Chamber and committees

It is. Since 2010, under the Conservatives, vehicle excise duty for new cars has risen from £1,200 to £2,605, and car insurance premium tax went up from 5 per cent in 2010 to 12 per cent in 2017. Which party is it that has a war on motorists, again?

Grangemouth oil refinery was of economic importance to Scotland, just as Port Talbot was to Wales and as Scunthorpe is to England. Unfortunately, Petroineos announced today that refining has ended.

The Labour Government was right to intervene quickly to save the steel jobs in Scunthorpe, but the same should have applied to Grangemouth as the last oil refinery in Scotland.

The importance of Grangemouth was highlighted in the run-up to the general election, when Daniel Johnson referred to it as a key economic asset and said that its closure would undermine our energy security, which could be damaging for this country.

Anas Sarwar promised that a Labour Government would step in and save jobs at the refinery, but, despite promises of change, the Labour Government has repeatedly prioritised investment in England, including £200 million for Old Trafford, as reported by the Financial Times on 13 March.

How do we save the skilled refinery jobs? The UK has positioned itself as a leader in sustainable aviation fuel, and the Labour Government could have announced that Grangemouth would be one of the additional eight production sites to receive funding. However, under Labour, it is only jobs south of the border that are worthy to be saved by Government intervention.

Another example is the £800 million supercomputer that was promised for the University of Edinburgh by the previous UK Government. In 2024, Labour shelved the plans to build a state-of-the-art supercomputer at the university that would have been 50 times faster than any current computer in the UK. That cancellation was after the university had spent £31 million on a purpose-built facility for the supercomputer as part of the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal. The university has been at the heart of research and development in AI for the past 60 years and has been the host of national supercomputing services for the UK for the past 30 years.

Then, in January 2025, Labour launched the “AI Opportunities Action Plan” to make the UK a global leader in AI. The AI growth zones will start in Culham in Oxfordshire,

“where approval planning for data centres will be accelerated and access to the energy grid improved. The plan also includes a pledge to build a new supercomputer and increase the UK’s compute capacity 20-fold by 2030.”

Is that another example of investment in England taking precedence over investment in Scotland?

Despite that setback, the Scottish Government is investing £321 million through the current budget in Scottish enterprise agencies that support emerging tech, including AI and robotics, and in programmes such as the ambitious Techscaler programme. It is just a pity that Labour has once again turned its back on Scotland.

Manufacturing faces challenges relating to automation, shifts in global supply chains and the need for greener production processes. One such sector is the whisky industry, which in 2024 alone accounted for £5.4 billion in exports and was ranked as the world’s most internationally traded spirit. Yet, the Labour Government’s industrial strategy, “Invest 2035,” with its ambition to drive economic growth by targeting high-potential sectors, does not include food and drink among its eight key growth sectors. That is despite the global significance of Scotch whisky, which is a major economic powerhouse for Scotland and the UK. The industry contributes £7 billion in gross value added to the UK economy and supports 41,000 jobs in Scotland.

The UK Labour Government also has an industrial strategy advisory council, which is there to ensure that the needs and interests of industry across the UK are represented in the Labour Government’s policy-making processes. Yet, there is a lack of representation of the food and drink sector on the industrial strategy council. As Diageo pointed out in evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee:

“Food and drink is a large, important sector that is economically important to the UK and has strong domestic support. We believe that this must be recognised via representation on the Council and the formation of the wider strategy.”

Once again, a key Scottish industry is being ignored by the UK Labour Government.

Universities Scotland also has concerns about the industrial strategy advisory council, given its cross-UK remit. It has called for

“a transparent framework or formal mechanism to ensure the Council connects to the Devolved Administrations and other stakeholders in the devolved nations on a regular basis.”

It went on to state:

“We note and understand the inclusion of Skills England on the Council. Whilst it makes sense to have a strong connection into strategic skills policy, this is another body in which Scotland is not directly represented, nor is it yet clear whether Skills England will set strategy for England only or cover cross-UK agendas. This gives us cause for further concern that the UK scope of the Council will inadvertently but inevitably be steered in the direction of the needs of England and its regions.”

Scotland has shown stronger economic performance than the UK. Our gross domestic product growth was higher; we now have more people in employment and a lower unemployment rate. In January 2025, Scotland’s private sector economy climbed from 11th to sixth among UK nations and regions, which was driven by strengthening services activity and slower decline in overall activity compared with other regions. Despite that, Scotland faces challenges such as the UK-wide impact of US tariffs, rising energy costs and increased employer national insurance contributions. We can combat those challenges only with the economic levers that other countries have to protect their economy. Labour has shown that its focus is on the south of the border, not Scotland. Therefore, only independence will deliver the support that our industry needs in these challenging times.

I am talking about encouraging young people to come in, engage with and understand the business and think about a career in your area. Are a lot of companies doing that or are you an exception?

Doug raised the point earlier that we need to do more to promote apprenticeships in schools, which I 100 per cent agree with. What do you think the role of employers is in relation to that? I am aware of an example in my own constituency where the national roofing contractors have agreed that a new national 5 course will start after the summer to introduce young people to traditional roofing skills and to give them an interest in possibly taking an apprenticeship in a roofing career when they leave school. The course is being run by a local company called Compass Roofing Ltd. I agree that we need to put more young people through the apprenticeship route rather than university—I am as guilty as you are in that respect, Doug, because my two sons went to university—but what is the role of employers in relation to encouraging young people to go down the apprenticeship route?

