Jeremy Balfour
Independent · Scotland
“Does the cabinet secretary agree that ADP helps people to get into and stay in employment? If ADP is cut, more people in Scotland will have to claim other benefits because they are not able to work. I remind members that I am in receipt of higher-rate ADP.”
“I, too, thank Fulton MacGregor not only for only bringing the debate to the chamber but for all the work that he has done as the convener of the cross-party group on social work. I have had the pleasure of being part of that group, which has been very much driven by him. I am grateful for his contribution.”
“As my friend Roz McCall said, there is still a lot to do and this is not the end of the journey. In my short contribution, I will make three simple points from personal experience and from picking up on what the report says.”
“I made my maiden speech in a members’ debate like this one, so it seems fitting for me to conclude in this debate. As I said in the debate last week on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, my wife and I have had personal experience of breakdown of adoption.”
“Given the size of our nation, there must be some way in which we can pull together good practice from across Scotland to do this. Secondly, again, as Martin Whitfield said, there is the financial cost, which is often ignored. It is looked at well in fostering but less so in adoption.”
“She has grown in her role as a leader, and she has taken the bill through in a way that many others could learn lessons from. With both the minister and the former First Minister leaving, and with who knows who being elected in May, my worry is this: who will pick up the challenge after the election?”
The complete record
Every one of 390 lines we hold for Jeremy Balfour, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“I add my congratulations and thanks to Marie McNair for securing the debate. I must confess that I knew nothing about bile duct cancer. I have learned a lot just from listening to other members. The reason that I am speaking in the debate is that one of my constituents emailed me and asked whether I would briefly tell her story. It is my honour and privilege to do so. She wrote: “I hadn’t heard of it until it changed the course of my family’s life in 2023. My beloved Mum, Valerie, was diagnosed with it in April 2023, after feeling a pain in her side. I couldn’t begin to put into words how shocked and devastated we were when she was diagnosed with terminal cancer after minimal symptoms and still being at work up until very close to the diagnosis.”
“I understand the point that the member is trying to make, but does he recognise Pam Duncan-Glancy’s point? Whether we are for or against the bill, we are, as a Parliament, being asked to write a blank cheque. As we are often told by the Scottish Government— and by Mr Doris—we have a fixed budget. That money will have to come from somewhere. Does Mr Doris acknowledge that some other service, whether it is education, another health service or transport, will be affected if the financial resolution is passed? Bob Doris: It is thus with every financial resolution that comes to this place. The point that I wanted to make, notwithstanding the interventions from Mr Mason and Mr Balfour, was to the Scottish Government—”
“I have set out clearly to NHS Lothian my expectation that it must come forward with improvements, and I have set a timeline—by the end of November—for when I expect to hear more. I am more than happy to ensure that Parliament is kept informed of progress, whether through a statement, a Government-initiated question or a letter to committee.”
“I know from personal experience, when our first daughter died, how much care and love was given by the maternity unit here, in Edinburgh. It is clear that there is an on-going issue, and I welcome the cabinet secretary’s statement. Will he commit to coming back to the chamber early next year to give us an update on how things are progressing in Lothian? I am afraid that many of us in the city of Edinburgh are not confident that the changes that he outlined in his statement will be made quickly or efficiently. Neil Gray: I thank Jeremy Balfour for sharing his very sad loss, and I offer my condolences to him for the pain and trauma that he experienced in those circumstances.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a similar issue. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Balfour. Your vote will be recorded.”
“If we look at the evidence around the world, we know that that will be the case. There will be more homelessness and more people struggling to find accommodation because of that measure. Secondly, I believe that the work on preventing homelessness represents another missed opportunity. Like Mark Griffin, I hope that history will prove me wrong. I think that the ask and act provisions could have been so much better; we are being asked to jump into darkness. We will not have the benefit of a pilot programme to know whether that will or will not work. Having no data sharing, a lack of money and pressure on local authorities, on the third sector and on the national health service will all work against us. The bill is a missed opportunity. The Government should go back and rethink it. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am not. 21:00”
“I start by agreeing with Willie Rennie that we should give a big thank you to all the clerks who have worked so hard on the bill and helped us with it. I also thank third sector organisations, particularly Crisis, for their positive engagement over the past years. For me, this is a disappointing night—a night of missed opportunities. The bill was an opportunity for us to do something really quite radical and different around housing and homelessness. I fear that after we have passed the bill—as we will do in a few minutes’ time—people will look back and see it as a missed opportunity. I cannot vote for the bill for two reasons. First, as a representative of Edinburgh and Lothian, I say that rent controls will have a devastating effect on the Edinburgh property market.”
