Stephen Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“My first priority is to prevent crime before it happens and, as a consequence, to reduce the number of victims. Therefore, the Government will continue to intervene early to steer people away from crime and focus on areas such as substance dependency, health, poverty, homelessness and employability, which are all significant contributing…”
“Alongside more places, a smarter approach to custody is needed, and I remain committed to using all levers at our disposal, including continuing to expand the use of home detention curfew, which supports reintegration of individuals by providing for their structured return to the community.”
“I expect HMP Highland to be completed in spring 2027— which is later than planned, due to construction issues—and HMP Glasgow, which I visited last week, is due to be completed in 2028.”
“I recognise that the proposed changes are bold, and I hope that they can contribute to a thoughtful debate today on the consequences of not addressing the rise in our prison population. The outcomes of any sentence for a crime committed should be that justice is served and no further reoffending happens.”
“That is why my priority is the prevention of crime and further reoffending behaviour. That approach makes financial sense: every prison place costs us more than £52,000 a year; this financial year, we are spending nearly £510 million in resource funding for the Scottish Prison Service to run our jails.”
“Yi-pei Chou Turvey sums things up very well. This whole issue has been at the bottom of the to-do list—that is exactly where we are. The title of the Government’s motion, which is the subject of today’s debate, is: “Achieving a sustainable prison population”. We can all share that perfectly reasonable objective.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,212 lines we hold for Stephen Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 25.
“The amendment is not appropriate, given the responsibilities of local authorities and assessors in this process. Local authorities are responsible for collecting rates, awarding any reliefs and interpreting the relevant legislation in doing so. Council appeal processes are in place for cases where people disagree with how they do that. Furthermore, councils have discretionary powers under section 24A of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to ask the assessor to “apportion the rateable value” on properties that are partly unoccupied for short periods of time, an issue that is raised in Mr Kerr’s amendment. It is not the Government’s intention to impinge on local authorities’ freedom to do that by issuing guidance on the matter.”
“Amendment 3 is about professionalism, but the fact that Parliament must legislate for that basic clarity is, in itself, a commentary on the state of governance under the SNP. When a Government repeatedly drafts flawed legislation, repeatedly fails to anticipate the consequences and repeatedly leaves implementation to guesswork, improvisation and confusion, Parliament must intervene. Amendment 3 is that intervention. It would ensure that the law that we pass would be applied fairly and consistently and would prevent the Parliament from being asked yet again to clean up a mess that should never have been created. I urge members to support my amendment. I move amendment 3. Ivan McKee: The amendment would require ministers to publish guidance on owners’ liability to pay non-domestic rates on unoccupied properties.”
“When ministers get the law wrong, it should not be for businesses, councils or taxpayers to absorb the cost but for ministers to put right what they broke in the first place. Clear guidance is the minimum instrument of accountability that is available to the Parliament. I conclude by saying that amendment 3 would create a simple and proportionate obligation. Ministers must publish guidance and that guidance must explain how the new section operates in real- world scenarios such as those that Paul Sweeney discussed in relation to listed buildings. The guidance must also be available to all parties who rely on it. That is how competent Government proceeds, it is how transparent Government proceeds and it is how a Parliament that cares about legal certainty proceeds.”
“The absence of clear guidance would inevitably lead to inconsistent decisions, unnecessary disputes and avoidable appeals. Councils would be left to interpret the legislation with no authoritative direction; ratepayers would be left guessing about their liabilities and assessors would be forced to adjudicate on matters that should already have been clarified centrally. That is not acceptable. Amendment 3 would do something else that is crucial, because it would reinforce post-legislative scrutiny. Without clarity at the outset, scrutiny becomes nothing more than an exercise in cleaning up ministerial mistakes, as we are doing today, rather than ensuring effective policy. Amendment 3 would build into the legislation a discipline that the Government has consistently refused to apply to itself. There is also the issue of accountability.”
“We have had the sudden collapse of the deposit return scheme, the chaotic roll-out of the workplace parking levy, the disastrous handling of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, the constant churn of contradictory guidance during the roll-out of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 and—I almost forgot—the visitor levy, which saw the minister himself sending out two contradictory letters within a few days of each other. The common thread is an administration that does not do detail very well and that does not do clarity, but it is businesses and communities that have to pick up the pieces every time. This bill exists because of one major legislative failure, and one that we cannot allow to be repeated.”
