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 8 of 13.
“Presiding Officer, you will be delighted to know that that concludes my comments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to wind up and to press or seek to withdraw amendment 13. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I have listened carefully to the Deputy First Minister’s comments. She highlighted three specific backstops in the bill, but I would argue that those backstops suggest that there is already a sense of a provision. My amendments would make it much clearer that communities will be at the heart of the decision- making process, as the bill would say that they “must” be consulted, not that they “may” be consulted. In addition, if a community’s request was denied, the reasons why the request had been denied would need to be published.”
“There was certainly an appetite in that regard from all local authorities. If Pam Duncan-Glancy’s primary concern is about the pace at which the provisions will be implemented—which is my primary concern—I heard reassurance from local authorities that they want to move at pace, but they stress the importance of there being an iterative process, with engagement with the community, to ensure that the size of the area matches what the community wants. As we are all aware, if we proceed with a designation that does not work for the community because the area is the wrong size—either too big or too small—that might create more challenges. I hugely respect the work that Pam Duncan- Glancy has done, and I share her sentiment, but I am struck by the operational challenges in implementing what she has set out.”
“16:00 As part of the debate on whether the duty should be obligatory, rather than the bill including the word “may”, I consulted Western Isles Council, Highland Council and Argyll and Bute Council in particular to get their views on the matter. There was a range of views, but they were all keen on proceeding at pace with designation, although they all expressed to me that they have very different geographical and demographic spreads. For example, in Argyll and Bute, it would not be obvious to designate an entire ward, because there are multiple islands in one ward, so it would make more sense for the designated area to cover an island rather than a ward. In relation to Highland Council, as I have referenced, Skye would be an obvious contender, and each part of the Western Isles could, arguably, be designated.”
“If Bòrd na Gàidhlig makes such a request, it can do so on the evidence of demand for designation from those who reside in the authority’s area. Essentially, a referral from the community who are unhappy that a designation has not proceeded goes to Bòrd na Gàidhlig, which can request that the local authority make the designation. If the authority does not submit a proposed designation, the local authority must publicise the decision and the reasons for making it. The authority has to publish up front the reasons why it is not proceeding. A third backstop is that, if a local authority does not submit a proposed designation, the Scottish ministers may require it to reconsider the decision. A local authority must submit a proposed designation or confirm its original decision and notify ministers of the reasons for it.”
“I want to come back to Pam Duncan-Glancy’s question about what we are doing if we are not supporting her amendments 13 to 16. I mentioned that we have concerns about the mandatory implementation of areas of linguistic significance without details on which areas the duty applies to. At the moment, census data, which goes to output areas, is the main source of data when it comes to knowing whether obligations to people with Gaelic skills are being met. Two backstops strengthen the approach that we have taken to how an area can determine its plan: a local authority can designate if an area falls under certain descriptions, which we have covered, and, if the local authority does not proceed, Bòrd na Gàidhlig can request that the local authority consider making a designation.”
“In situations in which a council might be producing a new Gaelic language plan, it is not required to have due regard to existing community plans in those areas of linguistic significance. Could that be addressed in the statutory guidance to ensure that the work is all joined up and consistent on an on- going basis? Kate Forbes: That is a very fair point. One criticism that has been made is that there is a lot of duplication and overlap. If we believe in grass- roots community work, we know that it should start with the community. We will take that into account, and I am happy to express my desire to consult extensively with relevant bodies and other members on the substance of the guidance. I recognise the importance of local authority support at every level, but, as I have said, amendment 65 creates a measure of overlap.”
“As has been mentioned, planning and community involvement are points that will be followed up in guidance, and we will take our lead from the proposed stage 3 amendments on guidance on areas of linguistic significance. Under the current provisions, the focus is on Bòrd na Gàidhlig supporting the wish that emerges from the community. Although the idea behind amendment 65 has much to commend it, it is preferable to have an initiative that originates in the community and is supported by Bòrd na Gàidhlig. Ross Greer: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for offering points of reassurance around the guidance. Will she address my specific concern that there is a requirement for the community plans to have regard to the local authority-wide Gaelic language plan but no equivalent requirement the other way round?”
