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 23 of 25.
“Only strength—of purpose and of arms—will maintain any peace that is worth having. I commend the leadership of the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, in reaffirming our unwavering commitment to Ukraine. It is only right that Britain, as the last remaining faithful signatory of the Budapest memorandum, leads by example. I therefore welcome the increase in defence expenditure that has been announced, but it must be increased further. NATO remains the bedrock of our security, and we must ensure that we, in Europe, have the capabilities to deter—and, if necessary, defeat—any threat to our freedom.”
“If we fail to act decisively and stand united, we send a dangerous message: that the international order can be torn apart by brute force. That is a message that we simply cannot afford to send. The cost of inaction now is far greater than the cost of standing firm. That is why Britain has been unwavering in its support for Ukraine. That is not just in solidarity— clearly, it is in our direct national interest. A Europe where Russian aggression is left unchecked is a Europe that is less safe for Britain. That is why we must never waver, and why we must continue to provide Ukraine with the military, economic and diplomatic support that it needs to win. Vladimir Putin’s regime has shown total disregard for its treaty obligations, violated international law and committed atrocities and war crimes in Ukraine.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I am grateful to Colin Beattie for lodging the motion and for his speech. In addition, it is always a pleasure to follow Kenneth Gibson. The resilience, courage and determination of the Ukrainian people in the face of an unprovoked invasion by Russia have inspired the free world. Three years on, we must ask what we have learned from the lessons of history, and whether we have understood what is at stake. This war is about not just Ukraine but the principles that underpin peace and security in Europe. We must also acknowledge the harsh truth: the war is, in part, the result of the west’s inaction over Russian aggression in Georgia, in Syria and in Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Each failure to act decisively only emboldened Vladimir Putin further, and we cannot afford to repeat those mistakes now.”
“If we are serious about having a secure, low-carbon and prosperous future, we must embrace a balanced energy mix that combines renewables, oil and gas for transition, and nuclear. That means lifting Scotland’s nuclear ban and allowing SMRs to be built in Scotland close to where the power is needed. That means supporting nuclear apprenticeships— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, you need to conclude. Stephen Kerr: I will. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Yes, but now, please. Stephen Kerr: That means making Scotland a leader in nuclear innovation. How on earth can you— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Fergus Ewing, to be followed by Emma Harper. 16:34”
“However, instead of grasping those opportunities, the SNP banned nuclear outright, shutting Scotland out of a rapidly expanding and exciting global industry. The United States, China, Canada and EU countries are investing heavily in nuclear, but not Scotland. Meanwhile, the SNP wants to cling on— for comfort, I think—as it sinks to its outdated 1970s anti-nuclear rhetoric while pretending that renewables alone can meet all of Scotland’s energy needs. Gillian Martin: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is about to conclude. Stephen Kerr: The SNP is failing Scotland’s workers, offering them false promises of green jobs without delivering real long-term opportunities. It is failing Scotland’s households, and it is failing future generations.”
“As we have heard countless times in this debate, they are the perfect complement to intermittent renewables such as wind and solar when, for example, the sun does not shine, and they create thousands of high-quality jobs in engineering and construction in relation to operations and maintenance. And here is the kicker: the UK Government— both the previous Conservative one and this Labour one—already backs SMRs. Where is the SNP? It is standing in the way. Billions of pounds of investment and talent could flow into Scotland if we got behind nuclear, boosting our economy instead of watching investment and talent heading out of Scotland to England and Wales or abroad. Scottish businesses and universities could lead in nuclear innovation, attracting global talent and cementing our place as a leader in clean energy technology.”
“Paul Sweeney: Does the member recognise that a reactor pressure vessel for an SMR could be built at, for example, Rosyth and then taken by barge to Torness and connected to the existing turbine hall there, which would be a fairly easy job, in relative terms? Stephen Kerr: I bow before the expertise of Paul Sweeney on these matters, but that sounds exciting to me. That sounds like the kind of future that I want for Scotland and for the people who will live in Scotland. SMRs take up less space than wind farms and can be located close to where the power is needed. That is critical in relation to the controversies about transmission. Nuclear power stations can be built nearer to where the power will be used, and they run 24/7. They are not weather dependent.”
“There is a lot of propaganda about how long it takes, but they are quicker to build, cheaper to operate and far more flexible. Alasdair Allan: The member mentioned that the idea that it might take a while to build nuclear power stations in Scotland to address our energy needs is simply propaganda. How long does he think that it might take? Stephen Kerr: The record shows that SMRs can be built in between seven and 10 years. That is very realistic, and it is why we should not be turning up our noses at SMRs in Scotland. Paul Sweeney: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I will give way one more time.”
