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 19 of 25.
“Stephen Kerr: I will give way. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Briefly. Audrey Nicoll: On the point that Stephen Kerr has just made—Jackson Carlaw made a similar point—does he agree that conveners sometimes find it quite difficult to achieve the balance between being too liberal and flexible during a meeting and ensuring that there is the expected formality? Stephen Kerr: I agree with that. I also think that there should be proper support for conveners to allow them to grow into their role. That is very important, too. For a convener to be truly independent, they need to have the mandate of every member of the Parliament, so I am strongly in favour of elected conveners. I am also in favour of remuneration for committee conveners.”
“I want to touch on a couple of other things, because my time is about to run out—actually, it has run out. I completely agree on the issue of committee changes, and I have mentioned making the committees free of the whips. There is also a workload imbalance. There is too much regimentation in how we go about things in the Parliament. For example, there are only so many hours in which a committee can meet, apparently. We need to be more liberal in the way that we see the parliamentary week. Committees should meet as often and for as long as is necessary to do their work, but there are too many standing order restrictions around that. Audrey Nicoll: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: I will give way—or am I not allowed to give way, Deputy Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You should be winding up at this point, Mr Kerr.”
“It discourages independent thinking by members and it channels members in a certain way, rather than allowing them a much greater interpretation of what is happening before them. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for the intervention, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: That is a brilliant intervention. I could not agree more. The member is absolutely right. We need to encourage independent thinking, because that is the bedrock on which a Parliament exists. Unless we have that, we will fall short in our responsibilities in holding the great public office of being a member of the Scottish Parliament. I repeat: the parties need to butt out of the committees, and we all need to live up to the expectations that the people of Scotland have in us, as holders of the office of member of the Scottish Parliament.”
“I believe that the current committee system is failing to meet its original purpose. Unless we act decisively, this Parliament will continue to fall short of the democratic standards that the people of Scotland deserve. The problems are structural—they are not tied to individuals—but they are not incidental. The committees are too often dominated by party tribalism and party discipline. The long reach of the whips is felt in the committees, but, as parliamentarians, we should not tolerate that. The committees should be completely independent of the control of the whips. Kenneth Gibson: Does the member agree that the sterility of some committees for which SPICe and the clerks write the questions reduces their flexibility?”
“However, we have to be careful that our pride in what lies in the past does not prevent us from realising where the system as it stands today, after 25 years, is falling short. After such a length of time, we really should be asking ourselves whether our committees are delivering on the promise that we thought they had when the Parliament was established, or whether they have fallen under party control and become overburdened, underresourced and, frankly, too often ignored. As I have said, there are a number of conveners in the chamber for whom I have a lot of admiration because of their independence of mind in the way that their committees go about their work. However, that is not true of every convener or every committee of this Parliament. Let me be blunt.”
“I am going to model the behaviour of independent thinking and opinion that we have been speaking of, because I do not agree with everything that my party submitted to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for consideration in its inquiry into the future of committees. I will spell out in exactly which areas that is the case—I am sure that everyone will be absolutely scintillated to hear that. The reality is that we have a single legislative chamber and the committees are absolutely not intended to be a supporting act but are supposed to be the engine of scrutiny. The question is whether they are, and I think that the answer is obvious, frankly. We may take a lot of pride in the set-up of our Parliament. Much was promised in that regard: it was going to be innovative, progressive and distinctly Scottish.”
“I think that that observation is a good introduction to my remarks, so I am grateful to the member for it. We should be committed to continual improvement. Everything can get better. For example, one thing that could get better—I hope that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will look at this at some point—is debate management. Here we are in an important debate, and those of us who are on the back benches, who have waited an hour and 10 minutes to speak, must stick to our four minutes, whereas previously everyone took as much time as they liked. I do not think that that is a very good way to manage the time for debate in the chamber and I have given suggestions in the past about how to improve it.”
“The committee has agreed that, as a minimum, there should be no single-sex committees from the start of next session, and we have used the inquiry to explore the other quotas that are set out in the gender-sensitive audit regarding committee membership and convenership. The second strand—this relates to Stephen Kerr’s intervention—was that of elected conveners.”
