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 4 of 25.
“There have been some very thought-provoking contributions, and I will continue to reflect on the points that have been made. I will touch on one or two of the issues that have been raised. When we started the debate, I never expected to hear that Tim Eagle had a crush on Richard Leonard—that was the surprise of the afternoon. However, in response to his point about environmental development meaning abandonment, we lodged amendments to ensure that that would not be the case. Rhoda Grant rightly talked about Donna Smith and Susi Stuehlinger, to whom I apologise if I have pronounced her name incorrectly. Their involvement in the bill has been fundamental in ensuring that we got it right.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister to wind up the debate. 17:46 Jim Fairlie: In closing the debate, I take a final opportunity to thank all the stakeholders who contributed to the development of the bill. As I said in my opening remarks, the views of the grass- roots crofters and stakeholders were crucial in helping us to better understand the needs and concerns of crofters and landlords. Their lived experience helped us to shape the bill, to identify and address potential issues at an early stage, and to develop solutions. Consultation and continued engagement have highlighted that there is widespread support for the bill across the crofting counties. I also want to take a moment to thank the members who have spoken in today’s debate.”
“To say that we on the Conservative benches, and many across the Highlands and Islands region and rural Scotland, will miss him is an understatement. A great deal of expertise and experience around the chamber today will sadly be absent in the next parliamentary session. When significant reform takes place, I hope that new members will look back at the contributions of members who have examined the issue and reflected on it in detail. Although I recognise that there is a great deal of consensus in the Parliament on crofting reform and a recognition that change must come, I believe that we must acknowledge the need for a clear plan for the future. I hope that that can be dealt with early in the next session and that the process will draw on the work that has been done before and during the bill’s parliamentary stages.”
“His amendments have secured a commitment to customer responsiveness from the Crofting Commission, a commitment to consultation on common grazings ahead of future legislation and at least a positive indication from the minister on the issues of landlord representation and involvement with the commission. Edward Mountain has been a good friend and a great colleague over my nine years in Parliament—my nine years so far, I hope—and has always provided sage advice and support. He has been a staunch ally and combative voice for people and businesses outside urban areas. His passion for rural Scotland and experience of rural issues are absolutely unrivalled. The Scottish Conservatives have always been the party that stands up for rural Scotland, and Edward Mountain has very much been in the vanguard on that.”
“Will the member give way? Jamie Halcro Johnston: Not if the member is going to demonstrate a crush. Stephen Kerr: I do not have a crush on Richard Leonard, but I have known him for more than 40 years. He has lost none of his fire, passion and principle, and, for that reason, we on these benches quite admire him. Jamie Halcro Johnston: I agree with that. I served with Richard Leonard on the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee in session 5, and, although I accept that his politics and mine will probably never align, he has served those whom he represents extremely well in this place, even if his views are not always welcomed by the front- bench members of his own party. I pay special tribute to my Highlands and Islands Conservative colleague Edward Mountain, whose work on the bill has been representative of his usual approach.”
“Local authorities should seriously consider how they will approach exemptions from the visitor levy for those who, through no fault of their own, have to travel to other parts of the country for medical treatment. The bill responds directly to what local authorities and industry have asked for. It provides the clarity, consistency and confidence that they need on how visitor levy schemes will operate. I thank members again for their contributions and commend the motion to Parliament. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill: Stage 3”
“I give an undertaking that officials will work with VisitScotland to include references to medical exemptions in the guidance that will be produced for councils to support implementation of the bill. Willie Rennie: I urge the minister to be just a little bit clearer and more direct to local authorities. We need to have medical exemptions across the board. I know that it is up to local authorities, but can he just give them a little bit more so that they fully understand the importance of that? Ivan McKee: As I have said on the record, with the responsibility that we have delegated to councils comes an obligation on them to take the matter very seriously and recognise the points that have been made in the chamber this afternoon.”
“I have no doubt that it is a key element in our continued success in attracting inward investment across all sectors, given our leadership role in that metric. The tourism sector has a huge role to play in presenting Scotland internationally in the most favourable light. I recognise the comments from Willie Rennie and many other members across the chamber on medical exemptions. There has been a balance, with many members recognising that it is for local authorities to decide how to apply exemptions and that we should seek to devolve that responsibility as much as possible. However, with that responsibility comes an obligation to recognise many of the issues that members have raised.”