“What does the member say in response to that? Stephen Kerr: I say that we can have it all in Scotland—we can have it all. It is not either/or. I go back to my young Scottish apprentices. The sad reality, and the indictment of this so-called nationalist Government—it is a very strange nationalism—is that, if they want to pursue their careers, they will have to leave Scotland. That is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal of Scotland’s future. If we are serious about cutting emissions, getting energy prices lower and securing thousands of skilled jobs for generations to come, we must invest in nuclear energy, particularly SMRs. Nuclear is now one of the safest, most reliable and cleanest energy sources in the world, and SMRs are quicker to build.”
“That will be part of our clean, secure and prosperous future. However, the SNP and the Greens want to take Scotland down a dead-end road where energy insecurity, high prices and economic decline await us. Their opposition to nuclear power is based not on science or economics, but on blind ideology. Recently, I met young Scottish apprentices who were working in the nuclear sector. They were bright, ambitious and highly skilled. Their futures were exciting. They were at the forefront of an industry that offers some of the best-paid, most secure and most future-proof jobs in the world. Karen Adam: On the point about economic opportunities, the CBI reported last week that the net zero industry is growing three times faster than the overall UK economy, providing high-wage jobs and boosting energy security.”
“It is a pleasure to follow Karen Adam, but she needs to realise that, when we vote for a budget, we do not get to pick and choose which lines to support but have to take it as a whole. Winston Churchill—who was quoted by Fergus Ewing—said: “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty.” The SNP Government is nothing if not pessimistic. At every turn, it blocks progress, stifles ambition and clings to outdated dogma and ideology. It is time for Scotland to start seeing the opportunities that are before us, and I agree with Graham Simpson that that will take a change of Scottish Government. The SNP will not change. The change that we look for means embracing nuclear energy—the opposite of the motion in the name of the cabinet secretary.”
“Jackie Dunbar: Mr Whitfield, please tell me where the nuclear power station should be. Martin Whitfield: I am more than happy for Torness B to be built in the South Scotland constituency of”
“Jackie Dunbar: We have a £500 million just transition fund that will help our workers in the north-east of Scotland and Moray. That is one way of doing it. Let us contrast that with the alternative. We could dither about for decades to plan and build nuclear power stations, which would then likely take decades longer to break even. It is estimated that Hinkley Point C’s construction will cost about £46 billion in today’s money—that is for just one plant. I do not for one second believe that MSPs in the chamber who have campaigned against pylons in their constituencies and regions would be willing to welcome a new nuclear power plant in their patches. At this point, I will take an intervention from any member who wants to campaign for a nuclear power plant in the area that they represent. Martin Whitfield: Will the member give way?”
“Will the member taken an intervention? Jackie Dunbar: I will take an intervention from Mr Kerr. If he is going to speak about nuclear power stations, I would like to ask him where one will go in his region. Stephen Kerr: I will speak about nuclear power stations, but it is not my turn to speak yet—I am just intervening on what Jackie Dunbar has said. I am interested in her claim, which is right, that we need to invest in skills. How exactly does an SNP Scottish Government invest in skills while slashing the budgets of the college sector? How will investment in skills happen if you are not investing in college education and increasing the number of apprenticeship places in Scotland? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair.”
“Part of my argument is that we have a vast coastline and a vast airspace around Scotland, which are critical to the security of western Europe and our country, and our ability to defend that would be strengthened by greater emphasis on conventional weaponry, rather than the investment that has been made in nuclear defences. That is my reflection on defence priorities. In relation to the defence sector, a strong number of companies in Scotland are involved in defence-related activities. Those companies make a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy, and I welcome the work that they undertake. It is important that we recognise that, given the difficulties that we face at present.”
“Will he take this opportunity to give his whole- hearted support to those important businesses and their employees? The First Minister: Stephen Kerr is correct that matters relating to international relations are wholly reserved, but I contend that they have an impact on our way of life. If the Parliament does not confront those issues, I do not think that we will address properly the challenges that all our communities face as a consequence of the situation in which we find ourselves. We need to have effective defence forces available to us.”
