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 14 of 25.
“Ben Macpherson: The question that I put to the member is this: if charging fees was a panacea for the situation, why are several higher education institutions in England, which have high tuition fees of more than £9,000 a year, struggling financially? Stephen Kerr: You are in control. You have a choice. What are you going to do? The Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr. Ben Macpherson: The question is how we work together with the sector to take a constructive way forward and look at alternative funding models. The Scottish Government continues to engage with Universities Scotland in that collaborative approach, along with other parties, so that we can ensure the sector’s long- term financial sustainability.”
“The austerity that the whole of the UK has had to live with since 2010 has not helped anyone in that regard, including our higher education system. I appreciate the member’s points. However, he also seems to be making a point about—if I have heard this incorrectly, I am happy to be corrected—his belief that tuition fees should be reintroduced in Scotland. I do not share that approach, and neither does the Scottish Government. Our approach of free tuition encourages individuals—young and older—to go into further and higher education to fulfil their potential without the consideration of the burden of debt. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another.”
“Far be it from me to come to the rescue of a United Kingdom Labour Government, but the issues that are identified in Keith Brown’s question and that the minister is talking about predate a Labour Government. The amount of money that has gone towards student funding in universities has been dramatically cut in real terms over the past decade. That is an economic fact. That has meant that universities are now very dependent on international students as a source of income, and that is precarious—I would admit that. The minister has only two choices. He can either increase the amount of public money that supports Scottish undergraduates and universities or he can review the funding model for Scottish undergraduates at Scottish universities. Which course of action will he take? Ben Macpherson: The member talks about the pressure on the system.”
“That clears away damaging myths and allows people of faith to see organ donation for what it is: a gift of compassion that is rooted in love and service. I welcome the call to engage young people by using modern tools in colleges and universities, such as the QR codes that the motion mentions, to spark awareness. If we as parliamentarians need to be sparked into awareness, I am sure that the same applies to a wide range of people across all demographics. We need to be made aware of how we can make our desires about organ donation known. The issue is not about compulsion or state control, but about responsibility, family dialogue and choosing to give. Therefore, I strongly support the motion and encourage all eligible Scots to register, share their wishes and help to save lives. 17:22”
“In my faith, the body is sacred, but so too is the command to love one another. For me, the act of donation is a profound way of following the example of Jesus Christ, whose life and sacrifice were the ultimate expressions of self-giving love. The scriptures teach that Jesus said: “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Organ donation allows us, in a small but significant way, to reflect that same love by giving the gift of life to others, even after our own journey in mortality has ended. That is why I welcome the motion’s emphasis on the role of faith leaders. Across Scotland, religious communities have affirmed that there are no barriers in belief to donation.”
“If any part of me could be useful to anyone else, that is what I would want. We need to make those decisions clear, but we also need to communicate them clearly. An aspect of the motion that particularly intrigued me was the mention of the “reported role of faith leaders in confirming that there are no religious barriers to donation and clearing up myths”. I will talk about that from a personal point of view. Something that I have not done very much of in the past four-and-a-half years is speak about things from my perspective as a Christian and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints. I take the opportunity to stress that organ donation is not only compatible with my faith, but I believe that it is one of the most selfless acts of love that a human being can perform.”
“It is so important, and it is why we should use this debate, and every opportunity that we have as elected members of the Scottish Parliament, to encourage people to register their wishes and speak openly with their families. I am one of the people John Mason referred to, and he identified himself in the same way. When I first learned about the matter, because of organ donation week and this debate that Christine Grahame has brought to the chamber, and because I decided that I wanted to participate in the debate, I did not realise that I should register, go to the website and make clear my desire in the event of my own death. I am very grateful for the debate for that reason. I also communicated that to my family—to my wife and to our children—so that they would know exactly what I would desire.”
“The motion reminds us of the striking and sobering truth that, in 2024-25, only 274 people in Scotland benefited from a transplant, as compared with 390 the year before. That downward trend is noteworthy and a concern, particularly as nearly 8,000 people across the United Kingdom, including many here in Scotland, continue to wait for a transplant that may be the difference between life and death. The opt-out system was introduced in 2021 and has been a step forward. However, as the motion makes clear, and as Christine Grahame made clear in her speech, it relies on the agreement of families. Too often, transplants do not proceed because loved ones have never had a conversation. That is why I fully support the Scottish Government’s “Don’t leave your loved ones in doubt” campaign.”
