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 18 of 25.
“We are failing to deter the demand that fuels not only prostitution but sex trafficking—two industries that are deeply interlinked. I find it deeply disturbing that, according to the motion, Scotland has become a destination for traffickers. Why? It is because our laws still permit the buying of sex and allow online pimping websites to flourish. The evidence is clear. We now have the benefit of decades of international learning from countries that have adopted the so-called Nordic model, which is a legal framework that criminalises those who buy sex, decriminalises the women who are exploited, and provides exit supports.”
“I thank Rhoda Grant for creating the opportunity for us to discuss the issue in the chamber, and I agree with John Mason that men need to speak up. Listening to Ash Regan today, I have learned things that I did not know and that I wish did not exist. I wish her all the very best with her bill, and I hope that we will all work together to make it happen in our country. The motion and the bill are all about affirming the principle that prostitution is not a lifestyle choice—it is a form of violence against women. It is an expression of exploitation, often brutal and hidden, and it is too often enabled by our current laws. Scotland rightly aspires to be a nation that defends the dignity and worth of every individual, but while we continue to allow the purchase of sex, we undermine that aspiration.”
“He was talking about the Government selecting participants to take part in the panels, but the Government did not do that; Parliament did that, and that is the point. Stephen Kerr: The good thing about parliamentary speeches is that it is the speaker who gets to decide what he has said and what he meant.”
“Stephen Kerr: I think that the minister needs to go back and listen to what I actually said—I have it written down here. I am talking about the fact that we should not use these consultative tools to deflect from the work that rightly belongs on the shoulders of highly paid members of the Parliament—[Interruption.]—and even more highly paid ministers: the minister is remonstrating with himself. Let us speak truthfully— Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way? I am happy to remonstrate with him. Stephen Kerr: I would be very happy to give way to the minister. Jamie Hepburn: My remonstration is with the member, not myself. He read out part of what he said, but he did not continue to address the point that I made.”
“We must take the responsibility that we have more seriously, and no process or innovation, and no panel or forum, can substitute for a Parliament that has forgotten how to hold power to account. We must not allow MSPs or Government to use that or any other tool to shift responsibility or decision making elsewhere. We must not allow Government to circumvent the democratic Parliament of Scotland by creating hand-picked deliberative bodies. Of course deliberation matters, but so do representation and accountability. Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: I am always happy to give way to the minister. Jamie Hepburn: The member talks about the Government hand picking panels, but this is about Parliament creating the panels. The Government is not selecting participants at all. What on earth is he talking about?”
“Stephen Kerr: I really appreciate that intervention and the light that Jackson Carlaw sheds on the issue. My basic premise, I am afraid, is that the Parliament’s problem is not a lack of tools for participation but a lack of seriousness—a failure to take itself seriously as an institution of scrutiny and accountability. Just look around the chamber this afternoon or on any of the occasions—we have had a few recently—when there has been an opportunity for members to stand up and talk to each other here about how we can be a better Parliament for the people of Scotland. Just look around you now: there is hardly anybody here, and most of the members who are here have been sent here by their chief whip. That is the reality.”
“Jackson Carlaw: I make a similar point to the one that Martin Whitfield made. Whether we were in Dublin or in Paris, engaging with people in other countries or with the pilot panels that we have run here, the committee found that those who participate will accept that their ideas may not be taken forward—because that is for Parliament to decide—as long as people tell them that that is the case and why. The great cynicism and lack of trust in the process arises when people give a lot of time and effort to the process of making recommendations but are then left high and dry and never hear anything more about it. They wonder what the purpose and value of their contribution was. If we communicate back to them, whether we say yes or no, they will accept that.”
“The panels were the completion of the loop—they were referred back to as part of what was happening. That was slightly lacking from the Scottish Government panel, but the evidence from the panel participants who have taken part in the survey has shown that there is a very positive response. Stephen Kerr: I have absolutely no doubt that there has been a positive response from the participants—that is not what I am saying. I am talking about how responsive this Parliament is in general to the presentation of evidence, however that evidence comes to it. When it comes to scrutiny, whether it is pre- legislative or even, occasionally, post-legislative— if we ever do any post-legislative scrutiny—the evidence is not entirely acted on. That is a failure of Parliament and of the Government. I am happy to give way to the convener of the committee.”