“This is a wholly reserved matter, but the First Minister is right to express our solidarity and united support for Ukraine and its people, including those who now live among us in Scotland. One of the measures that must now be taken is that Britain must re-arm, as Keith Brown said. That will mean increases in defence expenditure, which are to be welcomed. The lesson of history is that securing the peace is best done through strength, and Scotland is critical in that regard, because it is the location of many important defence contractors. Does the First Minister agree with what I have said? If he does, will he take this opportunity to disavow the hostility of many SNP MSPs and MPs towards the defence sector? In fact, some ministers will not even meet defence contractors.”
“I have already outlined the timescale for that, but I would be happy to write to Stephen Kerr on the scope and remit of the review, on which I am being advised by Dame Sue Bruce. Virtual Libraries 6.”
“My question relates to the review of Creative Scotland by Dame Sue Bruce. When will the cabinet secretary be in a position to spell out in detail the exact remit of that review? We know that the review report is due to be published in the summer, but will he also spell out a timetable for the review? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to answer that, in so far as it is relevant to the opening question. Angus Robertson: I am reminding myself of the original question, which was on multiyear funding. Nevertheless, Dame Sue Bruce will, no doubt, in addition to looking at the impact of multiyear funding on the creative sector, be looking more broadly—as I have asked her to do—at the workings of Creative Scotland.”
“As a result of the budget that was passed yesterday—which he voted against—funding for local government is going up. If Mr Kerr wishes to draw any specific issues to my attention, he knows that I am a big supporter of protecting museums and galleries the length and breadth of Scotland. If there is any way in which Creative Scotland or other parts of the Scottish Government can intervene to protect our cultural infrastructure, I am happy for them to do just that. Dumbarton Castle 4.”
“The cabinet secretary will have heard this morning—as I did—at the museums and galleries strategy symposium, concerns about the future of local museums. Further to Craig Hoy’s point about the Scottish National Party’s cuts in funding for local authorities and the non-statutory nature of the funding of museums, what more can the cabinet secretary do practically to ensure the survival of important local collections, which are vital assets in our communities? Angus Robertson: The provision of funding through Museums and Galleries Scotland helps in the provision of support for museums and galleries right across Scotland. I am sure that Mr Kerr did not want to inadvertently mislead Parliament by suggesting that the amount of funding for local government is going down.”
“That includes improving our built environment by investing more than £300 million in our heat in buildings programme, supporting more than 20,000 households to save up to £500 on their energy bills a year and making their homes warmer and more comfortable. That is very important, given that we are now seeing a third rise in household bills, which means that Labour has failed to deliver on the cut to energy bills that the public were promised during the election campaign.”
“Further work on the matter will be on-going in the coming weeks, and the Minister for Higher and Further Education will keep Parliament updated. I know that Joe FitzPatrick, having raised the issue, will back the budget, which will help to sustain the University of Dundee. The question for Michael Marra and his colleagues is simple: will they put the city or their party first? Will they back a budget that gives the university a future, or will they sit on their hands? Dundee will be watching what they do. On tackling the climate emergency, in 2025-26, we are committing £4.9 billion of investment with a positive benefit for the climate.”
“Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shona Robison: I want to make some progress, but if I have time, I will do so. The budget invests more than £2 billion in our colleges and universities and in the wider skills system. However, one institution in particular—the University of Dundee—is facing an immediate challenge. I thank Joe FitzPatrick for the efforts that he has made to raise the circumstances that the university faces. Other members, including Michael Marra, have also contacted the Government about that. I can inform members that up to £15 million of financial transactions will be made available to the Scottish Funding Council to support the sector and universities such as the University of Dundee.”
“However, we must also see an urgent decision on the Acorn carbon capture and storage project if a just transition at Grangemouth is to become a reality. Amendment 1 therefore amends section 4 of the bill to increase the Scottish Administration’s overall cash authorisation by £25 million to cover the additional portfolio spend that is provided for by amendment 2. Amendment 2 amends schedule 1 of the bill to increase the maximum spend of the net zero and energy portfolio by £25 million to create the just transition fund for Grangemouth. To take account of that additional authorised spend, amendment 3 amends schedule 1 of the bill to increase the total amount of resources that the Scottish Administration is authorised to use by £25 million. I urge all members to support amendment 1 and the other amendments in the group. I move amendment 1.”
“I welcome the £25 million and the £200 million that the cabinet secretary mentioned, but the devil is always in the detail. Will she tell us a bit more about how that £25 million will be administered? Will that be done by the Grangemouth future industry board? If so, who exactly within GFIB will administer it? Shona Robison: I know that the First Minister has already set out some of the detail. The aim is not only to expedite any of the potential solutions that will be set out in the project willow report, but to consider proposals made by Unite and its members, for example, and to continue to pursue other options, including as yet unknown potential investments. We want this money to work as quickly and as flexibly as possible to give the opportunity to secure jobs at the Grangemouth site.”
