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 13 of 25.
“However, we support the bill on the clear understanding that the Government must look more closely at tightening the enforcement provisions to restore warrant safeguards, press UEFA to contribute to a compensation scheme for displaced traders and work with the UK Government to deliver consistent ticket-touting regulation across these islands. Euro 2028 will be a proud moment for Scotland but, as we welcome the world, let us uphold our principles: fairness, accountability, the rule of law and respect for enterprise. 15:19”
“Under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, entry without warrant is permitted only for immediate risk to public safety. Under the bill, it would be exercised to protect branding rights. I accept the Government’s argument that UEFA requires a rapid enforcement mechanism, but the absence of judicial oversight fits uneasily with the long-established protections of property and due process in Scots law. Unless UEFA can demonstrate that a warrant requirement would breach its hosting criteria, those powers should be curtailed. We will support the bill at stage 1 because, without it, Scotland cannot host Euro 2028, and we all want Scotland to host Euro 2028.”
“Can he explain further how he thinks the cafe in Mount Florida that he cited would lose out, and give an example, just so that I can understand his arguments? Stephen Kerr: Very simply, the cafe would be asked to conduct its business in another location, which obviously would not be prime to its business interests, and it would be dislocated on the basis of UEFA’s commercial interests. We should recognise that. We should not lose sight of what the bill is, in effect. The enforcement regime that is set out in sections 16 to 28 grants to designated enforcement officers, who might include local authority staff or contractors, powers to enter and search premises, vehicles or stalls to seize or conceal goods and to use reasonable force. That is a serious departure from normal practice.”
“In fact, the committee received communication from UEFA just yesterday saying that there was no intention to offer any legitimate compensation. Because we have to, we recognise UEFA’s legitimate commercial interest in preventing ambush marketing and protecting official sponsors. However, local cafes, kiosks and stallholders who have traded in Mount Florida for years will see their peak earning period removed. If any compensation is due, it must come from UEFA, not from Scottish taxpayers. The party of business cannot support the public purse underwriting a multibillion-euro organisation. Richard Lochhead: I thank the member for giving way and welcome his general welcome for the bill.”
“Charitable causes, especially those that are rooted in our local communities, should not be collateral damage in UEFA’s efforts to police its commercial rights. The exemption must be broadened to allow legitimate charitable fundraising. Sections 5 to 15 will restrict unauthorised street trading and advertising within the designated event zones around Hampden park and the official fan zones. Those zones and the prohibited times will be defined later by statutory instruments under the negative procedure. As has already been said, Glasgow City Council must publish guidance and offer alternative trading arrangements for licensed street traders who are displaced during the tournament. However, there is no provision for compensation for those traders or for small, fixed- premises businesses that might suffer loss of trade.”
“We agree that touting is a scourge that prices fans out of major events, but fragmented national regulation invites exploitation. A UK-wide framework would close loopholes and simplify enforcement by Police Scotland and the Crown Office. The principle of the bill is right, but its scope is inadequate. There is also an issue of equity and common sense in how the offence is framed. UEFA and its authorised partners are exempt from the touting ban, but community groups, schools and charities are not. Under the bill, a parent council raffling Euro 2028 tickets to raise funds or a local hospice auctioning a pair of tickets at an event would technically be committing a criminal offence. That cannot be right.”
“The bill’s first substantive sections—sections 2 to 4—criminalise the unauthorised sale or resale of championship tickets above face value or for profit, as the minister mentioned. The offence will result in a summary conviction only and will be punishable by a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, which is currently £5,000. The provision applies to tickets, including those that are sold or advertised electronically, for all matches that are played in Scotland. However, crucially, the provision does not extend beyond the territory of Scotland, which means that anyone operating an online resale platform outside Scotland or simply listing tickets on an external- based website falls outside the bill’s reach. The Government’s legal directorate confirmed that the extraterritorial competence that is required to go further is lacking.”