“Maggie Chapman: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Màiri McAllan: I have finished.”
“That has been hailed by those with experience of homelessness as having the capacity to change lives and as being significant in that regard. As Mr Stewart put it, the amendments are unworkable and I cannot support them. Mr Stewart also mentioned data, which speaks to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 46 on carrying out a review of data on rough sleeping. Local authorities already collect data on the experiences of rough sleeping of households that make a homelessness application. That information is published twice a year by the Scottish Government, and we are already conducting a review of the collection of homelessness data, including data on rough sleeping. For the time being, the amendment would not add anything to that process, and I would be grateful if members supported the continuation of that review.”
“I wish the cabinet secretary all the best. Covid was a bit different. We managed to get everyone off the streets. I hope that we can again have such a concerted effort, but that will take co-operation from local authorities, too. However, I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could agree to continue to look at data. Elena Whitham and I have been discussing the CHAIN process, which failed in certain places. It may be time to revisit that, not necessarily via an amendment to legislation but through common sense. Màiri McAllan: I thank Kevin Stewart for his comments and for the considerable experience that he brings to bear. It is also worth pointing out what another part of the bill does in implementing the ask and act duties.”
“It is surely not impossible to have an objective to end rough sleeping by the end of the decade. Màiri McAllan: Absolutely not. As I said, the Government already has a commitment to end homelessness, and to end rough sleeping as part of that, and we report to Parliament annually on our actions in furtherance of that. However, I am afraid that there are fundamental problems with the definitions that are used in the amendments, which make them completely unworkable. Kevin Stewart: The Government has done a huge amount of work on the ending homelessness together action plan, and I thank all the folk who have been involved in that, including Jon Sparkes, the former chief executive of Crisis. We all want to end rough sleeping. There are complexities, but members have to recognise that amendments are sometimes not legally possible.”
“Rough sleeping is fraught with indignity and trauma, but it is nonetheless multifaceted, and it is not framed properly by the inflexible statutory obligations in the amendments, so I cannot support them. Jamie Halcro Johnston: The amendments do none of those things. They would require the Scottish Government, which launched the strategy to end rough sleeping in 2018, to put a timescale on when it will deliver on that. By the end of the decade, it will be more than 12 years since that strategy came in. My amendments would require the Government to come with a timescale to deliver on that. It would not have to exclude some of the other issues around homelessness but could work in a way that was complementary to them. I am not sure what it is that the Scottish Government finds difficult to deliver here.”
“I understand why Jamie Halcro Johnston lodged his amendments. I have listened to some other members who have indicated that they intend to support them, but I must ask them to reconsider that, because the amendments are defective. They illustrate how difficult it is to define the concept of rough sleeping. For example, the definition of rough sleeping that is used in the amendments would capture those who were sitting down near a sleeping bag or people who were lying down on a park bench but not sleeping. The definition is therefore defective. It also tries to frame rough sleeping as a one-off event rather than a continuing course of action.”
“it is probably not possible to completely eliminate rough sleeping, but all that Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendment 237 says is that ministers “must take reasonable steps to ensure that ... there is no rough sleeping”. It is reasonable, as are the other amendments in the group. Màiri McAllan: Jamie Halcro Johnston’s amendments 237 and 238 seek to address the very important matter of rough sleeping, but unfortunately they seek to do that via an inflexible and unworkable statutory duty that overlooks key aspects of the problem. I say from the outset that the Government is already committed to ending all forms of homelessness, including rough sleeping. Our homelessness strategy, which is entitled “Ending Homelessness Together”, is informed by experts and, crucially, those with lived experience, including experience of rough sleeping.”
“Members who were here in the previous session will well remember that, just around the corner from this Parliament, there was a guy who used to sleep on a bench every single night in all weathers. When Covid came along, he did not sleep on the bench, because we managed to deal with rough sleeping. That shows that, if there is a will, it can be done. I have had a similar experience to Mr Balfour. On my walking route to work in Edinburgh, I, too, see examples of rough sleeping—people who have clearly bedded down in alleyways or makeshift shelters—and I am seeing that increasingly. The intent behind all the amendments in the group is something that we should aspire to. As I said earlier.”