“We gave consideration to committee remits and to whether they should continue to mirror the ministerial portfolios, or whether there needs to be more flexibility for ad hoc bill committees or more cross-committee working. We heard reflections on what is seen by many to be the ideal of a committee member leaving their party hat at the committee door, whether that is always desirable or, indeed, realistic to achieve, and how members can be empowered in their role through the provision of induction, training and support. The committee also explored the use of parliamentary time and whether that should be utilised differently, for example by setting aside specific periods in which committee activity can be focused on or by giving committees more flexibility to meet in private session at the same time as the chamber.”
“In relation to structure, we sought to answer the question, “Are there structural and procedural changes that would improve committee scrutiny?” We heard various views on whether the size of a committee matters. Smaller committees seem to assist with the development of a sense of cohesion, but bigger committees offer the flexibility to deploy members as reporters, to form sub- committees and to manage high workloads. Churn in the membership of committees has been a recurring theme. As well as considering ways to reduce that churn, we heard reflections on how its impact can be mitigated by committees having mission statements that set out long-term aims and purposes, so that new members can recognise and support those from the outset.”
“Looking around the chamber, I can see conveners who have established powerful committees on the basis that Martin Whitfield has described. How important is the role of the convener? Does he agree that the convener sets the culture and tone for a committee and allows it to do exactly what he has suggested should be the role of committees? Martin Whitfield: Of course the convener holds a key piece of the jigsaw in ensuring that the committee works effectively. I will come to the evidence on that in a minute, if the member will kindly let me finish talking about the impact of our work. To aid today’s deliberations, I would like to set out in detail the strands that the committee looked at.”
“Therefore, it will require careful consideration to ensure that it is deliverable and that it delivers for the local community. The Scottish Government must weigh up any investment decision both in terms of the impact on the individual project and its ability to invest in other areas. Ultimately, the decision whether to proceed lies with the council. As I mentioned, I am meeting Councillor Meiklejohn to discuss some of those issues tomorrow morning.”
“Stephen Kerr: Given the exceptional scale, cost and national importance of the Grangemouth flood protection scheme, will the cabinet secretary confirm that we need a bespoke funding model for it? Gillian Martin: It is important to reiterate that the next steps in the process for the Grangemouth flood protection scheme are to be undertaken by the local authority. Should Falkirk Council confirm the scheme in its current form and wish to access further funding from the Scottish Government, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the scheme, in whole or in phased elements, is value for money and to assess it against other flood protection schemes across Scotland. We already know that the proposal, should we receive it from the council, will be exceptional in scale and financial cost.”
“Falkirk Council cannot possibly be expected to contribute what is likely to be at least £100 million. The cabinet secretary also mentioned the joint task force that was formed in 2024 to explore funding options, among other things, but ministers have yet to confirm the Government’s contribution or the timeline. Time is of the essence. It is 10 years since we started down this road and 10 years since the scheme was first identified as the number 1 priority due to the high level of risk and the high cost benefits. What safeguards are in place to prevent delays in the local hearing process? After that process is concluded, what is to prevent Scottish ministers from kicking the can further down the road and not making a timely decision? Given the— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I must ask you to conclude.”
“I welcome the ministerial statement and thank the cabinet secretary for an advance copy of it. Grangemouth’s future depends on urgent infrastructure investment to support regeneration and to protect one of Scotland’s most strategically important areas. The Grangemouth flood protection scheme is critical because it will safeguard 6,000 residents, 2,760 homes, 1,200 businesses and nationally vital infrastructure. As the cabinet secretary mentioned, under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, the Scottish Government typically funds 80 per cent of such schemes, leaving the local authority to fund 20 per cent. However, that model will not work in this instance, because, as the cabinet secretary pointed out in her statement, current estimates are that the total cost of the scheme will be between £450 million and £672 million.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the impact of its Scottish income tax policy on the median income in Scotland, in light of this being estimated to be £29,750 in 2025-26, based on its current policy. (S6O-04685)”
“Will the commissioner’s office be a safe haven for whistleblowers? There are many areas of public interest that are raised by whistleblowers that, as things stand, are not being properly dealt with or even respected. Paul Sweeney: The commissioner’s job is to look at systemic issues. Nonetheless, whistleblowers will be an important factor in identifying issues of a systemic nature that can be investigated and they will possibly form a trigger for investigation. I am sure that the commissioner will exercise their judgment accordingly. I encourage any member of the public who has concerns to engage with the commissioner.”
