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 12 of 25.
“As someone who sat through Cabinet, I can vouch for that.”
“the use of different language by the Scottish Government to express policy intent led to challenges in its development of guidance.” The Deputy First Minister used the word “fact” earlier—we all remember the travesty of acronym nonsense that was “FACTS”. Does the Deputy First Minister not understand or not accept, based on what I have just read, and in the light of Nicola Sturgeon’s infamous text message to Liz Lloyd that said that her “aim” was to be maximally different, that the response was at times driven by political rather than public health consideration? Kate Forbes: I fundamentally disagree with that characterisation. The member has completely misquoted and come up with a distortion in saying that the Cabinet was not involved at all. That is not representative of the report; it is total nonsense.”
“There is no point in the Deputy First Minister saying that the Cabinet made all those decisions. The report states clearly that the Cabinet was not involved at all. I cannot understand why the Deputy First Minister would stand there and say something that is clearly not true. The inquiry report also concludes that efforts to differentiate Scotland’s Covid response from that of the rest of the UK were counterproductive. In the few minutes that we have had to look at the report, we have seen that paragraph 5.154 states: “The idea of eliminating the virus from Scotland was inappropriate and destined to fail in the light of an open border with England and there being no agreement with the UK government to close it.” Paragraph 5.155 states: “...”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill: Financial Resolution 16:25”
“I want to make the process as streamlined as possible by providing the focus, requirements and framework so that all parts of Scotland can move up to the level of the best examples that have been identified. This is not the end of the journey—we can continue to do much more beyond what I have set out to deliver the bill’s objectives on public spend, the fair work agenda, the management and control of assets, community ownership and support for businesses. We also want to ensure that the other types of ownership that we all want to see more of are supported across the country. I look forward to working with members as we take the bill forward over the coming weeks and months to deliver the next stage in the journey towards more thoroughly embedding community wealth building in support of Scotland’s growing economy.”
“The quickest way to make those changes is through the process that we have taken forward through that consultation, rather than doing it through the bill. Some of the interventions in the debate were very effective in focusing on what is already happening locally. As I mentioned, Willie Coffey and Katy Clark highlighted some great examples, which point to the fact that community wealth building is not new—it has been embedded in many parts of the country. Great work has already been taken forward, but the bill will give us structure and a framework. We also need to minimise the bureaucracy that is involved. Members know that no one is more focused on minimising bureaucracy than I am.”
“Members mentioned compulsory purchase orders and compulsory sales orders. A consultation on the matter is being held now, with some great work being done by Roseanna Cunningham and an expert group. Following the consultation, the Government will bring forward proposals on how to modernise the CPO system to make it even more effective. The introduction of compulsory sales orders is also being considered as part of that process. That work is under way. Likewise, there have been calls from some quarters for changes to procurement thresholds. Some members mentioned that, but they should be aware that we already have a consultation on that issue. Legislation is not needed to change the thresholds.”
“We continue to work tirelessly on that. I just ask that members reflect on the progress that has been made. For example, south of the border, 20 per cent of public procurement money is spent on small and medium-sized enterprises. For the Scottish public sector, the figure is 47 per cent—more than double the figure south of the border. We should be proud of that, while recognising that there is further to go. It was interesting to listen to Katy Clark reflect on the wonderful work that is being done in North Ayrshire. I had the pleasure of visiting the Lochshore initiative recently to see the great work that is going on there. She held up the figure of 26 per cent as a fabulous local achievement—which it is—but we should recognise that the figure of 47 per cent has been achieved across the whole of Scotland, according to the reported data.”
“Members are clear that, although a requirement can be set, the targets need to be set locally. I want to touch on the issue of procurement, which was raised by a number of members. I would like to think that no one works harder than I do in engaging with local businesses. This week, I have engaged with more local businesses and Scottish start-ups to get them plugged into procurement across the Scottish public sector. Our procurement team, which works tirelessly on the issue, recognises that the £16 billion that is spent across Scotland’s economy by public sector organisations is a huge engine for growth. I make that point repeatedly during all my engagements on the matter. I absolutely recognise that there is more work to do. There are more opportunities to be opened up and more mechanisms to be created to streamline processes.”
