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 3 of 25.
“Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Reform UK Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Public Service Reform Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform. Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Rural Affairs Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs, with the exception of climate action.”
“Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Education and Gaelic Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic, with the exception of culture, and on matters relating to the Historical Abuse Inquiry, redress and languages. Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Labour Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Health, Care and Sport Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Care, and on matters relating to sport.”
“Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, with the exception of transport, on matters relating to public infrastructure, civil contingencies and resilience, and on matters relating to energy and energy consents. Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Reform UK Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Labour Party.”
“Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Climate Action Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Rural Affairs, with the exception of rural affairs. Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Green Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Criminal Justice Committee Remit: To consider and report on matters relating to criminal justice falling within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, and functions of the Lord Advocate other than as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland.”
“Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Public Petitions Committee Remit: Set out in Rule 6.10 Number of members: 5 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish Labour Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee Remit: Set out in Rule 6.11 Number of members: 5 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Green Party.”
“Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee Remit: Set out in Temporary Rule 4 Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish Green Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Reform UK Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Equalities and Human Rights Committee Remit: Set out in Rule 6.9 Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.”
“Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Finance Committee Remit: Set out in Rule 6.6 Number of members: 7 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party. Duration: For the whole session of the Parliament Name of Committee: Public Audit Committee Remit: Set out in Rule 6.7 Number of members: 5 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish Labour Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees, with effect from 4 June 2026, that Temporary Rule 4, under rule 17.1A, be amended as follows— (a) in paragraph 1, for “2 October 2026” substitute “31 January 2027”; (b) for “Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee” substitute “Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee”; (c) in paragraph 3, for subparagraph (b) substitute: “(b) policy in relation to the UK’s relationship with the EU;” (d) in paragraph 3, for subparagraph (d) substitute: “(d) any other matter falling within the responsibility of the Scottish Administration relating to devolution, intra- UK and intergovernmental relations; and” (e) in paragraph 3, at end insert: “(e) matters relating to culture within the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic.” That the Parliament shall establish committees of the Parliament as follows— Name of Committee: Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee Remit: Set out in Rule 6.4 Number of members: 5 Convenership: The Convener will be a member of the Scottish National Party and the Deputy Convener will be a member of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party.”
“The finance committee having a governing party convener is not new. Labour held the convenerships in sessions 1 and 2 and also had the deputy convenership in session 1. In session 4, the Government party had both the convenership—a very good convener I thought at the time—and the deputy convenership. I am afraid to say that members can cry about it all they want, but there is nothing new here. Mr Hoy is talking about the committees that the Conservative Party is about to get convenerships of. If Mr Hoy is speaking against the motion and is about to vote against it, I have to say that, if he is successful, he will not get those convenerships. I urge Parliament to vote for the motions today.”
“Only one party is restricted from taking up a convenership on the Public Audit Committee. Everything else is to be legitimately allocated in line with the d’Hondt method. Former business managers each made their choices, and the motion is based on those choices. Every single decision has been taken in line with the standing orders of Parliament— [Interruption.] I hear members saying, “Process, process, process!” That is right—this is about the process. That is what the motion is about, Mr Kerr. It is about the process of establishing committees. I think that Mr Kerr should be paying attention. Mr Hoy is talking about what the situation was in the previous session. He has been here for only one session, so he is still quite new and is still learning. Mr Hoy still has a lot to learn.”
“If anything, I could have been the person who was speaking against the motion and saying that it was terribly unfair, but I am a very reasonable person, which is why I am standing here proposing this structure. I remind members that the SNP will be a minority on all committees, no matter whether it has a convenership or not. Any suggestion that the SNP group will somehow dominate a committee is clearly not true. Craig Hoy might not like this, but choices on committee convenerships and deputy convenerships were made based on the d’Hondt method. That procedure has been in place since the Parliament was established. Indeed, only one party has been restricted from taking up one of those posts—standing orders prescribe that, and I am not suggesting otherwise.”