“People have undoubtedly engaged at a level at which their words, their counsel and their wisdom have been very useful, but that has not always been taken up as evidence when we have come to deliberations on policy— Martin Whitfield: Will the member take an intervention? Jackson Carlaw: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Martin Whitfield: Take the convener’s intervention. Stephen Kerr: I will take Martin Whitfield’s intervention first, and then I will be happy to take the intervention. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful. I reiterate the point that the evidence from those who participated in the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee panels, in particular, and in other committee panels has shown that there is overwhelming support for the process, even when some of their ideas could not be taken forward.”
“We may well hope that citizens panels would improve a lot of other things, but, in reality, as a tool for solving what is frequently a very troublesome question, they invariably work, and they come up with authoritative ideas that we can develop. Does the member agree with that? Stephen Kerr: I agree with my friend that people’s panels are, no doubt, along with a plethora of different tools that are available to our Parliament, an interesting way of engaging with and deliberating on policy and so on. I get that. However, my fear is that we frustrate the members of the public who engage with the Parliament because, although the member paints a very positive picture of the output of people’s panels, I am not entirely sure that that is representative of the experience that people have had with such panels in this Parliament.”
“However, I wish to return to the blueprint for participation. Its intention is clear— Martin Whitfield: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: Do I have the luxury of some time this afternoon, Deputy Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have a lot of luxury, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: Oh! Then I will take every intervention. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to Stephen Kerr for taking the intervention, and I am very tempted to return the style of intervention that he uses so often, but I will refrain from doing that. One of the developments that I am concerned about is that citizens panels may become solely a tool to improve the reputation of this place and of politicians. We should perhaps return to the fact that what citizens panels produce invariably turns out to be invaluable in the decision-making process.”
“We need, collectively, to up our game when it comes to scrutiny, particularly of the Scottish Government. Ben Macpherson: Stephen Kerr makes some important points, but scrutiny is a broad word and can be interpreted in different ways. One of the shop windows to the Parliament, shall we say, that most people see is First Minister’s question time. Do you think that FMQs, as both a place for scrutiny and a mechanism for engagement with our democracy, should change? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Stephen Kerr: I do, and Ben Macpherson tempts me now to completely set aside anything that I had prepared for my speech to talk about the very many ways in which our Parliament could be improved. There are some simple things that we could do to make our Parliament more watchable, more topical and more relevant.”
“This institution is 25 years old and we are facing critical days, weeks, months and years ahead in relation to whether we will be found wanting as an institution—and as representatives and members of this institution—in the eyes of the people of Scotland in relation to a word that I do not think has been used so far in this debate, namely “relevance”—our relevance. I am really concerned about the idea that we use these tools, which are undoubtedly there and which can be useful, as a deflection from the work that we should be doing as members of the Scottish Parliament. The work of scrutiny should not be left to an assemblage of 25 members of the public—that work should be our meat and drink in the Parliament, and I think that we can do better at it.”
“A young fellow approached me at the weekend, asking, “How do I make a petition to the Scottish Parliament?”, and I felt great pride in saying that all that he had to do was go to the web page. He asked how many signatures he needed, and I said, “You just need one—just you—and your petition will be taken seriously, because we have a committee that is dedicated to that.” That is the level of engagement that we should model throughout the Parliament with regard to our accessibility by the people of Scotland, because we should be in no doubt that, although the blueprint for participation report is a serious piece of work and one that seeks to respond to the problem that we have all identified and are talking about, there is a deep and growing disconnect between the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland.”
“It is a pleasure to follow Evelyn Tweed. She hit a nerve—certainly in my case—when she talked about members of the Parliament being prepared to change their mind when presented with evidence. If there was more evidence-led scrutiny in the Parliament, we would have an enriched Parliament and the people of Scotland would recognise that. I begin by paying tribute to Jackson Carlaw, who is undoubtedly one of our finest parliamentarians. I can see him making fun of the compliment that I have just paid him. We can have a vote later as to whether I am right—I think that I am. The work of his committee, the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, is the very model of the engagement that Evelyn Tweed talked about, because to lodge a petition in the Parliament you need only one signatory.”
