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 20 of 25.
“The cabinet secretary will say a great deal more in her closing remarks in this important debate about how we are tackling the increased demand for support for learning, but the motion gives me the opportunity to address recent coverage that has risked causing parents unnecessary worry and anxiety. That relates to neurodevelopmental services for children with conditions such as autism and ADHD. In recent weeks, some members have described children who are seeking a neurodevelopmental diagnosis as having been removed from CAMHS waiting lists, and Mr Briggs has repeated that rhetoric. The implication, whether intentional or otherwise, is that children and families have been left without alternative support. I want to reassure parents and be very clear with the Parliament that that is not the case.”
“The Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills told the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association that she thought that the law that the minister has just described was “a bit old”. What exactly did she mean? Maree Todd: I am sure that the cabinet secretary will explain all that later. The Government is always looking to improve—there is no question about that. The motion refers to a decline in the number of pupil support assistants. Although I understand the concern around that, I point out that the number of pupil support assistants has increased by 1,800 since 2020 and is currently at the second-highest level on record. We continue to invest £15 million a year to help them to respond to children’s needs.”
“It is simple, it is clear, and it protects every person equally, regardless of age, illness or income. Rather than spending months trying to amend an unamendable bill, let us turn our energy towards what we can improve—which includes, as was so well put by Alex Rowley, social care, palliative services and mental health support. Let us build a country where no one feels that their only option is death. Once the line is crossed, we cannot go back. I heard reference to crossing the Rubicon, which I think is correct. This is not compassion. It is a risk that is too great, too permanent and too dangerous. I say to my colleagues: do not risk it. Reject this bill at stage 1, protect the vulnerable and protect the principle that every life is worth living. 18:07”
“It is the older person who feels like a burden, the disabled adult who is told that their care package is being cut, and the patient who sees pressure on staff, family and the system and feels guilt rather than hope. That is not dignity; that is desperation. In such moments, what some call choice starts to look more like coercion. Supporters of the bill will tell us that safeguards can be built in—but what use are safeguards if they are open to legal challenge the day after the bill becomes law? Are we willing to gamble the lives of the most vulnerable among us on protections that could be legally dismantled? Instead of placing our faith in a system that cannot promise safety, let us uphold the one safeguard that has held firm: the current law.”
“Once this bill leaves our hands, its meaning and consequences will be shaped by others. Once the law accepts the principle that some lives are no longer worth living, the pressure will begin—not necessarily from Parliament, but through legal precedent and public expectation—to make the law more inclusive and more flexible. We have seen that elsewhere. In jurisdictions that legalised assisted dying with promises of narrow scope and strict control, eligibility has steadily expanded: from terminal illness to chronic illness, from physical suffering to mental distress. That is the pattern, and Scotland is not immune. Let us be honest about who is most at risk. It is not the articulate campaigner.”
“The risks are not theoretical but real, and, as I have said, they fall most heavily on those who are already the most vulnerable. I, too, am grateful to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its excellent report. It warned that the bill could face legal challenge under the European convention on human rights, not to restrict it but to expand it—to widen eligibility and dismantle the very safeguards that we are told that we can trust. That is why Liam Kerr’s intervention was most telling, He was asking for underpinnings—guarantees—on the nature of the safeguarding in the bill, and nobody can rightfully give such undertakings. No matter how precise the drafting or noble the intentions, the Parliament cannot bind its successors, and we cannot bind future interpretations.”
“I pay tribute to Liam McArthur for the obvious sincerity with which he has progressed the bill to this stage. This afternoon, we—I—heard one of the finest parliamentary contributions that I have ever heard, which came from Pam Duncan-Glancy. A person would have to have a heart of stone not to have been touched by the compelling arguments that she gave in her short speech. We are being asked not to make small amendments or to tweak a regulation but to accept, in principle, that Scotland should legalise assisted dying. Once accepted, that principle changes everything. Not only the bill is risky; the very concept of legislating for assisted dying carries with it profound and irreversible dangers. That is the principle that I cannot support.”
“It is always a pleasure to follow Christine Grahame in a debate. She has captured the essence of why I have so many doubts about the bill, because I believe that it puts pressure on the most vulnerable in society. I am not persuaded that someone being rich and having the ability to take themselves off to a clinic in Switzerland to end their lives is an argument for assisted dying to become legal in Scotland. The tone of the debate—the respect with which all have presented their views—is indeed a tonic in comparison with some of the debates in this place. My colleague Jeremy Balfour quoted his religious faith. To colleagues who feel that, somehow, an aspersion is to be cast on the religious faiths of those who disagree, I say that that is not what he said.”