“Reports written then said that people got a gold-standard service, and we saw almost everyone being taken off the streets and given a home or a bed for the night. We can do that if there is the political will to do it, but my fear at the moment is that the political will has gone from this Government. In a couple of weeks’ time in Edinburgh, the winter shelter run by Bethany Christian Trust will open again. That is a welcome service, but it does not run throughout the year, which leaves people still very vulnerable. I hope that the cabinet secretary will accept the amendments in this group and that, collectively, we can deal with an issue that affects so many people’s lives. Graham Simpson: Jeremy Balfour mentioned the situation that we had during Covid.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston and Maggie Chapman for lodging their amendments. I will be supporting them all, and I hope that the cabinet secretary will take them seriously. At the moment, the bill lacks any thought about rough sleeping, although we have heard from both members about its importance. I walked from my home to Parliament this morning and went out again at lunch time. The number of people I saw who were still sleeping rough, even during the day, is a shocking indictment of Scotland. We have seen those numbers going up and up, particularly in Edinburgh, and there seems to be no coherent Scottish Government policy. Very few good things came out of Covid, but one positive was the way that the Scottish Government stepped up to deal with rough sleeping, both in this city and in other parts of Scotland.”
“That fund is about asking councils to go now, acquire family homes that are on the market and use them to get children out of temporary accommodation. Another instruction that was part of that plan was to ask councils to adopt the guidance from the Association of Local Authority Chief Housing Officers on flipping temporary accommodation—that is, to contact people living in temporary accommodation that is otherwise suitable, except for the fact that it is temporary, and to discuss with the household whether it can be flipped to become their permanent accommodation. Such measures are about taking action, and they are all backed up by investment over the next four years. The Presiding Officer: Question 2 has been withdrawn. Free Personal Care (Delivery) 3.”
“As we have just heard, it has been reported that more than 16,000 housing violations have happened in the past year alone. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that report, which calls its housing emergency declaration a sham, given that breaches of the legal duty to provide for homeless people, including children and pregnant women, have doubled in only one year? Màiri McAllan: No, I would not agree with that characterisation. Breaches of statutory obligations by councils are not acceptable. That is exactly why I am working with local authorities—and, in particular, with the top five with the most strained homelessness services—to drive action now. We drive action with the acquisition fund that the Government has been providing for several years and which, in my statement on 2 September, I doubled to £80 million.”
“The churches are looking for a way to allow people to use that house while the church is vacant and then, when a new minister is appointed, for that house to be made available for the church to use for that individual. We have debated the issue on several occasions, and I am disappointed that the amendment has never been accepted by the Parliament or the Government. We all know that there is a housing shortage, and any house that becomes available for however long a period should be grabbed and used. If this amendment is not passed today, many churches and denominations will simply leave such a property empty, because they know that they will require it in months to come. I hope that the Government and the Parliament will accept amendment 283, and I again thank Meghan Gallacher for lodging it.”
“I will speak to a couple of the amendments in the group. I welcome Meghan Gallacher’s amendments on terminal illness, and I put on record that Marie Curie’s work on the issue has achieved cross- party support. It will make a big difference to people’s lives. As a Parliament, we have a good record on helping people who have terminal illness. I will also speak to Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 283. I remind members that I am a member and an elder of the Church of Scotland. The amendment deals with property, such as a church manse, that is owned by churches or faiths. As many of us are aware, a number of churches have closed or merged with others over the past few years, and, while people are looking for new ministers or pastors, the house remains empty.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to vote. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Balfour. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“We need to balance the rights of everyone who comes to the”
“A number of female constituents from Lothian have been in touch to tell me that they felt unsafe and insecure last week because of the behaviour of that one individual. Does the member, on behalf of the corporate body, agree that the behaviour of the individual in question was totally unacceptable and that women should be free to advocate for their rights without fear or abuse? Claire Baker: There is a balance in ensuring that everybody can advocate for their rights and feelings outside the Parliament. If people feel intimidated or threatened at an event, they should speak to the police officers who are on duty, and they can make a complaint in future if they feel that there was a criminal offence. Unless a criminal offence has been committed, the police are there to ensure that safe protests can take place.”