“I move, That the Parliament welcomes the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), A blueprint for participation - embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 789), including the blueprint for this work in Session 7 with a view to making the use of such panels a regular feature of committee scrutiny from Session 7 onwards; endorses the principles for the future use of deliberative democracy that are set out in the blueprint, and acknowledges the work already being done by Parliament staff to develop and improve engagement methods. 15:00”
“That is how people should feel when they engage with the Parliament; that is, in the words of one participant, the “gift” of people’s panels; and that is why I urge members to support the motion and ensure that the Scottish Parliament’s proud tradition of innovation in public participation continues incrementally and modestly in the next session of our Parliament.”
“I hope that I have explained to, engaged with and enthused members, as that is what I am here to do on a sunny and dry summer’s afternoon, when people’s minds stray elsewhere. However, if anyone is still unsure of the value of people’s panels, I leave them with this quote from one of the participants: “deliberative democracy is a gift to the people of Scotland and its electorate. In Scotland, we appear to be ahead of the game compared with many countries ... In the people’s panel, we felt representative, represented, relevant and listened to”.”
“That is what the two pilots have demonstrated. In many ways, the pilot on drugs was more successful than the one that considered the post- legislative aspects of climate change more generally. Climate change is such a huge topic that people might have been bewildered about what the focus of their inquiry should be. We have also highlighted other areas in which we would like the work of panels to develop, particularly on ensuring that innovation and continuous improvement remain part of their approach. We are also exploring how we can best harness the extremely positive impact on individual participants in order to amplify other participation and engagement work. We have been clear that that is only one part of the overall scrutiny and engagement landscape.”
“Our recommendation is one for the Parliament. It is modest, because we recognise the current financial constraints. We propose that there should be four people’s panels during the next parliamentary session—one in each of the years from 2027 to 2030. Those panels should be run in line with the more detailed principles that we set out in the blueprint. The overall approach to the panels should be evaluated during session 7 in order to maintain quality, and then to determine what we might do during session 8. That is where the question that Martin Whitfield wishes to raise is important. We have identified that the broader the subject, the less able a panel is to come to a specific conclusion. It is therefore important that the question that people are debating be tightly focused and well understood.”
“I am sure that Jackson Carlaw will agree that part of the problem is that the 2.7 million people who voted in the 2021 Scottish Parliament election currently feel real disenchantment with this place and its members. I do not mean this in a derisory way, but can he articulate how the work of 25 people can make any difference to those 2.7 million? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Mr Carlaw. Jackson Carlaw: I said that the panels are not a panacea. The recommendations on the principle of deliberative democracy in people’s panels extend to the Government, too. The Government will make its own decisions on whether it wishes to pursue the idea of having a wider national forum in which people are able to participate, as happens in Ireland and Paris, and in other countries and cities that the committee visited.”
“Indeed, the Parliament voted for the amendment to the motion from the Labour Party that said that we should review the due diligence that Scottish Enterprise carries out of money that is awarded to companies that are involved in defence and arms activities. Due diligence is a serious issue that all parties—perhaps not the Conservatives, but certainly other parties—have shown a very careful and intense interest in. We have a long-standing principle that any public money that our enterprise agencies use to support companies that are wholly or partially involved in defence activities focuses on skills development and diversification. It is complete nonsense for the member to say that the Scottish Government is not supporting skills development in the defence sector in Scotland.”
“In responding to me in a letter dated 1 April—I hope that there is no significance in the date, by the way, but I am beginning to think that there is—the First Minister stated that there would be a review of Scottish Enterprise policy to ensure continued support for Scotland’s defence sectors “in an increasingly uncertain world.” Minister, did that review take place? If so, what was the outcome? Given the Government’s actions since, how can anyone take any assurance from the promise that the First Minister gave me? Richard Lochhead: I am pleased that the member mentioned the review of Scottish Enterprise that was agreed to by the Scottish Parliament.”
“The Scottish Government’s position on the matter is not just incoherent; it is grossly hypocritical. It is totally hypocritical. The minister is standing up and going on about how the Scottish Government will support the defence industry sector, but the Government is undermining the sector; it is undermining high-value, high-skilled jobs for young people; and it is undermining Scotland’s contribution to the UK national defence. Ministers cannot claim to have been caught off guard by the issue.”
