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 15 of 25.
“Not everyone will share that view, but the key point is that, whatever one’s view of public services, the answer is not to make the system more complicated. That just makes services worse, not better. It diverts resource and attention—a point that was made well by Kenny Gibson. I reflect on a point that Lorna Slater made in her intervention. Just for the record, the Government does not ignore anyone; we listen to all voices and respond appropriately. In fairness, the point that Stephen Kerr referred to about no one knowing what every public body is doing relates to their detailed work plans. Not everyone knows what every public body is doing at a detailed level. That reflects the complexity of the system that we have in front of us and the number of challenges that the report seeks to address.”
“The only disagreement has been on the Labour amendment, which, for the record, we will not support. We have heard Sue Webber make common cause with Lorna Slater, and Stephen Kerr with Richard Leonard—it has been quite a remarkable afternoon. I commend Ben Macpherson and Murdo Fraser for setting out very well the issues that the committee addressed. Murdo Fraser was right to make the point that there is limitless potential for the creation of new commissioners, should we choose to create them. It is important that that issue was addressed. Lorna Slater made the point that the creation of commissioners is often seen as a response to perceived failings in public services. As a Government minister, I would argue that services are good and improving.”
“I know that I am running out of time. John Mason said that George Adam gave one of his best speeches without mentioning Paisley, but I actually think that John Mason gave one of his best speeches. I agree with him that we do not need more bodies; we need fewer. We also need better processes for accountability and a change of culture in our public services generally, regardless of which body we are looking at. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, could you please bring your remarks to a close? Stephen Kerr: We need a zero-defects approach, so that we can improve what we do in the name of the people of Scotland and for the people of Scotland. 17:04 Ivan McKee: I have to say that it has turned out to be a very interesting debate and there has been a huge amount of agreement across the chamber.”
“I will now focus on what Richard Leonard, my old sparring partner from decades ago at the University of Stirling, said. He reflected on the fact that when we get together in small committees— and “small committees” needs to be underlined and capitalised—and we have short, sharp, time- limited inquiries, we get really good work. I hope that the lesson that he shared is not lost on any of us, because it is very important. When Richard Leonard talked about the need for accountability, I said “Hear, hear!” and, “Amen!”. He quoted the famous water example, but I will use the example of the Glasgow City Council officials who awarded themselves huge pay-offs. To whom do they account, at the end of the day? Our system is lacking in democratic accountability. What he said in his characteristic fashion is absolutely correct.”
“In fact, if the Parliament were to begin to exercise its parliamentary muscles and properly scrutinise the executive and hold it to account, the good news for the executive is that it would improve, and by the measurement of many of us in the chamber, it needs to improve. The consequence of the performance of any Government is partly related to the ability of the Parliament that it accounts to to do its job. On that measurement, we do not do a particularly good job. That is what we keep coming back to. Lorna Slater quoted the New Zealand witness who came before the committee’s inquiry, and we should sit up and take note of what they said. We need a Parliament that does its job. I am quickly running out of time, but I recognise that a number of people have said some really good things.”
“The first is that I will be excommunicated from the Conservative and Unionist Party, and the other is that Lorna’s status in the Green Party—which is already somewhat shaky—might be shakier. [Interruption.] I am being extremely nice to the member, and I am sorry that she does not feel that I am. I thought that her speech, along with Kenny Gibson’s, hit the nail on the head about quality and quantity of work, the need for deadlines and the need for a clear process. I 100 per cent endorse all the things that Kenny Gibson said about that. I wish that that would become the culture of our Parliament. Lorna Slater said that what we need is not all these different bodies, different places to go and signposts to different people; what we need is a Parliament that does its job.”
“In the time that we have left, we should do something about this. Kenny Gibson highlighted that and so did Murdo Fraser. When we take off our party hats and rosette colours and begin to talk to each other about how we can make our country better, improve its governance and improve the Parliament and the processes that we use, it is incredible to discover that, regardless of the party that we are in, we end up largely agreeing with each other. There is a lesson in that. The public do not see it, but when we set aside the biggest issues that divide us, we find a huge element of common ground. It astonishes me to reflect that one of the two best speeches that have been given today was given by Lorna Slater. That is probably going to result in two things.”