“For example, in Australia’s Northern Territory, mobile dialysis units have transformed care for remote communities, proving that geography need not dictate outcomes. Scotland can, and should, be as bold, but that cannot be done by Government alone. It requires action from doctors, third sector organisations, industry and from patients themselves, whose voices must shape the services that they rely on. Chronic disease is not only a medical condition; it dictates how you shape your life day in, day out. We need action and I look forward to hearing from the minister. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jenni Minto to respond to the debate. 18:07”
“That is why it is so important that the Scottish Government makes CKD a specific strand in its long-term conditions strategy. I would be interested to hear whether the minister can, in her closing speech, confirm that the Scottish Government is heading towards that and tell us when we are likely to get there. These are not luxuries; they are necessities. We know what works. Expanding home dialysis brings greater independence, improves quality of life and reduces pressure on hospital services. Increasing organ donation rates saves lives and eases demand. As Brian Whittle said, prevention through early screening in high-risk communities has the power to slow progression and reduce the long- term burdens on patients and the NHS alike. International examples show us what can be achieved and what we should be aiming for.”
“For those living with chronic illness, equity means access to the right treatment, at the right time and in the right place, whether they live in the centre of Edinburgh or on a remote island in the Highlands, but we are falling short of that right now. Rural patients face long and exhausting journeys to access treatment and people in our most deprived communities are 60 per cent more likely to develop chronic illness, including kidney disease, and face a life expectancy that is up to 25 years shorter than that of those in our wealthiest areas. As we have heard from other speakers, ethnic minority patients encounter language and cultural barriers, and disabled people face hurdles with transport, accessibility and advocacy. The challenges are not abstract; they are lived day in, day out.”
“We have heard tonight that that must change, because we know about the scale of the challenge. Thousands of people across Scotland rely on dialysis every single week, while others live with a kidney transplant and many remain at risk of disease progression. That demands action, because dialysis is not a treatment that one can simply fit in around ordinary life—it becomes life itself. The NHS does extraordinary work, and, like others, I thank the extraordinary doctors and nurses who do that, but the system is under pressure and those with long-term conditions are often the first to feel the strain.”
“I, like others, thank Kenny Gibson for lodging the motion. I welcome people to the public gallery tonight. The motion rightly recognises the immense impact that chronic kidney disease has on individuals, families and our NHS. I declare a slight interest, Deputy Presiding Officer. When I was a teenager, I was going to go through some surgery and had a body scan. Through the body scan, we could not find any kidneys. However, as Kenny Gibson pointed out, the kidney is a secret worker, so I presume that because I am standing here tonight, something is happening in my body. CKD is one of the most common and resource- intensive long-term conditions in Scotland, yet, as others have pointed out, it remains one of the few areas that does not have a dedicated policy with a real focus.”
“It takes members through some immediate actions that we are taking, such as investing £40 million of additional funding for acquisitions, investing £2 million in discretionary housing payments in order to support households to move to the private rented sector and, fundamentally, providing a significant uplift in funding for affordable homes, which is coupled with multi-annual certainty on the funding trajectory. Together, coupled with the other provisions in the plan, those steps are exactly how we will combat the unacceptable situation in Edinburgh, which the member was right to highlight, and in other local authority areas throughout”
“I welcome the cabinet secretary to her position. A recent report from Shelter Scotland stated that, shockingly, there are more children in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh than there are in temporary accommodation in the whole of Wales. How can our capital city still be in such a crisis a year after we declared a housing emergency, and what will the cabinet secretary do practically to help the City of Edinburgh Council to move on from that situation? Màiri McAllan: On the question of practical matters, I refer the member to the statement.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees that the relevant provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, introduced in the House of Commons on 17 December 2024, and subsequently amended, affecting child employment and community-based and secure accommodation, so far as these matters fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and alter the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers, should be considered by the UK Parliament. The Presiding Officer: I call Douglas Ross to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee. 16:18”
“Just as there might be exceptional circumstances that make it appropriate to place a child from Scotland in England and to deprive them of their liberty, children from England may also be placed in secure accommodation in Scotland on welfare grounds. Amendments that the bill will make to section 25(5A) of the Children Act 1989 clarify that the person in charge of secure accommodation in Scotland can deprive a child of their liberty when they have been placed there from England or Wales. Providing consent today would allow us to continue to work with our stakeholders to ensure that the changes are implemented in line with current Scottish Government policy and Scotland’s unique and lauded approach to child welfare and justice.”
