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 9 of 25.
“As the minister did, I pay tribute to SAAB for the work that it has done but, if that board is not fundamentally at the heart of the bill, the voice of industry and business will be lost. Daniel Johnson: The member is right to highlight the difference between SAAB and the proposed structures. Fundamentally, SAAB is about industry representatives coming forward. The concern is that the people who make up the proposed committees and sub-committees—and, indeed, the council itself—will be picked by Government and might not provide the candid insight that is required if we are to have a system that is truly reflective of industry views. Does the member agree with that? Miles Briggs: Yes, I agree with that. One of the missed opportunities is that the bill does not deal with regional skills shortages.”
“Through amendment 10 in group 1, which we have just discussed, the new national funding strategy will require the Scottish ministers to set out the outcomes that the Government is seeking to deliver through funding tertiary education and skills training. I know that Mr Kerr supports that amendment, and I hope that he welcomes it. For the reasons that I have set out, I ask Miles Briggs not to press amendment 75 and Stephen Kerr not to move amendment 11. If they do, I encourage colleagues to vote against the amendments. Miles Briggs: Amendment 75 goes to the heart of some of the concerns that the Education, Children and Young People Committee has heard. Industries and businesses that are desperate for apprenticeships do not feel that the current system is delivering for them. However, their voice is not going to be specifically included.”
“On the sub-committee, that can of course be determined by the SFC, and we will come to Willie Rennie’s amendment on that in due course. If Miles Briggs is content, I turn to Stephen Kerr’s amendment 11, which revisits one of his stage 2 amendments. With respect to Mr Kerr, I must say that, as I set out to the committee then, in the Government’s view, the amendment is ambiguous on what constitutes “measurable improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement.” The appropriate mechanism for setting expectations on funding outcomes is already available through the terms and conditions of funding that ministers can impose on the SFC. That is already possible under powers in the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005.”
“Miles Briggs: We have not got to Willie Rennie’s amendment on the issue yet, but I think that the minister is almost making the argument against it, as it would introduce another sub- committee structure. Is that not the case? What industry is concerned about is that, by being just part of a wider conversation in that sub-committee, its voice and needs could be lost in translation. That is why we think that a version of SAAB should be retained. Ben Macpherson: We agreed to a number of amendments at stage 2 to ensure that the voice of business and industry is even more significant under the bill. Later in today’s proceedings, I will urge Parliament to support amendments to give industry and business further voice in the process.”
“I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with it since my appointment, on the bill and other matters. However, the bill already establishes an apprenticeship committee within the Scottish Funding Council that is expected to lead on some of the responsibilities of SAAB. Recreating an additional board with overlapping responsibilities would clutter the system at a time when we are trying to simplify it. It would duplicate roles and introduce unnecessary complexity without delivering added value to the system. The bill, as amended at stage 2, also formalises and strengthens the role of employers in the system. Those changes will ensure that employers continue to be central to apprenticeship delivery, but in a way that fits coherently with the new governance arrangements, rather than creating unnecessary parallel structures.”
“That is sensible and sober, and it is exactly the mindset that we need if the bill is to be about economic growth, opportunity and raising standards, rather than just a rearrangement of the system. 15:00 Ben Macpherson: I thank colleagues for explaining their amendments. The two amendments in this group revisit proposals that were previously brought forward at stage 2, and which the Education, Children and Young People Committee resisted at that juncture. Amendment 75, from Miles Briggs, is similar to an amendment that was lodged by Willie Rennie at stage 2, concerning an industry-led board to oversee apprenticeships. Amendment 75 would effectively reinstate the Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board—otherwise known as SAAB. I put on record the great work that SAAB has done for many years.”
“If ministers are confident that the system that they are building will raise standards, boost productivity and properly equip Scotland’s future workforce, they should see writing that expectation into law as entirely reasonable—and, if I may say so, the minister who is guiding the bill is a very reasonable fellow, on a good day. Members: Oh! Stephen Kerr: That was a compliment, Presiding Officer—I do not know how I can reach higher on compliments than to say that the minister is reasonable. My amendment would not tie ministers’ hands. It does not prescribe targets or privilege one route over another. It simply asks ministers to look squarely at outcomes and to fund what delivers them.”
