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 7 of 25.
“The Scottish Greens do not often secure time for Opposition debates in the Parliament and, on the strength of this motion, that is probably a blessed mercy. Opposition time should be used to confront the real challenges that we face in Scotland, such as our flatlining economy, education standards, drugs deaths that should—and do—shame a civilised country, violence against women and girls, a benefits bill that keeps growing while too many people remain out of work, and the decline of oil and gas, which has cost livelihoods and confidence in the north-east economy. Instead, we are invited to indulge in a symbolic gesture about Prestwick and to brand one of our closest allies a rogue state. It would be absurd if it were not so irresponsible. War has returned to Europe. Russia’s aggression is not theoretical; it is real.”
“Scotland has long been served well by strong families and strong schools, each respecting the proper boundaries of the other, and I do not believe that a case has been made for unsettling that balance. For those reasons, I and we, on the Conservatives’ side of the chamber, will not support the bill in its final form. 19:39”
“There is an instinct that the state should stand above the family as the final arbiter of disputes even where no harm is alleged. I reject that instinct. The family is the foundational institution of our society. Families come in all forms, but they share a common function. They are the place where children are loved, nurtured, guided and formed. The state can support that, but it cannot replicate it and it should not casually displace it. In recent years, we have seen attempts to extend the reach of the state into areas that were once clearly understood as parental responsibilities. The Supreme Court has reminded this Parliament that constitutional boundaries exist. I think that I have gone over my time, so I will conclude.”
“Jenny Gilruth: We will have to disagree on that. Stephen Kerr: I think that we will—the cabinet secretary is correct. Of course children must be respected and they must be heard, but the Conservatives also recognise the foundational truth that children are children. Capacity and responsibility develop, and that is precisely why parental responsibility exists in law. Parents carry duties because children do not yet carry full legal responsibility. That settlement is not outdated. It reflects human reality. What concerns me more broadly is the direction of travel that is reflected in the bill, because there are voices in our politics who are increasingly uneasy about the idea that the family is the primary unit of moral and social formation.”
“They are not arbiters of conscience within families. Absent safeguarding concerns, they should not— Jenny Gilruth: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: Yes, of course. Jenny Gilruth: The issues around conflict were discussed at length in the evidence sessions that were led by the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, and it is the case that conflict exists at the current time. Does the member accept that conflict exists under the current arrangements? Does he accept that the way to ameliorate that conflict is for the Government to work with mandatory stakeholders and provide statutory guidance to help to support those conversations as and when they arise? Stephen Kerr: I do not doubt that conflict exists currently, but it exists within a very clear framework of law. The bill is not a clear framework of law.”
“I am not sure that the cabinet secretary is at all convinced about the necessity for the bill, either. What we had until the bill arrived was some clarity on the legal position on religious observance. Parents had the right of withdrawal and schools implemented that parental wish. The lines of responsibility were well understood. The bill replaces that clarity with a statutory mess that formalises disagreement and inserts the school into the space between parent and child on matters of conscience. Teachers and school leaders will now be required to assess maturity, interpret capacity and, potentially, refuse parental requests. They will be drawn into adjudicating on questions that go into belief and upbringing. The bill is not a simplification but a complication, and it will place teachers in an invidious situation. They are educators.”
“Well, I think that the bill is a mess. It has struggled its way through the different stages in this Parliament, and today’s stage 3 amendments were evidence of that. I found it particularly dismaying that the Government caved in to the Scottish Greens—for the simple reason, I am sure, that it realised that, without the Scottish Greens, the bill would not become law. Ministers have sold their shirts, frankly, and I am not sure what for, to be honest, because the bill is totally unnecessary. There is no need for it. Miles Briggs is right. We have ended up in a situation where no one is very happy about what the bill contains, and I predict, in support of my colleague, that it will be the subject of litigation. I do not think that there is any doubt that it will be in the courts.”