“Of course, we all welcome the opportunity for Scotland to host an international sporting event with the prestige of the Euros. Euro 2028 will provide a platform to promote Scotland and to showcase the warmth and hospitality of Scotland’s people. Every one of us wants to see Scotland’s men’s team playing in the finals, but, as we consider the bill, let us not be naive about what UEFA is. It is a powerful supranational corporation that is unaccountable to any public body—it is accountable only to its member associations. The bill is, in essence, the domestic legal instrument through which Scotland will deliver the guarantees that UEFA demands. We should proceed with our eyes wide open, aware that we are implementing the conditions of a commercial contract, not designing policy from first principles.”
“Since my arrival in the Scottish Parliament, my fundamental problem has been that it is a party- managed Parliament, and, frankly, I find that objectionable.”
“Stephen Kerr: If I may say so, Ruth Maguire was a brilliant colleague on the committee, because she did exactly that, and it was often the way in which our committee gelled. I am talking about individual members—irrespective of whether they are the convener, although conveners do play a very important role in creating the environment— being on board and willing to listen to each other and move towards each other, without compromising. John Mason is right; I do not expect colleagues to compromise their basic political principles but to approach this in a grown- up, mature way as parliamentarians. Our Parliament needs more parliamentarians. We need to take the view of what is best for our country rather than what is best for our parties.”
“Of course, principles remain with us, but when the facts change, we have to be willing to be open-minded enough as parliamentarians to change our minds, too. That pragmatism should be at the heart of all of our politics as Scots. Ruth Maguire: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: Of course I will. Ruth Maguire: I appreciate the member’s giving way, and I enjoyed working with him on the Education, Children and Young People Committee. I wonder whether, when he talks about our party rosettes coming off, rather than meaning our principles, he is talking about how we interact with folk who have different views in committee. What he means, I think, is that it is not about our party policies or our fundamental political beliefs but about negotiation and the valuing of other people’s beliefs and views.”
“Stephen Kerr: That is not what I am saying—of course we bring our principles into the committee room with us. Martin Whitfield said something to the effect that we know ourselves best, and that is what we bring to the Parliament. I agree with him on that. However, we often divide clearly along party lines when we should be led by the evidence. Some committees in the Scottish Parliament are genuinely led by the evidence, and the Finance and Public Administration Committee is a very good example of that. Kenny Gibson is not here, but I want to pay tribute to him. Sometimes we clash in the chamber—chamber activity is a different thing—but in terms of its structure and the reports it produces, it is a really good and very valuable committee. That is because the rosettes are taken off at the door.”
“That is down to, as Davy Russell said, our taking off our party hats at the door, and I genuinely believe that that is how Parliament should work. I believe that we should go into the committee room with a robust mindset, but we should not necessarily—in fact, we should not at all—go in with a particular party agenda. Sometimes, colleagues accuse each other of doing that—sometimes, I think, unfairly. It is possible to be robust and also to be evidence led. John Mason: I agree with the member to some extent, but does he not accept that there are certain fundamentals that our parties believe in, and which we are not going to leave at the door? For example, the Conservatives would like to reduce tax, while some of us would like to either raise it or keep it the same. We cannot leave that at the door, can we?”
“I begin with a simple observation: it is a pity that we are having another of these Thursday afternoon debates on a subject that goes to the very heart of the effectiveness of our Parliament. I am very grateful to the colleagues who are here, but I would have hoped that a few more colleagues from all of our parties would have come along and taken an interest in how this Parliament works. That is what is at the heart of the excellent report that has been put together by Martin Whitfield’s committee. The bottom line of the report, which is a bit uncomfortable to read, is that the Parliament’s current committee system is not working to its optimum level—and that is putting it diplomatically. Some of the committees produce excellent work, and some work really well.”
“I want to be clear that the Government has no formal position on the election of committee conveners, but it recognises that the Parliament should be able to consider the matter further if there is a desire on the part of members to do so. 15:28”
“I see that he is nodding his head to indicate that. On behalf of the Government, I welcome the committee’s consideration of how the Parliament’s processes can be adjusted to improve effectiveness, and I look forward to hearing the views of members across the chamber. We—or, perhaps more accurately, those individuals who are elected to the next Parliament—will have a chance to come together and deliver more productive and effective ways of working. The Government will support the motion on the basis that it is ultimately up to the Parliament to decide how it structures and organises itself. I note that the motion asks the Parliament to agree to consider a proposed rule change for the election of committee conveners.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Graeme Dey: Do I have time, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes. Stephen Kerr: The minister is giving us his reflections. One of the themes of the committee’s report—and of many other reports that have been commissioned and produced over time—is the effect of party management on committees. We did not really hear about that in the convener’s speech. What does the minister’s experience tell him we would need to do to change the culture in the committees so that there is less party dominance and more evidence-led parliamentarian activity? Graeme Dey: I will try to cover that in my closing speech, if Stephen Kerr will bear with me. In passing, I hope that his point is not simply directed at the Government but is reflective of the whole Parliament.”