“That is true of the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, the Deputy First Minister, all Cabinet ministers and all members of the party, who absolutely recognise the critical role that business plays in building a strong economy for Scotland, which is the key to a successful future. I very much agree with Willie Rennie’s comments about the leadership of the tourism industry, which is critical not only because of the revenue and economic activity that the industry generates but because of the opportunities that it presents to communities across the whole country—few sectors can match that geographical reach. It also presents a hugely important front window for Scotland internationally.”
“It is those types of investment that the visitor levy revenue is intended to support, and having a visitor levy scheme in place will help to ensure that local authorities can fund future projects that will boost visitor services without diverting resources from local communities. We heard a final speech today from Sarah Boyack. Members may not know that I first met Sarah way back in the 1980s when we were both involved in student politics. It was long ago—a different world and a different time—so it was great to see her in Parliament when she was re-elected. The list of her achievements across a wide range of policy areas is long and impressive, and likewise I wish her every success in the future. I thank Fergus Ewing for his compliments, but I must very strongly tell him that the SNP Government is firmly pro-business.”
“In the Highlands, £250,000 was awarded to the Glencoe greenway, delivering a new traffic-free active travel route and creating a new path as well as upgrading an existing one. In Stirling, £230,000 was awarded to the Trossachs scenic viewpoint, delivering the final stage of a visitor management project that includes a high-quality landmark viewpoint at the busy Trossachs pier visitor hub. That is something that I am sure that Evelyn Tweed would recognise. I congratulate her on her session in Parliament. It has been a pleasure working with her, and I know that she is hugely committed to the Stirling area and is keen to see tourism there go from strength to strength because the area has tremendous attractions to offer. I wish her every success in whatever she decides to pursue in future.”
“Such consensus reflects Parliament at its best, with all parties coming together to deliver legislative improvements for local government and, importantly, for our vital tourism sector. We have spent a considerable amount of time working to identify the right approach to supporting investment in our tourism sector, and it is important to recognise that comparatively small investments in visitor services can be transformational for communities and for visitor experiences, as we have seen with recent investments from the rural tourism infrastructure fund. In Orkney, there was £750,000 for visitor infrastructure in Dounby to help to deliver a visitor hub that serves the needs of both tourists and the local community, reducing pressure on key natural and cultural heritage sites and improving the visitor experience.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Ivan McKee, to wind up on behalf of the Scottish Government. 16:50 Ivan McKee: I thank members from across the chamber for their contributions. It is important to identify the points of consensus, because we have secured considerable cross-party agreement on the bill and ought to be proud of that. I am also grateful to the members who have resisted what Willie Rennie called “the temptation to add … bells and whistles” to the bill, given the timeframe. That resistance has helped us to complete our scrutiny today, with a full day to spare in advance of the conclusion of this session of Parliament. When I have spoken to stakeholders about the bill in recent weeks, they have repeatedly highlighted how pleased they are to see politicians from across the chamber working together.”
“I thank the minister, Ivan McKee, who has brought some remedy to what was a flawed piece of legislation. He has brought post-legislative scrutiny to a new level of competence by introducing the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill in the way that we all encouraged him to. I congratulate him on that, and I appreciate the fact that Fergus Ewing is right when he says that the minister has a pro-business leaning. I can see that I am out of time, so will conclude by saying that, although I do not resile from any of the amendments that I lodged, I was grateful that Mr McKee accepted one of them. The ultimate test of the visitor levy will be how it works in practice and I hope that we will be open to further review in future, because I am sure that there will be many opportunities for a positive critique.”
“It is clearly on the label of our party and in what we stand for that we are against that sort of thing; in the spirit of “Father Ted”, we would say, “Down with this sort of thing.” We want to reduce taxes and to have simpler taxes, fewer taxes and more effective taxes, so I do not agree with Ariane Burgess that we were wrong to take that approach. The Conservatives and other members, including Fergus Ewing, who is sat at the back of the chamber, made the case that the bill that became the 2024 act was flawed. Fergus Ewing was right to encourage ministers to listen. Some of the best examples of good law making that we can possibly see are where the minister who is leading the process is open to listening to what members and, more widely, stakeholders are saying.”
“I hope that the minister, in concluding the debate, will do exactly what has been suggested to him and will give strong encouragement to all our local authorities to create an exemption for those who are visiting an area because they have to be there to fulfil a medical appointment. I am sorry to inject a note of controversy in what has otherwise been a most agreeable debate, but Ariane Burgess was not quite right when she said that some of us had made a mistake in opposing the very existence of a visitor levy. It is in the DNA of the Scottish Conservatives that we will never jump up and down with enthusiasm for new taxes of any description.”