“I hear what the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans is saying about process, which is something that the SNP loves to obsess about, but this is about what it looks like. It is unseemly that both of the convenership roles in that vitally important committee are with the Government party. Can he not see that that just stinks? Jamie Hepburn: There is another river that could be cried; I will come to that point in a minute. The point that I was going to make is that three committee places that the Scottish National Party were entitled to have been given up, such that Reform UK, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives are each getting an additional place in the committee structure that we are proposing.”
“We now have the harder challenges of changing how we travel, how we manage our land and how we heat our homes. That is exactly where the SNP Government needs to set out its stall and say how it would meet Scotland’s energy needs if it had the powers.”
“Previous analysis from Global Justice Now revealed that, in 2024 alone, the UK saw fossil fuel companies BP and Shell, which are among those that benefit from all that public support, make a combined total of £26.2 billion in profits. That is more than double the combined total of cuts made to the aid and welfare budgets in 2025. The head of BP in the UK has a base salary of £1.6 million, and her total compensation this year is expected to exceed £11.7 million. The UK handing more public money and tax breaks to those stinking rich polluters, instead of investing in moving us to clean energy that is locally generated from our abundant renewable resources, is unconscionable. In Scotland, anyway, our energy transition is under way, with excellent progress on moving to renewable electricity generation.”
“The member does not include in his calculations the cost of re-sequestering the carbon that is emitted. We have been letting the fossil fuel industry off scot free, because we let it pollute our atmosphere and raise carbon emissions, and then we sit in the chamber thinking, “Goodness, how are we going to put in place CCS and other ways to resequester that carbon?” Public money is trying to clean up the pollution that has been generated by private capital. Stephen Kerr: Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: No—I need to continue. Sorry. Just so that we are clear, around £17.5 billion a year is spent in the UK on fossil fuel subsidies on an oil and gas industry that is fully established, unlike renewables, which is still a developing industry. That does not count tax breaks, which are a form of subsidy.”
“The first is that, last year, the UK paid £2.64 billion in CFD subsidies. That is the difference between the market price, which is driven by the expensive gas that the member talks about, and the CFD strike price. That is the reality of it. CFDs are £2.6 billion more expensive. On her last point, does Lorna Slater acknowledge that the terms “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” are faith-based terms and are not actually supported by the scientific consensus or, indeed, by the IPCC, which is the correct technical authority? Lorna Slater: I absolutely disagree with Duncan Massey, of course. The climate emergency is backed by climate science globally. To condemn future generations to the future that exists if global warming gets to 3.5°C or 4°C is a horrendous thing to do.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: I will take some more interventions in a minute. Let me make progress. Throwing good money after bad to try to expand North Sea oil and gas drilling just adds carbon to the atmosphere that we have to remove later on, at great expense, or else it will drive up global temperatures, with disastrous consequences for future generations. The world has far more fossil fuel than it can safely burn, and issuing licences to extract fossil fuels from new sources is indefensible. I congratulate Reform colleagues on finally managing to lodge an amendment to a debate— the third time is the charm—but I am alarmed by the flat-out climate denial and, indeed, reality denial that is contained in the amendment. Duncan Massey: I will make two points, if I may.”
“It is quite delicious to witness ministers now proclaiming to Parliament the virtues of parental choice, flexibility and childcare that is built around family life. That is quite a conversion, but, as I said, I believe in repentance. I welcome that conversion—it is five years late, but I welcome it nevertheless.”
“There are things that we need to fix—there are things that don’t quite work for everyone.” That is okay—you are allowed to do that in a Parliament. [Interruption.] Even I am allowed to do that. The Deputy First Minister is encouraging me to continue in the pattern of my previous contributions in this Parliament, which has been to highlight occasions when things have gone well but to point out where we could do better. That is what I wish to do in this speech. I want to say that, because I believe in repentance, I welcome much of what has been said from the Government front bench this afternoon. For the past five years, it was my colleagues in the Scottish Conservatives who pointed out all the issues that are now being acknowledged.”