“My congratulations to Christine Grahame on bringing the motion to Parliament. I regret that the debate is being held on a Thursday evening, as it deserves a more prominent place in our schedule. Nevertheless, it is a highly appropriate debate. Everything that needed to be said was said in the story of James. Christine Grahame is right: he is a hero indeed. I am pleased to speak in support of the motion, which rightly recognises organ donation week as a vital opportunity to highlight the life-saving power of organ and tissue donation. I agree with John Mason—who is not in his seat now—who is absolutely right that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the current situation in Scotland in relation to the opt-in/opt-out arrangements.”
“There is learning to be had from other economies about them. The vast majority of people who work in the private sector in this country work in SMEs. Where will their voice be properly heard? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr— Stephen Kerr: There are lots of questions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, thank you. Stephen Kerr: I cannot see how anyone can vote for the bill today. 15:55”
“Disappointingly for me, I have run out of time. I have a number of questions that I would like to ask and, if I may, I will close with them. Will the Government ring fence the apprenticeship money that goes into the Funding Council pot, and will that money come back out to fund apprenticeships? What about making a commitment that every penny that is raised in Scotland through the apprenticeship levy be spent on apprenticeships and training? We can calculate the amount, so let us not hide behind the idea that we do not know how much it is. Why has the Government rejected international best practice models? I really do not understand that. Why would it reject success stories in favour of just another version of what we already have? What about SMEs? Where will their voice be heard?”
“I am not alone in reaching for the examples of Germany and Switzerland, where employer associations are totally embedded in the system and actively design and update apprenticeship qualifications. The apprenticeship levy, which is absolutely a bone of contention, has been mentioned. People in Scotland pay the levy but do not see that money coming back in the form of the investment in apprenticeships that they need for the future of their businesses and our economy. In England, employers are all over the design of apprenticeship qualifications, but the bill seems very much to leave that in the hands of ministers and the Funding Council. The bill says that employers will be consulted, but they need more than to be consulted; they need to be in the driving seat. That is what a truly demand-led system looks like.”
“I have previously suggested some radical adjustments to the Scottish education landscape, and here is an opportunity, but the Government is just standing blinking in front of it. If it is going to talk about simplification or streamlining, it actually has to do that—it cannot just use those words; it has to do what the words suggest. The bill will mean that we end up with one overstretched body—and we would be justified in asking whether the proposal is suitable for the task—and another body that is completely hollowed out. Let us look at and properly learn from what people do in other countries where they know what apprenticeships are all about.”
“Stephen Kerr: I want to use the time I have to talk about apprenticeships, because I really want to see a demand-led apprenticeship system in this country. There is a need for that—people are crying out for it—but it is not being satisfied. It is not the job of Government to determine what the economy needs; the people who do the business of the economy—those who head up organisations and businesses—should decide that. In the time that I have left, I will look at SDS, which currently supports 40,000 apprenticeships and administers training programmes. Under the bill, responsibility for all of that would go to the Funding Council. What will be left of SDS? Why not go the whole hog and just collapse SDS? If we want to simplify and to reduce costs, we could just do away with SDS and find another way of taking care of what is left.”
“Jackie Dunbar is no longer in her seat to hear this, but if the bill does not empower learners or employers and if all that it does is move things around and re-badge a bureaucracy, I really cannot see the point of it. There is nothing in the bill that would achieve anything. I cannot even see what the principles are. If we talk about simplification but do not actually simplify, what is the point? Ben Macpherson: I thank Mr Kerr for giving way and apologise that I could not give way to him during my opening speech. Does Mr Kerr appreciate that the intention behind the bill is to ensure that the SFC will have oversight provisions and will therefore be able to flex and innovate to meet employer and business needs in a way that the system does not at the moment?”
“Stephen Kerr: I think that Willie Rennie is crossing a line, given that we are supposed to tell the truth in the chamber. Setting that aside, the spirit that Willie Rennie conveyed when he gave his speech kind of covers how I feel about the bill. When we get down to it, there is a question about the bill and its associated costs that must be answered. We cannot dismiss it, given that we do not even really know how much the bill will cost. How can we possibly legislate responsibly if we do not know how much it is going to cost? The key question is this: what will the bill improve? Evidence that was presented to the committee comes down to one thing: there seems to be a fairly unanimous opinion that the bill will not change anything.”