“It already seeks to introduce a new formal process around observance. In that context, we should be cautious about layering on additional statutory burdens that risk confusion, inconsistency and unnecessary administrative strain. Matters of conscience and faith require careful handling. We should legislate with balance. That means respecting children’s voices but also respecting parental choice and the integrity of different school types in our system. For those reasons, although I understand the intention behind them, I cannot support amendments 22 and 22”
“That raises an even more serious issue. Parents who enrol their children in a denominational school do so in the full knowledge of its ethos. To subject those schools to a statutory objectivity test risks eroding the distinctive character that the Parliament has long recognised and protected. There is a difference between accountability and control. There is a difference between guidance and rigid statutory prescription. If further clarity is needed about the meaning of observance, guidance is the proper vehicle. Schools need flexibility; they do not need another layer of bureaucratic reporting embedded in statute. The bill already seeks to narrow the parental conscience clause by removing the right to withdraw from religious and moral education. I happen to agree with that.”
“It is not an academic seminar. It might be reflective or devotional. In denominational settings, it is part of the faith character that parents have consciously chosen. To require schools to certify in advance that observance is sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic is to apply a secular analytical framework to something that is not designed to function in that way. That is not a small drafting point—it is a conceptual mistake. There is also a question of proportionality. We do not require 14-day statutory reports for assemblies, commemorations, themed events or visiting speakers. We do not require advanced legal assessments of whether those events meet an abstract standard. Why, then, single out religious observance for that level of prescription? Amendment 22A would extend that requirement to denominational schools.”
“I will limit my remarks to amendments 22 and 22A, on requiring schools to provide parents and children with detailed information about planned religious observance at least 14 days in advance. That information must include not only the format and content but the assessment of whether the observance is “sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic”. I begin by saying that transparency is not the problem. It is right that parents should understand what is happening in their child’s school, and it is right that observance should be inclusive and respectful. I do not think that anyone disputes that, but amendment 22 would go much further than transparency. It would introduce into primary legislation a formalised statutory test that misunderstands what religious observance is. Observance is not a classroom lesson in comparative religion.”
“I listened very carefully to the answer that the minister gave to Alex Rowley’s last question, which was a repeat of Marie Curie’s request for a right to palliative care in law. Will the minister please respond to the question that Alex Rowley asked her? Does she support the right in principle and in practice? If she does, she will realise that the gap between what is described in the Marie Curie report needs to be filled pretty quickly. Jenni Minto: In Scotland, everyone has a right to healthcare, including palliative care. The key information from the figures is that we must recognise as a society that we need to support people. That is why “Palliative Care Matters for All” is probably one of the most important documents that I have introduced in my role as Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health. Peter Murrell (Trial Date) 3.”
“With the greatest respect to him, we have to have the honesty to look at the evidence and engage with people—yes, to discuss and debate, but also to act and to decide what will work to keep people safe.”
“How can the cabinet secretary possibly repeat that victims and community safety are a priority for the SNP, when the SNP is busy releasing serious criminals back into the community? Angela Constance: The vast majority of prisoners will one day return to our community and it is beholden on us all to make sure that they return to our community in a far better position to lead a life and make a contribution. At a fundamental level, our justice system is about prevention, punishment and deterrence, but it is also about rehabilitation. I would happily discuss that further with Mr Kerr in detail, because I know that he has strong views on and experience of the justice system.”
“It would be good to have some honesty from the cabinet secretary on the matter. All the issues arise because of the SNP’s total mismanagement of the Scottish prison estate and the justice system as a whole. When the cabinet secretary says that a high prison population level does not equal a safer society, that is illogical. Removing dangerous and violent criminals from the streets make those streets safer. Of course it does—it is illogical to suggest otherwise. I can tell members how the public view these things: they view the SNP’s justice policy as soft touch and lenient to the point of pandering to the offenders. Even the content of the commission’s report picks up on that.”