“I have to say that I have been greatly encouraged by the contents of many of the first speeches that have been given by SNP and Green members in this debate, because they have focused on the issues relating to capacity, availability and so forth that dog the current system. Frankly, I welcome that approach of greater scrutiny that has been taken. In that respect, I specifically mention the speeches of Calum Kerr and Patricia Gibson, which I thought were very valuable. I intervened on Paul McLennan to invite him to follow suit, but he was unprepared to do so. I say to SNP members and those on the Government benches that it is all right to say, “Yes, we’ve made some progress, but we can do better.”
“I think that we would all agree that that is a sizeable contribution to family budgets. It has to be said that going from the around 600 hours that we inherited when we came into government to delivering the 1,140 hours that parents have been benefiting from since 2021 is a massive achievement. We are also clear that now is the time to move on to the next transformational change in provision.”
“That is fine if that is what families choose to do, but it is not fine if it is not a choice. I have that at the forefront of my mind. We will take action to remove those barriers, not only because it is the right thing for families but because it is the right thing for our economy. I will look for a moment at the Government’s record in childcare and what we have been delivering to date: the universal early learning and childcare offer for every three and four-year-old, as well as around a quarter of two-year-olds. They are often referred to as “eligible two-year-olds”, but I prefer what the City of Edinburgh Council calls them, which I was told today is “terrific twos”. We are delivering that through an investment of around £1 billion a year, which is worth about £6,400 per family per eligible child.”
“On that note, my colleague Shirley-Anne Somerville, who spoke in the chamber before me, published “Bringing Hope, Building Futures” prior to the dissolution of the Parliament. It sets out the concrete action that we will take in pursuit of our goal of eradicating child poverty in Scotland, which we estimate will keep 100,000 children out of relative poverty this year. Surely that is a goal that we can all get behind. In its aim of eradicating child poverty, the plan is absolutely clear that supporting parents and carers who are currently locked out of the labour market to work is an important part of our work. We know that those barriers exist particularly for women, who are more likely to take on caring responsibilities, reduce their working hours, or feel that they cannot work at all because it does not make financial sense.”
“That allows me to say, in my first debate as Cabinet Secretary for Education, Culture and Gaelic, that I am proud to take over this area, which has been prioritised by the Scottish Government: from the baby box, which provides the essentials for the first six months of life, to our transformational 1,140 childcare offer; and from our breakfast and after-school club investment to free school meal provision, investment in health visiting, family nurse partnerships, supporting women with breastfeeding and, of course, the groundbreaking Scottish child payment. I am very proud of the fact that we are putting in place the building blocks of success for children in Scotland.”
“In my first response to Willie Rennie, I noted that Scotland is the only place in the UK that funds the real living wage, because we have put fair work at the centre of our expansion to 1,140. I say to members across the chamber that I understand that there are a number of areas that we need to learn from with regard to 1,140 and that I will discuss those with them. That is a broad commitment. I want to acknowledge parents and carers who are wrestling every day with the joys and challenges of raising children. They do that with varying support networks and in a cost of living crisis, but they always do it to the best of their ability. I saw that this morning and I thank them for that.”
“Did I understand correctly that the cabinet secretary said that the lack of parity that Willie Rennie identified, which she has acknowledged, will be addressed as part of the revised approach to this policy? Màiri McAllan: We are in the early days of a significant expansion project. I say to the chamber that I am open minded about learning with regard to the delivery of 1,140 hours as we work to expand the provision. Pay, rates and flexibility, among many other issues, will be taken into account. Willie Rennie: The difficulty is that the cabinet secretary’s predecessors have been open minded for years about the issue and we have not made any progress. We need more than open- mindedness and open doors; we need a solution. Màiri McAllan: I do not think that it is realistic to say that progress has not been made.”
“I want to make one thing clear to the Parliament: I will, to my last breath, defend the independence of the judiciary to decide on these issues, because that is the protection for everyone in the face of the rule of law. It is a foundation of our society, and we dabble with it—in the fashion that Mr Kerr has dabbled with it today—at our peril.”