“If we are to truly honour the victims, we must confront the on-going use of sexual violence in conflicts today, from Africa to the middle east, and ensure that PSVI has the political backing and resources to make a difference. Remembrance alone is not enough. Justice must be pursued. Survivors must be supported, not with pity, but with purpose, and we must challenge the hatred that seeds such atrocities in Bosnia, Europe and wherever it may surface, because the truth that we must deal with is that, for most of us in the chamber, this is an event that happened in our lifetimes when the vow of a previous generation had been that such events would never occur in Europe again. Let this Parliament stand as one in saying never again, not in words alone, but in action. 13:01”
“That is why the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative—PSVI—matters. That United Kingdom-led initiative exists because of the failure to prevent atrocities from being committed, including those in Bosnia, and the lack of prosecutions when they are. It seeks to end the culture of impunity around conflict-related sexual violence and to place survivors at the heart of justice and peacekeeping. Srebrenica is a stark reminder of what happens when hate is left unchecked and when international resolve falters. Thirty years on, fewer than 1 per cent of sexual violence cases in Bosnia have led to convictions. That failure of justice is not just a historical shame; it is a continuing injustice. We commend the work of the Mothers of Srebrenica and Beyond Srebrenica for keeping the truth alive. However, we must do more.”
“I thank Michelle Thomson for her motion and for bringing this debate to the chamber. I also congratulate her—if that is the right word—on a speech that brought home again to all of us the horrors, the harrowing detail and the memories of what occurred 30 years ago in Srebrenica, because that was indeed an act of horror: 8,372 Bosniak men and boys were murdered in cold blood. Amid that massacre—that genocide—another crime was committed, which although it was less visible, was no less devastating. That was the mass, systematic rape of Bosniak women and girls. Sexual violence was not incidental to the conflict; it was used deliberately as a tool of ethnic cleansing, humiliation and destruction. Tens of thousands of women were subjected to unspeakable abuse, and many carry that trauma today, largely in silence.”
“To ask the First Minister, in light of it being almost five years since the Scottish Government committed to spending £60 million to renew every play park in Scotland and of reports that less than half of the funding has been spent, what action the Scottish Government is taking to ensure that children do not miss out on renewed facilities. (S6F-04139)”
“I am very grateful that we have had time in the chamber today to debate this issue. I am grateful for the commitment that colleagues have shown, and I look forward to working together to make much-needed progress. The Presiding Officer: I call Jamie Greene to wind up the debate. 17:04”
“Elena Whitham spoke powerfully—again, I am in awe of her ability to talk in the chamber about her personal experience and to use that to strengthen her work as a constituency MSP. I agree that there is an urgent need all over the country to improve things where services are not integrated, and I recognise that many people cannot yet feel the difference on the ground. However, I know—although it is of no comfort to those who are waiting—that there are some pockets where things are working well. Claire Baker mentioned initiatives in Fife. In addition, I recently visited North Lanarkshire and heard powerful testimony from a mum who said clearly, “My child does not have a diagnosis yet, but I’m getting all the support that we need”. I assure Claire Baker that we are working on the LDAN bill, and we will bring forward draft provisions shortly.”
“On the issue of removing from CAMHS waiting lists those children and young people who are seeking an ND diagnosis, I state categorically to the Parliament that that is not the case. As I have said many times in the chamber, the overriding focus is to ensure that the right help and support is available for our young people and, for many, that is best provided through an ND pathway and not through CAMHS. However, I am happy to support the Labour Party amendment to improve data collection and publication in that area. Ariane Burgess mentioned the need to include lived experience, and I am absolutely keen to do that. I agree with Willie Rennie on the opportunity cost that can come if people do not get the right support in the right place at the right time. That is why we are working so hard to improve the situation.”
“The Scottish Government cannot deliver that change alone, and it is not the responsibility only of Government—it requires collaboration with a range of partners working together. To that end, I am absolutely content to commit to convening a cross-party summit on neurodevelopmental support needs. That summit will enable us to dedicate more time to this important topic and to work together on a shared vision for the way forward. That probably responds to the point that Mr Kerr was going to make, as well. The change that we want to see will not happen overnight, but I hope that members acknowledge that progress has been made and that there is work under way, and note the Government’s commitment to delivering further improvements in the future.”
“Annie Wells was completely correct in making the point that those targets for funding are intended to achieve parity of esteem between physical and mental health, and we are making good progress on that. The latest available figures, from 2023-24, show that we are at 9.03 per cent and 0.82 per cent, respectively. I acknowledge that there is a great deal more work to be done to ensure that neurodivergent people are able to access the support that they need. We are all working hard to adapt to meet a new set of challenges. Stephen Kerr: Will the minister give way on that point? Maree Todd: If Stephen Kerr will give me one moment; I have not finished responding to Ms Burgess.”