“He said: “Nobody knows everything about all the 130-odd public bodies and what they are all doing”.—[Official Report, SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, 8 May 2025; c 12.] To me, that says it all. It sums up where we are and puts it in context. If the minister feels that way, every other member in this Parliament should feel the same way, and we should resolve—on the basis of the very good thought that we have heard this afternoon—to actually do something about it. However, will we do that, or will we simply say that the report and this debate will form part of a legacy from the current session of Parliament that whoever is sitting here in a few months’ time will have to pick up and do something with? I know that we have a lot on our plates, but that would be an abrogation of responsibility.”
“It is also significant that Ben Macpherson talked about parliamentary capacity. We have debated that subject on a Thursday afternoon before, but I do not feel that we are making much progress on tackling it. We need to consider the scale of the scrutiny work that falls on this Parliament. We have 129 members but, including the bodies that we have discussed this afternoon, there are 131 public bodies. That is more than one body per MSP. That shows the scale of the task of proper scrutiny. We have a sprawling network of commissions, commissioners, ombudsmen and all the different public bodies. I have a great quote from Ivan McKee, which he knows I will use on every occasion that I can.”
“This has been a very useful debate and many of the speeches have been very thoughtful. Members have clearly thought through the implications of the committee’s excellent report, and their thoughts and conclusions have been much appreciated by me. It is difficult to sum up in a few minutes everything that members have said, but I congratulate Ben Macpherson and his committee on producing such a fine report. Ben Macpherson struck a number of significant notes in his opening comments, specifically on the importance of a strategic mapping exercise in relation to the particular bodies—a point that was immediately taken up by the minister. However, there is also a wider exercise to be done on public sector bodies, and I know that the Minister for Public Finance is across that.”
“I am happy to discuss any of those issues further, and I look forward to hearing what others have to say during the debate. 16:02”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, in responding, please bring your remarks to a close. Ivan McKee: We will take that into account as we move forward. Government officials will continue to engage on the bill proposals, and I offer my reassurance to the Parliament that they will be available for discussion on further reform. I turn briefly to the issue of shared services. The single Scottish estate programme, which is part of the wider public service reform umbrella, is well under way. The programme has already reduced the size, cost and emissions of the public sector estate. Overall, a total of £41 million of benefits has already been secured, so we are well on our way to achieving the initial target of £50 million to £80 million of benefit.”
“On matters concerning the powers and remit of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, I highlight that the Scottish Government recently published a discussion paper that sets out proposals relating to a human rights bill. The paper sets out a range of options for the SHRC and the SPSO that are intended to strengthen their ability to provide accountability and support for human rights in Scotland. Martin Whitfield: With regard to the concept of a human rights commissioner, will the Scottish Government follow the process that it has taken with the victims and witnesses commissioner and build into the legislation the requirement to respond to that individual, with regard not only to their annual report but to other evidence that they need?”
“The committee’s proposed two-tier justification criteria for the establishment of SPCB- supported bodies reflect the terms of the control framework, and my officials will look to update that framework in line with the committee’s recommendations, should the Parliament accept them this afternoon. I recognise the committee’s recommendation that no new advocacy-type bodies be established. We agree with that general principle, as I have set out in my written response to the committee. As the committee heard during evidence sessions, advocacy-type roles in other instances might be more appropriate for MSPs, the Government or other public sector organisations to fulfil. I also set out in my written response that Government officials remain on hand to support any future reform of the SPCB-supported public body landscape, if that is appropriate.”
“I am delighted that the committee’s recommendations align with those intentions. I am particularly pleased about the committee’s recommended criteria for the establishment of any new SPCB-supported bodies. As the Parliament is aware, any Scottish Government proposal to establish a new body must strictly follow the ministerial control framework, which, if a public body is deemed to be necessary, ensures a rigorous best value process. Only after all alternative delivery options have been explored is such a body created. Where that concerns the potential creation of a new SPCB-supported body, the ministerial control framework guidance stresses that the merits of such a body must be discussed with the chief executive of the SPCB’s office at the earliest opportunity.”
“John Mason: I take the minister’s point—he has said it before, and he is absolutely right—that that is a relatively small amount of money in the scheme of things. However, does he accept that, if we can control the number of commissioners, that sends a signal that we can perhaps control the number of other public bodies? Ivan McKee: John Mason makes that point very well. I acknowledged at the start of my contribution that the debate has much wider significance across the public service reform agenda. The importance of delivering on this—albeit small— part of it is that it sends a strong signal regarding the wider landscape. On public bodies more widely, the Scottish Government’s PSR programme is focused on driving a culture of continuous improvement to support efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of public services.”