“Part occupation cases are notoriously technical; apportionment decisions vary across local authorities; the interaction with empty property release schemes is already uneven; and the recent past gives no confidence whatever that the Government understands detail or anticipates consequences. The Non-Domestic Rates (Scotland) Act 2020 failed precisely because ministers misunderstood the legal position and failed to anticipate the effects of their own drafting. If the law is unclear, the Parliament has failed in its most basic constitutional function and it is not optional for the Government to get that right—it is a duty. We must also not forget the experience of businesses in recent years. They have faced a series of botched and unclear initiatives from this Scottish National Party Government.”
“That guidance would cover how part occupation is treated, how rateable values are to be apportioned and how the new provision interacts with relief schemes. The requirement for guidance is not an embellishment—it is essential to the proper operation of the law. Let us be clear about why that matters: when a Government has already demonstrated that it failed to understand the interaction of statutory provisions, Parliament has every right to insist on clarity. 14:15 This mistake is not theoretical: it carries a real- world exposure of up to £350 million or £400 million. Ratepayers, councils and assessors deserve more than reassurances from the very ministers who created the problem. Guidance is the bare minimum safeguard that is required to protect them from further uncertainty and inconsistency. We are dealing with a complex area of law.”
“Paul Sweeney rightly identifies real-world problems in relation to listed buildings, but we have also heard about real-world problems in connection to commercial properties. My colleagues who have engaged in the debate over the past day or so have highlighted real issues around perfectly good buildings being demolished and businesses collapsing—owners handing back the keys— simply because of the way in which the legislation has been put into practice. Now, we discover that there was no legal basis for any of it. Amendment 3 introduces a straightforward requirement that should already be a matter of good administrative practice: it places on ministers a duty to publish clear, accessible guidance on how the restored liability for unoccupied properties is to operate in practice.”
“In the centuries after the union, St Andrew’s influence has only grown. His saltire has become a marker of pride and heritage, and St Andrew’s societies have emerged across the Scottish diaspora, especially in north America, helping communities abroad to maintain their culture, customs and traditions. Their celebrations helped to make St Andrew’s day internationally recognised long before it was formally recognised even here at home.”
“Reference was made to the declaration of Arbroath in 1320 and the famous address to Pope John XXII seeking recognition of Scotland. There, in black ink on parchment, St Andrew was named as the nation’s patron saint and protector. That was no ornamentation—Scotland’s cause was being presented as part of a divine story, placing Andrew at the heart of the Scottish identity: a symbol of faith, freedom and nation. That symbolism endured into the union of 1707. Article 1 of the treaty of union required a new flag combining the crosses of St George and St Andrew. Discussions ensued to ensure that neither cross dominated, producing a union flag that visually represented a partnership of the two nations. Scotland’s identity and Andrew’s legacy were, therefore, woven directly into the fabric of the new United Kingdom.”
“I congratulate Michelle Thomson on her motion and on her speech. I completely agree with her about the importance of us coming together and celebrating, with some patriotic fervour, what it means to be Scottish—bringing us all together, as we saw last Tuesday, and indeed in the chamber the next day, when there was much celebration of what had been achieved by Scotland’s men’s football team. St Andrew’s day needs to be better celebrated and embraced by us here at home, and inviting the rest of the world to join us in such a celebration is a first-class idea. It is one of the world’s oldest national days—it is rooted deep in the story of Scotland. The 14th century was mentioned, I think—I could not quite catch the exact date, but it is very ancient, shall we say.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarity of understanding. When we had the short debate on the timetabling of the so-called emergency bill, you called for members who wished to speak in the debate, but, in fact, we had only one speaker, Douglas Ross. He made an eloquent contribution, but is it normal practice to have only one speaker when other people wanted to speak in the debate?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you,”
“16:55 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We come to the vote on motion S6M-19890, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“The minister is not finished. The Presiding Officer: The minister has concluded. Stephen Kerr: No! The Presiding Officer: Thank you, colleagues. That concludes the debate on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion. We move straight to the question on the motion. The question is, that motion S6M-19890, in the name of Graeme Dey, on the Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill: emergency bill motion, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:50 Meeting suspended.”
“Such understanding and awareness are vital to encourage tolerance, invite respect and address prejudice. It is arguable that fostering and nurturing that sort of opportunity for cohesion in our schools is needed now more than ever to better equip our young people to handle the increasingly turbulent and fractured society that they will enter as adults. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the bill at stage 1. It is now time to move on to the next item of business. Non-Domestic Rates (Liability for Unoccupied Properties) (Scotland) Bill”
“Forgive me, but I have not managed to get to a number of contributions from other members that I thought were worth recounting, not least that from Maggie Chapman. I am keen to engage with members as the bill progresses through Parliament. I conclude by encouraging us all to reflect on why we, as an increasingly secular society, seek to continue to enable religious observance and religious and moral education in our schools. Enabling school communities to come together to share common values and to engage with other faiths and beliefs aids understanding, tolerance and acceptance. The same applies with regard to religious and moral education for individuals, which allows children and young people at different ages and stages to learn about others’ values and beliefs.”