“As I said, we are already engaging with the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland on the shared care agreements, and we are keen to unlock the barriers to entering those. Ariane Burgess: I would love to hear from the minister whether her Government remains committed to the allocation of 10 per cent of NHS spending to mental health services and 1 per cent specifically to CAMHS by the end of the current parliamentary session. In addition, given the constructive nature of today’s debate, it would be good to get a sense of the timeline for the cross- party summit that is mentioned in the Government’s amendment. Maree Todd: Absolutely—we are still committed to those 10 per cent and 1 per cent targets.”
“I have already set out that we have taken a number of steps to address that, and we are committed to continuing to take action, including implementing the recommendations from the adult neurodevelopmental pathways pilots and the children and young people’s neurodevelopmental specification review; commissioning NHS Education for Scotland and NAIT to provide professional learning about neurodevelopmental conditions; and investing £1 million a year to provide support to autistic adults. We continue to engage with the Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland on the shared care agreements— Ariane Burgess: Will the minister take an intervention on that point? Maree Todd: Yes—I will just finish the point.”
“I hope that the cabinet secretary will meet the Minister for Parliamentary Business and ask for a proper debate in the Government’s debating time, so that we can properly air the issue and come together as a Parliament to ensure that something changes for people who ought not to have any further delay in their diagnosis and treatment. 16:58 Maree Todd: I again thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the issue to the chamber, and I thank all members for their speeches. I reiterate the importance that the Scottish Government places on providing high-quality services and support for neurodivergent people and for mental health, and I state my unwavering commitment to improvement. I acknowledge the significant growth in demand for neurodevelopmental services.”
“That is a disgrace, and the Government has engaged in that for years in order to get the answer that it wants from statistics. That is not acceptable. On the issue of diagnosis, the minister failed to acknowledge that, for adults in particular, the inability to obtain a diagnosis has disqualified them from some of the support that they need, particularly, as Willie Rennie said, in relation to employment. A diagnosis is not a luxury or an added extra; it is the key that often unlocks the support that people need, particularly when it comes to their employment. I realise that I am out of time, but I thank the Liberal Democrats for bringing the subject to the chamber.”
“The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Stephen Kerr: Of course I agree with Christine Grahame on that subject. All practical means should be used to alleviate the suffering and confusion that people feel when they have conditions that they do not understand and their own self-awareness is challenged. What Christine Grahame said in that regard is right. She also said, in concluding her remarks, that her suggestion was not an attempt on her part to sidestep the importance of a diagnosis, and I would like to conclude on the issue of diagnosis. Before I do that, however, I note that Claire Baker was absolutely right in what she said about the Government playing about with the waiting lists, changing definitions and moving blocks of people to different lists.”
“That is beyond a crying shame; it is a scandal. It is hard to disagree with Elena Whitham. She said—I hope that I am not misquoting her; I am sure that she will correct me if I am—that we “cannot shy away” from the fact that too many people are being let down, and that people “should not have to lodge petitions to get access to healthcare.” I think that that says it all. If this debate does anything, it should serve to call us to action—not just to share words and sentiments and sympathy but to see that something is done to change the situation. Christine Grahame: Do you accept the point that I made in my speech that we should not park medication or assessments until a diagnosis is secured but consider interventions and alternatives early on in the educational process, from the very start, at nursery?”
“Willie Rennie gave an excellent speech about the human cost of the lack of action in this area. He also specifically highlighted the economic cost, and the statistic that he shared about economic inactivity among 16 to 64-year-olds ought to make us all stop and think very deeply about what our priorities are in this Parliament and what the Scottish Government’s priorities ought to be to get this country working. When Willie Rennie told the story about his visit to the ADHD support group in St Andrews, he said that the situation of the young man whose story he shared was “a crying shame”. I would use a stronger phrase: I think that it is a scandal. It is a scandal that, even though we live in one of the richest countries in the world, we cannot give that sort of support to people who need help.”