“The guidance will set out that local authorities will be able to put together targets; that requirement will be set out. However, I do not think that anyone wants to see a statutory setting of numbers by the central Government. Stephen Kerr: Does the minister accept that most of the members who commented on the setting of statutory targets spoke not about the setting of specific numbers but the idea that we need to have some measurable outputs? Currently, nothing in the bill comes anywhere near to being a measurable output. Ivan McKee: I accept that. I talked about that with the committee, and I have talked about it with stakeholders. It is important to design the system in a way that gives scope for local authorities and their partners to set targets locally.”
“The guidance will include evaluation mechanisms, which have, rightly, been mentioned, including by the committee. It will also include how the wider business community, the third sector, community groups and others should be involved in the process. The requirement to consult them is central to the approach. There has been much talk and back-and-forth about targets. To be clear, the Government believes that locally set targets can be an important part of taking forward community wealth building at a local level—I think that everyone agrees that it would not be the right approach for the Government to set those targets. When we talk about statutory targets, members need to be careful about what exactly they are asking for.”
“The bill is a step on the journey as we cement and embed community wealth building in communities across Scotland. The next step on the journey will involve providing the platform, standards and requirements that local authorities and partners will need to step up to. Willie Coffey and other members recognised that that is exactly what the bill will provide. It is absolutely true to say that the guidance will contain answers to many of the issues that have been raised today. I have been clear that we need to pull together the content of the draft guidance at an early stage. That guidance will lay out what local authorities and their partners are expected to provide as part of the process. The setting out of those expectations and that floor is an important part of the process.”
“I will start by reflecting on some of Daniel Johnson’s comments about the committee’s consideration of the bill. First, is the bill necessary? Indeed, that was the first question that I asked officials when I took over responsibility for the bill last year. Daniel Johnson answered the question quite effectively by noting that it will provide a clear obligation to act. It is important that we consider the bill as being a step in a process. Many have recognised the significant work that has already taken place over a long period to build community wealth and the mechanisms that come with it, whether that is what we have done on procurement, which I will come back to, what has happened with community asset transfers or the range of support and interventions that the Government has provided.”
“It is created when the Government steps back from ideology and steps up to support innovation, skills and local success. Only when we couple the principles of community wealth building with the natural entrepreneurship of the Scottish people will we see the gains in productivity, investment and prosperity that Scotland urgently needs. That is the challenge for the Government as we move to the next stage of the bill. If ministers meet that challenge, the Parliament can turn an underpowered framework into something that is worthy of Scotland’s potential. 16:17 Ivan McKee: I thank all members who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate, which has taken various twists and turns over the past hour or so, although that was not totally unexpected.”
“If we have real ambition and real vision, Scotland can be a genuine leader in community wealth building—not the limited, bureaucratic version that is set out in the bill, but a model that unleashes the full entrepreneurial capacity of the Scottish people. The framework that is before us contains elements that we can support, which is why we will vote for the bill at stage 1, but let us be honest: as drafted, it is far too narrow, process driven and centralised to deliver the transformation that ministers claim will be delivered. As, I think, the minister knows, real community wealth is not created by another statutory plan or another set of ministerial powers; it is created by investment, enterprise, the productive use of land, competitive procurement and the hard graft of growing businesses.”
“Local authorities, health boards, colleges and enterprise agencies all warned the committee of the substantial new burdens that the bill will create, but the financial memorandum claims that the cost will be minimal. That is simply not credible. There are obligations without resources, responsibilities without clarity and expectations without realism. Let me say this plainly: the bill hands ministers sweeping powers to issue binding guidance, revise national statements at will and add public bodies to the statutory regime with limited scrutiny. That is not decentralisation; it is the expansion of state power through the back door.”
“However, none of that requires this bill. The Government has the power now to do those things. The problem is that the bill does not do the things that genuinely build wealth. Instead, it does what the Government so often does: it creates new duties, new partnerships, new statements, new plans, new reporting cycles and new ministerial powers; it centralises; it prescribes; and it expands ministerial discretion while offloading obligations on to public bodies that are already stretched to breaking point. The bill demands action plans, but with no obligation to demonstrate results and no requirement to show improvements in productivity, business growth, wages or investment. Compliance is measured in paperwork, not outcomes. Scotland has had enough of government by process.”