“If we are serious about ensuring parity of esteem between academic and vocational pathways, we must be serious about measuring whether funding is raising skill levels, improving completion rates and supporting progression into work, including through apprenticeships and graduate apprenticeships. Graduate apprenticeships, or degree apprenticeships—I prefer the latter term because I think that it is a better description of what they are—are a good example. Where they work well, they deliver degree-level skills aligned directly with employer demand, with high completion and employment rates. However, uptake remains patchy and expansion has been inconsistent. Amendment 11 would give ministers a clear statutory prompt to ask whether their funding decisions are actually scaling what works. I do not think that that should trouble the Government.”
“What it does not do is anchor ministerial decision making in whether those structures are actually delivering skills that the economy needs. Amendment 11 would close that gap. That is not ideological. Colleges Scotland has made it clear that colleges already deliver strong value for money and contribute directly to productivity and learner outcomes. The organisation supports the amendment, precisely because it reflects what good providers already do when they focus on results, not rhetoric. The same point is made in the Scottish Parliament information centre’s analysis ahead of stage 3, which highlights the importance of aligning the expanded remit of the Scottish Funding Council with economic need, not simply administrative consolidation. Amendment 11 is about discipline and realism. Public money should work harder.”
“They would also have to “ensure that funding supports measurable improvements in skills, productivity and learner achievement.” It concerns not intentions, strategies or process, but actual outcomes. That matters, because, while Scotland already spends substantial sums across further education, higher education, apprenticeships and national training programmes, employers repeatedly tell us that the spend and the impact are drifting apart. Productivity growth in Scotland has lagged behind the United Kingdom average for more than a decade. Skills shortages remain acute in engineering, construction, digital technology, life sciences and advanced manufacturing, and too many young people still struggle to see a clear, credible route from education into sustained employment. The bill talks a great deal about duties, structures and governance.”
“The minister is to be commended for getting this bill to stage 3, because, frankly, he inherited a guddle and is having to work his way through it. Trying to make something worth while out of this is very difficult, as Miles Briggs has alluded to this afternoon and on other occasions. My amendment 11 is very basic, but it concerns a basic thing that is all too often missing from how Government approaches education and skills policy in Scotland, and that is outcomes. Amendment 11 would simply require that, in exercising their functions under the legislation, ministers must have regard to what public expenditure is actually achieving—a breakthrough moment!”
“I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests as a director of WhistleblowersUK. In relation to the scandal, I note that there were whistleblowers in 2017 and as early as 2015. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde has admitted that whistleblowers were subject to recrimination and retaliation; they were ignored and much worse besides. It is clear that there is something very wrong with the whistleblowing culture in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, so I ask the cabinet secretary not to hide behind any on-going procedures and to order an immediate review of whistleblowing culture and processes in all of Scotland’s NHS boards.”
“I move, That the Parliament notes the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s 1st Report, 2026 (Session 6), Standing Order Rule changes – lodging deadlines for public bills (SP Paper 954), and agrees that the temporary rule change to Standing Orders set out in Annexe B of the report be made with effect from 19 January 2026. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on standing order rule changes—lodging deadlines for public bills. Motion without Notice 17:13”
“The reason is that, as Stephen Kerr said in his intervention, we are coming to the end of the current session of Parliament and a new session will start in the near future. We believe that the rule change should be subject to interim review at the end of the current session and again at the end of 2026. We support the operation of the temporary rule being reviewed at those two points. We consider that the bureau will be best placed to undertake the interim review at the end of the session, and I look forward to the committee that will follow mine receiving a note on that. The motion proposes that the change take effect from next Monday, 19 January.”