“There is no time left. Douglas Lumsden: It is a year late. Gillian Martin: —and have a finalised climate change plan by the end of this session of Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can we also move on from making comments from sedentary positions during both answers and questions?”
“What we have heard today and what we have read in recent weeks and months—the reports and documentation that have accompanied the work that has been done in Edinburgh and at Ninewells—is indefensible. In Edinburgh— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, please bring your remarks to a close. You are over your time. Stephen Kerr: Let me conclude by saying again that I urge everyone, as parliamentarians with a duty to their constituents, to support the motion as it will be amended. Let us act and not posture. Let us make things better. Let us not hide behind the inconvenient myths that we sometimes tell ourselves. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: Let the safety of women and babies in Scotland be something— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: —that does not wait another day. 17:05”
“I hope that, when we get the national investigation—given that I hope that we will vote for it this evening—its leadership will have an “outside the system” element. On Michael Marra’s comment about Ninewells hospital, let us not lose sight of the fact that, after HIS did its initial investigation and published its report, it went back to Ninewells and discovered that not much had been done—not much progress had been made. That is the issue that demands a national investigation. That is why we have to talk about the culture as a whole and it is why, this evening, the Parliament must instruct the Government to get on with the delivery of that national investigation. Nothing goes to the heart of our conscience as parliamentarians—or even as Scots, if I may put it as broadly as that—more than the safety of mothers and babies.”
“It is about not just a legal change but a culture change in our public services that affirms truth telling, transparency and responsibility, with an expectation on those who hold public office to adhere to the Nolan principles not just as a concept but in practice. Willie Rennie mentioned how important it is that someone from outside the system is involved in the national investigation. Some of the things that we have been talking about today are, by definition, systemic. To understand the system, a person sometimes has to step well outside it. Someone who does not, if I may coin a phrase, have a dog in the fight has to look at the matter fairly and squarely without prejudice or bias.”
“On a related matter, I wrote to the First Minister yesterday about the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will enshrine the duty of candour in law. I am asking the Scottish Government to lodge a legislative consent motion so that all the provisions of that bill will apply to Scotland, including the right to legal representation and legal aid for families who are impacted by service failure. I think that we all know why that bill is called the Hillsborough law. It was introduced in the House of Commons in September. It seeks to establish a statutory duty of candour and it is also about guaranteed parity of arms when it comes to legal representation, as I have said. It has real implications for everything that we are talking about here and now.”
“Jackie Baillie: Will Stephen Kerr acknowledge that the Government’s amendment uses the word “if” and does not say that an investigation will take place? Stephen Kerr: It is now impossible for the minister to change the wording of the Government amendment. I therefore appeal to Patrick Harvie to join others in the chamber who, rightly, are going to demand a national investigation into maternity services in Scotland. I hope that he will consider the importance of that to so many people, including people who are present in the public gallery. I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate, but I will specifically mention something that Willie Rennie said. Rightly, he mentioned a duty of candour.”
“So much of what we have said in the debate this afternoon comes down to an issue of culture and what impact that has on the way that services are being delivered. Patrick Harvie: It sounds as though Stephen Kerr thinks that I have just argued against a national investigation. I have argued very clearly in favour of one and I want the Government to say that it is in favour of one as well. That is the commitment that I want to hear, and I will hold the Government to account as much as anybody else in the chamber if it makes that commitment. Stephen Kerr: I respect what Patrick Harvie has just said. Jackie Baillie: Will Stephen Kerr take a brief intervention? Stephen Kerr: I will—a brief one.”
