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 17 of 25.
“I believe that it was unsatisfactory that the SQA, in effect, inspected itself, and therefore I am determined to get an orderly change. Although there was no consensus on the scope or location of accreditation, there was an agreement that the current accreditation and quality assurance arrangements were unsatisfactory. I think that the cabinet secretary has genuinely moved from her original position on that: she was opposed to change, but now she is prepared to look in a substantial way at making substantial change. I was of the view at that time, and committee members will have heard me say, that any of the options that we put forward was better than the status quo. However, there was still no agreement—and there is still no agreement today—on what should happen next.”
“Willie Rennie: I am not going to explain the fact that I have not conceded ground or why I think that we will get a much more substantial reform that will be done in an orderly fashion, which is the right approach for a body that will be new. It will be at its early stages, so it needs to be handled with care. However, I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for resubmitting all the amendments that I lodged at stage 2, which I withdrew at that point, because I know that he wants the whole Parliament to have an opportunity to look at the brilliance of my amendments. In addition, during the bill’s consideration, concerns about higher history in 2024 were discussed in detail by the committee, and the oversight arrangements of our national school qualifications came into the spotlight.”
“Willie Rennie is making the case for what has gone completely wrong with the bill. At the stage 2 committee discussions, it was a case of the cabinet secretary saying, “We will take this offline.” None of the amendments that were being discussed—many of them in Willie Rennie’s name—was going to be pressed, because there was going to be proper time to properly discuss all the different options so that we could come together as a Parliament. That was entirely possible in the spirit of the stage 2 discussion that we had, but it has not happened. I echo Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments about Willie Rennie’s willingness to concede all the ground that he had so successfully gained in the course of the discussions at stage 2.”
“Given the concerns of a great many people in this chamber and among the public about what is happening in Gaza in particular, it is entirely legitimate that we ensure that we do everything that we can to support peace and a resolution for the people of Gaza, and, as I have often said to Stephen Kerr, for the hostages who are being held by Hamas, who should be released.”
“However, Stephen Kerr will appreciate that it is a matter of public record that Prestwick airport is used by the United States Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force and a number of air forces from the middle east. The topical question today specifically relates to the situation in Iran. I was able to give the member who lodged the question the assurance—which I also give Mr Kerr—that Prestwick was not used as part of those attacks on Iran. However, facilities in Scotland are obviously used by our allies.”
“The United States has acted decisively to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities. We must remember that Iran is a state sponsor of global terrorism. In such circumstances, we must stand firmly with our allies the United States and Israel in defence of international security. Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether any formal arrangements, including memoranda of understanding, exist to allow US military usage of Scottish Government- owned infrastructure such as Prestwick airport, and does he agree that such support is right and responsible? Angus Robertson: I would have to check the status of memoranda of understanding, but I am not aware of any.”
“I have set out in my statement that the route to providing support involves looking at ADL’s cost base, considering what additional support we can provide to help with productivity and to lower costs, and ensuring that there is demand. That is why we are working with the procuring authorities, not just in Scotland but further afield, to look at whether we can develop an order book for ADL. It is completely untrue to suggest that the Scottish Government has not acted over the past few years to support local manufacturing. The correspondence with ADL refers to that competitive imbalance, which we have to confront, recognise the root causes of and work through.”
“Public bodies must comply with procurement regulations, the Subsidy Control Act 2022 and other relevant legislation. Stephen Kerr said that we have offered no support in the past year—I am happy to be corrected if that is inaccurate. Since 2020, ADL has received £58 million of funding for zero- emission buses, and Scottish Enterprise has supported Alexander Dennis with £30.5 million in research and development support. That is the investment that we have made. We understand that, if we are going to find a route forward to support the workforce, which I intend to do, we have to be realistic about what the challenges are.”
“It was very clear about how much it valued Scottish Government support over the past few years. I will provide the statistics in a moment. It also cited a competitive imbalance in the UK market as part of the reason for the decision. Here are some figures. Since 2020, ADL has secured orders for more than 360 vehicles through Scottish Government funding programmes. I imagine that my Labour colleagues might talk about Manchester, so let us compare that with how many vehicles were ordered via Manchester—the number was 160. ADL got all the demand for double-decker buses resulting from the Scottish zero-emission bus challenge fund. On procurement, we have supported Alexander Dennis within the legal structures in which we have to operate. ADL has been clear that the challenge across the UK is to do with a competitive imbalance.”