How many go down the same route as ACS Clothing or SCORE?

Thanks very much.

Jennifer, you said that you have to grow your own talent. The employer skills survey from 2014 showed that only 14 per cent of employers took on apprenticeships, and by 2022 that had only grown to 16 per cent. What must change to encourage more employers to grow their own talent, as your company and other companies are doing, and what are the benefits of having apprentices?

Since 2010, the UK Government—first Tory and now Labour—has embarked on a brutal austerity programme, slashing billions of pounds from welfare payments. The Tories introduced a four-year freeze in benefits between 2016 and 2020, introduced the two-child benefit limit and forced single parents to work when their children were younger. The Resolution Foundation told us that, under the Tories, each year from 2010, working-age families lost an average of £1,500; larger families with three or more children were hit hardest, losing £4,600 on average; out-of-work households faced losses of £2,200; and the two-child limit pushed 51 per cent of households with three or more children into poverty.

That was not fiscal prudence. It was a calculated assault on those who were least able to bear it. We finally got rid of the blue Tories last year, but the hope that Labour promised in the run-up to the general election has turned into a nightmare. It appears likely that the red Tories will continue to inflict further misery on the most vulnerable in our society. The people of Edinburgh Pentlands and in communities across Scotland will bear the brunt of this UK Labour Government’s callous and misguided cuts to welfare benefits.

Let us be clear: a cut of £6.5 billion from ill and disabled people by 2029-30 is not a mere adjustment or a tweak to a system that is in need of reform. We are talking about deliberate ideological choices that strike at the heart of our social fabric, which will erode the safety net that protects our most vulnerable and punish those who can least afford it. That cut is being delivered by a Labour Party that is supposed to be the party of the people.

Former Labour MSP Cara Hilton, who now works for the Trussell Trust, said:

“driving through record cuts to disabled people’s social security to balance the books is both shocking and appalling.”

Ex-Labour MSP Neil Findlay stated:

“Labour lied to the British people at the last election and with regularity betrays the people who voted for it”.

In my constituency, I hear daily from families who are struggling to make ends meet, from pensioners who are forced to choose between heating and eating, and from disabled people whose dignity is being stripped away by a system that views them as a burden rather than valued members of society. They are not faceless statistics—they are our neighbours, our friends and our families. They deserve better than a Labour Government that is intent on balancing its books on their backs.

The Scottish Trades Union Congress agrees. It said:

“the chancellor had choices ... She could have increased taxes on corporations or the wealthy ... Instead, she has rushed through deeply damaging cuts to support for disabled people ... this is policy on the hoof, and it is our most vulnerable who are bearing the brunt.”

Leading disabled people’s organisations and women’s groups are so concerned that they have sent dozens of joint letters to Rachel Reeves about the proposed restrictions on eligibility for personal independence payment, which will impact people with complex and multiple conditions. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that those restrictions will cost some claimants more than £100 a week. It is no wonder that such organisations are concerned, as PIP is supposed to be a non-means-tested allowance to cover the extra cost of disability or health conditions, regardless of employment status.

People in Scotland who receive PIP will be partially shielded, as Social Security Scotland has migrated over to the adult disability payment. However, the Scottish Government and the Fraser of Allander Institute both estimate that, as a result of the proposed welfare changes, the budget at Holyrood will be cut by hundreds of millions of pounds by 2029.

There is also the impact on universal credit. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that the cuts to universal credit and other benefits will push an additional 400,000 people across the UK into poverty by 2026. It is estimated that Labour’s freezing of the value of the health element of universal credit until 2029-30 will cost eligible claimants £47 per week, and the restriction of the health element of universal credit to people over the age of 22 means that young claimants face a loss of £97 a week.

Let us compare that with what the SNP Scottish Government has done. With its limited powers, it has introduced measures such as the Scottish child payment, which has lifted thousands of children out of poverty. We have protected free prescriptions, free tuition and free personal care. Those policies reflect our belief in a society that cares for all.

However, we cannot mitigate every blow from Westminster. The block grant, which is squeezed year after year, limits our ability to shield Scots from the worst of such cuts. Members of this Parliament should come together to say that enough is enough. Scotland deserves the power to make its own choices and to build a welfare system that is rooted in compassion and respect, not punishment and neglect. We demand the full powers of an independent nation to protect Scots from the cruelty of Labour and Tory welfare policies.

The people of Scotland are watching. They see a UK Government that prioritises profit over people and that governs for the few at the expense of the many, but they also see a Scotland that dares to dream of something better—a nation that values every citizen and that will build a future in which no one is left behind. Let us stand together, reject the UK Government’s shameful cuts and fight for the fairer, kinder society that our people deserve, which can now be delivered only through independence.

Before the Tories forced Brexit on Scotland, whisky had the protection of a European Union geographical indication. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scotland’s produce, such as whisky, will never be amply protected as long as Westminster Governments—whether Labour or Tory—have the power to legislate on and undermine the interests of Scottish business?

I have a quick question for clarification—