“Those steps were taken by France and Germany to ensure that war was “not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible.” We think back to the founding values of that dialogue to overcome conflict, yet, in continental Europe, we still have conflict in”
“We live in an environment in which we still witness conflicts that have a profound effect on us all, brought to us by the images that we see, whether of the unbearable suffering in Gaza, which followed the terrorist atrocity by Hamas, or of the on-going suffering of the people of Ukraine in all that they wrestle with. In reflecting on those conflicts, Scotland remembers the sacrifices that were made by so many individuals in the efforts that were undertaken. Europe day is celebrated tomorrow, when we commemorate the signing of the Schuman declaration and the beginning of what is now called the European Union—which, of course, happened only five short years after the end of world war two.”
“If I think back to when I started my parliamentary life, 28 years ago, I would say, anecdotally, that attendance at remembrance events was perhaps beginning to dwindle. Then, in the aftermath of conflict at the start of this century, I saw attendance at remembrance events grow. That is an indication that, sadly, there have been reminders of conflict and loss, which are matters of regret. However, they reinforce Mr Kerr’s point that we cannot, for a moment, allow ourselves to forget the suffering and the after-effects of conflict. I agree very much with Mr Kerr’s point. Scotland owes a debt of gratitude to everybody who played a part in the efforts to defeat fascism.”
“I thought that the First Minister spoke movingly of his uncle when VE day tributes were paid earlier today. I have been thinking about my mother, who, as a six-year-old child, was pulled from the wreckage of her bombed family home in Birmingham in 1940. Does the First Minister agree that we all have a sacred responsibility to keep remembrance alive in this country for the sake of those people and for future generations? The First Minister: I agree with Mr Kerr’s point. His example of his mother’s experience resonates with that of my mother-in-law, who was also removed from a tenement block that was bombed in Birmingham, in exactly the same era. That is an illustration of how people were affected, but there is a substantial point in what Mr Kerr says.”
“I can hear him chuntering; I am more than happy to share the action plan, but I would point to the answer to the Government-initiated question that was published some weeks ago and set out the progress in more detail. Victory in Europe Day (80th Anniversary)”
“I have the information in front of me, but I am conscious of time, so I am not going to read it out for Mr Kerr, but he needs to accept that progress is being made and that further progress is coming. I see him shaking his head, but I want to ensure that he understands that further progress is coming. There will be progress before the end of the summer term on consequences, which I know he is interested in. There will be progress in relation to our anti-racism work. We are going to develop further interim guidance ahead of the summer, and guidance on risk assessments where there are incidents of harm. The trade unions have welcomed that work, and they are taking part in the forming of that guidance and support. I hope that the member welcomes the progress.”
“I do not understand how the cabinet secretary can say that we are making good progress in this area at all. The delayed guidance on consequences was supposed to be issued during phase 1. We still do not have a definition of what violence or misbehaviour actually is. The wellbeing group that was supposed to meet about staff welfare has not even met yet. We still do not have any idea about mandatory reporting. There is no progress in those vital areas, which should have been a priority. Why is the cabinet secretary not frustrated with her own lack of progress? Jenny Gilruth: I am not sure that I am going to accept Stephen Kerr’s characterisation of the progress that has been made, because there has been progress made against all 20 of the measurements.”
“The SNP is slick on spin, but behind it all, like the wizard of Oz, there is nothing—there is a vacuum where action should be.”
“I am ambitious for Scotland, but on the idea that we are going to boast that more than half of our fellow citizens are in an income bracket of £27,500 or less, I say that we should be energised by an attempt to see that statistic change. We should not boast about it like the SNP does. The programme for government is not a programme and it is certainly not about joined-up government. It is just platitudes and a checklist of things that will not happen, because this SNP Government has no ambition for our country. It is tired, thin on ideas, thin on talent—my goodness, members should see the list of candidates who are hoping to come here next year—and thinner still on competence. After 18 years, the SNP is out of energy and out of answers. It dresses up delay as consultation and presents indecision as a strategy.”
