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 8 of 25.
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Question 7 has been withdrawn, and question 8 has not been lodged. That concludes portfolio questions on education and skills. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“Mr Kerr makes a number of points in relation to driving improvement, and, with the support of the Parliament and the Presiding Officer, I would like to write to him to outline in a bit more detail the evidence that I was provided with yesterday. I also encourage Mr Kerr and colleagues who are interested in the work of the centre to go to the University of Glasgow, visit the centre and hear for themselves about the work that colleagues are undertaking and the collaborative approaches that are being supported all over the country by local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland. The work that those teachers are leading on is inspiring and positive. I will provide Mr Kerr with a more substantive written update on the points that he has outlined.”
“The cabinet secretary will know that the difference between a mediocre and an excellent school is an inspirational school leader, and we know that we have a shortage of school leaders in our country. What part of the work of the centre will be devoted to the development of school leaders? How will the cabinet secretary incentivise more potential qualified school leaders to take the career path to school leadership? Jenny Gilruth: I thank Mr Kerr for his question. I met a group of seconded teachers yesterday, including a couple of school leaders who are now part of the centre and driving that work forward, and we had a really interesting discussion.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how many new teachers, who qualified in the last three years, are now in permanent teaching posts. (S6O-05448)”
“I note what you say, but do not draw me into your issues. Thank you. Stephen Kerr: I do not really have an issue with the cabinet secretary when she says things like that. Newly Qualified Teachers (Permanent Posts) 6.”
“I accept Mr Rennie’s point that negotiations remain on-going, but it is important for teachers’ morale to remind ourselves of the strengths in our schools and of the significant investment that the Government has protected in our budget for schools—with, of course, the support of Mr Rennie’s party in the previous budget and, I sincerely hope, with the support of his party in this year’s budget, too. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr. Stephen Kerr: I hope you noted, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the cabinet secretary said, “Thank you, Mr Kerr, for the heckle.” Jenny Gilruth: I am always gracious. Stephen Kerr: I shall move on. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, for the record, I am not really privy to whatever ministers’ request or members seek in terms of heckling, interventions and so forth.”
“It was Alexander Stewart. Jenny Gilruth: Apologies—I meant Mr Stewart. Apologies, Mr Stewart. Thank you, Mr Kerr, for the heckle. That additional investment is helping to enhance teachers’ salaries and to ensuring that Scotland’s teachers remain the best paid on these islands. A number of different data sets published in recent months have also shown real progress in relation to the investment that we are providing to Scotland’s schools. Class sizes are coming down, according to the most recent data, which was published in December. We continue to have the lowest pupil teacher ratio on these islands. In November, we secured another record pay deal for Scotland’s teachers. I am certainly not complacent about the challenges.”
“There is a difference between debate and denial, between criticism and dehumanisation. A society that forgets that difference does not stay free for long. Today, we remember the victims and we honour the survivors, but above all we recommit ourselves to the future, to education, to vigilance and to the courage to confront hatred wherever it appears, because memory alone is not enough. What we do with it now will decide whether future generations inherit truth or something far more dangerous. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Kerr. I now invite Siobhian Brown to respond to the debate. Minister, you have around seven minutes. 13:32”
“They are symptoms of something darker—a culture in which historical truth has been weakened and moral boundaries are blurred. Therefore, Holocaust education has never been more important, not as a ritual or as a box to tick, but as a defence against lies. The Holocaust is now being challenged in ways that are new, and on a scale and with a confidence that is incredible. Young people are being exposed to denial, trivialisation and outright conspiracy online. The language of genocide is being distorted and the facts are being blurred. The intent is clear—to erode and distort memory and, with that, any sense of collective responsibility. I do not accept that the pathway that we are on is an inevitability. Freedom of expression matters, but it must never become a cover for propaganda or fake history.”
“The events in the middle east have been used as a licence by some to reopen the sewer of anti-Jewish hatred—hatred that is racial in nature, whatever language it dresses itself up in; that holds Jewish people collectively responsible; that denies their right to safety; and that treats their fear as something to be dismissed. The consequences are not theoretical. Jewish people in this country—people who have lived here for generations—now speak openly about feeling unsafe, about hiding the symbols of their faith and about considering whether this country is still a place where their children can grow up without fear. That should shame us. We saw last year in Manchester how quickly hatred turns into violence; as has been referenced, we have seen similar events around the world, including on Bondi beach. These are not isolated incidents.”