“There was not enough self-awareness or a realisation that the SNP is the Government—it has been sitting where it sits for 18 years and we are still talking about a problem that is worsening rather than improving. When Sandesh Gulhane talked about there being a postcode lottery, he combined that with anecdotal evidence from his experience as a GP in dealing with some of the emotional issues that arise in his surgery as families express their frustration about the lack of care that they are getting. I come back to the point that Paul Sweeney made so well in a simple phrase. Ministers, he said, are “washing their hands” of the issue. All too often, Scottish ministers wash their hands of issues for which they have full accountability—to this chamber and to the people of Scotland.”
“It is nice to see you back in the chair, Presiding Officer. We have had a good debate. The frustrating thing about it is that we all seem to be agreeing with one another. I know that that can happen in a Scottish Parliament debate, but everyone is also expressing frustration about what is not happening and what should happen. I thank the Liberal Democrats for this debate, and the previous one. It is a terrible shame that the Government cannot use the hours of its debating time to allow such subjects to be properly addressed in a full-scale debate. The Government runs away from these issues. I have to say from the off that, although Alex Cole-Hamilton gave a brilliant summary of the problems, I felt that Marie Todd’s contribution was too self-congratulatory.”
“That means that they can teach at a high school, not as an ASN specialist or as a teacher overseeing certain groups—they can teach secondary 1 or S2. That addresses the comments that we have heard about pupils who go into high school sometimes being challenged by the levels that exist. Let us remember when the Scottish Government unilaterally lifted expectations around what pupils leave primary school with. That caused chaos in high schools, because they could not make it. 15:44”
“We have a challenge because of the census running late, and a challenge in knowing the number of children, and their ages, who actually need education. However, that data exists. What has not happened at the Scottish Government level is proper and full consideration not of what the needs were last week, last year and five years ago, but what the needs are going forward. We have heard that a number of teachers with a primary education qualification cannot get a permanent job. They move from supply contract to supply contract or temporary contract to temporary contract. The cabinet secretary talked about how we can make teachers feel that they are valued. One way is to give them a contract. Someone who is qualified as a primary school teacher in Scotland and registered with the GTCS can teach the entire broad general education.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Martin Whitfield: I am going to tempt my learning once again and accept a short intervention. Stephen Kerr: I just wanted to share with the member that I have asked the cabinet secretary for numbers on newly qualified teachers, teachers in post and so on, but the Government has no statistics. This Government runs blind—it has no statistics. Martin Whitfield: I am very grateful for that short intervention from Mr Kerr, because it actually allows me to move on to the next part of my speech, which gets to the heart of not only this discussion but other discussions that we have had throughout the session. What is involved in considering the number of teachers that we need in the future?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what new action it will take to support fisheries, in light of the European Union-United Kingdom agreement. (S6O-04706)”
“Those things make a difference at the chalkface, but it is also imperative that the national action plan, which I spoke about previously, helps to inform improved practice in our schools, which is why we are working in conjunction with COSLA to do exactly that.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I am not sighted on the specific commentary that Mr Kerr is alluding to, but the general point, which was made in First Minister’s question time last week and by the justice secretary, is that schools are sometimes the safest place for some of our young people who come from chaotic and challenging backgrounds. It is important that schools provide consistent support. More broadly, the member and I have discussed over a number of months, if not years, some of the challenges in Scotland’s schools and how we can better support our front-line staff, which is hugely important. In response to Liam Kerr, I mentioned the extra funding that we are putting in via the budget for teacher numbers and additional support needs.”
“Do the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs’ comments that were broadcast at the weekend, which were that violent children should remain in mainstream classrooms, reflect the official position of the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills or of the First Minister? If it is the policy, was it agreed with teachers and their unions? If it is not the policy, will the cabinet secretary take the opportunity to apologise to Scotland’s teachers, parents and pupils for the confusion and concern that those comments have caused?”
“Frankly, I do not believe for one minute that the workload of a committee convener is any less than that of a Deputy Presiding Officer or a junior minister. In so many different ways, in respect of the power balance between Parliament and executive, it is even more important that we have independent, fully functional conveners. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude. Stephen Kerr: I know that my time is up, but I make the point again that we need to do better at managing our debates. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I did not want to interrupt your flow, but I point out that the time that we had in hand earlier was not to allow members to continue well beyond their time; it was to allow for interventions—a number of which you made yourself—and to allow members to have the time back, in the same way as you have had. 16:32”