“The exemption that we have heard a number of different views on this afternoon helps us to look at where the legislation is a problem, so that we can help to protect our children and young people’s rights, while recognising where there might be conflict in the delivery of services. Although Parliament cannot control the evolution of the legal interpretation in the future, much of the purpose behind part 2 is to avoid that disruption to essential services. It would not be fair to hold public authorities, such as our local councils, responsible for simply following the law. On the points that have been raised this afternoon, I point out that we have published the children’s rights scheme to ensure that there is a process for identifying potential legal incompatibilities. I am extremely mindful of time, Presiding Officer.”
“On the numbers, the Scottish Catholic Education Service—which I have engaged with, as, I am sure, Mr Briggs has—was keen to make the point to me that the numbers nationally are incredibly low. However, I gave a commitment to Ms Duncan-Glancy that we would interrogate that data. Miles Briggs: Will the cabinet secretary take another intervention? Jenny Gilruth: I would like to make some progress, as I have just two minutes left. I am also thoughtful about my engagement with the Church of Scotland on this point. It was keen to state to me that teachers regularly and routinely discuss those issues with children and young people. We should be mindful of the professional capabilities that are at play in that regard. Martin Whitfield will be reassured to hear that children and young people can still challenge the actions of public authorities.”
“It seems a bit ridiculous to say that fewer will opt out when we do not know how many are opting in or out—that is the hokey- cokey around this bill, as I described it earlier— and what that means for schools. Who will be responsible for those young people when they are not in either the classroom or in RO? I am not sure that the cabinet secretary really knows what the impact of the bill will be. Jenny Gilruth: I think that Mr Briggs is conflating two separate matters and deliberately trying to insinuate that the bill is about more young people opting out of religious education or religious observance. That is not the case. The right still rests with the parent, and the legislation will now ensure that children’s rights are taken cognisance of.”
“The convener spoke to the complexities that are associated with the bill and, quite rightly, mentioned that the Scottish Government’s approach involves driving a middle road between competing views on these matters. As cabinet secretary, I have been incredibly mindful of that throughout the bill process. Early in the debate, Mr Briggs was provided with a bit of assistance from Mr Whitfield, who claimed that the bill would add to teacher workload, and a number of other members made that claim. I think that that assertion fundamentally misunderstands what the bill proposes. If anything, we can expect more young people to be opting in to—not out of— RO and RME. Miles Briggs: The cabinet secretary has just made that statement following her statement that we do not have data.”
“There is a lack of national data at the current time. Rhoda Grant picked up on that point in relation to the 1980 act and how it interacts with the bill. That is one of the reasons why John Wilson, a former headteacher, is carrying out an independent piece of work, on which I updated the committee when I gave evidence, to look at how we provide for school governance when we fund our schools. Those aspects are live and relevant to the data collection issue. I confirm to Ms Duncan-Glancy and Parliament that I have instructed officials to gather further data on that issue, because I agree with the points that she and others have raised.”
“The data that we have shows that the levels of withdrawal from RO and RME are incredibly low, at an estimated 0.59 per cent of pupils across Scotland. Maggie Chapman: I hear what the cabinet secretary is saying about data, but we also heard clearly in committee that there is no consistency in how that data is collected, so we do not know whether that data reflects the real numbers. We also do not know what happens to the children who are withdrawn. Jenny Gilruth: I was coming to that point. The issue of data collection is one that Ms Duncan- Glancy and I debate and discuss pretty regularly, and it is not limited to this bill. Data collection is an issue in a number of other aspects of Scottish education, particularly in our schools, including in relation to additional support needs and the recording of bullying events.”
“Martin Whitfield: I genuinely welcome the cabinet secretary’s confirmation of how she intends to approach that issue going forward. However, is she still confident in the certification that she gave, under section 23(1) of the 2024 act, that the bill is compatible with the UNCRC, given that the bill agrees to disapply that convention? Jenny Gilruth: To confirm, Presiding Officer, I would not be able to bring the bill forward were it not compatible. That is the advice that I received from officials. All legislation that ministers in Government bring forward must be compatible in that regard. I will move on to some of the other commentary that was shared with the chamber this afternoon. Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke, quite rightly, about our lack of data, and a number of other members mentioned that, too.”