“However, Government involvement in reviewing the parliamentary commissioner landscape is, by its nature, constrained and, at times, inappropriate, due to the nature of the services that those bodies deliver and their independence from Government. I appreciate that the committee’s review was born out of concerns about an expanding commissioner landscape and what that could mean for public finance and effective service delivery. SPCB-supported office- holders budgeted £18.3 million for the year 2024- 25, and that figure is set to rise following the introduction of the new Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland. That needs to be set in the wider context of about a £5 billion corporate spend across the Scottish public body and Scottish Government landscape.”
“For clarity, and bearing in mind Kenny Gibson’s comment about how a deadline helps to get things delivered, when is the deadline for that work to be completed? Ivan McKee: Stephen Kerr is absolutely right. He should be aware that there are 18 workstreams across the PSR strategy, and we have spent the summer putting together the teams that will lead each of those workstreams. The action plan for workstream 4, along with the other 17 action plans, will be published shortly, so that members can see the deadlines for that work. Reforming Scotland’s public services is vital to ensuring that people experience high-quality services that are focused on those who need them most.”
“The numbers point to the fact that we very much recognise the importance of construction. The Deputy Presiding Officer: With apologies to members whom I was not able to call, that concludes portfolio question time. To allow the members on the front benches to change, there will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. Care (Isle of Skye)”
“What role will construction employers have in setting the number of apprentices, especially in the light of the recommendations in the Withers review? Graeme Dey: Employers have input—of course they do—but they do not set the number of apprenticeships. Stephen Kerr: Why not? Graeme Dey: That would be entirely inappropriate, but they can have input to it. However, just for Stephen Kerr’s understanding, 25.6 per cent of the apprentices that were allocated in Scotland in 2024-25 went to the construction and related occupational grouping, so a large number of apprentices are already allocated there. I do not doubt for one moment that, if we were to increase that number, which we may well do in future, Stephen Kerr would be back in the chamber, if he is re-elected, calling for more apprentices in other sectors.”
“As we debate these issues today, I feel obliged to point out that, under this country’s constitutional arrangements, the nuclear deterrent and the operation of His Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde at Faslane, along with the royal naval armaments depot at Coulport, are reserved matters that are overseen by the United Kingdom Parliament and the Ministry of Defence. I say to fellow parliamentarians in the debate that the fact that the matters in question are in the public domain at all is evidence of the strength of our democratic system. The reports that we are discussing—”
“I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the debate. I completely respect his convictions, which he expressed with great eloquence. However, I say to him and to Emma Roddick that nuclear science and nuclear weapons cannot be disinvented. It appears to me, judging by the first two speeches tonight, that the Scottish National Party has learned nothing about the threats and dangers of the world that we currently live in. Its members are burying their heads in the sand, and they ought to start listening to senior party figures who have encouraged them to think again about their ideological distrust of nuclear in general and of nuclear weapons in particular.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M- 18922, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on the timetabling of a bill at stage 1. Motion moved, That the Parliament agrees that consideration of the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1 be completed by 16 January 2026.—[Jamie Hepburn] Motion agreed to. Parliamentary Bureau Motion 16:35”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees— (a) the following programme of business— Tuesday 23 September 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Housing (Scotland) Bill followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 10.00 pm Decision Time Wednesday 24 September 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Housing (Scotland) Bill followed by Scottish Government Debate: Improving Literacy in Scotland’s Schools followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 25 September 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Climate Action and Energy, and Transport followed by Ministerial Statement: One Scotland, Many Voices: A Shared Future followed by Stage 1 Debate: Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill followed by Financial Resolution: Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Tuesday 30 September 2025 2.00 pm Time for Reflection followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Topical Questions (if selected) followed by Scottish Government Business followed by Committee Announcements followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Wednesday 1 October 2025 2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care followed by Scottish Labour Party Business followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions followed by Approval of SSIs (if required) 5.10 pm Decision Time followed by Members’ Business Thursday 2 October 2025 11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions 11.40 am General Questions 12.00 pm First Minister’s Questions followed by Members’ Business 2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions 2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice and Housing followed by Stage 1 Debate: Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill followed by Business Motions followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions 5.00 pm Decision Time (b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 22 September 2025, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.”
“It speaks to my point, which is that the Conservative business manager raised the issue with me. I made it clear to him that we will make a statement on the matter. I made that point to all business managers and to the Presiding Officer. I make that commitment now: we will make a statement, and I will lodge a revised business motion, which will be subject to the Parliamentary Bureau’s agreement next week. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that motion S6M-18921, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to.”