“However, that was the only hiccup in the whole process, and we have all practised maximum self-restraint in not lodging loads and loads of amendments. Willie Rennie said that he has heard some scary stories about how the revenues from the levy might be used and how that seems to have very little to do with the sector that will have to collect the revenues. I agree with him, which is why, sadly, I disagree with Mark Griffin—I usually quite like to agree with him—over his resistance to putting in the bill some encouragement for exemptions for people attending hospital or other medical appointments who have to stay overnight in an area because it is absolutely necessary. I am disappointed that he could not see the sense in that. I am glad that other speakers, including Willie Rennie, saw that that would have been a good idea.”
“When it comes to such affairs, it is usual for there to be some liberal rewriting of history. That was not a dig at Willie Rennie, although I noticed that his obsession with bells and whistles has not been cured since his previous stage 3 speech, when he made repeated reference to them. I join Willie Rennie in paying tribute to the way in which the bill process has been run. The only problem was when the stage 2 committee proceedings were postponed. For some bizarre reason, there had been a miscalculation of how many days or hours we had to wait until we could have a committee meeting. It was all a bit much: on the evening before, we were told that we would not hold the meeting and everything had to be rearranged at very short notice.”
“She and I have a shared passion for the people of the Stirling area. I am grateful for her service as a councillor on Stirling Council before she became a member of the Parliament. I know that she has always striven to do the very best that she can. She was right to pay tribute to her office, because she and her team have been a powerful source of good information during difficult times for the people of Stirling, particularly when we had dreadful weather last year—I think that it was last year; I cannot remember, as everything just meshes into one after a while. Anyway, her office did a fantastic job of communicating the latest information to the people of Stirling, so I pay tribute to her for her public service. It has been an interesting debate.”
“First, I pay tribute to Sarah Boyack, who has just spoken. Her speech contained a long list of the very many initiatives with which she has been associated and that she has pushed as a member of the Parliament. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I wish to pay tribute to her service to our country, as a minister and as a member. I had not had the privilege of watching Sarah Boyack in action close up until I became a member of the Economy and Fair Work Committee. She has an impressive approach to policy, with her grasp of detail and her interest—indeed, her curiosity—in how things can come together to work for the betterment of the people of Scotland. I pay tribute to her. Likewise, I am grateful to Evelyn Tweed for her service to the people of Stirling, which is her constituency.”
“Amendment 32 would apply the same principle to the statutory review of visitor levy schemes. It would require a local authority, when carrying out a review of its scheme, to consider whether exemptions or reimbursement arrangements should apply in cases such as those described in amendment 25. In other words, it would create a clear moment of reflection by requiring consideration of whether the scheme, once in operation, was having unintended effects on very small accommodation providers who operate from their homes.”
“One of the lessons from the development of the original visitor levy legislation is that policies that appear straightforward in principle can produce complicated and often unintended consequences once they become operational in the real world. We are debating this amending bill today precisely because, as Murdo Fraser said, aspects of the original legislation required further thought. I acknowledge that some members—perhaps even the minister, given that we had an exchange about a similar idea in the stage 2 debate—might have concerns about adding such an exemption to the visitor levy at this late stage without wider consultation with the sector. Therefore, I have lodged amendment 32 as an alternative to amendment 25, should the latter not be accepted by the minister.”
“Those are not large commercial tourism operations. In many cases, it is a case of individuals or families opening part of their home to visitors to supplement their income. That distinction matters, because, although they are small businesses—even microbusinesses— they form an important part of the overall strategic market offering. Across Scotland, particularly in rural and semi-rural communities, such small providers form an important part of the fabric of the tourism sector. They offer flexibility, local knowledge and the kind of personal welcome that visitors come to Scotland to experience. For many of those households, the income is modest but meaningful. We should be careful not to design a system that places additional administrative burdens or financial pressure on the small operators that I am talking about.”