“We cannot tax our way to growth, Richard Leonard. Bureaucracy depresses wages. On land and property, the Scottish state—the largest landowner in the nation—is sitting on unproductive assets. If ministers were serious, they would release land for productive use by those who can create jobs, investment and prosperity. Instead, we get more frameworks. On ownership, co-operatives and social enterprises have a role, but they are not inherently superior to private enterprise. The Government’s ideological tilt risks distorting procurement and squeezing out the very businesses that drive Scotland’s tax base and innovation. On finance, we should be unlocking real investment by modernising pension structures, empowering—yes—local financial institutions, such as credit unions, and supporting capital formation across Scotland.”
“Scotland cannot content itself with a narrow circular economy of microcontracts that are passed around a small number of actors. We must be bolder than that. If we are to build genuine national and community wealth, we must harness the full entrepreneurial spirit of the Scottish people. That is why the five pillars matter—not as slogans but as levers for a genuinely ambitious economic strategy. A lot has been said about procurement. Anchor institutions can and should play an important part in reshaping the Scottish economy at its foundations, by supporting productivity, capability and scale, rather than simply rewriting procurement guidance. Procurement should be strategic, not performative. On employment, better jobs come from investment, innovation and productivity, not from state mandates or new duties. Growth improves wages.”
“When I listen to Government ministers’ speeches generally—and, certainly, to speeches from members of the Labour Party and of other leftist parties in the Parliament—on community wealth building, what strikes me most is the astonishing lack not just of scale and vision but, in some cases, of connection to reality. Too often, we hear community wealth building spoken about as though awarding a handful of small contracts to a handful of small organisations represents some great leap forward in economic transformation. It is nothing less than box ticking, it is small-ball economics and it is hardly a strategy for rebuilding Scotland’s prosperity. Community cafes, volunteer-led woodlands and social enterprises are all valuable contributions to civic life, but they should not be the ceiling of our ambition.”
“It is always interesting to find out which Labour Party has turned up for a debate, and we can see very clearly which Labour Party has turned up today. I salute Richard Leonard’s steadfast commitment— for all the years that I have known him—to the socialist principles of overturning the bourgeoisie and establishing a people’s republic. Murdo Fraser: Roll the tumbrels! Stephen Kerr: Indeed—do not encourage him, please. The Scottish Conservatives do not disagree with the ambition that ministers claim lies behind community wealth building, because stronger local economies, vibrant high streets and genuinely resilient communities are aspirations that we should all support. Our disagreement is about not the principle but the method. The method that is set out in the bill is flawed, limited in ambition and weighed down by bureaucracy.”
“Instead, what this bill offers is an instruction to others—to local government, to regional transport partnerships, to health boards, to colleges, to enterprise agencies—to come up with action plans while the Government simply has to issue a statement every five years. Instead of closed horizons like this, we should be opening them up. So, Labour will support the principles of the bill tonight, but we will be pursuing radical, progressive, socialistic amendments. 15:30”
“We should be asking questions such as: why on earth should those who create the wealth not own the wealth that they create? Why should we not have a system of economic governance based on one member, one vote, instead of one share, one vote? Why should we not foster an economy where labour hires capital instead of capital hiring labour? Where is the courage? Where is the conviction? Where is the vision in this bill? Shifting the balance of power in Scotland should not simply be a piecemeal and an occasional part of what this Parliament is about. It ought to be its very essence.”
“In his speech, will Richard Leonard have a kind word to say about small and medium-sized businesses and the opportunities that they currently feel denied of when it comes to public sector procurement? Richard Leonard: I have got five minutes, so I will devote my speech to what I think is important, and Stephen Kerr can devote his speech to what he thinks is important. The Community Wealth Building (Scotland) Bill could be about democratising organisations like Scottish Water so that we avoid a repeat of the industrial relations debacle that we have witnessed in recent years, where excessive executive bonuses signed off by ministers are the norm while workers’ wages are constrained. If this bill is to become serious about building a strong and resilient economy, it must become far more radical and far more progressive.”
“If the member wants to know about my diary, I can say that I engaged with a UK Government minister—the Secretary of State for Scotland—as recently as the middle to the end of last week. On Stephen Kerr’s question about changes since September, I laid out clearly in my answer to Meghan Gallacher where some of the restrictions are. We have already made significant reforms to Scotland’s procurement systems. We have a sustainable procurement duty that requires authorities to consider many of the issues that the member has identified. That is reinforced in the public procurement strategy for Scotland. The point is not a matter of my opinion; it is a matter of fact that awards of grant funding are subject to subsidy control law and procurement law, while the devolved matter is subject to international obligations, which are reserved.”