“Maggie Chapman has, rightly, identified a whole list of occasions since 1945 when that lesson has not been remembered and that vow has not been kept. We said that the systematic attempt to eradicate an entire people—men, women and children—would stand for ever as a warning to humanity. However, today, antisemitism is re-emerging with a confidence that would have been unthinkable even a decade ago—not whispered or hidden but shouted, shared online, excused as politics and, too often, indulged by institutions that should be holding the line, including schools and public bodies that quietly step back from Holocaust education or commemoration because it is seen as too difficult or too controversial. Since 7 October, something deeply troubling has happened.”
“I am afraid that that, too, is an apocryphal story, about the nature of man’s inhumanity to man and perhaps our determination at times to hide away from brutal realities. Holocaust memorial day was created not simply to remember the past but to guard the future. The 2026 theme, “Bridging Generations”, as has been said by many members, could not be more necessary than it is now. We are living through a period in which the facts of the Holocaust are not just fading with time and the passing of generations but are being openly challenged, distorted, mocked and weaponised. That should alarm every one of us. After the horrors of the 1930s and 1940s, we said collectively, as a human race, that what happened to Europe’s Jews would never happen again.”
“Karen Adam is right. There have been some excellent speeches—in fact, all the speeches in the debate have been excellent. I thank Kenny Gibson, Jackson Carlaw and Paul O’Kane for the work that they have done in keeping the spirit of remembrance and connection with Holocaust memorial day in the Parliament. I also pay tribute to Beatrice Wishart, who gave a very moving speech. She brought to my memory the famous broadcast of Richard Dimbleby reporting from Belsen. Members will be aware that, when he filed his report, the management at the BBC were reluctant to broadcast it. It was only because Richard Dimbleby threatened to resign if it was not broadcast that it was broadcast at all.”
“Not for one minute would Neil Gray, his colleagues at Westminster, or those in the earlier sessions of this Parliament, when there was a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition, have allowed a Government to do the things that the current Government is being accused of.”
“Those last few comments from Joe FitzPatrick were absolute nonsense. The SNP talks about this motion that is before Scotland’s Parliament being illegal. Its members say that we are somehow breaking the law by discussing the issue, although it is being discussed across the country on the news channels and in the newspapers. The idea that Scotland’s Parliament somehow has to haud its wheesht and that we should not talk about such things is utterly ridiculous. I have watched the Scottish National Party in opposition. I am old enough to remember when it was in opposition here, and I have watched it close up as an Opposition party at Westminster.”
“I hope that there is unanimity in the chamber at least on that point. Anas Sarwar: Will the member give way? Emma Harper: I am closing—that is it. Thank you, Presiding Officer. 16:18”
“It took courage and bravery for people such as Drs Redding, Peters and Inkster—health professionals who raised their concerns with management—to speak up and, as the board stated in front of Lord Brodie, “it is accepted” that the culture “did not place appropriate emphasis on listening to staff and encouraging the raising of concerns.” I ask any health service staff who are watching the debate—every single one of the staff who are, on behalf of our country, saving lives and making our society a healthier place to live in, whether they work in maintenance, cleaning, catering or nursing, or are allied health professionals or doctors—if they have concerns about patient safety, see something that needs reporting or hear something that does not sound right, to please speak up and report it, because we all want a health service where the thousands and thousands of people who are in our NHS are listened to.”
“That the end result of the breakdown of that relationship is, in the case of QEUH, an inquiry that has now lasted many years should be a lesson to every organisation in the country, but particularly in our health service, in how important listening to staff and whistleblowers is.”
“I know that the plans and processes that are put in place can go wrong. What is meant to happen on paper is not always what happens in the real world of day- to-day healthcare. Through risk management processes, significant adverse event and near- miss reporting and root cause analysis review, steps are taken to put measures in place to identify, fix and learn from those issues. It is the staff who need to be the most respected and the most involved when it comes to that crucial function. Without referring specifically to the on-going inquiry, I must say that, if a management team has found itself contacted by numerous whistleblowers on a single subject, it is clear that that team has badly managed its on-going relationship with staff, which should be at the core of the continuous improvement of our health service.”