“The minister could satisfy us all by saying that his Government will postpone the existing summit, organise a proper one that will involve listening to people, and include that in next week’s business motion. Jamie Hepburn: Douglas Ross knows that it is utter nonsense to say that we do not make requested statements. A statement was requested on the Alexander Dennis situation, and we gave that statement today. It was made at the Conservative Party’s request, therefore we do bring those matters forward. Let me come to the matter at hand, which is the business motion. I thank Liz Smith for speaking to it. She made the point that she had already raised the issue with the Minister for Children, Young People and The Promise. She asked about the statement on the matter, and the minister has made a commitment that there will be one.”
“Grow up! Jamie Hepburn: I can hear the Conservatives decrying that. I have not had a single representation from the Conservative business manager on the issue. I have had representations on plenty of other issues, but not on that one. If Mr Ross cares to go via his business manager, as is the normal practice, to raise the matter with me, I will give it every consideration. Douglas Ross: The problem with asking for statements is that we have asked for many and none of them has come forward. We get them coming, drip by drip, over a period of weeks. It is an urgent issue, which is why I went through the process of asking a topical question and an urgent question. When those approaches were not successful, my next opportunity as a member was to raise the matter by responding to the business motion.”
“That would have been too long a period for Alexander Dennis to wait, which is why the Scottish Government has stepped in to provide support in the short term. The member also asked about regulatory changes. In its first press release, Alexander Dennis referenced that and what it perceived to be an unfair position. The short answer is yes, because we have not yet seen any progress on the regulatory changes that Alexander Dennis wants to be made. We are continuing to engage with the UK Government on those points. The issue is, in part, to do with subsidy control legislation. There are a lot of technical details behind that, and I would be more than happy to pick up with the member, or any other member, on the detail of what needs to be changed. However, it is within the UK Government’s gift to make those regulatory changes.”
“We have set out that the furlough scheme can be drawn down on only when there is evidence that Alexander Dennis has received orders. I will not be able to go into any detail on the order book here, because that information is commercially sensitive. That is why I said that I would be happy to come back to the chamber at a later date to talk about it further. Alexander Dennis is increasingly confident about the short-term opportunities for orders. The member is right to say that, beyond those, we need a long-term pipeline of orders. First, we anticipate, through the UK Government in particular, that there will be evidence of mayoral authorities, local government and the UK Government procuring more buses over the medium to long term.”
“That cannot continue. If we are serious about jobs, skills and industrial resilience, procurement reform must be a priority. Will the Deputy First Minister commit to working with the UK Government and pressing it for a joint approach to reform that ensures that the problem does not persist in future? The future viability of companies such as Alexander Dennis depends on it. Will she publish clear proposals with timelines and firm commitments to deliver the level playing field that all manufacturers will need if they are to compete and win the orders that will secure their future? Kate Forbes: I thank the member for the tone and the substance of his question. He is absolutely right that the furlough scheme is merely a means to an end—that end being the orders and the order book.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the Scottish Government’s £4 million support package, which will provide some short-term relief for the workforce at Alexander Dennis in Larbert and Falkirk. That is a positive step, but it does not address the fundamental issue: it is not simply about bridging a few months, but about supporting the long-term sustainable future of bus manufacturing in Scotland. Alexander Dennis has been crystal clear with all of us, and with the UK and Scottish Governments, that it does not seek favours—only the chance to compete fairly. At present, procurement rules tilt the field against domestic producers, while heavily subsidised imports, particularly from China, undercut Scottish manufacturers and win contracts that should sustain our industry and jobs.”
“To know how many of those world-class productions it has made—be they for the screen or for gamers—is very impressive. I would like to give Mr Kerr confidence that our national performing companies, which work really closely with one another, are very keen to emulate one another with the enterprise attitude that he encourages us to take. He has also encouraged us to ensure that the money is in place. I am happy to say to him that I am very sympathetic to that. It is only a disappointment that Mr Kerr did not vote for that in the budget. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on the constitution, external affairs, culture and parliamentary business. Justice and Home Affairs Gang-related Violence 1.”