“First, I thank the Deputy First Minister for responding to my request for a statement on ADL. I have to say that I am not content with her line that the UK Government is solely responsible for changes to procurement frameworks. That is also down to the Scottish Government. When did the Deputy First Minister last meet UK ministers? What did she discuss? What expectations does she have of a change to procurement frameworks being made by the UK Government? In respect of ScotZEB 3, what specific reforms have been made to Scotland’s procurement systems since September to give proper weighting to domestic, economic and social benefit and industrial capacity? Kate Forbes: I engage regularly with the UK Government.”
“Ten years on from Bailey Gwynne’s tragic killing in Aberdeen and promises of action from the Government, hard-hitting figures show that incidents of pupil violence in Aberdeen schools have quadrupled while, across the city, the number of crimes recorded in schools is rising year on year. However, let members be in no doubt: the issue is not confined to Aberdeen. For years, the Government has promised but failed to stem the violence in our schools. When will the Government start taking real action, such as anti- weapon lessons in classrooms, and finally stop these horrific incidents?”
“The people of Grangemouth deserve transparency and assurance that real opportunities are being created, or are in the process of being created, for workers through retraining, re-employment and industrial renewal. Alexander Dennis and Grangemouth are tests of this Government’s seriousness about sustaining our industrial base. They are about whether we still make things here and still value skilled work and community prosperity, which is why I again use this time to urge the Government to deliver full ministerial statements and updates on both issues as soon as is practically possible. The Parliament, and the people whom we serve, deserve clear answers and visible progress, because, as ever, time is running out.”
“Scotland cannot afford to lose its last major bus manufacturer or the highly skilled workforce at Falkirk and Larbert, whose livelihoods still hang in the balance. At Grangemouth, the situation is equally pressing. The Grangemouth industrial cluster strategy has been published, building on project willow, the just transition plan and the growth deal, but words on a page will not sustain new jobs or new investment. We need delivery, and the Parliament deserves a detailed update on investor engagement; discussions with the current owners of the former refinery site, Petroineos, on how it will be used in the future; and how public funding, including the £25 million in the just transition fund for Grangemouth and the UK Government’s promised £200 million from the National Wealth Fund are being allocated and used, if they are at all.”
“At the time, that was described as “a bridge to a sustainable future”, but what is that future, and for how long can that bridge stand without solid progress beneath it? There has been no public update on how the intervention is working, what milestones have been set or how the company’s long-term future is being secured. We need answers on what discussions ministers have had with their United Kingdom counterparts on procurement reform to ensure fair competition for British-built buses. We also need clarity on what has changed in Scotland’s procurement systems to ensure that local jobs, local suppliers and environmental benefits are properly valued. Without that, this so-called bridge is little more than a pause before decline.”
“Two statements are urgently needed: one on Alexander Dennis Ltd and another on the future of Grangemouth and project willow. Both are of national significance. They are not parochial concerns but defining tests of whether the Government can deliver a credible industrial strategy for Scotland. I have made prior requests to my business manager, and directly to the minister and the Deputy First Minister, for ministerial statements on those issues. I am doing so again today in the chamber, because I feel that I owe it to my constituents and because time is not on our side. On Alexander Dennis, it has been almost two months since the Government’s £4 million intervention was announced.”
“[Interruption.] Patrick Harvie can mutter from a sedentary position all he likes. It is about ensuring that Scotland remains an energy nation, leading the world not by self-denial, but by example. Let us choose prosperity over pretence, progress over posturing, and the national interest over Green ideology. Support our amendment and stand up for Scotland’s energy, its workers and its future. 15:35”
“The Greens have managed to deceive many by posing as a party for cuddly animals when, in truth, they are a party that is intent on returning us to the stone age. Their ideology is a form of modern-day communism that is hostile to enterprise, to capitalism and to economic growth itself. They would dismantle the very system that feeds, clothes and houses us. They would like to un-invent almost every technological advance that humanity has achieved in the past 100 years. They must be opposed, and they must be exposed. Scotland’s energy future must be based on realism, not romanticism, and on innovation, not ideology. It must support the workers who build our prosperity and secure the energy that sustains our daily lives. Our amendment is straightforward common sense: it is about jobs, security and self reliance.”