“However, our issue is not with the rationale behind part 1, which we broadly agree with, albeit it needs some amendment; it is with the rationale behind part 2, which we fear creates a back door by which aspects of the UNCRC, or the UNCRC in its entirety, could be disapplied in certain circumstances. Jenny Gilruth: I thank the member for his point. As I said in response to Mr Whitfield earlier, the approach in part 2 that proposes the carve-out very much reflects the approach that exists under the Human Rights Act 1998, and its scope is limited. It is a future-proofing power that already exists in legislation. However, having listened to members’ views on that point throughout the course of the debate, I am content to continue to engage on the matter, as members have raised a number of issues in that regard.”
“Mr Cole-Hamilton, Mr Whitfield and Mr McLennan asked about the rationale behind the bill. The bill is necessary because it gives Parliament a real opportunity to strengthen children’s rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 is a landmark piece of legislation, but the incorporation is not in itself a single event; it is a process of building a clearer, more workable framework that protects children’s rights in practice. The bill is part of that work. Alex Cole-Hamilton: The cabinet secretary is right to reference my contribution and that of Martin Whitfield, in which we questioned the rationale for the bill.”
“Those include the Humanist Society Scotland, which wrote to the committee to express its support for the general principles of the bill, and Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), which highlighted in a recent briefing for MSPs that the “Bill is an opportunity to take practical steps towards stronger protection of children’s rights” across Scotland. Perhaps most importantly, given the bill’s subject matter, the children and young people who were consulted also broadly supported the intention behind it. Tomorrow, I will meet faith and belief groups and, throughout the passage of the bill— depending, of course, on this evening’s vote—I will continue to engage on a cross-party basis, as I have listened to and reflected on a number of points that have been made this afternoon, to which I now come.”
“Look— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please conclude. You are over your time, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: Yes. I conclude by saying that Scotland’s families do not need the state to sit in judgment over their values. The bill is wrong in principle and in detail, and it is wrong as it stands for Scotland. The cabinet secretary would be well advised to take it away before it ends up being challenged— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. I call the cabinet secretary to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. 16:22 Jenny Gilruth: We have heard a number of contributions this afternoon, and I will come to those in due course. First, I would like to highlight the support from a number of stakeholders for the intention behind, and the general principles of, the bill.”
“The bill is not limited to religious observance or RME; it creates a model in which a child’s immediate preference is elevated above the parent’s long- term judgment, in which the school staff become the arbiters between the parent and the child, and in which the state asserts itself as the higher authority over the family. I thought that Davy Russell’s contribution in that respect was absolutely bang on the money. He injected a much-needed dose of reality into the proceedings, when he described what every parent knows about our children as they grow up, which is that they can be incredibly— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, could you please bring your remarks to a close? You are over your time. Stephen Kerr: Adults can be very fickle, but I agree with Davy Russell that children can be, too.”
“The bill overturns that hierarchy and, as Martin Whitfield said, makes school teachers arbiters. Indeed, it empowers the state and distorts the meaning of children’s rights into a mechanism for undermining family authority. Let us be absolutely clear that the bill interferes directly with a parent’s freedom to raise a child within their faith or philosophy. For millions of people across Scotland, faith is not a private hobby; it is foundational to culture, identity, community and moral development. If the Government somehow believes that that principle should be undermined, it raises the inevitable question, where does that end?”
“As a Conservative and, as I have already said, a person of faith, I cannot overstate how alarming that is. For centuries, across Scotland, the rest of the UK and, indeed, every liberal democratic society, the family has been understood as the primary community—the foundation of moral formation, education, identity and belonging. Parents are not optional participants or obstacles to be worked around; they are responsible for raising their children in line with their religious, moral and philosophical convictions. The importance of that parental role rests on a principle that has been recognised across the generations: parents have the primary right and responsibility to direct their child’s religious and moral education in accordance with their own convictions.”
“Is the challenge not that we will end up with someone in the school having to arbitrate between two positions, with the arbiter probably being the last person who ought to be involved in trying to make a decision about supporting the rights of the parent or, indeed, of the child? Stephen Kerr: That is absolutely right. Teachers, and school leaders in general, do not want to be put in that position, but that is what the bill does. Martin Whitfield raises an important point, but I am also really concerned that the bill has the potential to weaponise children against their parents on matters of conscience and belief. It inserts the state into the heart of family life, elevating the child’s immediate preference above the parent’s settled moral and spiritual responsibility.”