“I hate to disagree so openly with Patrick Harvie, but this is a Parliament and there is such a thing as political accountability. The situations that we are discussing lead on inexorably from political decisions and priorities. For us to ignore that and somehow seek to deconstruct the issue and hide behind fake unanimity in the chamber about where culpability lies would not be honest of many of us. At the end of the day, I appeal to Patrick Harvie on the issue of the national investigation. We cannot divorce culture from any operation, whether we are talking about the design and delivery of maternity services or any other subject. When it comes to the execution and delivery of anything, culture is at the very heart of whether it succeeds.”
“I also recognise—not least following the conversation that I have just had with Lori Quate and Willie Rennie, for which I am very grateful to them both—that trust has been broken between families who have been let down and the NHS. I am determined to ensure that families have the opportunity to feed into the improvements that we want to see and to share their experiences candidly. I am therefore exploring whether that can be done through the HIS inspection process. I will also ask the Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland for her views on how we do that most effectively when I meet her next week.”
“Wherever women choose to give birth, whether in an obstetric-led unit, a midwifery-led unit or at home, they can and should expect the highest quality of care that is tailored to their needs. That is why I accept the initial part of Ms Baillie’s motion and why I am sympathetic to the majority of Mr Gulhane’s amendment. As I said in my statement last week, I share concerns about Healthcare Improvement Scotland’s report into maternity services in Lothian and those raised by the BBC “Disclosure” documentary. The findings are completely unacceptable, and it is right that the Parliament takes a firm position that improvements must be made urgently, which I welcome the opportunity for today.”
“Will Neil Gray take an intervention? Neil Gray: I need to make some progress, so I hope that members will forgive me. I will see whether I can come to Mr Kerr later. I know that members of the Parliament will agree that the safety and wellbeing of mothers, babies and staff must be our priority. I also want to reassure pregnant women and their families that our maternity and neonatal services are safe, although I will talk about situations in which that has not been the case. Women in Scotland have the right to choose where to give birth, and those who choose to give birth in our hospitals can be assured that they are the safest possible place to give birth, with access to the best possible care.”
“I have made that abundantly clear on numerous occasions publicly, in Parliament and to our NHS board chairs and chief executives. I share Stephen Kerr’s view that we need to have a speak-up culture, because that is how we will achieve progress, improvement and learning. I also share his concern about the need to ensure that information is shared transparently with families. As I said in my statement, I have written to NHS board chief executives to set out my expectations on the timeliness and robustness of significant adverse event reviews. Mr Kerr will understand why it is challenging to have those published, but I am more than happy to have further conversations about how the process is working.”
“I express my gratitude for the courage of whistleblowing NHS staff, because it is their willingness to speak up that is key to having a transformed culture of continual improvement. I know that the cabinet secretary knows that, too often, families who are affected by maternity tragedies are left in the dark, while HIS and NHS boards appear to pass responsibility for transparency and accountability between each other. What assurance can he give that health boards will not go on managing reputational risk but will instead ensure that significant adverse event reviews in maternity cases are published, learned from and acted on? Neil Gray: Stephen Kerr has a long-standing interest in supporting whistleblowers, for which I am very grateful. I share his desire for us to have a speak-up culture in our health service.”
“Secondary breast cancer—for which there is no cure, as was mentioned earlier—still blights lives. We must be ambitious. That means resourcing our screening programme in order to achieve the 80 per cent target, collecting proper data on secondary breast cancer and ensuring access to new treatments and genomic testing on the national health service, not just private access. In support of the motion and of Clare Adamson’s speech, I say let us wear pink with pride. Let us raise funds. Let us commit to ensuring that Scotland leads in research, treatment and care. In doing so, we give hope to those who live with breast cancer today and to those who will face it tomorrow. [Applause.] 13:03”
“To this day, my gratitude is without limit, because they gave me my wife, and they gave us both the chance of time together—something never again to be taken for granted. That experience taught me that breast cancer is not borne by the patient alone; it is shared by husbands, wives, children, families and friends. I want to pay special tribute to Jo Churchill, the former member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds and a two-time cancer survivor. During Yvonne’s treatment, Jo’s empathy and wisdom were a lifeline to me. Her support reminded me that compassion and solidarity matter almost as much as treatment. The statistics remain sobering. Around 5,500 people are diagnosed with breast cancer in Scotland each year, and 1,000 die. Too many still wait too long for a diagnosis. Too many lack access to genomic testing.”