“In addition, standards will set out expectations of how public authority functions are to be exercised in those areas. If an area has been designated as an area of linguistic significance, the relevant authority’s Gaelic language plan must set out the measures that are to be taken in that area, and ministers may make further provision about the required content of Gaelic language plans in respect of areas of linguistic significance. Those measures will have an important community impact. The current area of linguistic significance provisions are a package of mutually supportive measures that combine local authority decisions, Bòrd na Gàidhlig involvement, community activity and ministers’ interventions.”
“I state for the record that the areas of linguistic significance will operate effectively only if we have community plans. The question is whether the amendment is the way to do it. Amendment 65 overlaps with provisions that are already in the bill. At stage 2, the bill was amended to give Bòrd na Gàidhlig a duty to provide “advice, assistance and support to any person in the preparation of a plan for the development or promotion of the Gaelic language, Gaelic education and Gaelic culture in relation to a community in a particular area.” The amendments on guidance will also be important for that provision. Guidance will be provided on how to determine which areas are appropriate for designation as an area of linguistic significance, which factors should be taken into account when making such determinations and the process for making them.”
“It would also introduce a burden on the authority to make an appointment at the point of designation. On the appointment of development officers, it would be unusual for central Government to regulate local authority staffing decisions. I would prefer to outline our priorities in the Gaelic strategy and standards and look to authorities and the bòrd to implement and interpret those. The regulations will make provision for what needs to happen in an area of linguistic significance, and it will be for local authorities to employ appropriate staff to fulfil those functions. I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I did warn you at the beginning that my comments on this group would be a bit longer. On amendment 65, I thank Ross Greer for focusing on the important issue of community plans, which has come up time and again.”
“Bòrd na Gàidhlig was, for the start of the current financial year, provided with £0.5 million to support the Gaelic development officer scheme, and with a separate funding package of in the region of £500,000 to ensure that key Gaelic bodies had increased investment. That includes funding for bodies such as Comunn na Gàidhlig, which has in the region of 17 iomairtean officers across Gaelic- speaking communities. At stage 2, the bill was amended to give Bòrd na Gàidhlig a duty to support communities with the preparation of community plans in particular areas. That will ensure that Bòrd na Gàidhlig works with the Gaelic development officers who are already in place. Therefore, amendment 23 has a measure of overlap with provisions that are already in place.”
“It is difficult to understand how that would work with the standards and the requirements that are to be made by regulation. Also, amendment 22 does not contain a mechanism to prevent repeated requests, so a local authority could face multiple requests from small groups, which it would have to consider and publicise a decision on each time. The existing provision that provides for requests to be channelled through Bòrd na Gàidhlig is a more streamlined, evidence-driven and appropriate approach. On amendment 23, at present, significant numbers of Gaelic development officers are in post and operating in communities.”
“On amendment 22, there are some questions to raise. In the first place, the definition of community is very broad. There could also be questions about exactly what the area is for the requested designation, as we have touched on. The community request could be based on areas that are not recognised census areas, so relevant information on Gaelic skills would not be available, or the area requested could be too small for the practical implementation of programmes. At the same time, it would not be appropriate for a community group to request designation of the entire authority area if people in that group live only in one part of the local authority. For example, people living in Skye cannot request that the entire Highland Council area be designated as an area of linguistic significance.”
“We are very supportive of Pam Duncan- Glancy’s amendments 1 and 2. The bill is a wide- ranging one that touches on many areas of Gaelic and Scots activity, and community activity is hugely important. I welcome those amendments, which strengthen the focus and remind us that the impact of the provisions will be felt in communities. The amendments will also sit well with the provision whereby Bòrd na Gàidhlig can ask a local authority to consider designation if the bòrd considers that there is evidence of demand from those living in a local authority area. I will move on to amendments 22 and 23. With amendment 22, there is an overlap with the provision that is already in the bill that requires Bòrd na Gàidhlig to make a request to an authority to consider making a designation if the bòrd considers that there is evidence of demand.”