“It had travelled all the way from Wiltshire to reach a 92-year-old woman who lives in a part of Scotland that contains some of the most productive agricultural land in the country and has some of the best livestock farming that can be found anywhere. It is a place that produces world- class food. I have nothing against Wiltshire—for heaven’s sake, I am a unionist; I believe in the United Kingdom. However, it is deeply ironic that, while we have spent hours in committee and in the chamber talking about community wealth building, local procurement and keeping money circulating locally—”
“Yesterday, I went to see my 92-year-old aunt. She is a remarkable woman: independent, sharp minded and proud of standing on her own two feet. She still lives on her own, and she is rightly determined to do so for as long as she can. However, she gets meals on wheels, and she pays her contribution towards that. When I arrived yesterday, it was around lunch time and my aunt said, “Would you like some soup?” So, she put some soup on, and we sat down and had lunch together. As we were eating, the doorbell rang and it was the meals on wheels service—my aunt had forgotten that she had ordered it. The meal that arrived was sausage and gravy with mashed potato and vegetables, which was perfectly respectable fare. Where did it come from? Here is my point: it came from Trowbridge, Wiltshire.”
“We must think about how we can provide more mutualised models for the delivery of public services and how we can more broadly promote employee ownership and co-operatives. If we do not do those things, we will not make progress. Labour will support the bill at decision time, but there is a huge amount of work to do once it is passed. 16:04”
“There was a concern at the outset that we did not need legislation to do any of this and that having the Scottish Government set a ministerial direction with the right policies and oversight would be just as, if not more, effective. What is more to the point is that, in order to bring about community wealth building, the legislation will absolutely have to provide a focus. If it is simply passed and forgotten about, all this will have been for nothing. The bill cannot be simply a legislative name check. There must be some serious thought about providing the means to explore things, enabling new legislative capacities—including compulsory sales orders—and looking further at how asset registers can be made more available to the public.”
“If we are serious about effecting genuine community wealth building, a lot more must be done. I am pleased with the improvements and think that the measurement provisions will genuinely improve matters, because having a consistent language of measurement will allow us to ensure that progress is made. Likewise, it is right that we review legislation such as the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, because it is important that we will the means as well as will the motivation towards these things. However, there is a risk that what we are enacting today will require a semi-regular conversation and the production of reports without necessarily willing the outcomes.”
“When the bill was introduced, lots of people were scratching their heads about what community wealth building is. My concern is that there are probably places where community wealth building is being delivered without people even knowing, or that there are examples of it that we do not notice because we do not call them that. I would describe municipal ownership of the public bus service in Edinburgh as an example of long- standing community wealth building and one that we should support. We must not make the mistake of thinking that legislating for community wealth building means that it will be delivered. If we look at the pillars of community wealth building—spending, workforce, land and property, inclusive ownership, and finance—we will see that the bill, at best, influences the first.”
“Whether one views oneself as a socialist, a social democrat, a capitalist or an environmentalist, the distribution of ownership matters, even if what that is called sometimes gets in the way. I hope that community wealth building action plans will provide some focus, because if assets are not being used effectively and not being maximised, that comes at a cost to our local communities. Murdo Fraser gave one example and I heard another, of a local resident who simply wanted to put planters in a back green. That person was furiously trying to figure out who they needed to get permission from, but I do not think that that permission should be required at all. More than that, where there is common land or a common asset, we must ensure that we absolutely maximise opportunities for local people. That is what community wealth building is about.”
“Will Daniel Johnson give way on that point? Daniel Johnson: Well, it depends on which point. Stephen Kerr: I think that we would like to hear Daniel Johnson speak more often about what he really thinks, particularly in the light of recent events. Daniel Johnson: I have only five minutes, so I will stay on the topic. In addition, the standing orders say that we must speak to the motion. [Laughter.] I will speak to a point that Murdo Fraser alluded to. An interesting alliance formed at some points during stage 2 when Richard Leonard, Murdo Fraser, Lorna Slater and I were all talking about shared objectives. Questions about how ownership is distributed, whether people are empowered and whether there are opportunities to maximise people’s potential are important, regardless of one’s political perspective.”
