Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 5 May 2021
  6. Current session: 12 May 2021 to 11 February 2025
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 600 contributions

|

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Women’s State Pensions (Compensation)

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

If we are honest with ourselves, a lot of people across the United Kingdom are totally disillusioned with politics. They are sick and tired of politicians promising them one thing only to turn round and pull the rug out from under voters.

At the election in July last year, the Labour Party made a slate of promises on a number of policy issues. The British public took it at its word and decided to give it a chance to form a government. They voted for a specific set of policy propositions. As it turns out, the now Prime Minister has no intention of honouring his word. He was willing to say whatever he needed to say to get into power and then walk back all the promises that he had made.

He promised that he would not raise taxes on farmers, who work hard to put food on tables up and down the country; then he introduced the family farm tax. He promised that tuition fees for universities would not rise, only to raise them in the budget. He said that he would not punish pensioners, before ripping money from their pockets by axing the winter heating payment—sentencing many of them to a long, cold winter.

Finally—well, finally for now—to add insult to injury, he walked back his promise to compensate the WASPI women. He made the issue a huge talking point during his time in opposition. Either he did not understand the financial impact of what he was asking for in opposition and figured out only when he got into Government that there are hard choices to be made about expensive policies or he was simply dishonest with the people he stood beside when he had his photos taken. He made unequivocal promises to the WASPI women. He and his Labour shadow cabinet went around the country promising them that they would be compensated if he was Prime Minister. He simply misled them, and he has misled the British public. Either he did not understand the financial impacts or he was, simply, willing to lie to get votes. Either way, it does not paint a good picture of the people who are supposed to be running our country.

At this point, the individual policy of WASPI compensation is not the core issue, as important as it is today. Of course it is disappointing, even devastating, for many, but this episode of politicians behaving badly shines a light on a much deeper issue: how can we trust anything that the Prime Minister or his allies do or say? They are willing to say anything but not follow it through. If they are willing to pull the rug out from under vulnerable pensioners, who else is in danger of losing vital support that the Labour Government promised would remain in place?

We are in a situation in which we see, over and over again, that people do not trust us. With this decision of the UK Government, we can see why that is the case. People want honesty, but the UK Government has not given it to us. People thought that they could trust this Labour Government, but already, seven months in, they have been deeply let down.

We all need to learn from this lesson that, if we say something, we must deliver it. That is why we are calling on the Labour Government to do that immediately—to honour the promise, to honour the WASPI women, and to pay the compensation that they are not only entitled to but due, and which should be given immediately.

15:56  

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Women’s State Pensions (Compensation)

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

Will the member take an intervention?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Women’s State Pensions (Compensation)

Meeting date: 21 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I do not think that those buttons are working to allow us to indicate that we want to speak.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

General Question Time

Meeting date: 16 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

What meetings has the minister had with third sector organisations other than PAMIS in the past six months regarding the setting up of the changing places toilet fund?

Meeting of the Parliament [draft]

Winter Heating Payment

Meeting date: 14 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

According to the statement, as of 15 December, more than half the people entitled to the winter heating payment had not received any money, and it will be another five weeks until everybody receives the entitlement that they are due. Why is there such a delay in the payments coming through? In the year ahead, will the payments be made earlier than they were this year?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Migration System

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

I will come back to the point that Mr Carlaw made, if time allows.

The Scottish Government likes to make a big song and dance about its progressive tax policy, but the truth is that medium earners in Scotland pay more tax than their counterparts pay south of the border. A Scottish resident on £50,000 a year will pay an extra £1,527.80 in the next tax year, compared with someone with the same job in England.

Last year, the Deputy First Minister said:

“I have often heard it said that the negative rhetoric about tax is more off-putting than the tax itself.”—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 9 October 2024; c 25.]

She clearly believes that, if only Opposition parties would say nice things about SNP policies, we could trick people into moving to Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives would love to say positive things about Scottish tax policy, but, unfortunately, the SNP insists on raising taxes for hard-working families, with nothing to show for it.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

First Minister’s Question Time

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

It has not been the SNP, and it has not been Labour. Does the First Minister accept that both the SNP Scottish Government and the Labour UK Government have let thousands of pensioners go cold this winter, rather than provide the support that they deserve and require?

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Migration System

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

I have probably taken enough interventions.

The Scottish Conservatives believe that, by allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned wages, we can promote the economic growth that Scotland so desperately needs and establish ourselves as a top destination for skilled migrants in the UK and on the world stage. Too often, people come here not to work but to retire and be with family.

Although, as a party, we fundamentally disagree with high taxes, that would be slightly more acceptable if the standard of public services that we received was high. Unfortunately, after almost 18 years of SNP mismanagement, the people of Scotland are not getting anything like value for money. Our NHS is being stretched to breaking point. According to some estimates, more than 2,000 people died last year in Scotland due to a long wait in an accident and emergency department. Waiting lists for surgeries remain far too long, and more and more people are having to pay for private care on top of their taxes. However, once again, the SNP is more interested in spending parliamentary time talking about reserved matters over which it has no jurisdiction, instead of tackling the crisis that we have created in our health service.

The Government motion mentions that we need to increase migration to our rural communities in Scotland, but the Government does not understand that its actions are contributing to the problem. Its failure to follow through on its promises to dual the A9, for instance, has done nothing to make small communities in the north of Scotland more connected. Its failure to provide a high standard of healthcare in rural areas forces residents to travel great distances for routine appointments. Why would anyone want to move to such areas?

A report by the Scottish Human Rights Commission found that, in the Highlands and Islands, the Government is not meeting its minimum core obligations on food and housing, while it is only partially meeting its obligations on health. The Scottish Government should be dealing with those factors rather than debating today’s topic. As the development manager for the Federation of Small Businesses in the Highlands and Islands, David Richardson, has said,

“Reversing population trends will require moving heaven and earth to retain more young people and attract younger people and families to move in by focusing on making rural Highland the best possible place to ... work”.

The Parliament was established to work for the people of Scotland on a number of matters. It was not established to grandstand on issues that we have no jurisdiction over, while failing to provide the basic functions of government. The irony is that, if the SNP focused on competent government and following through on promises, Scotland would be a much more attractive destination for migration. As with all debates of this nature, addressing those issues would be a much better use of parliamentary time. Unfortunately, the SNP does not seem to be interested in that.

I move amendment S6M-16034.4, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:

“understands that Scotland receives 6% of net migration to the UK, which is lower than its 8.4% population share; notes that the Scottish Government has made Scotland an unattractive destination to move to through a combination of higher taxes on skilled professionals, a lack of investment in rural economies, a failure to provide adequate transport routes, an inability to provide enough homes in key areas, and a neglect of public services; further notes that the Scottish Government’s failures have led to depopulation from some of Scotland’s more rural parts, and asserts that immigration is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament and not in the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.”

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Migration System

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

Ladies first, if that is okay.

Meeting of the Parliament [Draft]

Migration System

Meeting date: 9 January 2025

Jeremy Balfour

I do not accept the member’s second point because, if we look at the numbers, we see that they are lower than they are for any other part of the UK. We have been brought to this point by the SNP’s failed leadership on countless matters—not least on taxation.