“It is always a pleasure to follow Christine Grahame in a debate. I would have intervened on her if there had been time, because she said that we are investing in social security to help people to get back into work. I have asked Social Security Scotland on more than one occasion how many people have come off social security because they have been helped back into work, but it does not keep any measurement of that. If that is genuinely an objective of Social Security Scotland, it is not even measuring it. I was going to intervene on my friend Murdo Fraser to say that in the programme for government, which is supposed to be about economic growth, the word “productivity” appears but once. The key to economic growth is productivity, but there is nothing to be said about that in the programme for government.”
“For Scotland, while tied to the UK, there has been a lack of vision and investment in manufacturing and in universities. In a previous debate—I am apparently in a compare-and-contrast mode—I noted how Taiwan, with little or no natural resources, unlike energy-rich and food-rich Scotland, invests in research and development and protects intellectual property and patents internationally, which is essential in this fast-moving world. For me, comparing and contrasting demonstrates without a scintilla of doubt the benefits, even with the constrictions of devolution, of living in Scotland under this SNP Government, but think how much more we could achieve with full economic independence. 15:37”
“We are reducing the cost of the school day for families through free school meals for pupils in primary 1 to P5. In England, free meals are only for pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2. The majority of Scottish taxpayers pay less tax than those in England, and we provide a compassionate and fair distribution of that tax. I very much endorse the Scottish Government’s statement that it has “targeted engagement with investors to secure investments from our new National Project Pipeline”, which is a bit of official gobbledegook, but I hope that that means research and development. We have missed out on that in Scotland, so I want to hear more about the new proof of concept fund and an improved system of grants to increase the scale and quality of the Scottish start-up ecosystem.”
“It euphemistically says that that is about “re-evaluating the personal independence payment eligibility criteria”— that is cuts to you and me. Here, we are providing free bus travel for 2.3 million people, including older and disabled people and all children and young people under 22. In England, free bus travel is available only for those with certain disabilities or on reaching state pension age, which is currently 66; in Scotland, people get their bus pass at 60. Prescriptions here are free, and eye examinations are free for everyone, every two years. Prescription charges in England are £9.90 per item. In England, eye tests are free, but only for certain groups—for people who are under 16 or aged 60 or over, or who have specific medical conditions.”
“Keeping 40,000 children out of poverty by providing the Scottish child payment at £27.15 per week for every child under 16 in a qualifying household can be contrasted with an absence of child payment under UK Labour and, instead, the punitive and disgraceful two-child benefit cap. For the older generation, all pensioners in Scotland will receive at least £100 in winter fuel payment; those who receive the UK-run pension credit will get £300. If we contrast that with England, we see that only those on pension credit get anything, and the majority are left out in the cold. We are investing in a fairer social security system and helping people into work, and we have 16 more benefits than are available in England. By contrast, the Labour Government is intent on restricting disability payments.”
“To go back to what the Scottish taxpayer gets for their money, Murdo Fraser can take it as read that I know and recognise that we need a thriving economy to fund social justice, and that will be my focus. As my old history teacher, Tar Macadam, used to say, what better way to assess than by comparing and contrasting? In this instance, I will compare and contrast Scotland under the SNP with England under the Tories and now Labour. I will give examples. University tuition is free in Scotland; in England, it is £9,535 per annum, and students have after three years a debt of around £28,000 just for fees. Contrast the delivery in Scotland of 1,140 hours of childcare for all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds with England, where, broadly, provision is only for all three and four- year-olds, for 570 hours.”
“Will Christine Grahame give way? Christine Grahame: I will, in a moment. The elephant in the room is the hike in employer national insurance. That tax on jobs, which one employer estimated would cost an extra £400,000 per annum on his wage bill, will also cost jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility has predicted that 60 per cent of those increased costs will be passed to consumers. The impact on the voluntary sector is also devastating. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates an additional cost to the sector of £75 million. If we add in winter fuel allowance cuts and farm inheritance tax, which threatens the very basis of our food sustainability—none of which was in Labour’s manifesto—no wonder Labour had a kicking in the recent council elections.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what immediate action it will take to address the reported failure by NHS boards to publish significant adverse event reviews related to mother and baby deaths in hospitals. (S6T-02503)”
“He asked whether that jeopardised project willow—it does not. Project willow is all about working with partners. I mentioned that we have had 66 expressions of interest, some of which are in line with project willow. Others are not in line with project willow but could present incredible opportunities. Those potential partners have been attracted by the supportive environment that they have found here in Scotland. Petroineos has said explicitly to the Government that it will be a responsible landowner and landlord that is supportive of the investment work that needs to happen. I hope that that has answered Mr Kerr’s questions.”