“I think that Lorna Slater is speaking to an amendment that is not in this group. I just wanted to make that clear. Lorna Slater: My apologies—I was speaking to amendment 16, and the member is right: I was looking at the wrong grouping. I thank Mr Kerr.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the final report and recommendations of the sentencing and penal policy commission, in light of the reported high levels of public concern regarding the findings. (S6T-02885)”
“This independent, judge-led process has been established so that the families can get to the truth. Families must be at the heart of this— they deserve answers about what happened at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, as well as at the hospitals in Edinburgh that are part of the inquiry. We await the judgment of the inquiry, and we allow it to do its job without interference.”
“This is not commentary or political interference—the cabinet secretary is absolutely wrong to say that. The inquiry should not be used as a shelter for wrongdoing that whistleblowers are revealing in the here and now. “Speak up and be ignored” cannot be the policy of the Scottish Government. My question is very simple: who is investigating the allegations and who will uncover the truth? Cabinet secretary, please do not respond by saying, “The inquiry.” This is a current issue that must be explained now. Neil Gray: The reason that we have a public inquiry is to get independent answers to those questions. Nobody can hide behind a public inquiry. A public inquiry gets to the truth without fear or favour, and without any political slant being attached to it.”
“Those are not the words of Opposition politicians; those are not our talking points: that is what the sector is saying. If the Government cannot hear what the sector is saying, it is being wilfully negligent in its responsibilities as the Government of this country.”
“It is someone else’s responsibility and has nothing to do with the minister. Why do we have 25 ministers in this Government? They are not responsible for anything. Nothing lands on their desks. They do nothing about anything. Everything is always someone else’s fault. This is a serious situation. An entire sector of the Scottish economy is heading for the cliff edge. Hospitality in Scotland is not facing a minor downturn; it is facing what its own sector leaders describe, without exaggeration, as “brutal” trading conditions. Around seven in 10 hospitality businesses are reporting that they are in decline and are actively considering closure. A majority expect to make a loss this year. Profitability has collapsed while costs have exploded.”
“The SNP’s lack of interest in this subject is glaring. Only three back-bench members of the SNP have bothered to turn up for this debate. I hope that the people who make their living in the hospitality sector will become aware of the lack of interest that the party in government has in their welfare. I cannot make up my mind whether we are looking at disinterest, ignorance or wilful destruction on the part of the SNP. Frankly, if we want an object lesson of a party that has been in government for too long and has become insulated from reality, there it is in the form of the front bench of the SNP Government. Whenever something comes up in this chamber, and we say that the Government has some responsibility for it, the Government always says that it is the responsibility of an independent body.”
“If you want to ask another supplementary question, please press your button rather than shouting from a sedentary position. Stephen Kerr: Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Draft Budget 2026-27 (Investing in Communities Fund) 7.”
“Answer the question. Shona Robison: —of local government funding that the budget provides. Of course, they are going to vote against the £235 million of funding— Stephen Kerr: Answer the question! Shona Robison: —for local government that will help the 32 local authorities, including the local authority to which Craig Hoy referred. As I said earlier, the rural distribution formula is agreed with the 32 local authorities through the joint settlement and distribution group. I am sure that they will be more than happy to hear Craig Hoy’s positive contribution to the debate, and I suggest that he contacts COSLA to make those representations on behalf of the local authority that he says that he represents. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I have given you a couple of supplementaries during portfolio question time.”
“JPMorganChase and Barclays are examples of global firms that could locate anywhere but have chosen Glasgow and have made Glasgow a financial hub. Whatever I say, anyone who speaks to them will find that they are quite clear about why they did it—the reasons involve access to skill and labour—and what their hopes are for growth and aspiration. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business to allow for a change in front-bench members. Finance and Local Government 14:20”
“Getting back to the substance of the question, let us talk in particular about Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city. It is ranked 35th out of the 63 largest cities and towns in Britain when it comes to productivity. In economic terms, that lost productivity measurement is £7.3 billion. There is a logical question to be asked on the basis of the fact that we have had a growth deal in Glasgow for some years now. What tangible, realisable and measurable improvements have there been in Glasgow’s productivity because of the growth deal? Kate Forbes: The answer is found in the investors and developers who have chosen to relocate to Glasgow precisely because of the skills of the people and the potential to grow.”