“As Murdo Fraser has said, the amendments in this group relate to the practical application of the visitor levy and whether the legislation will properly recognise the realities of how accommodation is provided across Scotland. My amendments in the group are straightforward but important. They address situations in which there is a risk that the levy will fall on forms of accommodation that were never the focus of the policy in the first place and where its application could produce clearly disproportionate consequences. Amendment 25 concerns small-scale accommodation that forms part of someone’s principal residence. In practical terms, that means a classic single-room bed and breakfast, a spare room that someone is letting out in their own home or single-occupancy self-catering accommodation.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, I encourage the cabinet secretary to put his card in. I call Jamie Hepburn. 13:07”
“Warm words about Ukraine mean little if there is hesitation about the industrial effort that is required to produce the munitions and equipment that Ukraine needs. These are serious times and they demand serious politics. The international community must remain firm. Sanctions on Russia must not weaken. There are suggestions in the light of tensions in the middle east that oil and gas sanctions should be released. That would be a profound mistake. It would be a betrayal of our values. Russia’s war must not be financed by the revenue that sanctions were designed to constrain. The only way to protect peace is to be strong in the face of aggression. Britain must stand—we must stand—firmly beside Ukraine until the war ends in a just peace and their victory because aggression must never be rewarded.”
“We must expand our munitions production and invest in systems that defend our homeland against mass drone and missile attack. We should be stockpiling drones and strengthening ground-based air defences. In time, Britain will need its own equivalent of an iron dome. However, it is not just about equipment but about people. We need to encourage more young Scots into the defence industry, engineering, advanced manufacturing and apprenticeships in the high-technology drone sector that is reshaping modern warfare. Those are skilled, high-value jobs for the young people of Scotland and they are critical to our national security. That is why the Scottish National Party’s position is, at times, frustrating, to be frank.”
“We should also remember the many Ukrainian women and children who came here to Scotland, as has been mentioned, at the beginning of the conflict, and how the communities of Scotland have stepped forward. Britain has the right—and has been right—to stand firmly with Ukraine. The training given by British forces and the equipment supplied has mattered enormously, but this is not the moment for any slackening of that commitment. Ukraine’s security is bound up with our national interest. Indeed, the war in Ukraine is teaching us a hard lesson that drone warfare at scale is now the method of choice in such conflicts. It has also taught us the critical importance of air defence and the need to provide munitions in serious quantities. That is the reality. Those lessons must be learned quickly. Britain must increase defence spending.”
“The destruction of cities, the deaths and injuries of tens of thousands of civilians and the displacement of millions are the direct consequences of his aggression. In recent months, the scale of the attacks has intensified. Ukrainian cities are being subjected to mass drone and missile strikes night after night, with hundreds of drones in a single wave, dozens of missiles fired in one barrage, power stations destroyed, homes flattened, children killed, and families left in the winter without heat or electricity. Those are not legitimate military targets. The attacks are acts of terror directed at a civilian population. Let us not forget that against that brutality stands the extraordinary courage of the Ukrainian people.”
“I am pleased to follow Kevin Stewart in giving his last address to the Scottish Parliament. Of course, I wish him all the very best. He is right, as were Murdo Fraser and Kenny Gibson, to highlight the response of the communities of Scotland and the resilience of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine is fighting for its survival and our freedom. It is right that we take this time in Parliament to place on record our solidarity with the Ukrainian people and with the brave men and women of the Ukrainian armed forces defending their country. We should be in no doubt about what this war is. It is not a misunderstanding or a border dispute— it is a criminal and illegal invasion, ordered by Vladimir Putin. He has behaved not as a statesman but as a gangster.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what further support provisions will be available to Alexander Dennis following the expiration of the current £4 million support package this month. (S6O-05651)”
“That means that we need serious investment in palliative and end-of-life care and honesty about the gaps that still exist across our country. Many members across the chamber have spoken about the need to strengthen those services. On that point, I believe that we are all united. I will vote against the bill. When doubts remain about a decision of this seriousness, caution is the wiser course. On a matter of life and death, the Parliament must be certain before it changes the law. 21:25”
“That should make us all pause. If the legislation fails, it will not fail in theory; it will fail in real lives. As several speakers have said, under such a system, one mistake would be one too many. None of us can stand here today and say with certainty that the framework before us would eliminate that risk. Opposing the bill must never be mistaken for indifference to suffering. It is quite the opposite. Our responsibility is to ensure that every person in Scotland receives the care that they need at the end of their life. Wherever someone lives in Scotland, they should have access to high-quality palliative care, effective pain relief, skilled medical support and the compassion that allows them to die with dignity.”