“This was not a matter of subsidy control; it was strategic neglect. Ministers now want to hide behind technicalities that a farthing’s worth of creativity and an ounce of leadership could have overcome—£90 million of public money went to ADL, but there was not even a guarantee of jobs. This is not just about industrial failure; it is a betrayal of Scottish manufacturing and, after everything that has happened in that area of Scotland, it is a betrayal of the Forth valley workforce. I will ask this question again, plainly. Why, under the SNP Government, was public money spent not in a factory employing skilled Scottish workers in Falkirk but in a factory thousands of miles away in China? Kate Forbes: Stephen Kerr might not want to believe what I have said, but perhaps he will believe what the company said in its letter.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. My heartfelt thoughts—and, I am sure, those of every other member—are with the workers and families who have been impacted by this terrible move. I hear what the Deputy First Minister says about setting politics aside, but our role here is to scrutinise the performance of the Scottish Government. This crisis did not come out of the blue. However skilfully it was delivered, the statement cannot conceal the truth. The Scottish National Party Government was warned repeatedly for more than a year and did nothing. When ADL asked for support, it was met with silence. When Scottish jobs were on the line, the Scottish Government was looking in another direction. When orders for buses were needed, those orders went to China.”
“We need to get the structure right and to get the leaders of the organisations, of which there are many, working together, feeling empowered and feeling that the Government has got their back, so that they can take risks and try out new things. It will not always work, but we need to work together as colleagues to learn from the process and take it forward. Without the appetite and ambition for innovation, we will not be able to make progress. That is the key to unlocking all of this. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes that item of business. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business. National Advisory Council on Women and Girls Equality Recommendations”
“Ivan McKee: On the member’s point about savings, I am very clear that that is part of the work that is being taken forward to achieve fiscal sustainability. Next week, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will outline some of the work that we are doing in other parts of the public sector. However, the strategy that we are discussing today is very focused on the almost £5 billion that we identified in last year’s exercise. In that regard, I think that a target of 20 per cent over that time period is a realistic and fairly significant target. We will provide full information as we continue to progress that work. The member’s point about culture is absolutely right. We do not change the culture only by talking about it, although that is an important part of the process.”
“I hate to disappoint the minister, but I do not think that he has been boring at all. As one of the very few SNP members, if not the only one, who has ever run an organisation or, indeed, a business, he would realise—[Interruption.] Members can correct me later. The ambition of saving £200 million a year out of a current resource spending budget of £50.5 billion is not a very ambitious scale of ambition. In one of the paragraphs in his statement, the minister talked about culture change. He knows that we need to bring about a wholesale cultural transformation if we are to achieve the step change that he wants to achieve. How will he do that? Secondly, will he publish baseline metrics to go with all the savings that he aspires to make in different areas of the operation of Government?”
“That is ideological dogma gone mad, and it is not neutrality—it is ideological extremism dressed up as moral superiority. It is a morally incoherent stance that insults our allies, weakens our national resilience and strengthens our enemies, as well as betraying our duties as a member of NATO. It is absurd, morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. The SNP Government must drop its policy of excluding defence projects from public support. The Parliament should send a clear message that Scotland backs our armed forces, stands with our allies and supports the industries that keep us safe and free. Anything less is a betrayal of our responsibilities at home and abroad. 16:33”
“The SNP loves the rhetoric, yet its actions, which always speak louder than words, undermine the very sector that makes the munitions and builds the ships and systems that will help Ukraine to win and help Britain and our allies to defend ourselves. Nowhere is that hypocrisy more grotesque than in the saga of the NHS equipment donation to Ukraine. The SNP Government boasted about that gesture, only for it to be revealed last weekend that it had stipulated that the equipment must not be used to treat wounded Ukrainian soldiers. That defies all common decency, let alone common sense. Imagine telling a Ukrainian medic in a field hospital that they can use the equipment to treat civilians but not the soldier lying next to them with a catastrophic injury.”
“It is hostility to a sector that, in the Deputy First Minister’s words, is a strategic necessity, provides secure, high-quality jobs and drives innovation in STEM, which is what Scotland needs. Daniel Johnson: Does the member agree that the view that we should seek to defend our country should be a patriotic view, regardless of our view on the constitution? Our view on defending our people and country should be regardless of our view on what Scotland should do. Stephen Kerr: I could not agree more with Daniel Johnson. It is about a patriotic duty. It might not be fashionable in the SNP, or in the Scottish Greens, to talk about patriotic duty, but that is exactly what this is about. The SNP claims to stand with Ukraine and it claims to care about national security.”