“I am pleased that there has been a change in NHS GGC policies on how it responds to staff who raise issues of concern. I will not go into the specifics of what the inquiry has been looking at, but I encourage the Labour Party to consider the people who work on the front line in our health service and to see how it functions every hour of every day. If flaws, problems, challenges, issues, mistakes or miscalculations exist and impact on the delivery of a safe and patient-centred health service that serves our people, staff should and must be listened to; they should not be denigrated and ignored or have senior management question their professionalism. I worked in the national health service and in healthcare in the USA for many years, as a registered nurse and clinical educator.”
“Emma Harper: No, I will not take any interventions. I think that you should apologise to the constituent. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, Ms Harper. Emma Harper: We certainly want the independent inquiry, as set up by the SNP’s health secretary at the time, to get to the truth of what happened at the Queen Elizabeth and at the Royal Hospital for Children and Young People. As the inquiry’s remit states, that will ensure that “any past mistakes are not repeated in future NHS infrastructure projects”. Without prejudicing that inquiry, I whole-heartedly welcome the acknowledgement before it by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde that the board’s response to and behaviour towards the whistleblowers who raised substantive and serious concerns were wholly unacceptable.”
“Will the member give way? Emma Harper: I do not think that I have time—I do not think that there is much time in hand. The inquiry was set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is United Kingdom Government legislation. Last week in the chamber, our First Minister said: “Lord Brodie must have the opportunity to consider and reflect on the evidence and to set out his conclusions.”— [Official Report, 22 January 2026; c 13.] I completely agree with that. I must say, as someone who represents a constituent involved in campaigning for health services in my region, who was the target of fabricated and unauthorised quotes on a Labour Party leaflet—which, incidentally, was still being delivered through letterboxes last week, despite Labour’s promise to withdraw it from circulation— Jackie Baillie: Will the member take an intervention?”
“There are many other issues in the committee’s report, but we understand that the bill is required. It is a short, sharp bill that is necessary to recognise digital assets as property in law. Without further ado, I say that Scotland’s independent legal system—I know that we heard about medieval England earlier—and legal heritage are something that we are committed to preserving, while ensuring that Scots law remains a forward-looking and enabling environment for the technologies of tomorrow. That is what the bill is all about, and it will help us to achieve that. Therefore, I urge Parliament to support the general principles of the bill. Point of Order 16:46”
“That was reflective of the views shared by respondents to the Scottish Government’s consultation and from members speaking in today’s stage 1 debate, so the need for a bill is not in doubt. The bill will put beyond doubt that certain digital things can be owned if they meet the definition of a digital asset in the bill. However, given the rapid proliferation of digital assets, we should not wait until an appropriate case is brought before the Scottish courts to confirm their legal status as objects of property. Therefore, the bill will have the opportunity to make the law clearer, and we want to take that forward as a Parliament. I am pleased that the committee supports the general principles of the bill. I could talk for a long time, but I will bring my remarks to a close.”
“Richard Lochhead: Yes, we will look at that point and reflect on it. Other issues, such as electronic trade documents, were also mentioned, and some academics from the University of Aberdeen raised concerns to the committee about whether they should be recognised as digital assets. We will also reflect on that issue in relation to potential carve-outs. As many members have said, there is a need for legislation. The committee heard from a range of witnesses that there is a lack of legal certainty on the status of digital assets as objects of property in Scots law. The overwhelming majority agreed that greater certainty is necessary and that that should be provided for in primary legislation.”
“However, as we go into stage 2, we will reflect on the concerns that were expressed to the committee by some witnesses about what that would mean for the voluntary carbon credits that may arise from the ownership of land and so on. Daniel Johnson: The point that was made by witnesses in relation to carbon credits—and I understand that that issue was provided as an example—was that there may well be things that exist, either in Government or in other organisations, which, given the point about rivalrousness arising from an electronic system and there being an immutable record, may inadvertently satisfy the criteria yet are merely means of recording certain things or of regulating certain elements. Does the minister accept that point, and will the Government undertake work to identify any regimes that might fall into that category?”
“Voluntary carbon credits will be confirmed as objects of property if they meet the criteria in the definition of a digital asset that is contained in the bill, as would any other token. As objects of property, digital assets enjoy the protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights. However, we should all remember that the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions is not an absolute right. Therefore, should voluntary carbon credits meet the definition of a digital asset in the bill, they can be confirmed as objects of property.”