“However, flexibility with regard to placement options to meet the varying needs of children is important. There might be occasions when it is in a child’s best interests to be placed in provision in England—for example, to ensure that children are placed closer to their families, which is critical to relationships and wellbeing. The arrangements for and the monitoring and review of such placements will be clarified with relevant stakeholders and the UK Government to ensure that the circumstances align with Scotland’s work on the report “Reimagining secure care: a vision for the future”, the response to which the Scottish Government published today.”
“All other existing relevant legislation will remain in place, including safeguarding measures. The second area that is covered by the provisions is secure community-based accommodation. The bill proposes a statutory mechanism that will allow children to be placed in community-based provision in England that can provide for deprivation and restriction of liberty measures, if that is in the best interests of the child. Placements in secure accommodation in England are currently possible for children living in Scotland. Provisions in the bill would enable them to be accommodated in the new proposed settings, if appropriate. Ministers are clear that any cross-border placements should happen only in exceptional circumstances and that such alternative provision should not be used where there are capacity challenges in Scotland.”
“If consented to, the provisions would allow Scottish ministers to make child employment regulations, replacing local variations and providing a more consistent approach across Scotland. Local authorities will retain responsibility for issuing child employment permits and control of the process at a local level. Local authority representatives with whom we have engaged generally support that. In our discussions, the Federation of Small Businesses has also been supportive of the changes. We will ensure that local authorities are able to engage in creating and implementing the regulations to reflect their local knowledge of businesses and regional differences in employment. Children and young people will also be given the opportunity to express their views, and any changes will be considered in line with their best interests.”
“The young people whom we engaged with on the changes viewed them as beneficial, because they will allow them more opportunity and greater flexibility to work. Young people said that they feel restricted by the current limitations and find it difficult to save money. Young people often find it harder than adults to find employment. Expanding Sunday working hours provides more opportunities for children to gain skills and experience, save money, develop their independence and better prepare themselves for their futures. The bill also proposes changes to the rules on the conditions in which children can work. Those rules are currently set by local authorities through individual bylaws and they differ across Scotland.”
“On the timing and why we are discussing the LCM now instead of waiting, there is a compatibility issue with legislation if we do not do it immediately. As a former minister for parliamentary business, I place great importance on giving the Parliament its rightful opportunity to scrutinise legislation. In this instance, I am afraid that a couple of things were at play. There were delays in obtaining the necessary information from UK Government officials to allow us to move forward, but I accept that there was also an element of delay at this end. I apologise to the Parliament for that, because I think that it is important. I hope that that provides the answer for the member. Existing caps on weekly hours and a prohibition on working during school hours will remain in place.”
“The minister will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee met on Tuesday. There was no time for the committee to consider a written report on the issue, and there was no opportunity for us to scrutinise the LCM. The Parliament has been asked to approve an LCM that many members have been unable to find the full details of and to ask the appropriate questions about. I appreciate that there has been a consultation with those outside the Parliament, but members in the Parliament seem to have been left behind. Why is there such urgency to get the LCM through today, and why could it not wait until September? Could he also confirm that the approach that has been taken is not good practice and should not be seen as such? Graeme Dey: There were a number of questions in there.”
“It has the levers; it is time that it started to pull them. The Presiding Officer: I call Kaukab Stewart to take us to 5 pm. 16:52”
“We have a need, and the rest of the world can help us with it. To bring in people who are ready and willing to contribute to our society and meet the needs, who can also help with the taxation system—is that not how any successful immigration system should function? However, at the moment, we are turning away people who could fill those jobs. It seems to me that a good way for the Scottish Government to promote more migration into Scotland would be to work to make it a more attractive place for people to move to, instead of pursuing anti-growth and anti-wealth policies. The Scottish Government does not and should not have the powers to act on immigration law. What it does have is the power to make Scotland as attractive a place to live and work in as possible within the United Kingdom.”
“The easiest and best way of doing that is to make allowances in the immigration system for carers to take up the jobs. I can personally vouch for the fact that carers from other countries can be excellent, as is demonstrated by the number of wonderful people who help me each morning. To be clear, I am not saying that we should totally outsource those jobs away from British and Scottish people. I am in favour of any efforts that either Government can make to encourage more British young people into the caring profession, which is an incredibly rewarding career path indeed. However, unfortunately, any such scheme would take a number of years to bear fruit, and we have a short-term problem. In the meantime, we have to play the ball that is on the pitch, not the ball that we wish was there.”