“The Deputy First Minister has already got some questions that she can be getting on with. Kate Forbes: To use Stephen Kerr’s words, I believe that my statement was exactly in line with his call for clarity and delivery. That is precisely what I provided in the statement. This is not about pointing fingers; it is about delivery as quickly as possible of jobs and opportunities. Grangemouth has been a key part of our industrial heritage for generations, and it must be the centre point of our industrial future. That is what we intend to deliver through project willow. Mr Kerr will be pleased to know that I specifically included in my statement answers to some of his specific questions about Petroineos, because I knew that he would ask them. In my statement, I said that Petroineos has not yet committed to making those investments.”
“Instead of politicising this industrial crisis, ministers should focus on clarity and delivery. The people of Grangemouth deserve a straight account of what is happening, not posturing. I have several questions for the Deputy First Minister. First, has Petroineos given any firm commitment to redeveloping the site? If not, what contingency plans does the Government have in place for redevelopment of the site? Secondly, if Petroineos continues to withhold investment in any of the nine potential project willow projects, does that put any of those projects in jeopardy? Thirdly, does the Scottish Government— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I remind you that you had one minute and 30 seconds to speak, as agreed with your party business manager. You have now spoken for one minute and 53 seconds.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for sight of her statement before she delivered it in the chamber. This is a dark moment for Grangemouth, for Central Scotland and for Scotland as a whole. The workers and the community in Grangemouth should be at the forefront of our thinking, our words and our actions. Bluntly, I am deeply concerned that Scottish National Party politicians are playing a constitutional game with the closure of the refinery at Grangemouth. That is not acceptable. The SNP Government cannot escape responsibility by pointing fingers at Westminster. This is the result of years of mixed messages and ideological hostility to Scotland’s oil and gas industry from both the SNP and Labour. A presumption against oil and gas has consequences.”
“I agree with what the Deputy First Minister is saying, but does she share my concern and the concern of many members of this Parliament that we learned this news by way of a post on X from Colin Mackay of STV? Well done to Colin Mackay, because he obviously has good sources, but what does it say about Petroineos that that is how it chooses to release that information to the wider community? Does the Deputy First Minister agree that that does, unfortunately, create question marks around its good faith in how it proceeds on the issue? Kate Forbes: I heard Mr Kerr’s point of order earlier. The point with which I agree the most is that having the workforce learn of any such decision through the media does it a disservice, because the priority must always be to inform the workforce first. Subsequently, Parliament has a duty to scrutinise—”
“Does the Scottish Government still view Petroineos, in the light of this leaked news, as a company that is acting in good faith with respect to the future of the site? Presiding Officer, the people of Grangemouth deserve clarity, the Parliament deserves respect, and the Government must be held accountable. I would therefore be very grateful for your guidance on how a statement could be secured as a matter of urgency, if not today, then tomorrow.”
“I am aware that a request has already been made through the Parliamentary Bureau, which met at noon, for both a statement and a debate on the future of Grangemouth. However, this is clearly a fast-moving situation, and given that the information came to light only after 11 o’clock—too late for an urgent question on it to be lodged—I ask you whether you have had any approach from the Scottish Government to provide a statement later this afternoon or tomorrow on this critical matter. It is vital that Parliament receives an immediate update from ministers. In particular, there are important questions that require to be answered. Has Petroineos given any firm commitment to the redevelopment of the Grangemouth site? Has the company indicated any willingness to invest in any of the nine potential projects that have been identified?”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your direction and some information from you. This morning at just after 10 past 11, Colin Mackay of STV News put a post on X announcing that oil refining had ceased at Grangemouth, marking the end of oil refining in Scotland. That development was not announced by the company. It was not announced to Parliament. It did not come in a ministerial statement or in a debate. It came in a media leak. I feel that that is a discourtesy to this Parliament. It is deeply disrespectful to treat the workers, families and communities who rely on Grangemouth in that way, and I would go as far as to say that it is quite an insulting way for them to learn such important news.”