“The British people did not vote for Brexit only to have it reinterpreted in secret summits and quiet deals. The Labour leader might claim that he is not interested in the “battles of the past”, but if he trades away our fishing grounds, our borders and our legal autonomy, he will not just be fighting yesterday’s battles—he will surrender them. Meanwhile, of course, the SNP cheers him on, because anything that weakens the United Kingdom suits its separatist agenda. Surely we have heard enough grievance in the cabinet secretary’s opening statement alone to convince the neutral observer that that is the intention of the SNP Government here at Holyrood. Let us be clear that this is not about strengthening—”
“It wants its students to have cheap access to United Kingdom universities. Crucially, it also wants a role for the European Court of Justice in overseeing the UK’s compliance with any future agreement that is discussed, starting on Monday. Let us be in no doubt about what that means. It is not about having a partnership of equals; instead, it illustrates a creeping return to EU control. However, Labour seems only too ready to sign us up to that, behind closed doors. There is talk of a “dynamic alignment”, which is code for accepting new EU laws without having a say in making them. There is talk of a “youth mobility scheme”, but with permanent obligations and no clear limits. There are whispers of effecting “regulatory harmonisation” in return for marginal gains in trade. That is not co-operation; it is capitulation.”
“The FT reports on a so-called “reset”—although we all know that the European Union does not like the use of that word, as was made clear to our colleagues who took part in a committee visit to Brussels. The report says that the Labour Government wants a reset of UK-EU relations, which is being driven by EU demands for British concessions on fishing rights and youth mobility because Brussels wants long-term access to UK fishing waters. The Scottish Conservatives will stand with Scotland’s fishermen in refuting the European Union’s demands for such concessions. That is not the way in which such matters have been done in the past, and it should it not be how they are done in the future. Brussels also wants our students—through our Government, here in Edinburgh—to subsidise European students.”
“In particular, the trade deal with India has been widely welcomed, especially by the Scotch whisky industry, because, behind that deal, there will be prosperity for the sector and jobs in some of the most remote parts of Scotland. That is one sector that can take advantage of trade between the United Kingdom and, for example, India and the United States, but there are other sectors, too. This is Brexit delivering and yet, now, amid the debate on this motion and in the light of today’s front page-story in the Financial Times, we must face a new risk: not just the SNP’s fantasy of rejoining the EU but Labour’s quiet attempt to reverse Brexit by stealth.”
“We did not vote to leave the EU in name only; we voted to take back control of our laws, our borders, our trade policy and our money, and that is what we have done. In the past few days, we have seen the evidence of the fruits of an independent trade policy. That is something that Angus Robertson and the SNP would freely and willingly give up, but it is an advantage and a benefit that has come about because we left the European Union. Since Brexit, the United Kingdom has signed more than 70 trade deals and we have joined the CPT—I always get this wrong. We have joined the CPTPP—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are also negotiating the detail of free trade agreements with India and the United States.”
“Here we are again—in a packed chamber, as we can see—being asked again to indulge the SNP’s constitutional obsession, which we have already had a good introduction to from the cabinet secretary, as if the solution to Scotland’s economic challenges is always the same: break up the UK, rejoin the EU and pretend that sovereignty is a burden rather than a prize. Angus Robertson’s motion—I hope that he will forgive me for saying so; he might even take this as a compliment—looks as though it could have been written in Brussels. It calls on the UK to abandon the basic pillars of our post-Brexit independence, to drop the so-called red lines of leaving the single market and the customs union, and to re-adopt freedom of movement. However, those are not just red lines; they are the democratic instructions of the British people.”
“I think that the cabinet secretary perhaps has the answer to the question that he is asking at his own fingertips. Let me be absolutely clear that I actually agree with the cabinet secretary: it is wrong—plain wrong—for the European Union to make security co-operation conditional on anything. Such is the nature of the threat that we face on our shared continent that there should be no conditionality with regard to our working together to thwart the efforts of Vladimir Putin or anyone else who would seek to undermine the European nation states, which should be working together in what Keir Starmer, I think, has rightly called a coalition of the willing. Where are we on this wonderful Thursday afternoon?”