“Having worked hard on defence policy for my party when an MP, it pains me to see we are not evolving with the serious times we live in.” Stewart McDonald went on to say that he sees nothing in Murdo Fraser’s motion or in Daniel Johnson’s amendment that he cannot support. Then he said: “We”— I presume that he means the SNP— “should be more ambitious in our support of Scotland’s domestic defence sector”. He said that the SNP is “treating ... national defence industries like a dirty secret”. That is the reality of the position that Kate Forbes has been sent out to defend today, with nobody daring to sit beside her. It is an impossible and ridiculous policy. It is ideological nonsense.”
“When the SNP is up to its neck in muck and bullets— although that might not be an appropriate term, given its attitude towards bullets—it sends for Kate Forbes, who has the capacity to dress up the most ludicrous policy positions with sweet reason. By George, she tried today, but she failed. Whatever way we look at the Scottish Government’s policy position on the issue, it is ridiculous. That is the only word—ridiculous. Stewart McDonald, a former SNP MP who has done a bit of work to try to civilise the SNP’s attitude towards the defence of the realm, tweeted—or whatever it is now—on X this morning. He said: “There’s a defence industry debate in” the Scottish Parliament “today.”
“Stephen Kerr will see the detail of that tomorrow, and I am sure that he will be present for it. The Opposition is also keen to talk down the Scottish economy. Day in, day out, we hear that in this place. The reality is that the Scottish economy is one of the best performing in the”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. When did she first become aware that there were at least £1 billion of savings to be made in efficiencies, as was revealed in The Herald on Monday? Where is she looking for the £1 billion? It seems so difficult for her to understand—and I do not believe that it can be—that we are proposing a costed programme of savings. The Government is saying that it is going to save £1 billion. Where is the £1 billion to be saved? Let us hear where the £1 billion is to be saved. Shona Robison: I am sure that Stephen Kerr will be on the front bench tomorrow to hear Ivan McKee’s statement on public service reform, in which he will set out the work that is already under way. It started many years ago and has been accelerated by the work of the Minister for Public Finance.”
“I apologise for my late arrival to the chamber. To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether policies such as culling livestock and promoting less meat consumption could have a detrimental impact on the rural economy. (S6O-04801)”
“We all long for peace, but peace demands clarity and honesty.”
“Pauline McNeill: Stephen Kerr said that Israel has a right to defend itself. How does he feel about the deliberate starvation of the Palestinian population in Gaza? In my speech, I said that there is evidence from eye witnesses that Israel has shot at people who have been queuing up for aid, and it is common knowledge, as reported in the Haaretz newspaper, that Israel has paid armed gangs to cause chaos at so-called humanitarian food distribution centres. Surely he is not justifying that. Stephen Kerr: I do not justify any action that causes civilians to suffer, but Pauline McNeill was very wise to couch her description of those events in relation to reports. This war is being fought not only through violence but through propaganda, and there is an abundance of evidence of that propaganda and of how potent it is.”
“The Parliament cannot ignore the reality that Hamas is not a partner for peace but a death cult, funded by Iran, that is committed to the total destruction of Israel and is utterly indifferent to the suffering of the very people it claims to represent. I share concerns about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. That is why I have asked questions about the nearly £1.5 million of Scottish Government aid that has been committed to Gaza over the past 18 months. As the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee discovered, that aid was intended to be delivered in the form of cash and vouchers to those in need on the ground, but I have raised grave concerns that that well-meaning and well-intentioned support risks being hijacked by Hamas in order to sustain its control and prolong the suffering of civilians.”
“I respect Bill Kidd’s sincerity in lodging the motion, as I respect all those who have spoken so far, and I begin by deploring the suffering of innocent people—Palestinians and Israelis alike. The images from Gaza are harrowing. The loss of innocent life, the displacement of families and the deep trauma inflicted on civilians are tragedies that weigh heavily on us all. No one could be indifferent to such human suffering. However, let me be absolutely clear: I support the right of the state of Israel to defend itself against terrorism. Douglas Ross was right to highlight the atrocities on 7 October. I hope that I am not alone in resolutely opposing Hamas—a violent proscribed terrorist organisation whose actions have inflicted unimaginable suffering on both Israelis and Palestinians.”
