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 21 of 25.
“First of all, I join the First Minister in expressing condolence to Catholics all over Scotland and around the world on the passing of a holy man, Pope Francis. I also join the First Minister in praising the accord that has been reached between Jewish and Muslim leaders in our country to deal with some of the issues that we see reflected in the international situation. I also agree with the First Minister on the interconnected nature of our existence. However, this Parliament was not established to play at being the Foreign Office. We are not the United Nations. We are not here to simulate debates from the House of Commons. We are a devolved legislature with a defined purpose—namely, to improve the lives of the people of Scotland by delivering better devolved public services and outcomes.”
“We will, of course, have plenty of opportunity to discuss the domestic implications of those issues on 6 May, for example, when I will set out the programme for government, which will set out the further steps that the Government will take to implement our domestic agenda.”
“It is important that this Parliament reflects on the fact that the international community in which we reside is changing dramatically around us, and we have to be conscious of the implications of that. If I want to give Mr Kerr a substantive answer on the implications of international trade changes that are emerging in the international community, I must have an understanding of those questions. I have to be held to account about my understanding of those questions by Parliament, because they will shape the response that I bring forward in leading the Government in exercising our devolved responsibilities.”
“On the basis of that response, does not the First Minister accept that our debating time in the chamber today perhaps would have been better used to discuss how we can extend opportunity and freedom of choice—and all the other things that I was heartened to hear him say that he agreed with in answer to a question that I asked him at First Minister’s question time before he went to New York? Would not it have been better for us to have spent our time discussing how we can make those things happen in Scotland, rather than having an open-ended debate on the international situation? The First Minister: When I began my speech, I made the point that we are now in a situation in which we are not immune from changing international events. That is why we are having this debate.”
“As I said earlier, that would involve a change being made to gym membership, registered email addresses and so on. One name change can be made on multiple records, so the number of changes will be attributed to a smaller number of individuals. The information that Mr Liam Kerr and Mr Stephen Kerr refer to relates, I believe, to a freedom of information response from Police Scotland. We can try to clarify that information further, and I would be happy to write to both Mr Kerrs further on the matter.”
“Perhaps the cabinet secretary can clarify something. Liam Kerr was quite explicit in his question that the FOI information that he received said that 506 sex offenders had changed their names. The cabinet secretary seemed to suggest that something else is the case, so I ask for clarity on the veracity of the information that Liam Kerr received. I also ask the cabinet secretary how many of the 506 name changes were followed by breaches of licence conditions, reoffending or disappearance from police data. Angela Constance: I have answered a similar question to that in the chamber before; if my memory serves me correctly, it might have been a question from Murdo Fraser. I repeat that, when a name is changed, that change is made across multiple records.”
“I hope that that answer is more characteristically clear, despite the fact that I am, uncharacteristically, answering on behalf of somebody else, hence the way in which I have answered the questions.”
“On the specific questions, despite raising the issue, Petroineos has not made any firm commitment to invest in the technologies that project willow identified. We have worked with the business previously on progressing a proposal for a biorefinery at Grangemouth, but the shareholders have not taken the decision to continue with that project. In lieu of a commitment from the business, we are engaging with all parties that are interested in progressing low-carbon projects at Grangemouth. There is no doubt that Petroineos continues to have a critical role in securing a future for the site. Whatever role Petroineos plays in the future, it has confirmed to us that it will act in good faith when engaging with businesses that are interested in deploying new projects on the existing site, which I welcome.”
“Secondly, has Petroineos made it clear that it is willing to invest in any of the nine potential projects, other than to create an import terminal? Kate Forbes: I might have given an uncharacteristic answer because, uncharacteristically, I am speaking on behalf of a third party, so there is an element of challenge in answering those questions directly. Stephen Kerr is absolutely right to say that the UK Government and the Scottish Government provided grant funding to Petroineos to commission the work. Petroineos acted as the lead partner to reflect its role as the owner and operator of the Grangemouth refinery. An advisory board met regularly throughout the reporting period and up to the project’s conclusion. It received drafts of the project’s findings throughout that period and collectively agreed the final outputs.”