“Some of our national companies have been truly entrepreneurial. A good example is the RSNO, which has been producing soundtracks for major Hollywood productions. That is exactly the kind of financial responsibility that we would want to see right across the sector. What encouragement will the cabinet secretary give to other national companies to follow that example? Will he commit that those who show such enterprise, such as the RSNO, will not be penalised when it comes to the allocation of public money, which they still need in order to thrive? Angus Robertson: First, I join Mr Kerr in praising the RSNO. He is absolutely right, and it is doing what it is doing in not only film soundtracks, but gaming soundtracks. It is a huge business.”
“I say to Labour members, too, that that is why the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is so indispensable and why any attempt to tinker with it would damage jobs and investment.”
“No one denies the bumpiness of the exit from the European Union and no one ever projected a smooth transition, but it has gone exceptionally well, and the numbers are there. As I did yesterday, I encourage members to look at the evidence that is available, instead of just chuntering on with the mild prejudice that some members suffer from. Enterprise is Scotland’s engine. The SNP Government must realise that and stop behaving as it often does, which is as a regulatory monster that burdens businesses instead of backing them. Murdo Fraser was absolutely right to say that Scotland’s single biggest export market is not the EU or Asia but England. Our trade with the rest of the UK amounts to more than £52 billion a year— two thirds of all Scottish exports.”
“I hope that SNP members will eventually overcome their Brexit derangement syndrome. I already read out some figures, but many other bits of available data show that the genius and the driven energy—the animal spirit, if you like—of Scotland’s businesses and of the UK business sector have meant that we are making a success of the new arrangements that are now well in place after five years. I hope that the SNP will catch up with the rest of the country and with the Scottish business sector. Kate Forbes: Stephen Kerr mentions the business sector, so what would he say to the third of Scottish businesses that responded to the business insights and conditions survey in November 2023 that listed Brexit as the main cause of export difficulties? Stephen Kerr: There have been many issues in those years—Covid, for example, was one.”
“What Stephen Kerr does not take into account is the fact that Brexit had a particular impact on smaller businesses, in particular on the export of perishable goods—the Scottish salmon figures speak for themselves in terms of the reduction in sales that the industry saw in the immediate aftermath of Brexit. In this informed debate, I am happy both to commend the work that Scottish Enterprise does and to point to particular industries that have talked about the immediate impact that they have seen through”
“I hate to disappoint the Deputy First Minister, but if she looks at the robust performance of British business in terms of exports to the EU from 2015 to 2024, she will notice that there has been substantial growth in real terms. Taken at 2022 prices, our total exports to the EU in 2015 were £319 billion and, in 2024, they were £349 billion. Any doom and gloom around the issues that the Deputy First Minister has raised is misplaced. Kate Forbes: That cues me up very nicely to commend the results from Scottish Enterprise- supported businesses last year. Scottish Enterprise supported £2.46 billion in planned international sales, which is a record high, and facilitated more than 15,000 new and safeguarded jobs and £442 million in innovation investment. It is the support for exporters that is most commendable in those figures.”
“Depending on what happens for each of those plants, we would have different options at that point in time. We keep that information up to date so that we can choose the most appropriate option should something happen. As I said, those worked-through options are available to deploy in the unfortunate situation that they are required. It is in everybody’s interest to keep the plant running under the current arrangement, which has continued over that period. On the workforce, I reiterate our commitment to ensuring that those plants continue to operate. That has been witnessed by the fact that, over the nine years since the original guarantee was put in place, we have secured those jobs and, indeed, grown the number of workers employed at the Lochaber site, and we will continue to do so.”
“Ivan McKee: As I have indicated, repayments against that guarantee will continue to be made over that period. In relation to the quarterly amounts, with every quarter that goes by we are reducing the guarantee that is in place, which is obviously in everybody’s interest. It is also in everybody’s interest to keep that plant running, not least because of the workforce, but because it reduces that liability on Government. The value of the securities changes, and that data is published, but I can seek to provide more up-to-date information on that. There is an audit report every year that produces information on the extent of the value of those assets compared with the guarantee. We have developed contingencies to cover a range of scenarios.”