“As the member knows, I am interested in innovation in the way that we do things in this place. With just a few weeks left in the current session, I wonder whether the committee might be minded to consider other temporary changes to the rules, so that we can experiment with how we can improve the processes and procedures of this Parliament. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to the member for his intervention. We are always curious, inquisitive and iterative as regards changes that can improve the functioning of the Scottish Parliament. The member is aware of this, but I reiterate that the offer is always open to members to write to the committee with proposals, which we will consider before responding accordingly. The bureau suggested that the temporary rule change should apply until the end of 2026, and the committee recommends that.”
“We remember Jim Baxter casually playing keepie-up at Wembley in 1967. If we were not alive then, we will have seen the video.”
“When I was the MP for Stirling, I used to be proud to mention, whenever I could, that we had the world’s oldest football in the Stirling Smith art gallery and museum. Football is part of our national DNA. I mentioned that we invented the modern game. There is no doubt that the Scottish interpretation of football is what now shapes the world’s thinking about football. We are the country of Bill Shankly, of Jock Stein, of Walter Smith and of Matt Busby. If members will forgive all those generational references—they are in the context of my generation—we are also the country of great figures such as Billy McNeill and John Greig, towering figures who have shaped generations of players and supporters. We celebrate Jimmy Johnstone and Davie Cooper, players who entertained and embodied imagination and the joy of football.”
“We are undoubtedly a welcoming country, and we take pride in that reputation. We are a capable host and a nation that is confident in itself—and rightly so. It is also an opportunity to unite the chamber, and any opportunity for us to act in a united way is to be embraced. There is a shared hope that Scotland’s men’s team will qualify, as I said a moment ago, that Scottish players will take the field and that we will have our home team to cheer on. Football matters in Scotland. There was an excellent debate last night, which was brought to the chamber by George Adam, who provided us with his customary entertaining but also passionate exhortation for football and its importance to communities and our country. Football is such an important part of our history, our culture and our shared identity. We invented the modern game.”
“Having said that, I now turn to Euro 2028’s importance as a global sporting event. There can be no doubt about that, and I agree with the minister on it, but the event is also important for Scotland. It will be watched by hundreds of millions—perhaps I am underestimating that number—and Scotland has the privilege of hosting part of it. As the minister is right to say, although there is still a bit of work to be done to qualify, let us be optimistic that there will be a Scotland team in that tournament, and I hope that the team will play in our national stadium. Being the host of such an event brings obligations. I have elucidated my concerns about the nature of the way in which UEFA and, indeed, other global organisations do their business, but setting that aside, it is an opportunity to present Scotland in the best possible light.”
“In our constituencies and regions, community groups, parent councils, school-connected organisations and all kinds of other local good causes have, for many years, used donated tickets to major sporting events as raffle prizes or auction items to raise funds. That is not sharp practice or exploitation; it is a long-standing and widely understood feature of community life in Scotland. My concern remains that, notwithstanding the bill’s intentions, there is a risk that such groups could unwittingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they continue what has been common practice for decades. Those are not commercial touts; they are volunteers, parents and local organisers who are raising money for school trips, uniforms, community facilities, football strips and charitable causes.”
“At stage 3, amendment 4, in my name, which sought to extend the charity auction exemption to community-controlled bodies, community councils and schools, was not debated. That was the result of my error during the submission process. I take full responsibility for that mistake. The Presiding Officer’s decision not to admit the amendment as a manuscript amendment was taken in accordance with the rules of the Parliament. I respect that decision entirely. Nevertheless, I wish to put it on the official record that I regret very much that the Parliament did not have the opportunity to consider again the substance of the amendment. Its purpose was straightforward and practical.”
“We have reached the stage 3 debate on the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill, and it is right to recognise that a lot of work has been done on this very short bill. There has been serious and detailed scrutiny at stages 1, 2 and 3. As has been acknowledged, it has all been constructive and the minister has engaged in the process in good faith. That is the way to make good law in a Parliament. As members will expect, the Conservatives will certainly not oppose the bill at this stage; we will support its passage. However, before I turn to the wider significance of Euro 2028, I want to place something clearly on the parliamentary record, with your indulgence, Presiding Officer.”