“The consultant surgeon who cared for Yvonne was equally remarkable. With clarity and sensitivity, she guided us through what surgery would involve. Her calm authority, patience and absolute dedication gave us reassurance at a time of great fear and uncertainty. After surgery, Yvonne’s treatment moved to the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre in Glasgow. I pay the highest tribute to the staff there. They were at the cutting edge of cancer treatment. However, what struck me most was their humanity. They did not simply deliver treatment—they cared. They knew Yvonne’s name, they asked after her wellbeing, and they invested themselves in her recovery as though she were one of their own. I saw that same care extended to every patient who walked through those doors. I cannot speak highly enough of them.”
“I thank God for the professionalism and compassion of the people who treated my wife, Yvonne, when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. No one forgets the moment when the words, “You have cancer” are spoken. The room falls silent, the world narrows and your heart sinks with fear for the one you love. In that moment, everything depends on the people around you. For Yvonne and me, it was the breast screening services team in Glasgow—it was they who first told Yvonne. I will never forget the quiet calm with which they broke the news. There was no panic, no bluntness and no false reassurance—just steady, compassionate professionalism. They explained what the diagnosis meant and what the pathway ahead would look like, treating Yvonne not as a statistic but as a woman with fears, hopes and a family who loved her.”
“I associate myself with everything that Clare Adamson says in her motion and said in her excellent speech. I recognise Breast Cancer Now awareness day 2025 and commend the vital work of Breast Cancer Now, which is the UK’s leading breast cancer research and support charity. I recognise, as Clare Adamson said, that the wear it pink campaign is an effective way of raising awareness. I am a week late—I see that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is also wearing pink—but I recognise the importance of the campaign, of showing solidarity and of communities demonstrating that they stand with people who are affected by breast cancer. It is a simple act, but it carries a powerful message of compassion and hope.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what urgent action it will take to address the reported crisis in the college sector, in light of the findings in the Audit Scotland publication, “Scotland’s colleges 2025”.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Once again, I forgot to declare an interest as a director of WhistleblowersUK, which is a not-for-profit company that has set up a campaign for a more favourable legislative framework for whistleblowing. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. Your comments are on the record.”
“Given the time, maybe I should speak slowly, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what measures it has in place to ensure that public body officials do not misuse their position for personal gain. (S6O-05016)”
“It will take resolute, collective action—parents, teachers, communities and this Parliament acting together— to make a ban real and effective. The choice before us is simple: order and discipline in our classrooms or continued distraction, disruption and decline. For the sake of Scotland’s children, it is imperative that we choose order. 15:35”
“They are often left feeling—anyone who has spoken to a headteacher must know this—that they are alone in confronting those challenges, because the national direction and guidance are lacking and they are without the back-up from the Parliament that they badly need. Jenny Gilruth: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr is just winding up. Stephen Kerr: Teachers and headteachers deserve the unambiguous backing not just of ministers but of every member of the Parliament. They must know that, when mobile phones are banned in their schools, they are enforcing that rule with the full support of the Government and the Parliament. Government action must reflect a broader society that backs parents and teachers in making the right choices for our children.”
“The conclusion is obvious: mobile phones undermine learning, discipline and the happiness of children and young people, and they undermine the authority of teachers. As a general rule, they should not be seen or used in classrooms, save in the rarest of circumstances, when they directly support learning. However—this is the point, and I am aghast that the cabinet secretary cannot grasp this—teachers and headteachers cannot do this alone. We might say that they have autonomy to do this, which is true, but it is not an easy thing to do. They have to deal with the consequences of their decision to ban mobile phones in their schools. That point has been highlighted by other members. Headteachers are standing up to the everyday disruption, disorder and, often, violence.”