“As I mentioned, the budget needs to be passed today for the £25 million to be released but, once the £25 million has been secured, through the Parliament’s voting for it, it is my number 1 priority to look—particularly with the Grangemouth future industry board, because this is about not just the refinery but the industrial complex of Grangemouth as a whole—at how that can be deployed and used. It will be able to be deployed in a way that makes a difference only if we work together with the people of Grangemouth and the stakeholders in it, much as we did with the north-east and Moray just transition fund, which has been very successful.”
“Has Petroineos got a copy of the EY report on project willow? How much did it cost? How specific are the project willow proposals? Are they costed? Where will the investment come from? Those are all burning questions on the minds of the people of Grangemouth. Gillian Martin: There are a lot of questions in that. I will not have time to answer all of them. I will be able to write to the member about some of the detail—in particular, the cost of project willow. That involved money that was put in by the Scottish Government and the UK Government. None was put in by Petroineos. The report is due by the end of the month, and nothing has been said to me to indicate that that will slip in any way.”
“Daniel Johnson is right that this is about jobs. However, it is not just about 400 jobs; it is about nearly 3,000 jobs. That is the economic impact assessment of what is happening at Grangemouth. It is a great pity that we do not have more detail on the £200 million and exactly how that will be distributed and used. It is also a great pity that we still do not have much detail about the £25 million. I would really like to hear a lot more detail about how that money is going to be used. I would also like the minister to tell us about the report on project willow. I remember her saying that that would come out by the end of this month. This is the end of the month. When exactly will we see it? Colin Mackay of STV saw it. He even wrote a detailed report on it. I do not understand why we have not seen it.”
“The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is not a threat but a guarantee of economic stability and seamless trade and an underpinning of our prosperity, and it must be protected. The Scottish Conservatives would restore this Parliament to what it is meant to be—a Parliament that serves the people and delivers results. The SNP has failed and Labour is failing. Scotland demands better, and the Scottish Conservatives can deliver the common sense that the people of Scotland now want to see. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Angus Robertson to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. If he could take us to 5 pm, that would be very helpful. 16:50”
“However, under the SNP, the Parliament has been reduced to being a mouthpiece for nationalism. As we have seen this week, debate is stifled. Committees are stuffed with party loyalists. Laws are rushed through with minimal oversight or scrutiny. Framework bills hand unchecked power to ministers. That is not democracy but press-release democracy—an insult to democracy. The real threat to this Parliament is not Westminster but the SNP’s misuse of its powers and its obsession—as we have heard again today—with grievance politics. I say to Jackson Carlaw that I wish that the people of Scotland watched Scottish Parliament TV. However, no one is watching, because it is predictable and boring. The people of Scotland are sick to the back teeth of the SNP’s rhetoric of division and grievance. The SNP is the threat to devolution. I will be clear.”
“Repealing the act is off the agenda. It will not do it. It never intended to do it. Never has an incoming Government shown such a blatant lack of integrity as has this Labour Government. The people have seen through it. It breaks every promise that it makes. It does not have a plan. It does not have a clue. That is the reality that we face. Audit Scotland has ripped apart the SNP’s record in government. Reports lay bare the SNP’s incompetence. The NHS is in crisis. Infrastructure is delayed and deteriorating. Education is slipping backwards. Let us be clear that the SNP’s failures are not accidental and are not one-offs but patterns of mismanagement, poor governance, deflection and denial. Let us remind ourselves that the Parliament was meant to be a place of robust debate, scrutiny and solutions.”
“It is about the SNP’s relentless, tiresome, never-ending campaign of grievance against Westminster. The SNP does not oppose regulatory frameworks; it just opposes anything with “UK” in the title—and let us not forget its ultimate ambition, which is to drag Scotland back into the European Union. It would swap our seat at the table in the United Kingdom for the status of a voiceless and insignificant region in the EU. That is its plan and its vision for Scotland. Speaking of hypocrisy, let us talk about Labour. Labour mumped and moaned about the UK Internal Market Act. Oh, how it protested and blustered, all for the sake of political point scoring. However, let us get to the truth. In the debates that have been referenced, I told the Parliament that Labour would never repeal the act if it ever got into power. Guess what? It will not do so.”