“That is why the new Minister for Social Care and Mental Wellbeing and I have a regular meeting with the health and social care partnerships, so that we can ensure that best practice is learned across the system. We are working with our health boards to improve the clinical pathways to ensure that patients who can be moved through the system quickly are discharged quickly. We do not see the picture that the member paints of delayed discharge being endemic across all parts of the system, because there is good performance in some parts of it. I want to learn from those best- performing areas to ensure that we can take that best practice to the areas that are most challenged. We are providing financial and practical support in order to do just that. Criminal Records (Transgender Prisoners) 2.”
“There are enormous disparities in turnaround times between health boards, yet we know that delayed discharge is endemic across all the health boards. On the cabinet secretary’s assessment, why are the turnaround times in some health boards significantly lower than in others? Are there lessons or practices that are not being shared across the health boards that would improve the situation? Someone, somewhere is getting it right but, in other places, it is not happening. Neil Gray: The member is absolutely right that the variance in delayed discharge performance among our health and social care partnerships is far too wide. The First Minister has said that on countless occasions, as have I.”
“However, it is vital that, before the summer recess, we parliamentarians have an adequate opportunity to properly scrutinise their contents by asking questions of the cabinet secretary and other ministers. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business to consider this additional request on my part—and on the part of many other members, I am sure—so that we can have an adequate opportunity to respond in a timely way to those important publications.”
“I am pleased to see included in our business programme a ministerial statement on the situation affecting the Alexander Dennis company in my Central Scotland constituency. Through you, Presiding Officer, I make a plea to the minister also to include an early ministerial statement in response to this morning’s release of two documents that contain guidance on behaviour in schools and guidance on conducting risk assessments on violent, aggressive and dangerous behaviour there. In the chamber and elsewhere in the Parliament, there has been much discussion of the issues of school violence, classroom disruption and pupil-on-staff aggression; they feature regularly in our debates and questions. The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills had promised to deliver those documents, and they have now been published, which I welcome.”
“My colleague Miles Briggs has launched an online petition calling for work to start without further delay, and I hope that it persuades the cabinet secretary to really get a move on. There is only one year left in this parliamentary session, Ms Hyslop, and I would be delighted if we were able to sign off by delivering something of genuine benefit to Edinburgh, the Lothians and the Borders. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. 19:18”
“It is worth noting, for the record, that there are no Scottish Greens in the chamber to listen to this debate. Sue Webber: They might well be watching online, working from home or something—I am not sure—but they should be here, because, frankly, they are at fault for causing the delay. The delay is having a massive impact on the south-east of Scotland’s economy. It is impacting on 42,000 vehicles a day, with commuters being delayed an average of 30 minutes a day. As Christine Grahame rightly said, having cars spurting out those fumes is hardly green. After successive delays caused by the opposition of the Greens and the complacency of the SNP, it is time for the Government to commit to a deadline and a budget for the project before costs spiral further out of control.”
“We needed the cladding bill to introduce some of the powers that were needed, and the bill was passed. With regard to the actions that we have taken, I mentioned the single open call and the work that we have been doing with local authorities and RSLs on that. We are also working with the social housing sector on the remediation of buildings for which it has responsibility. I have talked before about being disappointed about the previous pace and breadth of progress, but, as I said, with the single open call and the work that we are doing, the pace of action is now increasing.”
“I do not understand why the minister, all this time later, is still using words such as “might”. The idea that we cannot compare what has happened in our country with what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom is, frankly, bizarre. We now know that, of the at least 1,300 buildings that need remedial work, only 1 per cent have been addressed, and the Scottish Government has been sitting on UK funding all this time. Can the minister explain how he can justify asking Parliament—at this stage in the session, eight years after Grenfell—to consider a new bill, when thousands of people are living in situations that pose specific risks for them? Paul McLennan: I reiterate that it is not possible to compare Scotland with the rest of the UK.”
“People will take risks if they can see that there is a chance that that risk will pay off in reward, but we have created an anti-reward culture in Scotland. If someone does really well in Scotland, they probably will not stay in Scotland, which is heartbreaking. The figure for net migration into the UK is massive—far too high—but the SNP Government has to ask itself why, as was pointed out to it, hardly any of those people, in proportional terms, come to Scotland. We must ask ourselves what we have done in our country that has put off people coming here and making a future here, even if one agrees with having mass migration, which I do not.”