“They may have a great idea and they might be great people, but there is a barrier there, and that is why we established the pathways programme. The whole point of the First Minister’s start up challenge and the pathways programme is to provide support that is additional to what is universally available, in order to ensure that people from disadvantaged backgrounds can access that help. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 3 has not been lodged. Business Confidence 4.”
“Of course, as the Deputy First Minister points out, the First Minister’s start up challenge fund excludes quite a lot of young people on the basis of their background. That risks the creation of a two-tier system of support for young entrepreneurs. Should support not really be based on the quality of the idea, its scalability and the growth potential that the idea represents in terms of wealth creation and job creation? Kate Forbes: I agree with an element of what Stephen Kerr said—that we live in a very fair and open economy. We want to support great ideas and to support great people to start and grow businesses, irrespective of their background or where they live, but we know from the data that some find it harder to break into that than others. For example, 2p in every £1 of investment goes to female entrepreneurs at the moment.”
“The chief executives and the chairs that are in post, and the independent whistleblowing champions of every health board, are clear about the Government’s and my expectations of how whistleblowers should be treated. If that is not the case, I want to hear about it, including in my interactions with the Patient Safety Commissioner, whom I meet regularly. I recognise the evidence that she gave this morning. I heard it, I understand it and I meet her regularly in order to try to overcome some of the challenges that she set out. That goes to the heart of ensuring that proper patient safety procedures are followed, because when patients and staff feel able to speak up, that is when we have a system that can be counted on by the public.”
“I can tell him that two whistleblowers have come to us in recent days to inform us that staff are telling patients on the cancer wards not to drink the water but to drink bottled water. Will the cabinet secretary face up to the reality of these issues and deal with them now, and not hide behind the procedural things that he keeps bringing up? Neil Gray: I respect Stephen Kerr’s role in relation to whistleblowing in organisations. I understand the strength and force with which he seeks to make his contributions. I, too, have made those points. I have stated my expectation and that of this Government on culture and on the running of the NHS in Scotland.”
“The Patient Safety Commissioner for Scotland told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee this very morning that the whistleblowing procedures are not working—that is the reality of the evidence. The cabinet secretary needs to face up to the reality of the evidence that is being presented by the commissioner to a committee of this Parliament. He can say that there are policies and procedures, and there is this and that, but the culture is not right—it does not work. In relation to whistleblowers, it is disturbing to many of us in the chamber that the cabinet secretary cannot say yes to the question that he has been asked numerous times. Have the hospital’s systems been validated by an independent auditor or not?”
“We owe that to the women whose evidence was heard by the Criminal Justice Committee, many of whom described the violence, coercion and trauma that are the routine features of their lives, albeit not in terms as eloquent, powerful and terrible as what Michelle Thomson described to us. We owe it to ourselves as legislators not to allow party politics, personality and point scoring to dictate how we vote tonight. That is not scrutiny or seriousness but small politics. I say, take the evidence, support the principle and advance the bill; then we will amend it. 17:13”
“However, neither do I accept the argument from the Government front bench that, somehow, there is no time left to amend the bill and make it workable. That is what the whole process of stage 2—and, later, stage 3—is about. The stage 1 question that we must all answer is whether we agree with the principle of eradicating, reducing and alleviating the terrible costs of prostitution in our country. The bill is not perfect. Liam Kerr eloquently described legitimate questions. However, the timing of the stage 1 debate, so close to the end of a session, has become a convenient excuse for the Government not to support the bill. Those are reasons not to kill the bill tonight but to take it forward and amend it.”
“That is not rhetoric but the evidence that is presented to the Parliament and its members. The bill seeks to address the demand side of that equation. Demand fuels trafficking. If there is no demand, none of it exists. Demand sustains criminal gangs and creates a market in which exploitation thrives. If men face a real risk of prosecution for purchasing sexual access to another human being, the market changes, the incentives change and the profitability of abuse changes. As has been mentioned by other speakers, that approach is not unique to Scotland. Other jurisdictions have attempted to challenge demand precisely because they recognise that, without doing so, exploitation will simply continue under different forms. I am not pretending that the bill is perfect. It is not.”