“That is the commitment that I gave to a number of groups and bodies that fed back on the impossibility of implementing the “must” phrasing. I will go through the other amendments, because some of them touch on that. Emma Roddick’s amendments 17 to 21, along with the bill provisions as strengthened at stage 2, provide a welcome and essential focus on areas with important levels of Gaelic activity and important numbers of Gaelic speakers. There is a very clear message from Gaelic communities that that is an important requirement at this time. The provisions and amendments on areas of linguistic significance also provide important support for Gaelic initiatives that are in place, the work of community bodies and officers, and the development of Gaelic community plans. We are happy to support amendments 17 to 21.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: [Made a request to intervene.] Kate Forbes: I appreciate that the member disagrees with that and that she wants to intervene again. I am very happy to take that intervention. Pam Duncan-Glancy: What process does the Deputy First Minister think there is for people who believe that their area should be designated? If the legislation says only that an area “may” be designated, what process does the community have to challenge that? Kate Forbes: As the member will know, we will consider a number of amendments today that will strengthen the provisions, and I will come on to those. Having heard loud and clear that, legally, a mandatory implementation of areas of linguistic significance would not work, my responsibility was to try to strengthen the provisions as far as possible, just short of mandatory.”
“If we turned that “may” into a “must”, it would be very difficult to determine whether that statutory duty had been met. The criteria for “must” are much higher than for “may”, which would involve an iterative consultation process. The member will know—I say this for the benefit of other members in the chamber—that I have grappled extensively with this issue, because I was quite drawn to the proposal that she has set out in her amendments. It was by considering what would happen in implementing her proposal that we came to the conclusion that, legally, if it is stated as a statutory duty that an area “must be designated”, but there are grey areas around exactly what needs to be designated, that would create a significant legal challenge.”
“Kate Forbes: Yes, but the fact that the amendment says “must” and would therefore create a mandatory obligation to designate an area would lead to huge questions about whether the statutory duty had been met in particular areas. Having set out a process through the use of the word “may”, we have set out clear expectations for where an area of linguistic significance may be designated. It is an iterative process. There is consultation and responsiveness. The member will know that there are a number of obligations, so that it could be an area in which significant activity relating to the Gaelic language takes place, an area in which teaching and learning by means of the Gaelic language is provided, an area that is historically connected with the use of Gaelic or an area where that 20 per cent figure is met.”
“The member’s approach would cause a measure of confusion about the size of the area, and it would remove the involvement of those who would be closest to the process and for whom that would make a difference. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I am not sure that I entirely agree about the confusion, given that, on the most important part of the change, the bill already says that an “area may be designated”. The same area that the bill refers to is the area that I am suggesting in my amendment that we “must” designate. The difference is that my amendment says that if an area contains enough Gaelic language speakers, we have to designate it. I am not redrawing the size of the area—the amendment relates to areas of the same size as those that the Government’s version of the wording applies to in the bill.”
“Some of the areas to be designated would be too small for the practical implementation of policy or programmes. Even if we step away from the census-area issues, there are unhelpful implications for other provisions. The amendment would reduce the involvement and ownership of authorities, communities and Bòrd na Gàidhlig. I recognise that one of the reasons why there is support for Pam Duncan-Glancy’s approach is that, to some people’s minds, it cuts out the bureaucracy of a process. However, some of the feedback that I got when engaging with local authorities and others was that the process is quite important for bringing people with them— Pam Duncan-Glancy alluded to that in her comments, too. The compulsory yet undefined nature of the duty could result in fewer areas being designated.”