“It is the height of absurdity to import liquefied natural gas from Qatar or the United States, which is shipped thousands of miles with double the carbon footprint, while refusing to produce our own resources from the North Sea, where our standards are among the highest in the world. That is not environmentalism—it is environmental self-harm. Rosebank, like many North Sea projects, can be developed in a way that aligns with our climate goals, because its carbon intensity per barrel is among the lowest globally. To halt such developments does not reduce global emissions; it simply offshores them. That is not climate leadership—it is climate hypocrisy. Just like everything that the Scottish Greens stand for, it is anathema to the Scottish Conservatives and—to be frank—to most sensible people in Scotland.”
“The Scottish Conservatives cannot and will not support that folly. We will, therefore— Patrick Harvie: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: No—I do not have time to take an intervention, unfortunately. That is what passes for debate in this place. The Conservative amendment sets out clearly our party’s position, which is that Scotland must maximise every one of its energy resources through a balanced and responsible energy mix. That means renewables, nuclear, hydrogen and— yes—continued production of oil and gas from the North Sea. The alternative proposed by the Scottish Greens would leave Scotland more dependent on imported energy from countries with lower environmental standards, higher levels of emissions and little concern for human rights.”
“The SNP’s hypocrisy on the EPL is absolutely breathtaking. SNP members were the biggest cheerleaders in the Parliament for those windfall taxes and the Official Report shows it, so they should not try to change history now. I heard my colleague, Craig Hoy, shout from a sedentary position to Paul McLennan, “What about Torness?” The Government cannot go on sustaining the view that there is no place for nuclear in our energy mix if we believe in clean energy. However, the motion asks us to turn our backs on reality and on one of Scotland’s most vital industries. It asks us to abandon the energy workers of the north-east, to weaken our national security and to reject the very resources that have powered our economy for 50 years. It is a motion that is driven not by reason or realism, but by ideology.”
“I lay great weight and store on the advice that we will be receiving, and I look forward to seeing that report as planned. Church Buildings 2.”
“There has been a lot of controversy about the issue that Liam Kerr raised, as well as about the transparency of the decision-making process behind the awards of funding. Angela Leitch’s review of Creative Scotland is due to be published this month. Will it be published? Angus Robertson: I am confident that the report will be published as planned. On Stephen Kerr’s point about transparency, I have no doubt that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, of which he is a member, will make sure that it has the best possible answers from Creative Scotland and from the review process so that he and other members can satisfy themselves about the conclusions that are presented. I have not seen those conclusions; I look forward to seeing them.”
“Therefore, I welcome what Kevin Stewart said— I should make that clear—because we should be evidence led. I do not know how many speeches I have given in the Parliament in which I said that policy should be evidence led and based on fact, not fiction or fantasy. If we do not come up with a common UK policy framework on energy—one that achieves what we want it to achieve—in the words of Paul de Leeuw, we will be sacrificing our “energy resilience” and our national security.”
“Are we going to put the people of Scotland first, or are we going to remain entrapped by the ideology of a fringe group of extremists who would like us to return to the stone age? That is the choice that we have to make. I feel sorry for Ben Macpherson, because this is not his brief. I am a bit perplexed as to why he is the minister who is responding to the debate, other than the fact that the motion is about a university paper. In that paper, Professor Paul de Leeuw—I think that that is how it is pronounced—writes that “Sustaining Scotland as an energy powerhouse requires hard choices”, and that, “without intervention, Scotland’s supply chain and workforce will be impacted disproportionately.” He also called for “honest and candid dialogue”.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Stewart—that was a long intervention. Stephen Kerr: That is all very good from Kevin Stewart, but, unfortunately, some of us have a longer-term memory of what the SNP has been up to over the past four and a half years—certainly, in the time that I have been in this Parliament. If they wish, SNP members can disown Nicola Sturgeon, but she popped up last week and repeated all the same stuff that she said as First Minister. They can disown Humza Yousaf on the same basis, but the reality is the reality. This is a debate that goes to the very heart of the future of Scotland’s economy. Are we going to go for commonsense economic principles? Are we going to go for economic growth?”