“I, too, welcome Ben Macpherson to his new position. Although he is well liked across the chamber—as was evident the other day, when we approved his appointment as a minister—I agree with Douglas Ross: I do not envy him having to pick up this particular bill. It is not the kind of present that someone wants to find when they get a new job, put their feet under the table and open the desk. To put it mildly, the bill is a bit of a mess. I miss being on the Education, Children and Young People Committee—I enjoyed that committee. I particularly miss Willie Rennie’s contributions. He has just summarised rather well the report that the committee produced. It was kind of a “meh” sort of— Willie Rennie: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: As ever, I am happy to give way to Willie Rennie. Willie Rennie: The committee misses the member too.”
“The bill makes provision for work-based learning, which largely covers what is currently delivered through foundation apprenticeships. I am keen to work with the Parliament and stakeholders to address any genuine concerns about how those provisions will work in practice. I appreciate that the committee raised reasonable and important concerns about costs in the financial memorandum, which I want to address directly. We have worked closely with SDS and the SFC to refine the figures and, with the latest information, I am pleased to emphasise that the upper cost estimate has reduced by around a third to around £22 million. Work is on- going to finalise costs, but I hope that the additional financial detail in the letter from my predecessor offers reassurance. I remain committed to keeping the Parliament updated as the analysis progresses.”
“The bill also proposes putting apprenticeships on a statutory footing, which I believe is significant. I want to address concerns that have been expressed about the risk of diluting apprenticeship funding. Let me be clear: we are absolutely committed to continuing funding for all types of apprenticeships. We have given careful thought to protecting the apprenticeship budget. Funding provided to the SFC under the bill would be used by the SFC only for that purpose. Funding allocations for further and higher education and apprenticeships are set in the Scottish budget process, but we will ensure that the funding priorities are clear. In the evidence-taking process for the bill, we heard concerns about foundation apprenticeships. I reassure the Parliament that we greatly value the opportunities that they provide.”
“The changes would require the SFC to evolve significantly in its structure, culture and role. The bill would not simply enable a merging of responsibilities. It would be a fundamental redesign of how we fund and govern tertiary education and training in Scotland. That enhanced body would lead to a unified, integrated sector that is better aligned to the needs of learners, employers and the economy, and a key part of that will be building strong, lasting partnerships with employers. Apprenticeships must continue to reflect the needs of business and the wider economy, with significant input from, and collaboration with, business. It is important that apprenticeships are made more accessible to young people with disabilities and those facing other barriers.”
“Over the summer, ministers were out and about speaking to partners about the bill and how it can be shaped by those who know the system best, including a range of trade union organisations, business organisations and others who work in the economy. We have listened to their views on how we can make the most of this opportunity, and I am grateful that two of those organisations—the Federation of Small Businesses and the Scottish Training Federation—have come out in support of the bill, alongside Universities Scotland, which I mentioned, and Colleges Scotland. The SFC has also undertaken its own extensive engagement on the bill, and its role in the consideration of the bill is obviously key. I want to be clear that the changes that are proposed in the bill would simplify the funding landscape and everything that would flow from that.”
“Will the member give way? Ben Macpherson: I need to make some progress, but thank you. At its core, the bill intends to make impactful changes to ensure that funding goes directly to where it matters most, supporting the skills, services and innovation that our economy needs to thrive. The bill is, of course, founded on evidence from James Withers’s review, and from Audit Scotland’s 2022 report. The Withers review was informed by extensive engagement with stakeholders, and it made a compelling case for change. That case for change has directly shaped the bill. As a Government, we have kept engagement at the heart of developing the bill and, as I say, I intend to continue that proactively.”
“Canada and Australia are building a further 23 vessels to the same design, and Scottish SMEs are therefore embedded in the global supply chains to support those construction projects for decades to come. This is a story of Scottish success on the world stage—success that is built on excellence, innovation and the deep wells of skill that we have in our workforces in our country. We must give credit to those who had the foresight to invest, and we must ensure that Scotland’s two Governments—the UK and Scottish Governments—work together to maximise those benefits for the future. 13:04”
“More than 2,000 highly skilled jobs at Govan will be directly sustained into the 2030s, and when we consider the wider supply chain of more than 100 Scottish businesses, including 54 small and medium-sized enterprises, the total rises to around 12,000 jobs. The Clyde is now a serious contender for even more work, with the building of the Royal Navy’s next generation of air defence destroyers. However, it is not just about the Clyde. Rosyth, too, stands on the cusp of further international contracts. Type 31s have already been exported to Poland and Indonesia, with the yard poised to build frigates for Denmark and Sweden. The type 26 is now a truly global combat ship.”