“However, I hope that the member recognises that it is a hugely deficient situation that, with only Friday, Saturday and Sunday—three days—to go until the summit meeting in London, and when he is able to read about the issues on the front pages of UK newspapers, Government ministers in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Northern Ireland have not been informed by the UK Government about any of the detailed discussions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: The relationship between the Scottish Government and the UK Government is a long-running story. On taking office, the Labour Party thought that it could reset the relationship with the Scottish Government, and the Scottish Government was full of similar sentiments.”
“I do not think that the cabinet secretary actually answered the question that I asked in my intervention. I am happy for him to intervene on me to answer the question: does he think that it is right that the European Union is making security co-operation contingent on long-term access to UK fishing waters? He did not answer that question, and maybe he would like to take a moment to do so. Angus Robertson: I am happy to make an intervention. No, I would not be pleased to see defence and security co-operation being conditional on any other consideration. I believe that defence and security serve us all, and they should be key priorities.”
“Scotland is a proud European nation with a strong internationalist tradition and outlook. That vote, and the Government’s commitment since then, leaves no doubt that Scotland’s place is in the EU and that we are committed to rejoin the EU as an independent member state. We welcome and support the UK Government’s intent to seek improved relations with the EU. We have tirelessly called for better relations. If the UK Government is serious about economic growth, it will drop its red lines and get back into the single market and the customs union. There are many areas in which a closer partnership with the EU could at least lessen the damage of”
“Last week, we marked Europe day, on which we remember the circumstances in which great institutions were founded and recall the ideas about international unity and co-operation between nations that we might learn the lessons of the past, base the world order on the rule of law and build trust over division. We need those institutions so that we can find common ground, tackle challenges by working together and, above all, rebuild trust. That common good is eroding globally today. Nearly nine years ago, the Scottish people overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU while the UK made the regrettable choice to leave. Scotland stands steadfast behind the European idea and project, which are the founding principles of the European Union today. We uphold our shared values.”
“Particularly given the things that he has said in his speech about the situation on the continent of Europe, does he think that it is right that the EU should conditionalise co- operation on security on the basis of unlimited, far- reaching access to UK fishing waters? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back for the intervention. Angus Robertson: I will come to that specifically in a moment, and, indeed, in my summing up; I will answer that in full in the course of the debate, for reasons that will become obvious.”
“Like all great partnerships, the EU will of course have its moments of discussion and disagreement. However, like all good relationships, it has established mechanisms to come to agreements and make them work. When the EU’s founding values such as equality, democracy and the rule of law can seem under threat even from some within the union, now is the time to proclaim those values even more loudly. Stephen Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angus Robertson: I will. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary. I wanted to intervene earlier, when he talked about the forthcoming UK-EU summit in London. He will have seen, as I saw, the front page of this morning’s Financial Times, which discloses an internal EU document that sets out some terms and conditions.”
“For Keir Starmer to use words such as “squalid” and “strangers” and to describe those who have come to the UK as being part of “a lab experiment” was truly a new low for Labour. Let me reassure all those from Europe and beyond who have made Scotland their home and who may well be feeling bruised and uncertain today. I say to them: the Scottish Government values what you do. Your contribution to our health service, our care homes, our businesses and our communities is immense. You are part of us. You will always be welcome, and we thank you for making Scotland your home. Freedom of movement has been one of the European Union’s greatest achievements. The opportunity for people in Scotland to live, love and work in 27 other countries should have been celebrated, not denigrated.”
“Back in 2005, the then First Minister and Scottish Labour leader said: “The way to preserve schools and hospitals and services in this country and the way to have a strong economy in the years to come is to have more fresh talent in this country.” Commendably, Jack McConnell also noted that immigration goes beyond the economic benefits, vital though those are for Scotland. He said that it is about our values and our place in the world, and he was right. How far Labour has fallen since then. On Monday, instead of echoing that hopeful, optimistic, welcoming and inclusive message, the Prime Minister engaged in ugly, damaging and disgraceful rhetoric. Instead of standing up to the far right, he chose to lie down in front of Nigel Farage.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angus Robertson: If the member does not mind, I will not take the intervention now as I want to make a bit more progress. It is important that we understand and respect that the people who have come to Scotland from the European Union and the rest of the world are just that—people. That is their defining characteristic. They are not just migration statistics, but people with the same dreams and aspirations as everyone else, and they deserve to be treated with the same dignity and respect as everyone else.”