“I thought that the Deputy First Minister was uncharacteristically vague in her answer to Douglas Lumsden’s questions, so I will ask her to clarify an important issue. As we know, the project willow report was paid for with taxpayers’ money, but Petroineos commissioned EY to do the work and to report to it, so Petroineos has known all along about the nine potential projects—I might say that it has known about them for even longer than Colin Mackay of STV. I ask the Deputy First Minister to be not vague but very clear. First, has Petroineos made it clear that it is committed to the development of its existing site? Without the site, none of those projects will happen. Douglas Lumsden asked that very important question, and I am asking it again.”
“To ask the First Minister what engagement the Scottish Government has had with the United Kingdom Government regarding what assessment has been made of the potential impact of an extension of US tariffs on Scottish businesses that export to the US market. (S6F-03977)”
“That is not acceptable. Teachers cannot wait for ministers to do something further down the line. They need action now. Pupils, teachers, parents and unions are calling for visible and strong leadership from ministers on the issue, and I agree with them. We have not seen that to date. The Scottish Parliament is here to debate the most pressing issues facing the people of Scotland. I do not think that anything is more pressing than violence in our schools—that is an issue that this Parliament has responsibility over and it is something that we must address. That is why it is of critical importance that we debate the issue of school violence and that ministers are held to account. I move amendment S6M-17059.1, to leave out “The International Situation” and insert: “Addressing Violence in Schools”. 18:20”
“That must be addressed with urgency. The First Minister has said that gender-based violence in our society must be addressed. I agree. That is why we are calling on ministers and the Government to lead from the front and to make the issue a priority. Ministers must acknowledge that, in schools across our country, the Government’s policies are failing and have led to the concerning situation that we see in schools today. Ministers must act urgently. That should start with ministers holding a debate on the subject in Parliament, which will enable us to look at the policies that are failing to address the situation. The Scottish Conservatives requested a ministerial statement on violence in schools over the weekend, ahead of the Parliamentary Bureau meeting, but the minister has committed only to providing one further down the line.”
“Miles Briggs is referring to the fact that, yesterday, in responding to a topical question on the subject, the cabinet secretary went to great lengths to say that she acknowledged that we need to have a full parliamentary debate on the matter in Government time. That is in the Official Report. What we are asking for is not simply a Conservative request; our request—that we should spend time in the chamber discussing violence in our schools rather than having a debate on reserved matters—has been made with the cabinet secretary’s point of view in mind. Miles Briggs: I absolutely agree. This is an area in which the Government needs to lead. The Government is not aware of the fact that many teachers and schools are not even aware of its national action plan. There are still no standards in place for the reporting and recording of incidents.”
“I hope that we can now move to the next item of business. Spring Statement 2025”
“On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. For clarity, can you confirm that this is a rare, if not unprecedented, situation in that we will have a lengthy, 20-minute statement but no ability for any member of the Parliament to question the cabinet secretary on it? Even in the case of budget and programme for government statements, there is an opportunity for members to question the person who delivers the statement. Can you confirm that this is without precedent? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am aware that, in fact, in relation to other matters, this approach has been followed previously, but I reiterate that the matter has been approved by the Parliamentary Bureau and subsequently ratified, if you like, by the Parliament. On that basis, I am obviously required to follow what the Parliament has agreed that it wishes to see happen.”
“Is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care really telling us that he does not know how many of Scotland’s health boards are complying with the law? Has he not taken the time to ask that question? If he has not, what on earth is he doing? Neil Gray: I am not the employer of staff in the health service. The staff are employed by individual health boards, and it is their responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the law. I have made very clear to Meghan Gallacher and Carol Mochan my expectation that health boards should comply with the law—not just the 2010 act but all elements of legislation and regulation. That expectation is clear. Cancer Waiting Times (Clinically Led Review) 2.”
“Stephanie Callaghan, you have up to four minutes. 17:48”
“It frustrates employers who want to do the right thing. It undermines trust in the very services that should be lifting people up. I want every individual in Forth Valley and across Scotland to be able to realise their fullest potential. That means having the right services in place at the right time and listening to communities before decisions are made, not after. I urge the cabinet secretary to intervene and to engage directly with NHS Forth Valley to see that the service is reinstated and to ensure that there is national direction so that access to support does not become a postcode lottery. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now call Stephanie Callaghan. We might still have issues with the visuals, but I hope that the audio is functioning. After that, we will go to Michael Marra.”