“I hope that the minister will look at it again, considering the reasonable interactions that we have had, and that he is minded at this stage to accept my helpful amendment. I move amendment 1.”
“The Parliament is being asked to approve new criminal offences and enforcement powers on the basis that intergovernmental engagement is under way. In those circumstances, it is entirely reasonable for us, as members of the Scottish Parliament, to ask for a factual account of what engagement would take place before the event. If the engagement is as active as the minister indicated at stage 2—and I have no doubt that it is—producing the report would present absolutely no difficulties for the minister. If there are unresolved issues, it is better that the Parliament knows about them from ministers while there is still time to act. My amendment 1 is not political—it is practical. It would strengthen transparency, improve preparedness and support the bill’s core purpose.”
“My amendment directly reflects his concern: the reporting duty is flexible, broad and, I think, realistic. It calls for a report to be published “within six months of Royal Assent, and” in any event “no later than 18 months before the Championship period.” That aligns with operational planning; it is not a political deadline, and it is intended to be helpful. The minister also suggested that a post-event review would be sufficient. With respect, that would be too late—it would be like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. Conducting a review after the event would tell us where we went wrong, but the report that I am proposing is, I think, about gaps that Scottish Government ministers might have identified and which the Parliament would need to do something more about, in conjunction with the UK Government and Parliament.”
“Online platforms and cross- border sellers do not respect devolved boundaries. If enforcement is to be effective in practice, Parliament is entitled to understand how those risks are being managed. The amendment does not require ministers, including the Minister for Business and Employment, to secure an agreement with other Governments. It does not mandate harmonised legislation, and it does not stray beyond devolved competence. It simply asks the minister, or ministers, to set out the steps that they have taken to seek co-operation and what has resulted from that engagement. 15:30 At stage 2, the minister expressed concern about committing to a report within a fixed timescale if other Governments had not reached settled positions—he says the same in his letter.”
“However, at stage 2, the minister made it clear—and I absolutely accepted this—that the Scottish Government is in regular discussion with the UK Government and that it has had communication with the Welsh Government, which does not intend to create its own Wales-only legislation, and the Government of Ireland on ticket touting, including online and cross-border activity. He also acknowledged that the position across the host nations is uneven, as things stand, with different legislative and enforcement approaches either in place, or being talked about being put in place. That evidence is exactly why I believe that this amendment matters. The touting provisions in this Scottish Parliament bill apply to Scotland, but the behaviour that we are trying to stop is not restricted to Scotland.”
“The letter goes on to say that the Government cannot “guarantee meaningful progress within the proposed timeframe”, but it has to be said that the timeframe is actually quite large; it is not a narrow, but a very broad, timeframe. There is something else in the minister’s letter that I acknowledge to be true. He says: “Legislative decisions rest with those administrations”— meaning the United Kingdom Government, primarily—in the first instance. I understand and accept that.”
“My amendment in group 1, which is on the subject of intergovernmental co-operation on ticket touting, is a modest procedural amendment that is entirely consistent with what I believe the minister says the bill is trying to achieve. It does not reopen the policy debate on ticket touting, weaken the offence and or delay implementation. It simply asks for clarity about work that the minister has told the committee is already under way. I recognise that, as the minister says in his letter—which, if the chamber allows, I will quote— “It is not within the Scottish Government’s gift to report on the actions of other governments”. I completely agree, and that is not what my amendment seeks to do.”
“This is a wonderful Thursday afternoon on what is a momentous day, and a very happy day for many of us on this side of the chamber. We get to talk about football—or, at least, we will eventually get to talk about football, once we have talked about some of the aspects of the bill that I hope the minister might yet reconsider. I am grateful for the engagement that I have had with Richard Lochhead and for the fully communicative way in which he has piloted the bill. I particularly appreciate the letter that he sent to members of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee earlier this week, which I will refer to in my comments.”