“Not all the measures that I have announced today will be fulfilled, but I am confident that the Government is taking the action that is needed, and that we will deliver for the children and young people who need it most. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes that item of business. Before we move to the next item of business, there will be a brief pause to allow front-bench members to change places. Scotland in Today’s Europe”
“Natalie Don-Innes: I am not quite clear that I understand the basis of Mr Kerr’s question, so if I do not answer it in my response today, I am more than happy for him to write to me, and I will respond in writing. I am sorry that members do not have confidence in the statement, but I do not believe that we are dealing with ifs and buts. My statement delivers real action to restore capacity. I have tried to be open and honest with members, and to share with them the range of measures that are available. I would have preferred to have made the statement in June, when I would probably have had more concrete progress to advise on, but I wanted to be as open and honest as I could be.”
“The minister needs to understand that we do not have confidence in her statement. She is the minister who is responsible for the system, and what she has brought to Parliament today is another set of maybes aye, maybes no. That is not the way to run any aspect of Government, especially when we are talking about some of the most vulnerable young people in our country. I will give the minister an opportunity to be a little bit more precise about the issue of operational capacity. First, can she please define, for the purposes of this Parliament’s information, what full operational capacity is? Secondly, can she give a specific guarantee on the timeline by which that capacity will be in operation?”
“We have provided funding for that from the economy portfolio, recognising the point that the member makes about wider workforce challenges and ensuring that there is a pipeline of talent feeding into the system.”
“Jenny Gilruth: I do not know whether the member is aware of the pilot that we are supporting at the University of Aberdeen that speaks to the essence of his question. It is focused on expanding the profession in relation to computing science, where we know that there are challenges. It is a two-year MA secondary course that has been designed to allow students with the relevant higher national diploma qualifications to convert to teaching. The first cohort is due to start in September 2025, and it will complete the course in 2027. The course is still open for applications via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service website, so I encourage members, including Mr Kerr, to help to raise awareness.”
“It was touching to hear how much the cabinet secretary missed me at the Education, Children and Young People Committee meeting on the Education (Scotland) Bill on 30 April. There is a problem with the number of computing teachers. It has been pointed out repeatedly that there is a ticking time bomb when it comes to the ageing demographic of those who are currently teaching, and there is no apparent pipeline to replace them. With only three universities offering postgraduate diplomas in education for computing—two in Glasgow—why has the Government failed to expand access to training? Will the cabinet secretary act now to address the recruitment crisis before it fatally undermines Scotland’s digital economy?”
“I would love to be a minister, but I am not. Jenny Gilruth: Well, I am sure that members will recall—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Jenny Gilruth: I am sure that members will recall that, instead, Mr Briggs spoke on behalf of Mr Kerr in answer to questions, much in the same way as ministers were able to represent the education portfolio. Stephen Kerr: I am not a minister—you are. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Right—I think that it is time to move on to question 2. Forced Adoption 2.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what steps it is taking to roll out stroke thrombectomy services on a 24/7 basis across the country. (S6O-04659)”
“I am being told to wind up by the Presiding Officer, much to the chagrin of my colleagues, I am sure, who are probably enjoying my speech. The Presiding Officer: You must conclude, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: Net zero can be delivered only through a clear-eyed, costed and pro-growth approach. That is the change that Scotland needs, and it is what the Scottish Conservatives will keep fighting for. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on protecting Scotland’s oil and gas industry. Urgent Question 17:44 MV Glen Rosa (Delivery)”
“We should be honest with each other and with the public: the truth of the matter is that our emissions are being offshored to countries with lower standards and higher pollution levels. Why are we importing fossil fuels from regimes with appalling environmental records when we have domestic resources in the North Sea that have been developed with world-leading environmental standards? The reason why that is happening and why we are in this guddle is that the Labour Government is peddling fantasies, and one of the biggest fantasies that it is peddling is GB Energy. Even now, professionals in the energy sector have absolutely no idea what that is about. It is a slogan. It is not a plan but a glossy political gimmick.”