“Those are not abstract questions; they are practical and urgent concerns, particularly for those who are seeking work and now face yet another barrier to opportunity. A diagnosis is not the end of the journey—it is the beginning. A diagnosis is a key that unlocks access to the support and adjustments that people need to succeed in work, education and life. Without a diagnosis, people are left unsupported and without the kind of help that will make all the difference to their lives. It is, frankly, unjust. This is not about political ideology; it is about basic fairness and ensuring that our public services empower people rather than hold them back and that they open doors rather than quietly close them. The message that this decision sends is deeply troubling. It discourages people from seeking help.”
“In recent weeks, I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and the chief executive of NHS Forth Valley to express my deep concern about the decision. I await an answer from both of those individuals. It is not a simple service adjustment; it is a profound and damaging disruption to people’s lives. In those letters, I have asked the questions that people in my constituency are asking. What happens to those who are already on the waiting list? What pathways now exist for those who are seeking a diagnosis? What are employers meant to do when individuals who are visibly in need of support cannot obtain the formal recognition that is required to unlock that support?”
“As members of the Parliament, we carry the responsibility of building a Scotland where every person is supported to reach their full potential, where barriers are dismantled and where work is not just a means to an end but a path to purpose, independence and respect. However, the actions of this Government and NHS Forth Valley run counter to that vision. NHS Forth Valley’s decision to withdraw the adult autism diagnostic service is, to put it bluntly, a serious misstep. It has been made with poor communication, no meaningful consultation and, most alarmingly, no clear alternative for those affected. Let us be absolutely clear that those who are affected have waited years for understanding, clarity and access to support.”
“Daniel Johnson gave a powerful and compelling speech, and a number of other members have given similarly compelling speeches. To be frank, it is to the shame of us all that in Scotland, a wealthy country, we cannot help our citizens at the most basic level. I may disagree with Daniel Johnson about a lot of different aspects of our politics, but I think that we share a fundamental belief that every individual in Scotland, whether they are neurotypical or neurodivergent, deserves fairness, dignity and the opportunity to thrive. That is why I am standing here today, speaking on behalf of my constituents in Forth Valley who are being denied precisely those things.”
“As I mentioned in response to a previous question, later this week, I will convene the first meeting of the education assurance board with COSLA. I will raise at that meeting the issue that Mr Kerr has raised, because it is important that there is a consistent approach to reporting. One challenge that we often see in this space is a reticence among teachers to report. We want to encourage more reporting—as cabinet secretary, I certainly do—because we want a granular understanding of the real picture of what is happening in our schools. I hope that Mr Kerr will take some comfort from the action that I have outlined today. The Presiding Officer: That concludes topical question time. Fuel Poverty”
“As I think I said in response to a previous question, through the update to the behaviour action plan, we will have more to share with Parliament in the coming weeks, particularly in relation to consequences. We debated that topic about two years ago, when Mr Kerr brought the issue to the chamber, so I recognise the issues. I want to give Parliament a fulsome update, and I am happy to give a statement or to consider debating the issue more broadly in Government time, as we have done previously. Mr Kerr asked about a common reporting standard. As he well understands, the challenge that I have as cabinet secretary is that the statutory responsibility for delivering education rests with our local authorities. As the member knows, local authorities do different things on reporting. However, I accept the point that he has made.”
“The issue deserves a ministerial statement or, indeed, a full debate in Government time. I see that the Minister for Parliamentary Business is in the chamber, and I hope that he will consider that as a serious request from me. Pam Duncan-Glancy was absolutely right when she talked about the lack of definition of the problem. The cabinet secretary will be well aware of the serious disquiet among teachers and school staff in general about the lack of a common reporting standard. There is still no national common reporting standard. Will the cabinet secretary commit today to bringing forward, without any further delay, a national reporting standard for violent attacks on school staff? Jenny Gilruth: In communication with business managers, I have been open to making a further statement on the issue.”
“However, that same spirit lives on in the Black Watch and in all who wear and have worn the cap badge and the famous red hackle. The work of the regimental museums and the veterans associations ensures that those traditions are not forgotten. Through Liz Smith’s motion and this debate, let us pledge that this heritage, these great names and the values that they embody shall never fade from our national story. We honour the Black Watch and, through it, we honour the very best of Scotland. 13:26”
“The save the Scottish regiments campaign was born, which has been referenced by a couple of members who spoke before me. If I may be personal for a moment, although the campaign did not succeed in stopping the changes, it gave me one of the great honours—if not the greatest honour—of my political life. In one of her final public interventions, Margaret Thatcher came to Stirling to support me as the Conservative candidate and to back the campaign. Her support spoke volumes about what she and so many of the rest of us realised was at stake: the defence not only of regimental history but of the values that built our nation. The Argylls, which were deeply rooted in Stirling and the surrounding districts, twice faced the existential threat of extinction. The communities rallied twice to defend them—sadly, not successfully on the last occasion.”