“As I said, it will enable Scotland not only to keep pace with legislative developments in other jurisdictions but to take better advantage of all the economic benefits and opportunities that digital asset technologies and innovations can offer. It is clear from today’s debate that there is widespread support for the general principles of the bill, which I very much welcome. I will quickly address a couple of issues. On carve-outs, as Daniel Johnson and other members of the committee have said, many recommendations from the committee deliver good guidance on a number of issues. We will reflect on those, take them forward and respond to the committee in due course on all of them. One of the issues that were raised was the prospect of carve-outs on things such as voluntary carbon credits.”
“That is the changing world in which we live, and that is why this bill is before us today; we have to make sure that our legislation is catching up with what is happening out there and that we can give legal certainty in the sense of identifying property, which is what the bill is all about. Digital assets are an increasingly important component of a range of areas, including financial services and the daily economic life of our citizens. By providing the greater legal certainty that is required on the property status of digital assets, the bill provides a significant legislative foundation for Scots law.”
“I assure members that, as a business minister dealing with quite a legalistic bill, I was often reliant on my bill team to explain many of the concepts behind it to me. As recently as yesterday, we were discussing bored apes. If someone had said to me that I would ever discuss the concept of bored apes with a bill team, I would not have believed them. Bored apes are non-fungible tokens—NFTs—which are digital tokens that are generally considered not to be exchangeable for a similar type of token. They are unique pieces of art, there are thousands of them and they are very valuable and can be worth thousands of pounds each. That is what bored apes are: collections of those unique pieces of art.”
“For all the reasons that I have outlined in my short contribution, as well as the contributions of colleagues across the chamber, I am happy to say that the Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill. I encourage other members to do the same. 16:40 Richard Lochhead: I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I also repeat my thanks to the expert reference group for the work that it has undertaken to inform the development of the bill, and to the Economy and Fair Work Committee for its work in scrutinising the bill. Daniel Johnson, who is chair of that committee, gave an easy-to- understand explanation of many of the concepts in the bill. I was grateful for that to be put on the record. Like others, I also thank the bill team.”
“The capacity of the Parliament and we, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise it properly will be tested. As a current member of the committee, I have no doubt about that. Compliments have been paid to the Government’s bill team. I also point out that this bill might well be the last one that Richard Lochhead is in charge of as the minister. If that proves to be the case, it is hard to imagine a more intricate and demanding subject on which to legislate. I am sure that the minister longs for a return to the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. It would be churlish of me not to say that I recognise the work that the Government and Government officials have done on the bill.”
“Issues such as tokenisation, environmental impact, insolvency, jurisdiction and enforcement are all flagged by the committee’s report as areas in which further work will be needed. That leads me to strike a note of caution. The pace of technological change in this area is not slowing down; it is accelerating. The committee was clear that complacency would be a mistake. As colleagues have said, if Scotland is to remain a credible and competitive legal jurisdiction for this kind of activity, which will be a task in and of itself, given the nature of the market and where it is centred, the Parliament and the Government will need to stay properly advised, properly resourced and alert to what the legislation will set in train. Further legislation will be inevitable.”
“I place on record my thanks to the clerks for their expert work. As a number of members have said, the bill is deliberately narrow. It focuses on providing legal certainty in Scots law by recognising that certain digital assets are capable of being property, of having ownership and of being lawfully transferred. Given our existing property categories predate digital technology, the clarification in law is necessary and overdue. As a committee, we accepted that concepts such as rivalrousness and immutability, although not everyday language, are sufficiently clear to provide a workable legal framework. We also accept that this is a framework bill. It sets foundations, rather than answering every downstream question. Not only do we not know the answers; we do not know what questions we might face in times to come.”
“Frankly, under the convenership of Daniel Johnson and the deputy convenership of Michelle Thomson, I felt that there was a seriousness, a discipline and an intellectual rigour to our scrutiny. Kevin Stewart was right to mention the quality of the committee’s scrutiny. The committee heard a wide range of evidence, some of which was contested. The committee’s report reflects that there were different points of view, which were refreshing to hear. As Willie Coffey said, the report is 38 pages long, and I have to confess that it is not a leisurely read—it is pretty difficult to read. When complimenting the report, I said to Murdo Fraser that I thought that it was 100 pages long, but, when I checked, I realised that it was 38 pages. It must have felt as though it was that long because of the density of the information that it contains.”