“I am happy to give way, but she has nothing to say, because—as usual—the SNP is incoherent on that subject. Almost as incoherent as the SNP is Scottish Labour. How amazing was it that Michael Marra got through two speeches during the debate and did not mention EPL once? He certainly did not mention employer national insurance contributions, Labour’s tax on jobs that—from the mouth of industry itself—has led directly to the 250 job losses at Harbour Energy. The reality is that Labour is in a muddle as well, and it is no wonder with Ed Miliband, the ultimate zealot, in charge of the policy. He will achieve his objectives at all costs—he is on the record as having said pretty much that. Our economy is becoming less competitive and our energy more expensive.”
“People know that the reductions that we achieve in Scotland—which have been referred to several times during the debate—are being swamped by the increasing level of emissions that are being pumped out by countries such as China and India. The working people of Scotland are left feeling that our politicians have lost all sense of perspective. Let me refer specifically to some of the speeches that have been given today. It was incredible to hear that, all these years later, the SNP minister could not give the chamber any indication of when an energy strategy will be published. The consultation closed two years ago this very month, I think. Will she intervene now and tell us when the Scottish Government’s energy policy will be announced, or has she not got Stephen Flynn’s permission to publish the energy strategy?”
“Let us not forget that, for all the talk of net zero and all the theorising, this is a multi-trillion-pound national undertaking that was compressed into 90 minutes of parliamentary time in the House of Commons in 2019. That was the first time that the target was set. There was no vote, no economic impact assessment and no serious scrutiny, and there is still no plan. I was one of three members of Parliament that day who raised concerns about the implications of such an arbitrary deadline—and it is still arbitrary in my view. We are in the absurd position that the true cost of one of the headline parts of that law—retrofitting every home with a heat pump—is unknown and unknowable. The cost of making public buildings compliant with net zero is often higher than the value of the buildings themselves.”
“I was grateful for the passion with which my colleague Douglas Lumsden addressed the issue. He reflected the concerns and interests of his constituents in bringing the motion to the chamber on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. There was some discussion from Ben Macpherson about the nature of the debate. I agree with him—I often do. It is difficult to have a full debate on the subject in Opposition time. A challenge to the minister—with the support of Ben Macpherson, I hope—is to schedule a proper, full- scale debate on the issue during Government time instead of leaving it to the Scottish Conservatives to use our Opposition time for such debates, as we did for the previous debate.”
“Stephen Kerr: The situation is very urgent. It would be good to have some information as soon as possible about when the summit will be held and who will be invited to attend it. Critically, we need to know a timetable. It is very urgent. That has been the tone of the Conservative speeches in the debate—that this is an urgent situation that is unravelling in front of us. I have news for Patrick Harvie: net zero is still part of our aspiration, but it must be pursued with a credible plan, with public support and with our economy and energy security intact. What we currently hear in the chamber—most notably from the fringe Scottish Greens—is ideology consistently trumping common sense. I speak as a Central Scotland MSP. Often, we are witnessing a muddled dash towards arbitrary deadlines without any serious consideration of cost.”
“It was welcome news indeed from Dr Alasdair Allan that there will be a summit. However, it seems like a very closed affair if it is to be between only the First Minister and the Prime Minister. I remind the minister that what has been called for by the Conservatives in the debate is a summit attended by not just Governments but local authorities, trade organisations, trade unions, third sector organisations, chambers of commerce, development boards and even GB Energy. Is that on offer as a result of our debate? Alasdair Allan: I cannot say what is in the Prime Minister’s mind on that. I have indicated that the First Minister is open to a summit and has said so to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce. I hope that the Prime Minister is similarly open to the idea. I have no idea of the guest list.”
“It is mental health awareness week and it seems timely to urge all members to take care with the language that they use, given that it can be unintentionally stigmatising and could result in people not coming forward to seek support. That is incumbent on us all.”