“Things such as environmental regulation are a floor, not a ceiling. We would have more freedom in that union. Stephen Kerr: Twelve thousand new regulations arrived in this country every year when we were members of the European Union. Where was the outrage then from the SNP about our lack of ability to change or alter those? We just had to accept them. Where were its demands then for scrutiny, legislative consent or sovereignty? They were nowhere. However, when the UK Government brings in sensible and necessary legislation to protect seamless trade in our country, SNP members wail, whinge and throw their hands up in horror. It is nothing short of nonsense. It is incoherence of the highest order. The debate is about not principle but point scoring.”
“Scottish trade to the rest of the UK is worth more than £52 billion annually, which is 60 per cent of our total exports. That is not a made-up statistic for debate but an economic reality. The internal UK market is the foundation of Scotland’s prosperity, but the SNP attacks it and undermines it, knowing full well that doing so is to Scotland’s detriment—yet it has no problem whatsoever with the European Union’s internal market. There is not a peep, murmur or protest. When we were in the EU, we were on the receiving end of 12,000 new regulations a year. Lorna Slater: Will Stephen Kerr take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: Yes, I will hear from the most expensive minister in the history of devolution. Lorna Slater: Does Stephen Kerr recognise that the conditions of membership of the European Union are substantially different?”
“Stephen Kerr: The Parliament is accountable to the people, but the people expect parliamentarians to behave in a certain way. [Laughter.] Well, members can laugh. Was a great mirror dropped in front of members that they had such a laugh? Let us talk about power. Since 1999, and after the 2014 referendum and Brexit, the Parliament has been entrusted with many new and significant powers, which should be used to change lives for the better. What has the SNP done? It has squandered them. Alex Rowley made the point that either the SNP has let the powers gather dust, or worse, it has wielded them with such incompetence—the most expensive minister in the history of devolution delivered a reminiscence on the deposit return scheme—that it has caused more harm than good. Let us deal in facts.”
“Where to begin in summing up the debate? Let us all agree on one thing: our Scottish Parliament was created to serve the people of Scotland. It was meant to be a place of progress, pragmatism and partnership in a strong and united UK, but under the SNP, it has been reduced to a platform—as we have heard in the debate, even from the Deputy First Minister—for grievance, fantasy division and failure. That is the real threat to the Parliament. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I will take a short intervention. Kate Forbes: Does the member accept that the electorate sent each of us here, and the platform, or otherwise—whatever word the member uses to describe it—is a Parliament that is accountable to the people?”
“The Deputy First Minister might like to think that she is the voice of business in the Government, but, if this debate is not performative, that rather begs the question why the Scottish Government is adopting its position before all Scottish businesses have had their say in the review. It is vital that businesses, consumers and other stakeholders here, in Scotland, and across the UK are listened to.”
“The Deputy First Minister is prejudging the responses to the review from people in Scotland. She is also the economy secretary, and we should all agree that economic growth is of utter importance. I hope that we would also all agree that it is paramount that the views of Scottish businesses are heard. We know that, generally, businesses want to be able to confidently trade freely across the UK, that exports to the rest of the UK are worth nearly £50 billion and account for more than 60 per cent of all Scotland’s exports, and that businesses want regulatory alignment across the UK. We also know from the latest Scottish business monitor that 90 per cent of businesses raised political uncertainty as one of their major concerns.”
“All those points should be welcomed by the Scottish Government and by all parties. Indeed, many of those measures have been called for by parties across the chamber and not just by Scottish Labour. The other reason why the debate feels performative is that the Scottish Government is prejudging an important review that still has more than six weeks of its consultation to go. We should all agree— Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Neil Bibby: Yes. Kate Forbes: Does the member not think that explicitly excluding one of the options—the very option that majorities in both the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish Parliament have supported—up front is prejudging the outcome of the review? Neil Bibby: I will come on to why the internal market act is being reviewed and why it is being retained.”
“[Interruption.] I will not take the intervention, as I want to make some progress. Scottish Labour welcomes the publication of the UK Government’s consultation and review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. We welcome the fact that the review is both broader in scope and being carried out earlier than is required by statute. We also welcome the UK Labour Government’s immediate commitment to finalise the delivery of the joint common frameworks programme ahead of that review— something that Scottish Labour has called for, including the last time that we debated the issue. Scottish Labour also welcomes the new approach to resetting relations, and the UK Labour Government’s intention is rightly to uphold its responsibilities in relation to the Windsor framework as we reset our relationship with the European Union.”