“The UK’s national shipbuilding strategy, which was launched by the Conservative Government in 2017, provided a focus on exports, with the 30-year pipeline giving our yards the ability to expand and compete globally. Norwegian and British vessels will now be built side by side at the Janet Harvey hall. Such work is possible thanks in large measure to the Conservative UK Governments that worked hard to ensure that BAE Systems in Govan was properly equipped to handle such orders, and the fact that Scotland now holds an order book for 18 frigates and 13 type 26 vessels is a measure of that foresight. Since 2014, the order books in Scottish shipyards have boasted orders for 25 vessels— five offshore patrol vessels, 18 frigates and two carriers. That is more than double what was promised during the independence referendum.”
“The £10 billion contract for at least five type 26 frigates to be built for the Royal Norwegian Navy at Govan and Scotstoun is the largest shipbuilding export deal in Scotland’s history, representing a vote of confidence not only in BAE Systems, but in the skills, resilience and ingenuity of the Scottish workforce. The order was not won by accident. Norway had other options. Designs from France, Germany and the United States were all under consideration, but it chose the British type 26 because it is world class. It is unrivalled in sonar, strike capability and NATO interoperability. The choice is a direct endorsement of Scotland’s proud tradition of shipbuilding excellence. We should acknowledge the policy framework that made the order possible.”
“I congratulate Paul Sweeney on his motion and join him in celebrating this landmark moment for Scottish shipbuilding. I also personally endorse his words about the need for there to be a more level playing field for procurement rules. I advocate very strongly that we should maximise those Brexit freedoms, and that means redrawing the lines around how we procure in the public space. There has been a reluctance from government at all levels to properly embrace the opportunity to do exactly what Paul Sweeney advocated in his remarks.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities about increasing the transparency of senior officer pay and conditions alongside improved democratic oversight and accountability. (S6O-04972)”
“The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ewing. I do not generally share information with regard to admissibility and selection decisions. Business Motion 14:46”
“A moment ago, I asked the minister whether, instead of there being attempts in the future to tackle the problem with the legislation, such steps might already have been taken, as has been brought to my attention— namely, attempts to amend the Housing (Scotland) Bill through wording that would have also altered a provision in the visitor levy legislation. Will you share with the Parliament whether such a move was proposed, submitted or made? If so, in your judgment, was that amendment attempt irrelevant? This is an important matter: if the Government tried to make that amendment, it clearly thinks that it must be done. If it is now saying that it cannot do so because there is not enough time, even though we will still be here for about two thirds of a year, what does that say about the importance of tourism to this Government?”
“If Conservative members are still getting so excited about one typographical error—one misplaced word—it is a shame that they have not got more important things to worry about. I have been very clear with anyone who has engaged with me—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Ivan McKee: We should listen to the industry and its perspective on the situation. Industry representatives are comfortable that we are seeking to make the change in question. We listen to them and to local authorities. As I have said, we recognise the importance of having additional flexibility in the legislation that was passed, which is why we are making a change at this time. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. That concludes the urgent question. Fergus Ewing: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance, please.”
“The minister can dead-bat questions all the day long if he wishes to—he is very capable of doing that. The reality is that Murdo Fraser is right: the situation is a complete shambles. The whole reason for putting an urgent question is that the minister issued two contradictory letters in the space of four days. How on earth does that happen in a Government office—the office of the minister? The minister should take the time to explain to members how such contradictory statements were issued in his name. Who, precisely, proofread those letters? Who signed them off? If it was the minister, I am afraid that the charge of incompetence rests with him. Ivan McKee: As I have already explained, unfortunately, there was a typographical error in one of the letters that was sent out. That letter was reissued so as to provide clarification.”
“One of the other points that the report makes is that it cannot always be about only the school. We need wider consideration of support for the behaviours that we think are appropriate in our schools. The reassertion of parental responsibility is not necessarily at odds with the current national guidance, but I am happy to engage with Mr Kerr on the substantive point that he has made today.”