“I ask the minister to readdress the questions that Murdo Fraser asked, because he did not give us any numbers. I think that the number that he was looking for on current exposure is £286 million, but the valuation of the assets, which form the security against that, is from 2019. That is the most recent valuation, and it is in the company’s accounts. I must refer the minister to Murdo Fraser’s comments about the reliability of some of the information that we are working with. In the event that something does befall the GFG businesses in Scotland, does the contingency that Ivan McKee refers to involve us in making a commitment to the jobs through the Scottish Government funding the business? If that is the case, which budget line would cover the cost in that eventuality?”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that question 6 has not been lodged, and nor have questions 7 and 8. Therefore, that brings portfolio question time to a close. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business, to allow the front-bench teams to change over. GFG Alliance Business Operations”
“Màiri McAllan: Stuart McMillan is absolutely right to identify that how we deal with voids is a critical part of how we respond to the housing emergency. I am very much of the view that, in the same way as we must invest in new affordable housing and seek an all-tenure development uplift, we must also work closely on existing stock. That means returning social voids to use and bringing long-term empty private homes back into use. My officials are in regular discussion with River Clyde Homes and Inverclyde Council, and I am sure that they would be happy to meet the association to further discuss how properties in its ownership might be brought back into use. I thank Mr McMillan for his invitation, and I would be happy to take it forward.”
“Stuart McMillan: The cabinet secretary is aware of the on-going discussions between RSLs in my constituency and Inverclyde Council, which are aimed at improving the local housing stock, but she might not be aware that River Clyde Homes currently has more than 400 void properties, some of which will be razed to the ground shortly. Given that it already has a significant number of properties, River Clyde Homes is in a unique position in relation to the housing emergency. With targeted funding and support, some of those properties could be brought back into use to help to address the national housing crisis. Would the cabinet secretary be willing to meet senior officials from River Clyde Homes to discuss that opportunity?”
“(S6O-04926) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): My officials hold regular meetings with key housing stakeholders in Inverclyde to discuss progress, to share updates and to engage on key aspects of the affordable housing supply programme. At the most recent meeting, which took place in August and involved Sanctuary Scotland Housing Association and Inverclyde Council, the discussions focused on current priorities and future programme planning. This financial year, we are making £9.6 million available for affordable housing in Inverclyde.”
“However, we have been clear about the Government’s expectation of a significant uplift in the development of housing and affordable housing. Through the new notification direction, which I will set out, we will monitor how NPF4 is applied on housing across the country. That will give us the opportunity to intervene in the normal way when we believe that that is needed. Housing Development (Inverclyde) 5. Stuart McMillan: To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Inverclyde Council, private developers and registered social landlords operating in Inverclyde regarding housing development activity planned for the current financial year and for 2026-27.”
“The number of SME house builders in Scotland has fallen to its lowest level in 20 years. According to the Homes for Scotland report that was published in June, nine in 10 SMEs say that it is their perception that the Government’s policies make building harder. I listened carefully to what the cabinet secretary said about her forward direction in addressing that. Is it her intention to intervene in the local government planning process to speed things up? If it is, how will she go about that? Màiri McAllan: Local authorities are independent corporate organisations, and planning is a semi-judicial process. I would not propose to seek to usurp or take the place of the planning authority’s job in carefully considering all that has to be weighed up.”
“Message 3 is that we should reform the public sector and public services—rather than tinkering at the edges—to cut waste and deliver value. We must end vanity projects. We have had a few— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you will now need to conclude. Stephen Kerr: —in the first two weeks that we have been back in Parliament, including the nonsense paper on independence— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you now need to conclude. Stephen Kerr: Thank you—I conclude. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. That concludes the debate on improving Scotland’s finances. We need to protect the time for the second Scottish Conservatives debate, which is about to start. Asylum Seeker Accommodation”
“In all seriousness, Audit Scotland has repeatedly warned that runaway welfare costs, rising public sector pay and healthcare pressures are crowding out investment in education, policing and infrastructure. Those warnings are not political attacks; they are sober analysis from our independent auditors, and yet, instead of action from the Scottish Government, we get complacency. I will conclude. The Scottish Conservatives’ motion calls for honesty and action, not spin and distraction. Message 1 is that we must control welfare growth and move people from dependency to dignity through work, skills and opportunity. Message 2 is that we must invest in productivity to grow the tax base and drive economic growth.”
“That is the baseline of what we say in our motion. Members cannot run away from those realities. They might try to paint them a different colour—mainly yellow on this side and red on that side—but the reality is the reality. She spoke about knocking down the barriers that get in the way of people getting back to work, and I compliment her on her speech. It was practical conservatism spoken large in this chamber, as was Liz Smith’s speech, which I have already referenced. She talked about a dangerous claim culture. If we are going to have a grown-up conversation about the state of the public finances, we need to address the issues that Liz Smith rightly and properly raised in this debate. I see that I am, sadly, running out of time. I have so much material courtesy of everyone who spoke in the debate, but particularly SNP members.”