“It is interesting that Neil Bibby has taken that line in his speech. To be fair to the Deputy First Minister, she was quoting Neil Bibby. When we last debated the UKIMA, I reminded him that the Labour Government would not want to repeal it. That has happened, has it not? Labour is not prepared to repeal it, because it knows that it was the right thing for the United Kingdom as a whole and for Scotland in particular— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We have got the gist, Mr Kerr. Neil Bibby: I will come on to that point shortly. In terms of resetting the relationship, it takes two to tango. If the Scottish Government is genuinely committed to partnership working and co- operation, it would join us in focusing on and welcoming many of the positive steps that are being taken by the new UK Government.”
“Natalie Don-Innes: Mr Kerr disagrees with my assumption that we are “failing”—that is not my word—but still on course, but I remind him that the oversight board’s report specifically said that the Promise is still deliverable and can still be kept, so I refer him back to the report. I have been very clear today that I think that everyone in Scotland is accountable for this, because the Promise means something to everyone. There is of course a responsibility at Government level to show leadership on the issue. I have gone through a number of the areas where we have made positive progress, but there are also responsibilities for local authorities, our third sector and a number of organisations. I encourage them, and I will work with them, so that we can all address the issue together and deliver the Promise by 2030.”
“Willie Rennie is right to be deeply unimpressed with the statement and the answers to our questions, but at least we have learned that there is a new way of saying “failing” without saying “failing”, which is to say, “We are behind schedule but still on course.” I do not think that that is good enough. The minister talks about embedding the Promise across the Government, but the oversight board states the reality. As Gillian Mackay mentioned, many organisations’ systems are not doing enough. Will the minister reply to this question? Who exactly is failing to step up, and what consequences, if any, will they face for that failure?”
“The cabinet secretary has a legal duty to uphold the provisions of the Equality Act 2010. In June 2024, he received a letter from Sandie Peggie’s solicitor, Miss Gribbon, highlighting issues in connection with her case. I repeat that the cabinet secretary has a legal duty to uphold those protections. Did he at any time challenge NHS Fife’s actions and seek assurances of full compliance with the law? Neil Gray: The correspondence that Stephen Kerr refers to was responded to by officials, who gave guidance as to the measures that could be taken. I am not going to comment further on a live tribunal case. It is important that that process is allowed to conclude and that the due process is allowed to continue.”
“The First Minister: Those are all issues of discussion with Petroineos, but I assure Mr Kerr— this is central to my statement today—that the Government is putting in place support to ensure that individuals and families are supported. We will do everything that we can to secure a future for those individuals by providing support and by making ourselves available to engage with the company on future opportunities to safeguard the future of the site. That is the commitment that I give to Parliament today, and it will underpin the Scottish Government’s approach.”
“The First Minister will understand the concern, which will be widely shared in Grangemouth, that, in his statement, he did not say anything about how exactly the highly skilled and well-paid jobs will be saved. There needs to be a practical plan. As he mentioned, there is great urgency, and immediate action is necessary. I fear that the workers will be gone—from Grangemouth and from Scotland— before anything changes. I note the First Minister’s comments about UK Steel. Has the First Minister spoken directly to Petroineos about what can be done to repair and restart the hydrocracker, which is the critical line for profitable diesel and aviation fuel? Such an intervention might just extend the life of the refinery to allow for a transition of some sort.”
“This is a big issue outside as well as inside this Parliament, and the people of Scotland need to know that the sub judice rule is not the specific reason why the matter is not being discussed, because it is not sub judice. The Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I confirm that I have not ruled that the matter is sub judice. We will now continue with our item of business. The next question is, that motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members indicated agreement. Topical Question Time 14:27 Accident and Emergency Waiting Times 1.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In connection with rules 13.3, 13.4, 13.6B and 5.4 of standing orders, I ask for your guidance on a significant matter of public interest, which is now being reported on outwith the Parliament. The reason that has been given—or floated, I would suggest—for why the issue that Tess White and Douglas Ross have raised is not being discussed in Parliament this week as per the business papers is that the issue concerned is described as sub judice. Would you agree that, in fact, employment tribunals in Scotland are not subject to the sub judice rule? Would you care to clear the matter up? The media speculation might be misrepresenting what is happening inside Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: I remind all members of the need to treat one another with courtesy and respect. The question is, that amendment S6M-16518.1, in the name of Tess White, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. 14:13 Meeting suspended. 14:19 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: We come to the vote on amendment S6M-16518.1, in the name of Tess White, which seeks to amend motion S6M-16518, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on changes to the business programme. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”