“The First Minister: Presiding Officer, I do not know if Mr Kerr misspoke, but he said that the trial was supposed to take place before the election, and that is not a truthful or accurate statement. The trial was never scheduled for before the election. There was a preliminary hearing in February at which a judge—a member of the Court of Session—agreed to the preliminary hearing taking place on the day that it took place, which was yesterday. If we, as a Parliament—I go back to what I said about what Lord Pentland said to the court when I took my oath last Wednesday—start second- guessing and pointing the finger, as Mr Kerr has just done, at judges who are exercising their judicial independence, we are not respecting the independence of the judiciary.”
“One of the most damning aspects of all this—and the First Minister should be aware of this—is that Nicola Sturgeon, it is now said, claimed to be co- operating with the police investigation but her reply to every question was, “No comment”. Does the First Minister have any self-awareness about how this all looks to the people of Scotland? One of the things that sticks in the throats of a lot of people is that the trial was supposed to take place before the election but was mysteriously postponed to a date after the election. There was undoubtedly a political advantage to the SNP because of that postponement. Why was the hearing postponed and who authorised the date change of the proceedings? The Presiding Officer: Before the First Minister responds, I remind members that the judiciary in Scotland is independent.”
“The Parliament is more than capable of pursuing Scotland’s constitutional future and taking action on the issues that affect people in their lives here and now. I move amendment S7M-00105.3, to insert at end: “; believes that the most effective way in which to grow public support for Scottish independence and to meet the scale of the challenges currently facing Scotland is through more effective use of existing devolved powers; recognises that meeting the Scottish Government’s stated ambitions will require a significant escalation in action and ambition; notes that no one party holds a majority in the current parliamentary session, but that there is a clear majority for progressive values, and agrees that, if all progressive parties work constructively and collaboratively, Scotland can be a fairer, greener and kinder country where household costs are reduced, where wealth is distributed more equally and where climate and natural environment are protected.” The Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, I remind members who wish to speak to press their request-to-speak buttons—not everyone has done that so far.”
“As Gillian Mackay noted last week, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats—the two Opposition parties that co-operated with the Government to secure progress on the areas that we cared about—gained at the last election. There is something for every party to learn from that. The Greens will be proud to support the motion, although we will also push for our amendment, because we believe in the cause of independence—putting Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands—and we also believe that the Parliament has a duty to act here and now to give our children the best possible future that they can have, to help people to save money on their bills, to lift families out of poverty and to tackle the climate emergency.”
“We can grow support for full self-government through independence by maximising the use of the self-governing powers that we have right now, but we should also do it because it is the right thing to do, here and now, regardless of constitutional objectives. I will close on that note. There is a majority for independence in this Parliament, but not a single- party majority. Every progressive party in the Parliament has the opportunity to work with others—to co-operate, collaborate and move Scotland forward on the areas on which we agree. The vast majority of members of the Parliament agree on the need to eradicate child poverty, and a vast majority agree on the need to take action to tackle the climate emergency.”
“On housing, if we had the borrowing powers of a normal nation, we could build far more. However, what we can do right now is set standards to cut bills through energy efficiency—for new builds in particular. We can use the rent control powers that this Parliament passed just a few months ago to help people to save and keep a roof over their heads. Our health service is crying out for reforms, some major and structural but others very simple. People just want the services on which they rely every day to work. They just want someone to pick up the phone at their GP surgery when they call. When it comes to our environment, there is no need to wait for independence to clean up our rivers and our lochs. We can do all those things to demonstrate that, when decisions are made here, they benefit people and the planet.”
“Will Ross Greer give way on that point? Ross Greer: No. The best way to grow support for Scottish self- government is to do self-government well—to maximise the use of the powers that we have. That is the focus of today’s Green amendment. The powers of this Parliament are limited, but we have not yet exhausted them. In 2014, we grew support for independence by tying it to a sense of hope and optimism. I do not feel that there is a lot of hope and optimism in Scottish politics right now. There is a deep sense of frustration with our public services. We have a lot to be proud of from the era of devolution. For example, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which child poverty is falling. However, too many reforms have been delayed and deferred—most obviously, council tax reform.”