“Stephen Kerr: I agree with Daniel Johnson on everything that he said, except for the bit when he said that I was inviting people to contribute in order to fill my time. I think that the Parliament knows that I am more than capable of filling up any of the speaking time that I am generously permitted. Nevertheless, I agree with Daniel Johnson that we are dealing with unfamiliar concepts and unfamiliar legal language, so it is good that the committee includes a learned colleague. We are living in a technologically accelerating world. Willie Coffey was right when he said that the witnesses did their best to help us to understand things, which they did. The evidence sessions were very helpful, and the quality of the evidence was superlative. I pay tribute to my committee colleagues for the quality of the scrutiny.”
“Just when I thought that I was going to get a tutorial on blockchain, Martin Whitfield tells me that it is now out of date. Daniel Johnson also wanted to come in. Daniel Johnson: I suspect that Stephen Kerr might just be trying to fill his time by encouraging others to do it for him. However, I wonder whether he is demonstrating the need for the bill. Most people are probably unaware of how these things operate, but there will be people in Scotland who are holding such assets who might well end up in disputes. That might happen to businesses, and it might happen in divorce cases, so, in those situations, we will need Scots law to be able to understand and incorporate digital assets so that we can settle such cases fairly. Does Stephen Kerr agree that that is fundamentally what we are here to do?”
“When Martin Whitfield announced that there is a growing understanding of blockchain, I confess that I shrank a little in my seat. I do not have a growing understanding of blockchain, but I am open to tutorials. If anyone is willing to sit down and take me through the dummy’s guide to blockchain— Martin Whitfield: [Made a request to intervene.] Daniel Johnson: [Made a request to intervene.] Stephen Kerr: Oh, a number of members wish to intervene. I am happy to give way to Martin Whitfield. Martin Whitfield: I will not give Stephen Kerr a tutorial, but I note that blockchain is referred to a lot and is used as a basis expectation. However, there are changes in technology that are making even blockchain antiquated, and the bill needs to address that. Stephen Kerr: That is cold comfort.”
“However, I never thought that I would see the day when a member would get up and say, “I’m an international cybercriminal,” but that is what Murdo Fraser announced this afternoon. Given that that will appear in the Official Report, I think that that can probably be used as court evidence—in case anyone is listening. [Interruption.] “Guilty, guilty— I’m an international cybercriminal,” he says. In all seriousness, I support the general principles of the bill, and I do so having been directly involved as a committee member in most, although not all, of the stage 1 committee scrutiny sessions. This is a complex and highly specialised area, and it is probably obvious to all my colleagues—it is certainly obvious to me—that I am not an expert in digital assets.”
“This has actually been quite an enjoyable debate in many ways. Murdo Fraser: Until now. Stephen Kerr: I am being told that I have gone too far already. Daniel Johnson started off by warning us about the danger of going down rabbit holes, and then Martin Whitfield got up and took us to medieval England—that was a rabbit hole, if I have ever heard one. He continued down that rabbit hole when he got a second chance to speak, which is remarkable. I remember having to stand up in the Parliament to announce that “I am not a potato”.—[Official Report, 8 November 2022; c 79.] That might be the only thing that anyone will remember about my time in the Scottish Parliament—I do not know.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how many people in 2024-25 no longer received the Scottish child payment because they moved off benefits. (S6O- 05412)”
“The First Minister: Once the circumstances were reported to the Government in March 2018, a sequence of events was put in place that resulted in the establishment of the public inquiry, the substance of which involves consideration of all the evidence. That is what the Government has done to make sure that we face up to the issues that are being raised in the chamber and provide answers to the families of Milly Main and others, who have suffered so significantly as a consequence of those circumstances. That is the commitment that the Government has made and that Lord Brodie will fulfil. Football (Ticket Pricing) 3.”