“We grappled with this issue extensively in the run-up to the Government lodging amendments, because I was keen to explore all possibilities with regard to it. It would not be clear from the member’s amendments which area or areas must be designated. For example, if the requirement fell on a local authority, only one area of linguistic significance would be designated in Scotland. If it applied to electoral wards, only Skye would be added to that one authority. If it applied to census output areas, which are smaller in nature, a number of very small areas would also be designated, which would probably be artificially small. In any case, it would be impractical. For example, some districts in small towns would be designated, but not others in the same town. Some small output areas in islands would be designated, but not the entire island.”
“They would lead to a measure of confusion for communities and local authorities, and the proposed duty might be implemented in impractical and unhelpful ways. We have grappled with this area extensively. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Will the Deputy First Minister set out which part of amendment 13 is unclear? My understanding is that it is quite clear. It creates a specific definition about the numbers of people who speak Gaelic in a particular area. Which parts of it are not clear? 15:45 Kate Forbes: I thank the member for that question, because it is a helpful cue from which to proceed. The requirement in the amendment does not specify the size or the type of area that would be subject to mandatory designation.”
“Although this group will take slightly longer to deal with, and my remarks will therefore be longer than for the other groups, it is appropriate that we start the stage 3 process with the areas of linguistic significance, because that remains one of the most significant elements of the bill. It is therefore good to start with that. I welcome the level of interest and the lively debates that we have had in the run-up to stage 3. I am particularly grateful for the amendments that have been lodged by colleagues in other parties, because they prompt a bit of debate, which is no bad thing. I have some reservations about Pam Duncan- Glancy’s amendments 13 to 16, because of the combination of a compulsory duty and the absence of sufficient detail on to which areas that duty would apply. That means that I am unable to support those amendments.”
“Our people are our heart, and we are nothing as a nation without them. We are prioritising action that maximises our workforce and removes barriers to employment. The programme for government and the budget outline the £90 million investment that we are making to help more people into work through our no one left behind programme and how, by the summer, local authorities will offer enhanced specialist support for disabled jobseekers and the improvements that are being made to support workers and employers to access health services to help to keep our workforce healthy. Through our investment in education, reform of the skills system and targeted action in key sectors, we are not only increasing employment but taking action to increase productivity and earnings, too.”
“Scotland’s economic history is deeply intertwined with migration and emigration. Famines, industrialisation, the growth of cities, lowland and highland clearances, public health advances, bursts of emigration, wars, baby booms and freedom of movement are all key chapters that have formed the basis of our changing population and economic landscape. We have a rich history as an open trading nation, and our future prosperity relies on that. Our natural resources, outstanding higher education institutions and growing reputation for innovation and technology make us a draw for international investment. We are renowned for our open-arms approach to welcoming others from around the world. Evidence from the latest nation brands index shows that we are recognised as the open, outward-facing country that we strive to be.”
“I have laid out the five actions that survivors asked me to take, the progress on those actions and the fact that the only actions that we have been unable to proceed with—which are a minority of actions— are those that cut across live criminal proceedings. I am very happy to re-engage with survivors at the earliest opportunity, and I will continue to engage with members across the chamber. I reiterate my commitment to ensuring that we pursue truth and justice for all survivors of abuse. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. 13:32 Meeting suspended. 14:30 On resuming— Portfolio Question Time Net Zero and Energy, and Transport”
“As I have already said to survivors in a private meeting—I am happy to say it again today—this is an area and these are issues that I want to pursue and proceed with, but the criteria that are in place right now for the redress scheme were agreed to by the Parliament. I have written to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee subsequent to the first letter, which said that we were not going to reopen the criteria, to explain some of the challenges with reopening the criteria. I hear members’ calls for redress and compensation. The process for that has to be watertight and has to deliver what survivors are looking for, which is why I take my steer from them. I have tried to be as candid as possible in my remarks while also recognising and respecting the courts and not wanting to compromise that.”