“Under the terms of the bill, schools would have to inform the pupil that their parent has exercised the right to withdraw them and must tell the pupil that they have the right to object to that. If the child does object, regardless of age or maturity and regardless of parental conviction or responsibility, the parent’s decision is simply set aside so as “not to give effect to the parent’s request to the extent of the pupil’s objection.” That is not listening to children in the way that this particular bill dresses it up as. Martin Whitfield: I am not sure that that description of the bill is accurate.”
“The bill is not just a technical tidying-up exercise, or a benign update to long-standing legislation; I very much see it as a fundamental challenge to the rights of parents, the integrity of the family and, I would argue, to the proper limits of the state, and I will explain why. I think that Pam Gosal was right. That approach, which I think is muddled, is not inconsistent with the SNP’s long and rather troubling record of attempting to replace the role of parents with the authority of the state. The central mechanism of the bill lies in section 1, which, as has been said, inserts new sections into the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. It does something unprecedented, because it subjects the long-standing parental right of withdrawal from religious observance and from religious and moral education to the veto of the child.”
“I object profoundly to the bill. All the speeches today have highlighted the inconsistencies and failings that we find when we get down to the detail of the contradictions that are being created by an attempt to create a middle way—or third way, as that used to be called. It would be wise of the cabinet secretary, and the Scottish Government, to take the bill away, because it is not ready to be discussed. Too many pieces of legislation that appear at stage 1 debates are severely criticised so that, by the time we get them through the rest of the process, they look absolutely nothing like the original bill. I cannot see the point of that. Take the bill away, take it off the table and come back at a later date—probably in the next session of Parliament—with something that is more considered and consistent.”
“Whenever we discuss anything here that refers to religion, I always feel that I should be transparent in referring members to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, I say clearly that I do not speak on behalf of the church, its leaders or members but that I speak today in my own right as a Conservative member of this Parliament and as someone who, I hope, would be regarded by others as a person of faith, and as one who believes profoundly in the family and in the rights and responsibilities of parents. I have intervened a number of times in this debate in order to bring the issue of the rights and responsibilities of parents to the fore in our proceedings. The bill has an extraordinarily long short title, so I will not try to repeat it.”
“The Presiding Officer: I call Karen Adam, on behalf of the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee. 14:37”
“It strengthens the protection and promotion of children’s rights in education and strengthens the legal framework for children’s rights in Scotland. I recognise that, as we have heard this afternoon, there is a range of views on those areas, but the bill offers the Parliament a very clear opportunity in this parliamentary session to make further meaningful progress on children’s rights. I welcome the recommendation by a majority of the committee members to agree to the general principles of the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill. I hope that the Parliament agrees to the general principles. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill.”
“A number of stakeholders, including Together, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland— Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Jenny Gilruth: I would like to make some progress, but I am happy to take interventions in closing. Those organisations, as well as children and young people, have been broadly supportive of our approach and have recognised that, where the issue lies in legislation, the focus should be on fixing that legislation. I have carefully considered the points and the recommendations made by the committee in the stage 1 report and have responded formally. I am now mindful of the time, so I will move to my concluding comments. In summary, the bill builds on the progress that we continue to make on children’s rights.”
“Does the Scottish Government recognise that the potential of the exemption that is being created in the bill could be replicated in the future and, more importantly, that it will turn any case that an individual young person has with regard to their human rights back against the proposed legislation rather than the council, thus making it a far more complex way of trying to enforce their rights? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Whitfield for his question. In relation to the exemption being replicated in other legislation, it is important to note that a similar safeguard already exists in the Human Rights Act 1998, and the approach that we have taken is much narrower and more targeted, so we believe that that allays the risk that Martin Whitfield has spoken to.”
“In short, although we do not see any incompatibility now, we cannot rule out the possibility of it arising in the future. The risk to essential services is material and not one that the Government is willing to take. Martin Whitfield: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Jenny Gilruth: I am mindful of the time, Presiding Officer, but I will do so. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving so much time to interventions.”
“If we had not put the safeguard into part 2, a public authority could be put in an impossible position of being compelled by law to act in a particular way, while being told that to do so would breach the compatibility duty, thereby creating a conflict that could lead to disruption or even a pause in vital services. The exemption avoids that conflict by allowing services to continue. We do not believe that any current acts of the Scottish Parliament require incompatible action, and there should be no future acts of the Parliament that require incompatible action because of the safeguards for new legislation that are built into the UNCRC. However, this is about future proofing, and our understanding of children’s rights will continue to develop over time. Court judgments can shift interpretations over time, too.”