“There have been letters from hundreds of doctors and nurses, including the one that Sue Webber quoted earlier, warning us that, in their professional judgment, the bill does not contain sufficiently strong safeguards to protect patients from coercion, untreated mental illness or unmet social and palliative care needs. One signatory of one such letter put it plainly, saying that this is not a theoretical debate; it concerns the safety of real patients. We have seen royal colleges and professional bodies move from neutrality to opposition as the details of the proposed legislation have become clearer. At the same time, members are being asked to approve legislation in which important safeguards will, ultimately, be determined through secondary legislation and processes beyond the direct scrutiny of this Parliament.”
“They remind us of something simple but profound: death is part of life. It comes to us all. Experiences like that shape how we think about questions like this. They remind us that death is not simply a matter of policy or law. It is deeply personal. It touches every family. However, the decision before the Parliament today is not about abstract principles. It is about the legislation that is in front of us. It is about whether the bill represents sound and safe law. I have come to the conclusion that it does not. During the bill’s passage, we have heard increasingly serious concerns from those who would be responsible for its operation in practice.”
“I am sure that this must be one of the most serious and thoughtful debates that the Parliament has ever undertaken. I begin by acknowledging the sincerity of colleagues across the chamber. I have been moved by speeches from members on both sides of the issue. Members who support the bill do so out of compassion for those who are suffering. Members who oppose it do so out of concern for the vulnerable and for the principles that guide medicine. No one approaches such a decision lightly. For me, this is not an abstract question. Like many people, I have been at the side of those I love as their lives have come to an end. I watched my parents die. I watched my wife’s mother die. I have watched dear friends and family pass from this world. Some of those deaths were peaceful; some were harder. Those experiences stay with us.”
“Amendment 248 seeks to ensure that the information that is communicated on the act, if the bill is passed, would reflect the responsibility that we have to make it safe. It would ensure that assisted dying is never presented without reference to prevention, support and care. I am about to close, but I am happy to give way to”
“However, if the Parliament proceeds, we must at least be honest about what we are discussing. The bill would permit doctors to assist individuals to end their lives, and that reality cannot be separated from the broader questions surrounding suicide prevention and support for those who are experiencing profound distress. International experts have made similar points. The International Association for Suicide Prevention has stated that suicide involves intentionally carrying out an act to end one’s life and has warned that there can be an overlap between suicide, euthanasia and assisted dying. It has also emphasised that anyone who is considering ending their life should have access to high-quality suicide prevention support and intervention. We should listen to that advice.”
“Many people do not realise how far palliative care has advanced or how effectively suffering can often be managed. That care should never sit quietly in the background while assisted dying becomes the focus of attention. If the law is to allow assistance in dying, we must ensure that help to live is never hidden from view. My colleague Murdo Fraser has already raised many important points about the need to ensure that people who request assisted dying are provided with information about suicide prevention. I agree with that approach. Amendment 248 would apply the same principle to the way in which the law would be communicated publicly. I want to be clear with colleagues that I remain opposed to the bill. I do not believe that a law of this nature can ever be made entirely safe.”
“If the Parliament creates a lawful pathway for assisted dying, it will inevitably shape the wider conversation about suffering, death and the choices that people believe would be open to them. The way that information is presented will matter, particularly for those who may already feel vulnerable, isolated or overwhelmed. My amendment seeks to ensure that assisted dying is never presented in isolation from the care and support that should surround people. If someone encounters information about assisted dying, they should also encounter information about suicide prevention. They should know that help and intervention exist and that society has a duty to care for those who may be experiencing despair. Equally, they should encounter clear information about palliative care.”
“I start by thanking Murdo Fraser for his powerful and sobering remarks. Group 16 addresses an issue that may seem procedural but, as Murdo Fraser has described well, is at the heart of the concerns of many in the chamber who will oppose the bill. Those concerns relate to the way that assisted dying is described, which we have already had an exchange about, and the way that it is communicated to the public. Amendment 248, in my name, proposes a simple safeguard. When assisted dying is referred to publicly under the act, if the bill is passed, reference must also be made to information about suicide prevention and the availability of palliative care. That requirement is important.”