“That is hugely important for the reason that I outlined earlier, which is that, bluntly, I am more interested in what survivors have to say and the actions that they want me to take than I necessarily am in their representatives in the Parliament. Secondly, there is a question about redress. I will not go over the commentary on the formal Scottish redress scheme. I think that it was Maggie Chapman who talked more generally about compensation. The Scottish Parliament voted for the criteria that are under debate. This has nothing to do with how long or how dreadful the abuse was.”
“Therefore, I welcome the announcement of phase 10 of the Scottish child abuse inquiry, which focuses on children’s residential care establishments operated by local authorities, including Fornethy house. Although I know that some survivors have already given evidence to the Scottish child abuse inquiry, this will be a specific hearing on Fornethy. The public hearings for phase 10 of the inquiry will commence later this year. The other two actions of the five are still pending. One is to follow up in a meeting with survivors, which I am extremely keen to do without compromising the criminal proceedings.”
“On those actions, some survivors told me that the most important outcome for them is an apology, particularly from Glasgow City Council. I contacted Glasgow City Council and spoke directly to its leader. Colin Smyth has outlined the fact that an apology was made. I do not necessarily argue with his characterisation, because that is how survivors felt. I subsequently wrote to Glasgow City Council, inviting it to attend a meeting with me and the Fornethy Survivors Group. The invitation was not taken up on that occasion, but I still encourage Glasgow City Council to meet the survivors at the earliest opportunity upon the conclusion of the relevant criminal and civil proceedings. The other action was in pursuit of the truth. Survivors wanted to see dedicated evidence from the Scottish child abuse inquiry.”
“During the first meeting that I had with Fornethy survivors, I committed to taking forward a number of actions, and I want to provide the Parliament with an update on those actions. The first was to engage directly with Glasgow City Council. The second was to look at how we could provide greater levels of emotional support, for the very reason that Monica Lennon outlined: that the responsibility for offering emotional support often fell on survivors themselves. The other action was to see whether the Scottish child abuse inquiry would consider Fornethy itself. That is because of the comment that somebody else made that this is not just a question of justice; it is also a question of truth—pursuing truth and understanding what the truth is.”
“I know that Colin Smyth has sat in on the meetings that I have had with survivors and has heard directly what they wished me to do, and that has been my agenda. There have been some suggestions that the Government is in some way unmoved by the necessity of protecting or acknowledging young girls who are at harm. Although I know that it was not suggested that that would necessarily be my approach, I absolutely emphasise that, not only as a mother of a little girl but also as somebody who currently engages with many survivors in my role, I do not need to be persuaded to care about these matters of injustice. I hope that every member hears that comment loudly and clearly.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Kate Forbes: There is absolutely no hiding going on, because I am about to outline some of the actions that I took directly in response to the five actions that survivors asked me to progress, and I will go through them in detail. As any fair- minded person can see, some of those actions are fettered as a result of the criminal proceedings, and I think that most members will understand what those fetters are. I committed to continuing close engagement with survivors. Although I have the greatest respect for my colleagues across the chamber, to be blunt, I put more emphasis on what survivors ask me to do than I necessarily put on representatives.”
“We have been talking today about the pursuit of justice, and I do not want to do anything that may prejudice or compromise a live criminal case—that would be totally at odds with my desire to see justice. Fergus Ewing: I note what the Deputy First Minister says in relation to the sub judice rule. However, the sub judice rule relates to a criminal case that is due to be heard in the High Court in September. If nothing happens until after that case is over, nothing will happen in this session of Parliament. In any event, is it not the case that the current legal proceedings may prevent us from discussing aspects today, but what they do not do—and what they cannot do—is fetter the powers of the Government to bring forward a solution? Therefore, with respect, Deputy First Minister, you cannot hide behind the sub judice rule.”