“As I said previously, and as Daniel Johnson debated, jobs such as care work do not require high levels of education, and the sector is not currently attracting enough people into that workforce in Scotland. Even if we could bring everybody who is currently economically inactive into employment, that would not solve our long- term problem. More and more care organisations are struggling to provide suitable packages for disabled and older people because of staffing pressure, and the truth is that people in this country are not going into the care sector in the numbers that we need them to. I accept that we need to look at conditions and pay, but, if we are serious about ensuring that disabled and older people’s rights are respected and that those people are treated with dignity, we need to fill those jobs.”
“Therefore, I support the curbs on the number of people who illegally enter the United Kingdom. That said, I also agree with a number of speakers in the debate that legal migration can be a real positive force in the United Kingdom. Bringing in skilled workers from other countries helps us to build world-leading industries, which should be an ambition of all political parties in Scotland. We want to attract talented people to Scotland. We want to see people coming to contribute to our economy, whether they are doctors, engineers or scientists. They all contribute to improving standards across the UK. At the same time, we should recognise that other sectors benefit from an increase in their workforce.”
“However, it is a fundamental role of the state to ensure that we have secure borders, so I support efforts to curb the number of people who illegally enter the United Kingdom. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Christine Grahame has made the point that I was initially looking to intervene to make, but, to expand on that, does the member not recognise that the rhetoric of the previous Conservative Government, which did not institute safe routes for asylum seekers to make it to Britain without taking their lives and the lives of their families in their hands on leaky craft in the Channel, has led to the problem that we are now encountering? Jeremy Balfour: I think that it was one of the factors, but I am not sure that it was the only reason, which is why we need to look at the issue as a whole.”
“Illegal immigration has harmful effects in all the areas that are dealt with by Government portfolios, but especially in social security, which is already at breaking point in Scotland. It is clear that the matter needs to be addressed swiftly and effectively. Christine Grahame: [Made a request to intervene.] Jeremy Balfour: We must also admit that the previous Government did not get it all right. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will Jeremy Balfour take an intervention? Jeremy Balfour: I am happy to give way, but I think that Christine Grahame was first—my apologies. Christine Grahame: I hope that the member will make the distinction—I am sure that he will— between illegal immigration and asylum seeking. Sometimes, those become conflated, and that is a very wrong perception. Jeremy Balfour: I absolutely agree with Christine Grahame on that point.”
“I want to begin by recognising, as many members have today, that immigration is a sensitive topic and that we owe it to our constituents to refrain from reckless generalisations. There has actually been a fair amount of consensus across the whole chamber. I suggest that, instead of making such generalisations, we ground our arguments in facts, as Liz Smith and others have done, reflecting the world as it is, not as we idealise it to be or fear that it might be. In that spirit, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues and others when they acknowledged that illegal immigration should not be accepted or—what is worse—encouraged. I fundamentally disagree with Maggie Chapman.”
“Instead, Scotland enters its second year of a housing emergency on the SNP’s watch, and the sector is crying out for workers. A report by Scottish Engineering in January of this year found that there are skills gaps for welders, machinists, electricians, manufacturing and maintenance technicians and engineers. It said: “The skills pipeline gaps for these roles are in an immediately stark situation”. The transition to net zero requires retrofitting and upgrades on a scale that requires more of those workers.”
“That is the substantial lacuna in the Deputy First Minister’s considered remarks that opened today’s debate. There are multiple widespread and deeply significant skills gaps in Scotland’s workforce across many industries. I cite the Open University’s “Business Barometer 2024” report, which showed that 56 per cent of businesses—a clear majority—are experiencing skills shortages in Scotland. Audit Scotland’s report on the Scottish Government’s infrastructure spend singled out skills shortages as a key factor in delayed projects and rising costs, which pose a huge problem to generating growth in our economy. Industries such as construction are needed more than ever if Labour’s record investment in housing is to be mobilised by this Government.”
“We heard exchanges in the chamber earlier today on the exact issue of the amount of money that is paid to carers and making sure that people in Scotland and in other parts of the EU can take on that job. Kate Forbes rose— Michael Marra: I would appreciate it if I could make some progress, Deputy First Minister. By contrast, on the economic side, the Scottish National Party is propping up a system that is undercutting one set of workers by exploiting and underpaying others. That goes back to the point of Mr Balfour’s contention. We should be clear that there is absolutely nothing progressive about that situation. The SNP has presided over a scandal of low pay in our care sector, particularly across the whole of social care, which has driven people from the workforce. That is the SNP’s record, and it is not one to be proud of.”