“Stephen Kerr: We need to talk about what we really mean when we talk about super-affirmative procedures and pre-laying scrutiny—mechanisms that empower the Parliament and do not allow the Government to take advantage of the perceived weakness of the design of the processes in order to impose the will of the executive. I do not think that those ideas are very radical. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you need to conclude, please. Stephen Kerr: I will conclude now. To members of the party of government, I say that, one day, they will not be the Government, so they occasionally need to put themselves in the position of being parliamentarians first, so that they can see that the best interests of good governance and the future of our country are best served by modernising the procedures of this Parliament. 16:25”
“It is during the most severe test of a parliamentary system that a Parliament must assert its authority, not give it away. That, to me, is acquiescence, as I said a moment ago. I therefore share the view, which was strongly held by many who gave evidence to the committee, that, when secondary legislation stems from framework legislation, our procedures must be up to the task. That is why all members seem to agree that it is important that we know such a bill when we see one. That is the consensus view—Stuart McMillan just about said those words. The reality is that, if it is the judgment of the Parliament that a bill is a framework bill, the post- legislative scrutiny and secondary legislative scrutiny needs to be different. Stuart McMillan: Will the member give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr is concluding his remarks.”
“Stephen Kerr: I did not say that it is the strongest in the history of humanity; I made it clear that it is one of the strongest and most powerful in the world, which is a view that stands scrutiny. I simply do not consider that our Parliament’s design is adequate. Time and time again in the debate, the way in which we produce secondary legislation has been shown to be lacking by colleagues who have brought a vast wealth of experience to the time that they have spent here. We must examine the unique aspects of our Parliament and how its ability to hold the executive to account and to scrutinise its actions properly is being limited. We cannot get into the game of acquiescence. I am sorry, but I do not agree that the Covid situation should be seen as an exception.”
“At the end of the day, we are talking about the Parliament’s scrutiny of a powerful executive. When we say that the Scottish Parliament is the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, we mean that the Scottish Government is probably one of the most powerful devolved Governments anywhere in the world. The bottom line is that our structures for scrutinising secondary legislation are simply not strong enough. Michelle Thomson: During my recent trip to the Georgia General Assembly, in Atlanta, I met the local minister for economy, who pointed out that all oil and tax takes accrue to the bottom line there and that it has unlimited borrowing powers. Therefore Mr Kerr’s remark about the Scottish Parliament being the strongest in the history of humanity is not true.”
“I will not argue with what Lorna Slater, who is not currently in her place, said about the importance of framework legislation. However, I would not have objected to anything that she had to say about the place of such legislation. Edward Mountain absolutely summed it up when he mentioned the important safeguards that need to be put in place around such bills. We must be careful that it does not become our standard approach to legislating, which I think is what members are concerned about. As parliamentarians, we ought to have such concern. We ought to be jealous of the power that the Parliament delegates to ministers, and we ought to be extremely careful about and attentive to the way in which they use the powers granted to them through legislation.”
“I am frustrated, though, because, yet again, it is being asserted that there has been an increase in the number of such bills and no evidence for that has been presented. [Interruption.] Mr Kerr is taking issue with me from a sedentary position, but I ask him to say how many such bills there have been. Can he give me some numbers? Stephen Kerr: Edward Mountain highlighted the fact that an actual number was one aspect that was perhaps missing from the report. However, I think that there is absolutely clear evidence that members’ experience is that there has been such an increase during this parliamentary session. Frankly, the report highlights that fact in saying that framework bills are no longer the exception but are, increasingly, the norm.”
“At times, the minister has been a little too thin skinned about this, but I suggest that, based on our own experience, most of us believe that there has been a growing tendency towards introducing framework legislation—bills that set out broad principles but leave ministers to fill in the details later, through secondary legislation. Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: I would prefer to make some progress, because I think that I can predict what you are about to say. [Interruption.] Okay—if you will be very tight. Jamie Hepburn: I am always kind to Mr Kerr, of course, although I think that he uncharitably described me as thin skinned. I would not say that I am.”