“I thank Colin Smyth for lodging the motion and for his tireless work in supporting the Fornethy survivors. I give a huge welcome to the Fornethy survivors who are in the public gallery—I know, having engaged with many of them directly, that they have shown remarkable courage. There is an element of frustration—far be it from me to criticise, or be seen to be criticising, processes in any way, but it is a matter of significant frustration that, given the live criminal proceedings in relation to Fornethy house, there are limits on what I can say. One of the agreements that I made with survivors when we first met was that we would have regular meetings and engagement. Sadly, under clear legal advice, I have been unable to meet again with the group.”
“Public Health Costs (Impact on Businesses) 8.”
“Providers in the private and third sectors routinely deliver essential and often statutory services. We have consistently been clear that it is for the UK Government to fully fund the additional costs to public services due to its increase in employer national insurance contributions, including for the vital services that are provided by third and private sector organisations. It is obvious to anyone who has been watching that the UK Government has ignored that point and the widespread concerns about the impact of this damaging tax increase. Last month, it confirmed that we would receive £339 million this year for the additional costs, which is less than half the estimated cost to public services of more than £700 million. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can squeeze in question 8 if I have brief questions and answers to match.”
“When Lesley de Jager from the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland recently gave evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, she stated: “‘Devastating’ and ‘catastrophic’ are the two words that I would use to describe the impact that it has had on our members.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 20 May 2025; c17.] Does the Deputy First Minister agree that this is an extremely worrying and uncertain time for the sector and that, yet again, it is the most vulnerable people in our society who will be hit the hardest by this disastrous Labour United Kingdom Government decision? Kate Forbes: The member highlights the fact that public sector organisations are not the only ones that deliver vital public services across Scotland.”
“At face value, the increase is increasing costs for both public services and businesses. As was highlighted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in October, it will have a negative impact on short-term growth, reduce employment and push up inflation. David Torrance: Experts, councils, providers and care organisations across Scotland have all reacted with deep concern about the financial viability of care homes given the increase.”
“Does the cabinet secretary consider that Historic Environment Scotland’s process to delist or even permit the demolition of listed mills needs to be reviewed to allow economic development to meet modern requirements? Kate Forbes: The member poses an interesting question about the fact that, even where funding is available, there might be other dimensions that local authorities need to work through in relation to listed buildings. I hope that there are opportunities to work with Historic Environment Scotland to look at the future for these sites, because, where there is funding available, we want to do everything in our power to protect the sites and to restore them for the good of the public. Employer National Insurance Contributions Increase 7.”
“Local authorities are responsible for delivering local regeneration and economic development activity. However, the Scottish Government plays a key role in supporting local authorities toward regeneration ambitions, including the redevelopment of vacant and derelict buildings such as former mills. Through the regeneration capital grant fund, businesses are encouraged to work closely with local authorities to bring forward proposals for funding and delivery. Christine Grahame: The Bristol mill at the entrance to Galashiels on the Edinburgh road closed in 1998. There have been many proposals to redevelop the site for commercial and housing purposes, but its listing is a major obstacle.”
“In this year’s budget, we are investing £2.5 million through the disability equality plan, and we have committed a record £6.1 billion for benefits expenditure, more than £3.2 billion of which is for adult disability payments. We have also introduced the pension-age disability payment—that marks a significant milestone, as it is Social Security Scotland’s 15th payment—to ensure that disabled people in all age groups in Scotland receive support based on dignity, fairness and respect. I would be more than happy to engage with Jeremy Balfour as we roll out that additional employability support this summer.”
“Jeremy Balfour: The Government has dragged its heels on changing places toilets, introduced floating bus stops and restricted car access in large parts of our cities, so many disabled people continue to struggle to take part in society. If the cabinet secretary believes that disabled people provide so much value to the economy, will she explain why her Government continues to ignore their needs and to make it more difficult for them to earn and spend money in this country? Kate Forbes: I fundamentally disagree with Jeremy Balfour’s suggestion that we are in any way ignoring the challenges that disabled people face. Over and above the challenges that he has raised, disabled people have been disproportionately affected by the cost of living crisis, years of austerity and the pandemic.”