“When I listen to Kate Forbes—I think that she knows that I like her a great deal—she sounds very credible, but, when we look behind the curtain like in “The Wizard of Oz”, we discover the same old SNP with the same old negative anti-business rhetoric. I really enjoy listening to Michelle Thomson—I think that she knows that, too—but, unfortunately, she is not representative of the vast swathe of SNP MSPs who are fundamentally hostile to the whole idea of wealth creation through enterprise and entrepreneurship. Let me comment on what Michelle Thomson said, because she said some really important things in her very good speech. She talked about risk, and I would like to marry that up with the complete equation: it is about risk and reward.”
“This has been a very useful debate. Willie Rennie is not in the chamber, but I would like to believe that what we hear from the Deputy First Minister is a change of tone from the SNP Government. However, I am not entirely convinced, because that would require a change of policy—as Craig Hoy is saying from his seat—and I do not know whether the SNP has it in it to provide a change of policy. I will give an example, which is one that we discussed yesterday. Frankly, I might have got overemotional in dealing with the minister, Richard Lochhead, but the Government has failed to be coherent in any sense in relation to the Rolls- Royce project that Scottish Enterprise vetoed.”
“The world is beginning to perceive Scotland differently. It is an impression that we are keen to reinforce, and I hope to work on a cross-party basis to continue to build on that work. I move, That the Parliament supports the Scottish Government’s ambition to establish Scotland as one of Europe’s fastest- growing start-up economies; welcomes the significant progress made towards this goal; congratulates Ana Stewart on her appointment as Scotland’s new Chief Entrepreneur, and welcomes the record investment of over £30 million to accelerate Scotland’s emergence as a leading hub for innovation, entrepreneurship and high- growth businesses. 15:36”
“Techscaler and key policy documents such as the Logan review— or “Pathways”—and the innovation strategy have raised our profile. Indeed, Techscaler has been invited to showcase Scottish start-ups in Singapore, silicon valley, Helsinki, London, China and Japan. At the start of this afternoon’s debate, in which political points will inevitably be made—and I do recognise a role for constructive challenge—we should take the opportunity to congratulate those who are involved in the Scottish start-up scene on what they have achieved. The businesses that are driving that scene are raising Scotland’s profile and are doing us proud on a global scale. This September, Scotland has been selected to host the prestigious DICE conference, which will welcome senior executives from more than 100 of the world’s top gaming companies.”
“That is why I am pleased to announce that, this year, we will relaunch the competitive entrepreneurial education fund, which will have a focus on embedding project-based entrepreneurial learning in schools across Scotland. Finally, we are providing £141,000 to support a two-year pilot with the University of Aberdeen to train new computing science teachers, who will be able to equip young people with the skills that are vital for success in high-growth start-ups. As the effect of our interventions in infrastructure, education and investment starts to yield momentum, our ambition is to establish Scotland as a global hub for start-up founders and investors, with a reputation akin to that presently enjoyed by Sweden and Finland.”
“From humble beginnings on Kilmarnock High Street in the 1800s, he built what would become the globally renowned Johnnie Walker whisky brand, which is now valued at more than $10 billion. To create the next generation of Johnnie Walkers, we will invest in igniting entrepreneurial dynamism across all our people and communities. First, we relaunched the £700,000 ecosystem fund. Secondly, we will continue to back Scottish EDGE’s outstanding work to identify and support promising new businesses. Thirdly, entrepreneurship is often seen as the domain of rare individuals with exceptional intelligence and drive, but that is simply not true. Research shows that quality entrepreneurial education and strong networks consistently build the mindset, skill and attitudes needed to succeed.”
“The member has raised questions about funding models, about which there is extensive debate at the moment, but we are talking specifically about the fact that a lot of that research and development does not get commercialised. How do we take it from the point of academic research and turn it into a business? That is what Sweden does well. Yes, there is a time and a place for a broader conversation about funding models, but what we are talking about is the fact that, over the past few years, the commercialisation of that research has lagged behind. The entrepreneurial spirit and enduring legacy of innovation extend far beyond our university campuses. Take John Walker, for example.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way on that point? Kate Forbes: Do I have some time in hand? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will get the time back, Deputy First Minister. Stephen Kerr: As ever, the Deputy First Minister talks a really good game. However, when she talks about universities, does she not accept that the current funding model is failing? Our university sector is in crisis. To talk this thing up as if none of that other stuff exists is a detachment from reality—which, surely, is not the hallmark of the Deputy First Minister. Kate Forbes: The point that I am making just now is that we have great research and development—I think that we would all accept that there is some brilliant research and development.”