“It stands proudly among the pantheon of great British regiments and great Scottish regiments, including—from my new part of the world for 40 years, Stirlingshire—the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Those regiments share a proud common history of service in the darkest hours of war, and in peacekeeping, in lands far and near, from Waterloo—as has been mentioned—to the western front, and from the hills of Korea to the streets of Basra. However, those regiments were, and are, not just military units—they were, and are, families. More than 20 years ago, when the then Labour Government announced its plans to amalgamate Scotland’s historic regiments of the line, it struck at something far deeper than structure—it struck at heritage.”
“I thank Liz Smith for lodging the motion and, as a proud son of Forfar and Angus, I am privileged to speak in support of it. I join members on all sides of the chamber in recognising the extraordinary legacy of one of Scotland’s most distinguished regiments. Like other members, I acknowledge the presence of veterans and supporters of the Black Watch who have joined us in the public gallery today. Their service, commitment and continuing efforts to uphold the traditions and memory of the regiment are deeply valued, not only by the Parliament but by the people of Scotland, and I thank them. Today, we mark a significant anniversary for the Black Watch, as Liz Smith’s motion mentions. Since its formation in 1725, it has been synonymous with fierce courage, discipline and a sense of duty to Crown and country.”
“As I said at the start, fair trade nation status is not just a title. The assessment report challenges us to go further, not only to maintain that status in future but to set the next generation an example of what good global citizenship is and to show the important role that fair trade plays in that. I thank members for their input today and look forward to working across the chamber to deliver for Scotland and for our partner countries. Point of Order 17:00”
“The second message that I want to leave us all with is our steadfast commitment to delivering for our African partner countries. Our international development fund has been led by our partners to ensure that our portfolio is aligned with their national priorities to maximise impact. That has resulted in our programming focusing on often neglected and underfunded areas such as inclusive education, non-communicable diseases and tackling gender-based violence, delivered through grants rather than loans. That is key, given the debt repayment crisis that many African countries, including our partner countries, face at this time. As the world shifts and strains around us, we remain resolute in our commitment to our partners, and fair trade is a key part of that. Lastly, I leave us all with a call to action.”
“The first is our long- standing commitment to being a good global citizen. It is an increasingly contested and volatile space for international development. Scotland is a nation that seeks to lead by example. That means standing up for the values that shape our domestic and international work, ensuring that fairness, equality and inclusion are at the heart of everything that we do and that the voices of those who are less privileged than us are heard and acted on. That is why today’s debate is so important. It is not just about what we are doing and saying in Scotland to promote fair trade; it is about amplifying the voice of the producers, workers and enterprises in the global south and standing in solidarity with them to build a fairer and more sustainable trading system.”
“That local effort is an important part of how Scotland contributes globally to the delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals. It has an important place alongside the work of Governments, Parliaments and others; that point was reflected on in a recent article in the Edinburgh Evening News ahead of this debate, which I commend all members to read. It was especially wonderful to hear about the initiatives that are being taken forward to engage more young people in fair and sustainable global issues such as fair trade. It is vital that the fair trade movement remains relevant and sustainable into the future. At the end of the debate, I want to leave colleagues with three key messages that we are all in agreement on, regardless of how we vote at the end of our proceedings.”
“It is right that, in the three-and-a-half minutes that remain for me to speak, I pay due praise, as other colleagues have done, to all those people— the small local groups, the churches and the community organisations—who have worked hard in their local areas to make a difference in the world as well as in their communities. Since the fair trade movement took hold, it has grown substantially, and it is clear that none of the enthusiasm or dedication of those involved has been lost along the way—quite the opposite. For a long time, we have placed great value on the role of civil society in Scotland and the appetite for global citizenship in our local communities, whether in places of worship, schools or businesses, to name but a few.”