“We recognise the vital contribution that disabled people make to Scotland through work, volunteering, care giving and community life, enriching our society in ways that go beyond numbers. This year, we are investing an additional £2 million to strengthen the disability equality plan and deliver real change. Unlocking everyone’s potential and removing labour market barriers is key to a stronger economy. Meaningful and well- paid work supports health, independence and connection. That is why we remain committed to halving the disability employment gap by 2038, and we will roll out specialist employability support for disabled people in every local authority this summer.”
“Our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors contribute an estimated £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy and support more than 33,000 direct jobs. Given the recent announcements, on the workforce side in particular, I assume that that is set to increase. I am happy to repeat that, since the Government came to office, we have provided £45 million in funding to defence companies. We are also taking a lead in supporting the pipeline of a trained workforce, in particular around the Clyde maritime cluster, which includes some of the employers that the member has just referenced.”
“It is rather ironic that the only thing that is keeping Government-owned Ferguson Marine open is its steel fabrication subcontract work from BAE Systems for type 26 frigates, while the Scottish Government’s own procurement agency has recently awarded CalMac ferry contracts to Turkish and Polish shipbuilders. I urge the Deputy First Minister to reconsider that particular investment decision, because it is incoherent. Surely it is good to use public money to support critical naval shipbuilding research work that contributes to our country’s security and sustains thousands of high-skilled and well-paid jobs right across Scotland. Kate Forbes: I will answer the member specifically, but as I said, we recognise the critical role that Scotland’s defence sector plays in our economy and national security.”
“We are committed to ensuring that Scotland is the home of manufacturing innovation. As I said to Willie Rennie, the scale of the investment that the Government has provided to defence companies through enterprise agencies amounts to £45 million in funding. The member will know that our long-standing policy position is that we do not use public money to support the manufacture of munitions but will support skills and defence companies. Paul Sweeney: I welcome the intent in the Deputy First Minister’s response, but the Government’s apparent hostility to a naval vessel—it is not a munition—on the Clyde is stifling investment in the west of Scotland’s single biggest industrial employer and jeopardising the creation of new jobs.”
“I hope that he will agree with what I said in my first answer about global uncertainty and some of the challenges, and how we have responded to attract investment and to support our exporters. Growing the economy is at the heart of our agenda, and we have seen a significant increase in investment, whether that is through the Scottish National Investment Bank or through our enterprise agencies, which deliver a remarkably good set of results every year. The member will know about some of the specific interventions that we have made. For example, we have Techscaler, which is designed to support entrepreneurial growth, with a view to ensuring that more entrepreneurs in Scotland grow to unicorn level. The membership of Techscaler increased from 610 to 1,411 in 2024. There are signs of success, and we take very seriously the EY results.”
“Martin Whitfield: Given the EY ITEM— independent treasury economic model—club’s downgrade of Scotland’s growth to just 0.6 per cent for 2025-26, and the repeated warnings from both EY and the Fraser of Allander Institute about underinvestment, weak productivity and widening regional inequality, is it not clear that the Scottish National Party’s failure to invest, reform and lead has taken Scotland into a cul-de-sac of long-term economic stagnation, and that it has in fact taken a UK Labour Government to finally deliver for Scottish exporters by cutting red tape on food exports and giving service businesses the certainty that they have long needed? Kate Forbes: The member raises a number of points.”
“The economy is resilient and it strengthened in the first quarter of 2025. However, the economic outlook remains challenging, particularly due to the sharp increase in global trade uncertainty, with implications across Scotland’s sectors and regions. In response to those challenges, we have announced measures to boost our competitiveness, attract investment and showcase our strengths. We continue to engage with the United Kingdom Government’s free trade agreements programme to protect our more sensitive sectors, and our programme for government includes a six-point export plan to help businesses tap into new markets and increase sales.”