Chamber and committees

I thank the minister for that answer, particularly the point about industry collaboration, because he knows that that is important to me.

However, the overall numbers paint a dark picture. In 2025, Scottish Engineering estimated that we need to grow the engineering workforce by 46 per cent, but the number of engineering apprenticeship starts has fallen over the past 10 years. Moreover, last year, there were 24,849 modern apprenticeship starts, which was the lowest number since 2013-14 if we do not include the Covid years. Given the demand for skills and the fact that more young people are economically inactive, what is the Government doing to increase the number of starts, instead of that number continuing to fall?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the provision of post-school skills pathways. (S7O-00118)

Does the member agree with me that, although parties or individuals might not be fascist, they need to think about whether they might be enabling those who absolutely do proclaim and explicitly pursue fascism?

[Made a request to intervene.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am sure that you are aware that employers are not liable for national insurance contributions for apprentices under the age of 25. Could you advise how one might correct the record if they had misled Parliament with regard to that fact?

Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”. Those words constitute incitement and they are deeply problematic.

Let us go through why. First of all, those words are alienating. They actively and deliberately place divisions between fellow citizens and fellow residents of this country. They inspire a sense of conspiracy in the system itself. Ultimately, what they are deliberately designed to do—I think that members across the chamber know this—is instil a sense of threat among many people in our country.

When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations. Whether or not there is a direct causal link is one thing, but, in the context of recent violence, both in Scotland and elsewhere, it is certainly deeply irresponsible to use such rhetoric and language.

I understand and recognise that, in the new Reform group in the Parliament, there are many different members from many different backgrounds. I have got to know many of you and I have had conversations with you. I understand that some of you come from public service backgrounds and that most of you are here to do a job and to make a difference. However, I say this to you: is this the party that you want to be? Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.]

Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged—deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured. There was a clear incitement and the words that he and others in his party have used do not help that situation.

I will give way to Malcolm Offord.

Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity.

The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion. Somebody should really have told Reform members that this will not be the only Opposition debate that they will get, because they tried to put absolutely everything in the motion. I am sorry to poke fun, but they came to the Parliament saying that they were going to change things up. Let me say this to them: being inflammatory is not challenging consensus; being controversial is not the same thing as offering critique; and being chaotic is not delivering change.

We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever. There is a place to talk about difficult issues and perhaps to challenge the consensus, but let us look at some of the things that they are talking about. We need to reform our public services, but scrapping 132 public bodies is not credible. That would include all the health boards, in one go, and it would include Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. Are we really saying that those should be run directly by the Government?

I am afraid that I do not have time for another intervention—

In a moment.

The proposal would also include things that the Government absolutely should not be running, such as the courts service. That is not credible.

Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument.

We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated. Was a net inward migration figure of 900,000 sustainable? I do not think that it was. We have to talk about the consequences, but, if you wrap yourselves up in the rhetoric of racism and intolerance, you totally devalue your arguments and you make it impossible to talk about the nuance that we must tackle.