“Foysol Choudhury receives my praise for singling out Edinburgh, our great capital that we both have the joy of representing, as well as a country that he knows a lot about—Bangladesh— and the connections between Scotland and Bangladesh in the challenging opportunity around fair trade. Other colleagues have spoken—Emma Roddick talked about Inverness and the Highlands; I could go on—with all contributors having much to say about what has been achieved in relation to fair trade and noting that there is more that we can do. Some of it can be done with small steps—one cup of coffee at a time—but I agree that we can aspire to do more.”
“He referenced previous challenges and supply chain questions for the Scottish Government with regard to ensuring that we are doing the right thing on trade and understanding the conditions in which goods are produced and then exported to these shores. We need to be mindful of that, and I agree with him on it. I thought that Alexander Stewart’s contribution in relation to education was sensible. It was fantastic to have had school students in the public gallery during parts of the debate. The more that we can do to encourage learning about fair trade in schools across the country, the better. We should all be supportive of that in our constituencies and regions.”
“I say directly to him that I want to take that point away and better understand what can be done there. I was challenged on a particular subject by Willie Rennie, who is not in the chamber at the moment—actually, I see that he is: he has simply defected to the Scottish Labour Party benches for the moment. There is not a good future in that, Mr Rennie. He raised a question with me about the UK Labour Government and the purchase of solar panels, a significant number of which are produced in parts of the People’s Republic of China inhabited by the Uyghur community. I appreciate Willie Rennie’s point. I have had a look at the issue over the course of the debate, and I have already said to him privately that I want to learn more about it. These are challenges for us all.”
“I appreciate the warnings from both history and the present day about what might be in the future if one does not get the balance right, and I agree with Patrick Harvie on that. We need to work towards that. I was going to come to the specific point that Patrick Harvie made about the lack of an appearance of fair trade in Scottish Government trade-related documentation. He understands that trade is a reserved subject, but that is not a reason why the Scottish Government should not make more reference to fair trade online and in its documents. I will definitely take that point away, officials will take it away, and we will have a very close look at that. There was one thing in Mr Smyth’s opening speech on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party that I noted down in particular, in relation to definitions and the law.”
“Patrick Harvie: Clearly, I am not expecting to change the cabinet secretary’s mind on his voting intention at this late stage in the debate—he has made his decision—but would he at least acknowledge that, far from being a positive, “trade liberalisation”, which is mentioned in the Conservative amendment, has far too often been forced on developing countries and has had an effect that is the opposite of what the fair trade movement seeks to achieve? Further, will he tell us why fair trade is not referenced in the Government’s trade document “A Trading Nation”? Angus Robertson: I agree with Patrick Harvie on the first point that he made, but I have chosen to deal with that question by saying that it is worth pursuing a balance of maximum freedom in trading arrangements that are fair.”
“I draw particular attention to something in the Conservative amendment that I think it was right to raise, which is the spectre of trade wars and the dangers of tariffs. We should be very concerned about that. The people who will be harmed most by that are the poorest in countries everywhere in the world. They are the ones who are hit because they pay, through the increase in costs for that which is imported. However, although I would not have chosen the exact wording in the Conservative amendment, members of my party will support it.”
“On the Labour amendment, it is a fair challenge to consider issues around definitions, procurement and education. Labour states in its amendment that the Government and the Parliament should look at those and that we should be involved in a process of constant improvement. I see absolutely nothing objectionable in that. On the Conservative amendment, I do not really want to get involved in a debate about the relative balance of free and fair trade, but I think that we should aim for maximum freedom and maximum fairness. Is that simple? No, it is not. Is it easy to achieve? No, it is not. We can be critical of any number of trading practices in any number of countries and territorial organisations and find fault in all of it.”
“16:49 Angus Robertson: I thank all members who joined me here today to shine a spotlight on the incredible work that is happening in their constituencies and to raise the profile of fair trade here, in Scotland. That has been fundamental to Scotland gaining and retaining its fair trade nation status. I will begin by making the Government’s position on the amendments clear. We have had a relatively agreeable debate, with relative consensus. It is important that we aim for maximum consensus on an issue such as this. I would signal—in exactly the same way as Colin Smyth did—that, although I probably would not have drafted the Opposition parties’ amendments in exactly the way as they did, the Government is going to accept the Opposition amendments today.”