“How does the bill address that at all, given that it gives the child the right, as prompted by the school, to decide for themselves something that their parents—who have a legal duty to them—will already have decided? Jenny Gilruth: I do not necessarily follow Mr Kerr’s line of questioning. The amendment to the 1980 act that is being proposed does not allow children an independent right to withdraw from religious observance or religious education. Any withdrawal from that subject or from that observance in school has to be initiated by the parent or carer. It is not about taking rights away from the parents. The bill does propose, however, that we put into law the requirement for the child’s views to be taken cognisance of. Returning to part 2, I have mentioned the safeguards that are being included in that regard.”
“The 2024 act places a clear duty on them not to act incompatibly with those rights, and it gives children and their representatives a route to challenge decisions and seek redress. To ensure that that duty operates fairly in every situation, the bill introduces a very narrow exemption: where another act of the Scottish Parliament leaves a public authority with no discretion to act compatibly with UNCRC requirements, the public authority would not be in breach of the duty for doing what the law requires. Stephen Kerr: If we could go back to the issue of the rights of the child for a moment, I understand that that is a focus of the cabinet secretary’s speech, but she said that there was a balance in the bill in relation to parents’ legal rights and responsibilities.”
“There were mixed views in stakeholder consultation as to how that might be addressed, with the parental right to withdraw perhaps not applying to certain aspects in the future. We need to be mindful of that at stage 2. As Mr Whitfield will know, we are making good progress in this space in the curriculum improvement cycle. All of those things need to be considered in the round. I turn now to part 2, to which Mr Cole-Hamilton referred earlier. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 requires public authorities to respect and uphold the rights that are set out in the UNCRC when they exercise functions under acts of the Scottish Parliament.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Jenny Gilruth: I am happy to give way to Mr Whitfield. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary, given the plethora of choice that she had. The cabinet secretary has already spoken about the complexity between education and religious observance. What is the Scottish Government’s position on how that dichotomy will be addressed by its middle way? Jenny Gilruth: The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee raised and reported on that point. The 1980 act does not currently separate those two distinct parts of our education system, but that is something that we might wish to come back to and reconsider at stage 2.”
“I would have thought that, as a democrat, Mr Kerr—who respects this institution so much—would have welcomed the move to democratise the approach to the hours that are taught in our schools in order to ensure fairness across our curriculum system and for all our children and young people.”
“On the Government’s detailed response, this is not a matter for the Education, Children and Young People Committee or the Parliament; it is a matter for the SNCT to negotiate on. That is why the proposals are in draft form. A detailed paper has been put to the SNCT. I see Mr Kerr looking as though he wants to be a member of that negotiating committee. Stephen Kerr: No, I want the Parliament to be respected. Jenny Gilruth: I am sorry to hear that he is not a member currently, but that committee needs to negotiate these things. The tripartite agreement is hugely important. I would have thought that Mr Kerr would have welcomed the idea of considering, for example, a national approach to learning standards and learning hours across the country, given that there is variation all over the country.”
“When exactly will she respect the Parliament sufficiently to publish detailed proposals? When will we have sight of the rationale for them? When will we see the evidence for this set of ideas? When exactly will she come to the Parliament to make a statement or hold a debate on the issue, so that we can properly scrutinise her actions? Jenny Gilruth: “She” is not the cat’s mother, and “she” is not looking to the ceiling—I am looking directly at Mr Kerr currently while I address him in the chamber, showing respect to this institution. Stephen Kerr: You were doing that. Jenny Gilruth: I hear Mr Kerr commenting from a sedentary position. I often hear him comment about behaviour in schools. I think that he could set a better standard for our young people than the standard that we are experiencing today.”
“The problem is that the cabinet secretary has complete disrespect for the Parliament. She is lifting her eyes to the ceiling as though I should not be bringing this matter to her attention, but we are talking about a press statement. Where is the detail? Was something distributed to the convener of the Parliament’s Education, Children and Young People Committee? I do not think so. Was anything shared with the committee members? Nothing at all. This just smacks of a gimmick, because the cabinet secretary is failing to deliver a manifesto commitment—a number of such commitments were made on education. My question to the cabinet secretary is very simple. She has already admitted that the ideas that she has floated will have major implications for parents, councils, pupils and, as Willie Rennie said, teachers.”