters that are inherently uncertain. I am asking for which individuals and in what circumstances we want assisted dying to be considered. Do we want it to be considered at any point in someone’s life, simply by virtue of their having a terminal condition that is progressive and irrecoverable, or do we want to reserve it for those we think are very likely to be in the final stages of life? In other words, amendment 2 is not about providing accuracy or a threshold but about providing a yardstick. We are saying that assisted dying is something that we wish to extend to those whose life can be measured in months, rather than in years.”
“I am conscious of the argument that the member puts forward. I have been very struck by the work of Dr Scott Murray, the palliative care doctor who wrote recently in The Times that “evidence from palliative care, primary care and prognostic research” paints a picture of the impossibility of making a prediction that someone has only six months left to live. He writes that “predictions are highly unreliable, and with modern treatments, such forecasting is pure guesswork.” How does the member square the appearance of a safeguard of a six-month prognosis with the reality that doctors, particularly palliative care doctors, say that that is, in their experience, uncertain? Daniel Johnson: I thank the Deputy First Minister for raising the issue and note the concerns both from the individual that she cites and from others.”
“As the person with responsibility for our approach to the economy, I am proud of the efforts and investment that are being made to support women to remain in work or to access employment. I mentioned our no one left behind approach. We are delivering a person-centred, all-age employability offer in every local authority area, and women make up just under 50 per cent of all participants. There are intersectional barriers to employment that female parents in particular can face, and we need to continue to tackle those. Secondary School Leavers (Positive Destinations) 8.”
“Engender has called for investment in women and a transformation of our communities. Specifically, it has developed 10 realistic steps to improve the lives of women, covering support for women with no recourse to public funds, social security asks and the need for our economic strategies to work for women. Will the Deputy First Minister outline the Scottish Government’s response to those steps and how she would work to implement them to ensure that all future economic and social policy considerations contribute to Scotland becoming a global leader on gender equality? Kate Forbes: Alongside those helpful recommendations, we have the First Minister’s National Advisory Council on Women and Girls and a number of other plans to support the objectives that Maggie Chapman outlined.”
“Women must have equitable access to economic opportunities. In April 2025, the gender pay gap for all employees in Scotland was narrower than the United Kingdom gap, but we know that more needs to be done. A range of Government initiatives help women to enter and progress in work, such as the expansion of early learning and childcare provision and parental employability support. Since April 2020, 70 per cent of parents who have been supported through the no one left behind approach have been female. Employment law is reserved, but our fair work approach aims to address women’s workplace inequalities by encouraging employers to tackle gender pay gaps. Maggie Chapman: Despite legislation and decades of campaigning for equality, women continue to face discrimination, violence, exclusion and poverty.”
“The Deputy First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in her statement. I intend to allow about 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question would press their request- to-speak buttons.”
“My statement makes clear that the Scottish Government is committed to doing all that we can to secure a competitive, productive and sustainable future for Ferguson Marine. With our proposal to award a four-vessel programme to the yard, we are setting a clear ambition for Ferguson Marine’s future—one that is built on shipbuilding confidence, capability and continuity. We rescued Ferguson Marine for a purpose, and we are determined to see it succeed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move to questions, I highlight that the Presiding Officers should not read in the media that details of an announcement of this significance are in circulation shortly before it has been made to Parliament. That is extremely disappointing, and it is disrespectful to this Parliament and its elected members.”
“Despite the pressures surrounding recent projects, the workforce has remained focused on completing complex vessels to a high standard and on maintaining the yard’s reputation for engineering expertise. I also recognise that uncertainty affects not only those who are employed at the yard, but their families as well. Stability and clarity matter deeply to the people whose livelihoods depend on Ferguson Marine, and I acknowledge the constructive role of trade unions in supporting stability, reform and improvement. Their engagement is important in helping to steer the yard through difficult times and towards a more secure future. I spoke to Alex Logan and Kenny Meechan of the GMB again this morning, and they stressed the need to retain the young workforce at Ferguson Marine.”