“The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has shown that digital distraction costs people months of learning time, with two thirds of teenagers in its surveys admitting that they are distracted in class by phones— sometimes their own, often those of their classmates. The Scottish Government has highlighted in its own behaviour in Scottish schools research report that the “abusive use of mobile phones and digital technologies was one of the most ... serious” disciplinary problems in our classrooms. The same report revealed shocking rises in violence and disruption. Almost 90 per cent of teachers in secondary schools said that pupils were sometimes or frequently off task, and more than half reported serious verbal abuse. Physical violence against teachers has also risen alarmingly.”
“I know that sometimes we have an aversion in the Parliament to looking at evidence, but we must look at the evidence of what has happened elsewhere. In Spain, they talk about gaining the equivalent of up to a year of extra learning in science, and there have been significant improvements in maths. In Norway, a ban has boosted girls’ grades, reduced bullying and lowered stress and anxiety. In North America, for goodness’ sake, the evidence shows calmer lessons, higher levels of engagement in the classroom and improved test scores. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization is unequivocal that a smartphone should be used in school “only when it supports learning”.”
“How about that? A Government that is not distracted by manufacturing grievance all day long—that would be quite an improvement on the Government that we have. I know that there are wider issues—Patrick Harvie went on at length about the wider issues— but we are talking about the learning environment in schools. That is what we are talking about. I had not come across the word “hypervigilance”. I like that. It is a good description of exactly what we are trying to combat. I make no apology for standing up to argue in favour of order and discipline in our schools, because order and discipline require consequences and sanctions. Without them there is no respect; without respect, there is no learning environment. Those are not optional extras—they are the very foundations of what makes an education system work.”
“Will the Deputy First Minister consider her attitude towards those who fear speaking out but wish to do so on the basis of anonymity, so that what they have to say can be heard in a country that increasingly lives in fear of how the SNP Government operates? Kate Forbes: I base everything that I say on fact, and Daniel Grant was the only individual named in the Sunday Post article. He has since taken to LinkedIn to say that he has “never heard” anyone call those trips holidays; yet, in this chamber, I have already heard the Opposition refer to them as that. I would rather take Daniel Grant’s word than”
“Can I just say how much I deplore the language that the Deputy First Minister has used this afternoon in the chamber while discussing whistleblowers? It goes to the heart of how the Scottish National Party Government works, because it loves to silence dissident voices. Let us be frank about what has happened. The Government claims that the redactions in the Techscaler feedback obtained by FOI were for commercial sensitivity, but I think that that is an exaggeration. Investigative journalism at the Sunday Post revealed that the redacted information was actually negative feedback. The Government does not want to hear negative feedback. It would appear that the Government does not believe in the value of whistleblowing.”
“That is what we will invest in and what we will deliver.”
“Everything is harder for patients and staff when GPs have to navigate outdated tech. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, as long as our Scottish NHS relies on technology from the last century, we are holding clinicians and patients back and deepening the crisis in our health service? Neil Gray: To answer Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point about the app happening only after the election, that is not the case. The roll-out will happen from April, which, patently, falls before the election. In response to his latter point, the iterative improvements that will come thereafter will ensure that we give people—service users of the health and social care system and those who work within it—better access to digital capability and innovation. I want that iterative process to move as quickly as possible.”
“Incidentally, tomorrow does not fall until very soon after the next Scottish election, which feels convenient. The app will be incredibly limited compared with what has been available for years in England, so that will be cold comfort to Scottish patients. Some 34 million people use the app in England. They have come to rely on the functionality that Amanda expected when she came here, but her move to Scotland felt like a step back in time. Patients in Scotland are stuck in a phone queue for the 8 am scramble for general practitioner appointments. British Medical Association Scotland has called it a disgrace that GPs still have to sign paper prescriptions by hand, given the pressures on their time. Software platforms still do not speak to each other across our health service.”
“Oh, that is nonsense. Neil Gray: —by providing an integrated health and social care application. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: There are some voices that I am hearing rather more clearly than I would expect, particularly when such voices have not been called to speak. Neil Gray: It is a statement of fact that this is an integrated health and social care app, the likes of which is not available elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Yes, we have learning to build on from the health service app that is available in England. We will do that, and that has formed the basis of the roll-out plan that was published and that Parliament was notified of on Friday. Alex Cole-Hamilton: That felt like something of a “jam tomorrow” response from the cabinet secretary.”