“The solicitor’s role would not be to question the person’s wishes; it would be to ensure that the process is carried out correctly and lawfully. In matters of such gravity, that oversight is not optional; it is essential. Supporting the amendment is not about creating unnecessary hurdles; it is about protecting individuals and upholding the integrity of the system. It is about ensuring that, when a proxy acts on someone else’s behalf, a professional legal check is in place to prevent mistakes or disputes and to give confidence to all parties that the declaration is fully compliant with the law. For those reasons, I urge members to support the amendment and ensure that the bill meets the same standards of care, diligence and legal oversight that are expected throughout Scots law.”
“Yet the bill proposes that, for one of the most sensitive and irreversible acts that a person can take, no such oversight is required. That is astonishing. By mandating a practising solicitor to witness a proxy declaration, certify that all statutory requirements have been followed and record their professional credentials on the document, amendment 192 would bring clarity, transparency and accountability. It would reduce the risk of error, misunderstanding or even potential abuse and it would assure everyone involved—the individual making the declaration, the proxy and the medical practitioners—that the legal formalities have been properly observed. That is not a bureaucratic obstacle; it is a safeguard consistent with the standards that we already apply in other areas of law.”
“I am pleased to present amendment 192 on behalf of Fergus Ewing. The amendment would introduce a simple but crucial safeguard by requiring that any declaration that is signed by a proxy must be witnessed and certified by a practising solicitor. At first glance, that might seem like a minor procedural adjustment but, in reality, it addresses a glaring inconsistency in the bill. Across Scots law, the involvement of a solicitor is standard whenever sensitive or legally binding documents are executed on behalf of another person. Whether it is for powers of attorney, wills or contracts with serious consequences, a solicitor’s oversight ensures that the document is valid, that a person who is acting on someone else’s behalf fully understands their responsibilities and that there is a clear professional record of the transaction.”
“For the sake of time, I will not go through them all, but there are particular announcements on the different packages that have been sustained and developed and then the new initiatives through our tackling child poverty fund and the whole family investment. As I said, there is also an annex on the two-child limit mitigation that breaks down exactly how that funding will be spent. I am sure that Mr Kerr has just forgotten that there is an annual statement on the child poverty work, in which we set out the outcomes delivered by that work. I look forward to the Government delivering that statement when we return in June. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can squeeze in Mr Kidd if his question is brief and the answer is succinct.”
“Conservative members want to tackle the root causes of child poverty, and I was pleased to hear the emphasis that the cabinet secretary gave to programmes that support employment and upskilling, as we recognise that the most effective route out of poverty is through sustained employment and upskilling. The statement is long and detailed. How much of the spending that the cabinet secretary announced is genuinely new funding? How much of it is simply a repackaging? Will she commit to publishing outcomes for the initiatives that she included in her statement? Not all of them were accompanied by specific outcomes. Shirley-Anne Somerville: It is pleasing that Mr Kerr reflected on the fact that the statement is long and detailed—as, indeed, is the action plan that goes with it—because there are a great deal of new announcements in it.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken to reduce the number of violent and disruptive incidents in schools. (S6O-05642)”
“As I said, the assumptions undermine the possibility of us making good law in this area, because they assume a homogenous fairness. For example, to go back to an issue that another member raised in relation to one of the amendments on palliative care, equal access to such care does not currently exist for people across Scotland. Until that situation is remedied, I feel that we are in very troubled waters.”
“However, with regard to the assumptions that are made, I point to the evidence on the way in which such laws work in practice elsewhere. We may disagree about the principle, but members can look at the data that has been gathered on who accesses assisted dying, with what conditions and for what reasons, and how the safeguards work in practice. These are not assertions—they draw on the evidence. Stephen Kerr: That actually goes to the heart of the issue, because, when we look at the evidence, including the case studies that are offered to us from other jurisdictions, we see that it is not quite as black and white as Liam McArthur makes out. Some of the generalisations that have been made about some of the evidence that has been offered are not helpful in our consideration of the bill.”
“The interesting and perhaps liberating aspect of our deliberations yesterday, today and probably tomorrow is that we are speaking very much on the basis of our own positions. I want to reflect on Liam McArthur’s responses to many of the amendments in the group. There was an exchange between Christine Grahame and Daniel Johnson about the frequency with which a doctor might see a patient in a life-threatening situation. It strikes me that, in this debate, there is an overriding assumption that everything will happen. It is assumed that palliative care will be on offer on an equal basis to any patient in any given situation in any part of Scotland, but that is simply not the case. Liam McArthur: I certainly echo Stephen Kerr’s sentiments about the nature of the debate. Some members may find it liberating, while the whips may disagree.”