“I say to everyone, without fear or favour, that we all need to get a grip and get on the same page. The Presiding Officer: Thank you. I had intended to finish the urgent question at this point, but a further three members wish to ask questions. I will allow them to do so, as there is clearly a lot of interest in this topic.”
“Such disorder is to be deplored. Given the cabinet secretary’s favourable comments on the plans and arrangements in Edinburgh, is she of the opinion that the events in Glasgow reflect a failure of planning and preparedness by Glasgow City Council? Angela Constance: I say candidly to Mr Kerr and to the chamber that it is imperative that we see good, strong local leadership. That must involve local authorities, but it must also involve football authorities and football clubs. I draw a contrast— based on a briefing that I had from the chief constable and Police Scotland—with the well-co- ordinated set of arrangements that would have been in place had Heart of Midlothian Football Club won the match. Policing of celebratory functions requires a co-ordinated plan, as that complements the policing response.”
“I, Stephen Charles Kerr, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me”
“If this is to be my last contribution in the Scottish Parliament, I am delighted that it was on a subject that will matter so much to the future of our country. 13:35”
“The question is straightforward: do we continue with the fragmented approach that leaves teachers to carry the burden, or do we provide the clarity, authority and back-up that a national position would bring? A Scotland-wide ban, with clear and sensible exemptions—because they will need to exist— would do exactly that. It would set a consistent standard and back our teachers. It would restore the classroom as a place where attention is given to learning, not to a screen for some other purpose. This is about leadership, standards and whether we are serious about giving every child the environment that they need to succeed. The case is made and the evidence is there. The time to act is now.”
“They are designed to interrupt and keep young people—in fact, any people— engaged elsewhere. It is simply not reasonable to expect teachers to win that battle on their own. Other countries have recognised that and have acted decisively. Across Europe and beyond, national restrictions are now commonplace. Where phones have been removed from the school day, the results are consistent: improved focus, calmer classrooms and better behaviour. We can see the same in Scotland in places where schools and councils have taken firm action. Ministers know that there is a problem—I have heard the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills speak on the subject. They say so, but, for some strange reason, they have chosen not to act in a national direction.”
“Scottish Government research identifies mobile phones as a significant and growing source of disruption. Teachers are dealing with constant interruptions, fractured attention and time lost to managing behaviour that should not be an issue in the first place. That matters, because every moment lost to distraction is a moment taken away from learning. Standards do not slip overnight; they erode gradually, lesson by lesson, when focus is no longer protected. Let us be clear about what we are asking schools to compete with. Phones are not neutral tools; they are devices designed to capture our attention. I do not need to tell MSPs about the captivating powers of a mobile phone, which we see at every moment in the chamber. Douglas Lumsden just put his phone down, which is a very good thing.”
“Brian Whittle is right when he says that we need to teach each other and the rising younger generations about the power of new technology— how to harness it and use it to our benefit. That, as ever, was a useful contribution from Brian Whittle. Inevitably, he introduced the world of sport, too. However, this is no longer a debate about preference or guidance; it is about whether we are prepared to act in the face of clear and growing evidence that mobile phones are damaging the learning environment in our schools. In Scotland, we have chosen to rely on local discretion. That may sound sensible, and I understand the attraction of that course of action, but, in practice, it has meant inconsistency, uncertainty and not nearly enough backing for teachers on the ground. Meanwhile, the situation in classrooms has moved on.”
“Who, on the Conservative benches, says that we cannot occasionally agree with Willie Rennie? I agree with him about the use of old technology—books. It would be a great idea to have books in our classrooms and homes again. I hope that it catches on, and I hope that this new-old technology thing takes off in a big way. I love books. I agree with Brian Whittle about banning things. I am incredibly reluctant to talk about banning anything, because I am afraid that Parliament’s reputation is that if it is not taxing things, it is banning them. Frankly, I do not think that that enhances the reputation of our Parliament. However, there are some situations in which we need to take cognisance of the realities in relation to the power of new technology—and it is a power.”