“Let me take a different tack with the cabinet secretary. Will she now accept the report’s call to reassert parental responsibility, as set out in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, so that schools are not left to carry the burden alone and parents are made to feel accountable for supporting discipline and their children’s regular attendance? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Kerr and I have debated that issue on many occasions. He talked about parental responsibility and accountability, which he is quite right to do, and his points are not at odds with our national guidance. It is not only mums and dads who have a role to play. I spent the weekend with my five-year-old niece, and aunties, uncles and the extended family also have a role in the teaching of behaviours.”
“Our recommendations are designed to future proof the landscape, ensuring that it is strategic, sustainable and fit for the years ahead. We call on all members to support the committee’s motion at decision time.”
“We recommend moving towards a formal hub-and-spoke model, which would centralise key support functions such as human resources, finance and information technology while ensuring that the statutory independence of each office- holder is protected. In addition, we encourage greater and more flexible use of the wider public sector estate as existing leases come to an end, striking the right balance between efficiency and independence. We encourage the Scottish Government and the SPCB to work together to achieve that. It has been a good, constructive debate, and the review has been an opportunity to look at the bigger picture of how we create, support and scrutinise the SPCB-supported bodies, which play a vital role in safeguarding public trust, institutional integrity and democratic accountability.”
“That shift towards a more proactive and preventative approach not only would enhance the effectiveness of those bodies but would help to avoid issues such as complaints or service delivery failures arising in the first place. Of course, there will be consideration of SPCB- supported bodies in future meetings of the Parliament. It may be worth considering that the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland naturally thinks about future generations, and perhaps some thought could be given to whether its remit could be reconsidered in the future. That is a just point of constructive engagement with Sarah Boyack. The committee recognises the progress that has been made on shared services, but more could be done.”
“Although we were not convinced that expanding the functions of the SHRC to include specialist departments, rapporteurs or sub-commissioners to protect specific groups in society would achieve the best outcomes, we believe that there is a case for a wider review of the SHRC’s remit and powers. Once again, the committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to hold further discussions with the SPCB and the SHRC on the matter. We also welcome the engagement that we have had with the SHRC. The committee believes that SPCB-supported bodies could do more to adopt a proactive and preventative approach. Our recommendations encourage all SPCB-supported bodies to put in place measures that would allow them to address systematic issues at an early stage.”
“That would enable the ombudsman to identify and report on systematic failures in public services before complaints arise. It would be a preventative measure that we believe would deliver better outcomes for service users and provide greater value for public money in the long run. The committee welcomes the Scottish Government’s commitment to engage with the SPCB on that recommendation. As Lorna Slater touched on, we also considered how the Scottish Human Rights Commission could be developed to provide a more effective, rights- based approach to addressing structural inequalities in Scotland.”
“I thought that Lorna Slater’s and Richard Leonard’s speeches were both outstanding—I am not saying that just because they were my committee colleagues—and were symbolic of the contributions that they made in the committee. They touched on two points related to the fact that, as I outlined in opening the debate, the committee’s report recommended targeted improvements across the board as well as specific improvements to how the SPCB-supported bodies landscape and, indeed, the wider public sector could operate. Those improvements could involve changes to existing bodies. As Richard Leonard touched on, the committee recommended enhancing the powers of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, based on the evidence that we received, and that the SPSO be granted enhanced powers to carry out own- initiative investigations in the public interest.”
“Martin Whitfield: Although I absolutely agree that that is worth trying, did the committee consider—I fear that this may come up in the future—that an independent committee would lack the specialism of, for example, the Education, Children and Young People Committee to deal with the specialist commissioners who would appear in front of it? Ben Macpherson: At no point did our committee recommend or decide that the specific committee would be the only committee that would hold the bodies to account. It would provide additional accountability and drive proactivity and performance. Public sector delivery improvement is the aspiration of our recommendations.”
“Martin Whitfield was right to emphasise that committees’ reporting, which was already substantial, has been enhanced as of yesterday. We heard from Sue Webber and Audrey Nicoll, in their previous and current convener capacities, how difficult it is for some committees, particularly the larger ones, given the amount of legislation that they have to contend with, to scrutinise our public bodies regularly and effectively. That is why the committee recommended creating a dedicated committee to look specifically at those issues.”