“To be frank, I find it a bit rich listening to Kevin Stewart go on in the way that he has done. I have sat in this Parliament, as the rest of us have. I say thank goodness for the Official Report, because it will show that the SNP and its leadership have consistently demonised the oil and gas sector. Kevin Stewart might wish to intervene, and I am happy to let him do so. Kevin Stewart: I repeat what I said at the very beginning of my contribution, about Mr Kerr’s logical contribution. Mr Kerr and I, among others, were involved in a debate on Friday, and we agreed on most points. The problem is that, in this place, this issue becomes far too political. What we need here is logic. Let us follow the logic of the academics, such as Paul de Leeuw, and let us put aside the party-political aspect that often comes across.”
“We need to secure a future for people who are living in those communities, so that there is a fair transition. That means investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds, from not only the Government but the private sector. Liam Kerr: Will the member give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Boyack is concluding her speech. Sarah Boyack: It is about turbines, cables and platforms being made here in Scotland, so that people are trained here and communities benefit. We need to plan ahead and work together across our Governments, supporting high-quality jobs, securing our energy future and making sure that, in the next five years, we turn ambition into delivery so that the words “just transition” mean something real for workers and our communities. 16:57”
“The build it in Britain ambition is about backing manufacturing and home-grown supply chains and, in particular, supporting coastal and industrial communities. That ambition is critical, because it shows that the UK Government understands that just transition means new jobs and new investment. It is not just about decarbonising our economy; it is about building things in. Grangemouth is a key test case for us. We have lost the refinery, so we need to see more investment. Historically, there has been a lack of industrial planning from the Tory Government and previously from the SNP. In just the past year and a half, we have seen Labour supporting the Grangemouth area, with its role in the £100 million growth deal, project willow, and the investment of additional money from the national wealth fund.”
“We also need more supply chain confidence and investment in local communities. I agree with everyone that the next five years are crucial, and the UK Government’s recent announcements reflect that. The national clean energy jobs plan forecasts hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next five years, but it also explicitly sets out how to support workers in the fossil fuel sector into jobs in clean energy as well as how industry can collaborate with trade unions and education providers. We can look at how our existing offshore plants could be more energy efficient. For example, offshore wind can reduce the carbon emissions of existing oil and gas. We need that as well as things such as shipping investment to make sure that we have the manufacturing that will support activity in the North Sea.”
“We need to work with the trade unions now because, as change accelerates, they need to be at the table to design the just transition, safeguarding the jobs that we have already but also thinking about standards going forward. One of the really important recommendations in the report is on the need to ensure that supply chains are enhanced and the level of UK manufacturing content in renewables is increased. The report identified that projects to raise the level of UK content in renewables—aspiring to 40 per cent, for instance—would themselves generate thousands of additional jobs. We might think that we produce all of that content here, but we do not. To realise that opportunity, we need strong signals and investment, so that we get manufacturing plants to open here—I note that the Sumitomo one is being established.”
“Will Sarah Boyack give way? Sarah Boyack: No—I am going to keep moving. I wish to raise a point that was first raised by Audrey Nicoll. It is vital that we recognise the role of trade unions, and of people having long-term, negotiated terms and conditions. That is one of the things that the trade unions in the North Sea have managed to do over the decades. Douglas Lumsden: Speaking of the trade unions, there was once a “no ban without a plan” campaign. Is that something that Labour supports, or has it abandoned that like it has abandoned the rest of the north-east? Sarah Boyack: That is the point, and that is what comes through in the report.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether the culture secretary will correct the record regarding reports that he told a parliamentary committee that he had not been invited to attend a board meeting of Historic Environment Scotland, despite evidence to the contrary.”
“Instead of being meaningful legislation that will deliver solutions, the bill bulldozes across previous building blocks, such as by repealing key sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Meanwhile, in Scotland, the Scottish National Party continues to be out of touch with public sentiment. The Scottish Government has appeared to offer an open door to illegal immigration, which is an approach that is not in keeping with public sentiment and that would be damaging to Scotland. The Scottish Conservative and Unionist—”
“I am grateful to my colleague for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to put on record the view of many of my constituents that this is a thoroughly badly thought-through piece of legislation. Its most important defect is the repeal of the only measure that has, so far, been put in place to act as a deterrent to people trafficking and to prevent people putting their lives on the line and crossing the English Channel at the behest of some of the most vile and evil people that one can imagine. Tess White: Labour’s recent announcement about housing hundreds of asylum-seeking men in barracks in Inverness has alarmed us all due to the questionable suitability of that approach.”