“As Rhoda put it so eloquently in her own words, “it’s the people that make the parliament”. On behalf of the Government and my fellow MSPs, I wish Rhoda all the very best for the future. [Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 3. Crime and Policing Bill 17:53”
“I very much wish him well in whatever he decides to go on and do. Finally, I turn to Rhoda Grant. I say in all sincerity that Rhoda will be sorely missed in the chamber. Having served almost continuously since 1999, in five of the six sessions of Parliament, as an MSP and party spokesperson, she is without doubt one of the few members who have had the honour of seeing this institution grow and mature from those early days of devolution. Throughout my tenure as a minister, and prior to that as a fellow member of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, I have observed Rhoda’s work, and she has shown a steady and quiet determination to be a champion for the people of the Highlands and Islands on a diverse range of very important causes—not least through her Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, which was passed in 2011.”
“Comrade, I wish you well for the future. This debate also marks Edward Mountain’s final speech—although you never really know with Edward; he might come back tomorrow and add something else. There are many things on which Edward and I passionately disagree—that is beyond doubt—but what we have in common is a genuine passion and love for rural Scotland. Scottish politics has come so far since the reconvening of this Parliament. It is a place where rural Scotland, in all its diversity, can be represented by members ranging from this humble working-class shepherd to our very own land- owning baronet—who, to clarify, is just a small landowner. Joking aside, I have really enjoyed our robust debates, and I thank the member for his insightful contributions to Scottish public life and his discourse over his tenure.”
“Today marks a significant staging post on that journey to securing the future of crofting, which is a way of life that the Government is determined to support. I urge members to support the bill. If I may, I will take a moment or two to pay tribute to a number of members for whom today’s debate marks their final contributions in the Parliament. Richard Leonard, as he said himself, has served from 2016 to 2026. He has been consistent and resolute in staying true to his socialist principles and has been a proud champion of workers’ rights throughout his parliamentary career. His passionate speech during the stage 3 debate on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and his passionate speech today were powerful reminders of his deeply held principles. It would be helpful if his firebrand speeches were accurate, but we will not go into that right now.”
“Alasdair Allan worked incredibly hard to ensure that his amendments were agreed to, and, in doing so, he added considerable value for his constituents. I will take a moment to thank all the members who have spoken in the debate. Some thought- provoking points have been made, and I will certainly take them away with me. If I return to office as the agriculture minister, I will certainly bear them in mind. I hope that all members will support the bill, which will deliver for our people and our communities. Crofting is such a rich part of Scotland’s fabric. It is part of our heritage and, indeed, part of our identity as a nation. It is also part of our future. The bill is about securing that future and ensuring that crofters and crofting communities grow and continue to thrive in the years and decades to come.”
“Those opportunities might not be crofting opportunities, but the commission is currently working with the Scottish Land Matching Service to ensure that we create such opportunities in the very near future. We are committed to ensuring that we attract new blood into not only crofting but farming. I must push back on Beatrice Wishart, who said that the Government does not care about rural Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands and I have worked tirelessly to find workable solutions through the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill and the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill. However, I wish her well in whatever she chooses to do. I do not think that she has made her last contribution today, but I give her my very best wishes.”
“We did not promise an overarching bill; it was always a bill of technical fixes, because the 2017 consultation was split on what crofting communities wanted. It was the crofters who were divided in their thinking. Rhoda Grant: Although the minister did not promise an overarching bill, his predecessors did, and it was supposed to be introduced in the last parliamentary session, not this one, so we have waited some time for it. Jim Fairlie: I reiterate the point that I just made: the 2017 consultation was split on what the bill should deliver, which is why the bill is one that makes technical fixes, including some very important changes. Ariane Burgess talked about new opportunities. I would like her to note that we have just announced 17 new farming opportunities on Forestry and Land Scotland land.”