“One of the challenges that we faced as a committee was in considering the SPCB-supported bodies as part of a much wider landscape of public sector bodies and the need for reform across the board. It is helpful that the Government has engaged so constructively with our committee’s recommendations. As Clare Haughey rightly emphasised, we need to get to a position of greater simplicity and accessibility. As George Adam emphasised, we need to move to a more streamlined situation with greater coherence. As John Mason emphasised, there is potential for amalgamation and a reduction in the number of public bodies. It will be interesting and important to see how the Government takes forward its agenda, and I know that Parliament will look at that in great detail and with great attention.”
“We have heard a range of reflections in the debate, many of which have touched on themes and challenges that our committee grappled with over the course of our six-month review. I will pick up on a number of those points now. It was helpful of Maggie Chapman and Kenny Gibson to set the perspectives of the SPCB and the Finance and Public Administration Committee on the research that had been done prior to our committee’s work being instructed, on the SPCB’s wider challenges and procedures in relation to engaging with the bodies and on how the report can assist the SPCB if it is agreed by Parliament. I am also grateful to the minister for setting out the Government’s perspective and touching more widely on public sector reform.”
“I call Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, to wind up the debate. If you could take us to 5.20 pm, that would be great. 17:10 Ben Macpherson: I am pleased to close the debate, which I think has been excellent. It has shown our Parliament at its best in terms of constructive dialogue, different reflections and putting forward perspectives on the concerns that we share. In closing on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate for their reflections and for their time. I also thank my fellow members of our small but effective committee, which delivered the report for the Parliament and was brilliantly supported by our clerks and the research team at SPICe.”
“We do not want to end up in a situation where the only show in town is restructuring, because that in itself can be diversionary. We will take the work forward through the removal of duplication and the integration of shared services. We are clear, and the strategy is clear that, where necessary, structural change will be implemented appropriately to reduce the number of public bodies and ensure that the services that we deliver on behalf of the people of Scotland are as integrated, effective and efficient as possible. Thank you, Presiding Officer. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, minister. The sound of the division bell was unexpected. It had an immediate impact on the minister, though, so that is something to bear in mind in future.”
“We all recognise that, as John Mason said, we are talking about £18 million and a handful of commissioners, but the signal that it sends and the approach and culture change that it signifies are important. The public service reform agenda is about shifting those resources to the front line and, in doing so, making a significant difference to the lives of the people of Scotland and positively impacting service delivery. It is about further integration of services, and shifting resources to prevention, which we believe can make billions of pounds- worth of impact on public services. We have been talking about not increasing the number of commissioners and public bodies. Stephen Kerr and John Mason made the point that the direction of travel is to reduce, not increase, the number of public bodies.”
“He further broadened the scope and importance of what we are trying to do. Judging by his comments, we do not see eye to eye on everything, but I take on board his point about holding the executive to account. That is critical in our democracy. As Stephen Kerr said, that makes the job of the executive easier to an extent, because such a constructive challenge helps enable us to take forward the important work that we do on behalf of the people who send us here. It is worth reflecting on Richard Leonard’s comments about how getting this right is important for our democracy more broadly. I turn to the work that the Government is doing in that regard.”
“Stephen Kerr: Does the minister agree that, in respect to culture change, there should be a line in every annual budget for every cost centre in Government that demonstrates measurable productivity savings? Ivan McKee: As the member knows, we are working to take forward productivity improvements. Mr Kerr will know that workstream 1 in the PSR strategy addresses culture. We absolutely understand the importance of the culture point, which we tie closely to how we recruit, promote, assess and hold accountable leaders across the public sector. The work that we are doing on preventative budgets in workstream 6 is also really important in ensuring that we are clear that we are getting value from every public pound that we spend. Richard Leonard’s comments were interesting.”
“We are continuing to review the overlaps and duplication, which we will address through a mapping exercise, as part of the simplification process. I will talk more in a minute about the broader PSR strategy. In response to Stephen Kerr’s other point, he should consider the committee’s excellent report in the broader context of the PSR strategy. I am sure that he has read from cover to cover all 18 workstreams and is across that, because that is the vehicle that will take forward activity across a broad front. There will be engagement with not just Government and public bodies but those throughout the public and third sectors, and other voices, to ensure that we deliver on our aspiration to build a more effective public service delivery mechanism.”