“No, you did not. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister. The First Minister: What I would say to— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the First Minister. The First Minister: I would say to Mr Sarwar that, when the Government became aware of those issues, which was when the water contamination incident was raised with it on 1 March 2018, a sequence of events followed that led to the establishment of a public inquiry— Stephen Kerr: Answer the question. The First Minister: —to get to the truth of all the issues. The Presiding Officer: First Minister, I am sorry to interrupt, but I am keen to ensure that everyone in the chamber and the gallery can hear what is being said.”
“In addition, there are significant shortages of bridge engineers, and councils are finding it harder to secure the specialist skills that are needed to keep structures safe and operational. If we continue to neglect maintenance, we will continue to pay more later through emergency closures, rushed repairs and avoidable disruption. In Central Scotland and elsewhere, bridges are lifelines: they underpin economic activity, connectivity and public safety. Recognising the problem is necessary, but it is not sufficient. As Finlay Carson said eloquently, we now need a future Government to ring fence funds for a bridge fund in order to provide the sustained, realistic investment that is required. There needs to be a clear national commitment to stop vital infrastructure being allowed to fail by default and neglect. 17:47”
“There are similar pressures on other such structures, such as Blane Water bridge on the B834 road connecting Killearn and Croftamie, where intervention was essential simply to keep the route open. What concerns me most—my colleagues, including Davy Russell, have talked about this—is the description of “managed decline”. That is not a neutral technical term; it is a policy choice and an act of selective neglect, driven by funding constraints, that accepts the gradual loss of vital infrastructure. Communities feel that loss through longer journeys, reduced resilience and declining confidence in the network on which they rely every day. This is not about blaming councils, which are making hard choices with limited resources.”
“In Falkirk, the Jinkabout bridge near the golf club in Grangemouth is an example of what happens when decisions are delayed. Years of severe weight restrictions affected local movement and economic activity, and only full replacement restored capacity. It was the right decision, but it required capital funding, which it is increasingly difficult, if not nigh-on impossible, for councils to secure. In Stirlingshire, the Cardross bridge between Arnprior and the Lake of Menteith is a good example. It is a historic crossing and a vital local route. The council invested more than £1 million to keep it in use but, even after that work, it will reopen only with a permanent weight limit. That tells its own story. We often no longer talk about improving capacity; we talk about preventing loss.”
“The bridge was closed for nearly a year, which caused chaos, not just for traffic but for access to Stirling and for the businesses on the industrial estate. Across Central Scotland and broader Stirlingshire, we see the value of such structures and the consequences of leaving maintenance work too long. Many of the bridges were built for a different age—the bridge on Kerse Road that I just mentioned was more than 100 years old when it was eventually replaced by Network Rail. Those bridges have served us well, but they are under increasing strain. Traffic is heavier—electric vehicles alone weigh a tonne—and the weather is harsher, and there have been years of constrained investment, as Alexander Burnett and Finlay Carson highlighted.”
“I am pleased to speak in the debate, and I appreciate the efforts of my colleague Tim Eagle in lodging the motion and bringing the debate to the chamber. From listening to the contributions from colleagues across the chamber, it is absolutely clear how much we depend on bridges. Bridges are not an abstraction—as Alexander Burnett has just said, they are the difference between whether or not people get to work, whether an ambulance takes the direct route or a long diversion, and whether a local business is able to cope or is closing its doors. I remember when the replacement work was done on the bridge on Kerse Road in Stirling, which connected the city centre with the Springkerse industrial estate.”
“Parliament has tried to influence the Government by getting it to focus on where industry must be a part of this, rather than treating it as an afterthought. The minister has moved on some of that—perhaps he wants to intervene. Ben Macpherson: I ask Miles Briggs to be slightly patient, as he will be uplifted on some of those points as we get to later groups. Miles Briggs: We will see. For now, I press amendment 75.”
“On Friday, I was in Aberdeen, where I heard about not just the opportunities but the shortages that exist there. There is real concern that the bill has watered down the voice of industry. We need to strengthen it, and that is why I want to— Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way? Miles Briggs: Yes, I am happy to. Stephen Kerr: Does my colleague agree that it is very confusing that ministers are refusing the opportunity to take for themselves directive powers on what outcomes will match their aspirations for Scotland’s economy on issues such as improvement in skills, productivity and learner achievement? Is he as confused as I am about the minister’s reluctance to include outcomes in the bill? Miles Briggs: That has been a concern during the passage of the bill.”