“I, too, have already made a number of contributions— some of them quite lengthy—therefore I wish to be circumspect, given the time that has been allocated to me to speak. I thank Stuart McMillan and the DPLR Committee for producing an excellent report. There have been a number of really good contributions in the debate, including, if I may say so, those of Michelle Thomson, to which we have just listened, and my colleague Edward Mountain, who gave us an excellent class on the shortcomings of the current set-up. We are considering a matter of huge constitutional significance that ought to concern every one of us as parliamentarians. We are discussing the shifting balance of power between the Parliament and the executive.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that we have quite a bit of time in hand, so members can assume that generosity will be baked into the speaking time allocations. With that—and with some trepidation—I call Finlay Carson to speak on behalf of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for around six minutes. 15:05”
“I thank my committee colleagues for the way that they worked throughout the inquiry, and I look forward to hearing contributions from other members. I also put on the record my thanks on behalf of the committee members to the excellent clerking team and the legal advisers of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee. Their assistance during the inquiry was invaluable, and we all appreciate everything that they have undertaken to help us. I move, That the Parliament notes the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s 21st Report, 2025 (Session 6), Inquiry into Framework Legislation and Henry VIII powers (SP Paper 762).”
“The committee concluded that, although it expects so-called Henry VIII powers—powers that allow primary legislation to be amended by secondary legislation—to be appropriately limited in scope, it considers them to be a necessary and efficient tool when they are used suitably. At present, the committee is generally content with the drafting of most Henry VIII powers in Scottish Government bills, and it is content that they are subject to appropriate parliamentary procedures. Speaking personally, I do not like the idea of Henry VIII powers, but I recognise and agree with the committee’s unanimous finding in that regard. I hope that the committee’s report proves to be helpful to the Parliament and beyond, in the longer term, and that it has formed the basis for an interesting and informative debate this afternoon.”
“However, the committee did not go into great detail on the functions and structure of the Scottish Parliament. I can have a chat about that with Mr Kerr afterwards—that would be no bother. The report sets out in detail the steps that the committee supports being taken by the Government and fellow parliamentarians to help to strengthen the scrutiny of delegated powers in primary legislation and the secondary legislation that is subsequently made under those powers. Such steps include the use of the so-called super- affirmative procedure for subordinate legislation and the Scottish Government setting out the overarching justification in instances in which it decides to take a framework approach.”
“This might be an unfair question to ask Stuart McMillan, but he said that the Scottish Parliament is no different as regards members’ experiences of dealing with framework legislation. However, does the structure of the Scottish Parliament, which has some unique features, make it weaker from the point of view of members’ ability to scrutinise the secondary legislation that comes about because of the nature of framework acts? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you back the time for the interventions, Mr McMillan. Stuart McMillan: Thank you, Presiding Officer. Today, I am speaking on behalf of the committee. I said earlier that we wanted to depoliticise elements of the issue that we are discussing. I have my own views, which I will be happy to speak to Mr Kerr about after the debate.”
“The biggest factor that is creating challenges for our universities is the loss of international students, and both Mr Kerr and I know the cause of that. Care-experienced Children and Young People Fund 7.”
“I know that the minister can be a very reasonable man, so I will ask him a very reasonable question. He has mentioned visas and NICs, but does he accept that chronic underfunding of Scotland- domiciled students is contributing to the financial crises at the University of Edinburgh and throughout Scotland’s higher education institutions? Graeme Dey: I have previously accepted in the chamber, sometimes in response to Mr Kerr, that I would prefer that the teaching grant that is provided to our universities in relation to Scottish students was higher than it is currently, but I say to him again that, if we look at the overall finances, we see that the moneys that are provided through that source are a small proportion of the income of many of our universities, particularly our larger ones.”
“If Mr Kerr wishes to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills with detail of the points that he is raising about the situation at Blackness primary school, the Government will consider that. I remind Mr Kerr that local authorities are independent bodies; the Government does not control local authorities. It is for local authorities to come to their own decisions, but they must operate within the statutory provision that the Parliament has determined on the question. Public Sector Equality Duty 5.”
“On the subject of the closure of rural primary schools, during the consultation process on the proposed closure of Blackness primary school, parents accused Falkirk Council of deliberately spreading misleading information and, worse still, frightening the children in the school by telling them that their school was going to close. Does the First Minister agree that the Scottish Government must now step in to properly investigate how that consultation was conducted and to ensure that the voices of parents and families are not only heard but respected? The First Minister: There are very strict elements of legislation in place regarding rural school closures. When there is any question of such a closure, that legislation has to be followed assiduously as part of the statutory process.”