“Instead of an answer, what we got, frankly, was sanctimony. If I may be so bold, Presiding Officer, I think that it is about time—and I ask you, on behalf of all members of the Parliament, to ensure that this is the case—that ministers are expected to give some semblance of an answer to a question that is asked of them in this Parliament. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. The content of members’ contributions is not generally a matter for the chair. It is, of course, the case that the ministerial code requires that full and frank responses are given to members of this Parliament. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item. Justice and Home Affairs”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. After four years in this place as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I come to you, after that question session, to ask specifically what I have to do, as a back-bench member of this Parliament, to get ministers to answer questions under scrutiny. I ask that question because, yesterday, we had a long debate in this chamber about the breakdown of trust between the Scottish people and this institution, which should concern all of us. Today, I asked the cabinet secretary a very straightforward question. Over the past 18 months, the Scottish Government has sent £1.5 million to Gaza by one route or another. I asked the cabinet secretary a very simple question—I asked him whether he could give an undertaking to the Parliament that that money had not fallen into the wrong hands.”
“Angus Robertson: I would have thought that Mr Kerr would be aware that no aid is being distributed on the ground in Gaza at the moment, apart from by the privatised and militarised organisation that Mr Leonard brought up. I would thought that he would be aware of that, as it has been leading the news and is leading it today. Stephen Kerr: Will you answer the question? Angus Robertson: I have answered the question: no aid is being distributed on the ground. If the member has any further specific questions, I would be happy to answer them, but I would have thought that Mr Kerr would be better informed about the situation on the ground at the present time.”
“Perhaps I can swing our attention back to areas that the cabinet secretary is responsible for. We have learned in evidence sessions at the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee that a significant proportion of Scottish Government aid to Gaza is being distributed on the ground in the form of cash or vouchers. In light of the grave concerns about Hamas control in the region, can the cabinet secretary provide us with any assurance and tell us what checks are in place to guarantee that Scottish taxpayers’ money, which is intended to help people who are in great distress, is not being diverted to fund a proscribed terrorist organisation that is responsible for terrible, awful atrocities?”
“No economy should tolerate a market in human bodies, and no society that claims to stand against violence against women can allow that form of violence to continue unchallenged. Let us show courage. Let us act not in fear of criticism but in fidelity to the evidence and experience of survivors. I commend the motion and the leadership behind it; I support the bill that flows from it; and I say clearly that Scotland is not for sale, women are not for sale, and this Parliament will not stand idly by while modern slavery is disguised as choice. When the minister comes to reply, I hope that we will see beyond all the party politics that might surround this issue and the people who are involved with it, so that Scotland can rid itself of this terrible reputation as a favoured destination for traffickers. 17:38”
“In Ireland, decriminalisation has empowered women to report violence without fear of criminalisation. Scotland can and must do the same. The Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill provides the vehicle for that change. It reflects the international evidence base as well as our moral responsibility; it rightly targets those who exploit, not those who are exploited; it proposes practical, funded support for those exiting the sex trade; and it aligns with our international obligations under the Palermo protocol and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to actively discourage demand for sexual exploitation. I am no libertarian—I am a social conservative and I believe that the law must uphold moral order and human dignity. There is nothing empowering about being bought and sold.”
“A list of countries has been mentioned, and I will recite them because this is not new territory: Sweden, France, Ireland and Iceland have all shown that demand can be reduced, trafficking deterred and women’s lives changed when the law sends a clear moral message. I am not one who will apologise for using the word “moral”. In Sweden, the proportion of men who buy sex halved after the sex purchase legislation was introduced; public attitudes shifted profoundly from toleration to rejection of this form of exploitation; and enforcement, education and victim support worked together to change not only behaviours but hearts and minds. In France, more than 5,000 buyers of sex have been prosecuted, and almost 600 women have been supported through funded exit programmes, with 90 per cent of them going on to find stable employment.”