“They are walls that are built not to keep danger out but to keep opportunity from flowing in. We are seeing the resurgence of that failed ideology, from the European Union’s labyrinth of agricultural tariffs to Trump’s White House’s indiscriminate use of punitive tariffs. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude, Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: We must not be shy in opposing protectionism. We have seen the damage that it can do. To conclude, I reiterate that trade is not theft. As has been said by a number of speakers, trade is co-operation. It is the peaceful exchange of value between people, nations and cultures, and it is one of the greatest achievements of civilisation.”
“According to the World Bank, the percentage of the global population that is living in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 a day fell from almost 42 per cent in 1981 to just 9 per cent before the pandemic. That is more than 1 billion people lifted out of destitution, not through protectionism or tariffs but through trade, capitalism and enterprise. The examples that I would call on are Vietnam, where trade liberalisation helped to reduce poverty from more than 70 per cent in the 1990s to less than 6 per cent in recent years, and Ethiopia, where exports of coffee, which have been mentioned a number of times, and textiles opened the door to millions of jobs, opportunities and, crucially, dignity. The most unfair trade practice of all is protectionism—tariffs, quotas and barriers. They do not help the poor. They keep the poor locked out.”
“Emma Roddick is right when she says that we do not need to be rich in time and money to make good choices. People need information to make good choices, and that is exactly what the Scottish fair trade campaign is all about. Finally, we get back to Patrick Harvie and the dichotomy that he created that it is somehow not possible to have fair and free trade. I completely refute that, because it is no exaggeration to say that free trade has done more to lift humanity out of poverty than any aid programme, subsidy or well-meaning bureaucratic intervention that has ever been devised. We must look to our own Scottish genius, Adam Smith, who gifted the world the idea of comparative advantage, which is still to this day the most powerful idea in economics and should underpin the system of global trade.”
“Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I am happy to give way. Christine Grahame: Is the member saying that the British empire did not exploit the assets of many countries that are still very impoverished? It is rather ironic that we are having to compensate—we should compensate—by fair trade, but it is the very least that we can do. Stephen Kerr: It is undeniable that there was a British empire, and it is undeniable that there were things that were good about that period of our history and there were things that are to be regretted about it. However, the kind of cover-all statement that Christine Grahame presented as historical fact in her speech was unwarranted. John Mason introduced us to the “relatively pleasant” Tory, Murdo Fraser.”
“Stephen Kerr: I do not think that anyone will disagree with John Mason’s point. I am sure that we are all in favour of seeing fair trade as part of an increase in the size of the free trade basket. I was perplexed when I listened to Karen Adam. I like her—I have known her for a while, and she is undoubtedly one of the most genuine people in this Parliament. However, to try to wheedle in references to the powers of independence when we are talking about international aid was a bit of a stretch. Foysol Choudhury gave us a good potted history of fair trade globally, in Scotland and in Edinburgh. He specifically mentioned Bangladesh. Christine Grahame got mixed up with her historical references when she talked about Great Britain. I think that she got us mixed up with Belgium when she was talking about the attitude of the country.”
“Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to George Adam for making his point very clearly. That includes St Mirren Football Club, of which he is a great fan— he is perhaps the number 1 fan of St Mirren Football Club of whom I am aware. Alexander Stewart was derided by Patrick Harvie for mentioning the importance of every step in the journey towards fair trade. I am completely flummoxed by Patrick Harvie’s attitude towards the comments of my colleague Alexander Stewart, because Alexander Stewart is absolutely right: every single step in that journey is critical. Getting more and more people to take more and more single steps is how we will achieve fair trade. John Mason: Does the member accept at least the general point that we need to raise the standard and the bar a bit more? If it is just one cup, we should be going up a bit more than that, surely.”
“I am deeply concerned for my friend Willie Rennie, so perhaps we need to catch up after the debate and have a chat. George Adam, who is a tremendous champion for Paisley—no one could possibly deny that— mentioned sporting goods, but he did not mention St Mirren strips. I look forward to talking to him at our committee meeting on Thursday about whether his call for fair trade in sporting goods extends to St Mirren strips. George Adam: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: I am happy to give way to George Adam to hear that it does. George Adam: I am as predictable as ever. I agree with Stephen Kerr. During my speech, I said that sporting clubs need to lead from the front in relation to the shirts on players’ backs, which are bought by young people. They should be helping with that process and educating as part of that.”