“The men who used them, bought them and treated their bodies as commodities were often able to do so without any fear of criminal sanction. That imbalance matters not just legally but morally. The bill starts from the simple principle that women and girls should not be bought and sold. A society that tolerates that, however quietly, is a society that has failed to uphold its own values. We cannot consider the bill in isolation from the wider reality of the global sex trade. Prostitution exists not in a vacuum but alongside trafficking, organised crime, coercion and exploitation. Women and girls are transported, displaced and controlled, in some cases in conditions that are nothing short of slavery—modern slavery, we might call it, but slavery nevertheless.”
“Rhoda Grant is absolutely right. I am standing here, at her invitation, thinking of my daughter and my granddaughters and the kind of country that I want them to grow up in. I do not see how it is a conundrum for any member of this Parliament to vote in favour of the general principles of the bill tonight. I am grateful to Michelle Thomson for giving one of the most powerful speeches that I have heard in this Parliament. The reason why I say that is because she asked us to confront difficult, unspeakable truths, and she is asking this Parliament, as is Ash Regan, to confront realities that we have been prepared to look past for too long. For generations, women have been at the sharp end of prostitution laws. Women have been prosecuted and stigmatised, and have carried criminal records.”
“[Interruption.] I am keen to protect the time that we have available. A number of members wish to participate in addition to those who had a right to speak in the debate. I am doing my best to ensure that they are able to do so by the end of the debate, but that will require members to stick to their speaking time allocations. I call Liam Kerr. You have up to five minutes. 16:20”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given what you have just said to the chamber about the many meetings of the bureau, here we are now, in the stage 1 debate, and we can see how things are going; many members had anticipated that it might be like this. Is there a possibility—if things are not so inflexible in our Parliament—that the bureau could meet, as it has done on many occasions, at the back door of the chamber or in a committee room, and decide to give the flexibility that is clearly now needed, as Douglas Ross and other members have made clear, to properly consider the principles of the bill? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, that is a point of order that you may wish to raise with your business manager; it is not something on which I will opine at this stage.”
“That is exactly why Sarah Brown has come out of a school to lead on that important work, alongside a plethora of other classroom teachers who are qualified to deliver it, as well as improving the communication and the culture that Mr Kerr spoke about.”
“How can the cabinet secretary be satisfied with such inertia when she knows that change is urgently required? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary will be aware that she has around a minute to respond. Jenny Gilruth: I am well used to Mr Kerr’s warnings and of course I always listen to the advice that he provides me with, which is exactly why, in relation to qualifications reform, I was really keen that we had a schools unit with a designated secondary headteacher working with the profession, for all the good reasons that Mr Kerr has set out in relation to culture change. I accept the points that he makes in relation to the reports, but I do not need him to recount reports to me, because I was in a school before I was in this place and I know that we need to do better in engaging with the profession.”
“As Martin Whitfield said, the children who are— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Can I have a question, Mr Kerr— Stephen Kerr:—currently in primary school will not see any change— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, please resume your seat for a second. I was speaking. I asked you, because you are over your time, whether you could please pose a question. Could you please resume and pose a question? Thank you. Stephen Kerr: I was not aware that I had a time, and I was trying to finish my question when you interrupted, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have around 45 seconds, Mr Kerr. Please ask your question. Stephen Kerr: I was simply making the point that we will see no change in the lifetime of the next session of Parliament.”
“The last thing that we could accuse the cabinet secretary of is rushing forward with anything. We warned the cabinet secretary at the time of the passage of the bill that Qualifications Scotland was simply going to be a renaming and rebranding of the SQA—a replating on the door. We warned the cabinet secretary at the time that we needed culture change, and it was not just us who gave that warning. We were simply quoting the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Morgan, Muir, and Hayward reports, and the national discussion document—all those reviews and reports that cost a fortune to conduct, and all of which concluded that we need urgency in reform.”