“Rubbish! The Presiding Officer: I am sorry to interrupt, First Minister. I know, Mr Kerr, that you share my view that we should always carry ourselves in a very parliamentary manner. I would be grateful if you might demonstrate that. The First Minister: As I said, this budget delivers on the priorities of the people of Scotland about strengthening our national health service and about supporting people and businesses with the cost of living. Thanks to our decisions, 55 per cent of Scottish taxpayers are now expected to pay less income tax than they would do if they lived in England. The people of Scotland have a Government that is on their side, and all the current indications show that the people of Scotland want to have this Government here for the long term, to stay on their side. Budget 2026-27 2.”
“At Love Street, from 1894 to 2009, we played football, and it made our lives either worth living or absolutely miserable. For big daft boys from Paisley like myself, it was a place where we dared to dream, and I remember how emotional it was when I left Love Street for the last time.”
“Would the member give way? George Adam: That one mention of St Mirren seemed very popular; I will take the intervention from Mr Kerr. Stephen Kerr: I was astonished that George Adam had got a minute into his speech and had not mentioned St Mirren or anything about cup finals. I am worried about him, Deputy Presiding Officer—he may not be entirely with us today; I do not know. George Adam: Mr Kerr should not worry—he will not be disappointed as my speech continues. I have followed St Mirren since the halcyon days when Alex Ferguson was manager. Who knew the heartache that I would endure for the rest of my life? St Mirren will break your heart and—many football fans will recognise this—then remind you why you gave it to them in the first place. Even the name of our old home—Love Street—does half the emotional work for you.”
“Is it appropriate for the Scottish Government to make material changes to published budget documents without any reference to the changes or explanation of them? What steps would you advise committee conveners to take to ensure that they are scrutinising the correct and authoritative versions of the spreadsheets that have been published by the Scottish Government?”
“Either a production error was made in the original publication, or the Scottish Government has materially altered elements of the budget after publication. Either way, that is a serious issue for parliamentary scrutiny. Rightly, the recipients of the funding will want clarity on whether those commitments still stand. People in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen will want to know whether funding for film houses remains in place. Many will also be asking whether the proposed funding for a new museum of empire, slavery, colonialism and migration is still intended to proceed. I would be grateful for the Presiding Officer’s guidance on the following points. Will committees that are scrutinising the budget be given access to both versions of the worksheets?”
“In the version that was downloaded yesterday, the worksheets included additional funding of £100,000 for the Scottish Library and Information Council; £500,000 for film houses in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen; £1.2 million for an expo fund; and £600,000 for a proposed new museum of empire, slavery, colonialism and migration. In the same version, Screen Scotland’s funding was described as an uplift to support specific projects, including a new television festival and the expansion of an existing film festival. However, in the version that was downloaded today, those entries no longer appear. There is no explanation on the Scottish Government’s website; no change log; and no indication that revised figures have been published. I believe that that places the Parliament in a difficult position.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance on a matter that goes to the heart of proper budget scrutiny and the Parliament’s ability to discharge that function effectively. The issue engages rule 9.16 of standing orders, which frames the Parliament’s formal role in scrutinising the budget. It may well come under the heading of Shona Robison’s production errors but, yesterday, my office downloaded the level 4 budget worksheets that were published by the Scottish Government, which set out a detailed line-by-line breakdown of spending. When a member of my team downloaded the same worksheets again today, material discrepancies were identified. They are not minor or presentational differences, because they relate directly to funding commitments within the constitution, external affairs and culture portfolio.”
“The principle that we have strived for, as has the rest of the UK, is fairness: fairness for taxpayers and for owners and occupiers of impacted buildings. In that vein, we believe that it is only right and fair that a similar contribution be sought in Scotland to prevent disproportionate costs from falling on the general taxpayer. The Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill will provide vital funding to support the delivery of the cladding programme. That is underpinned by the Housing (Cladding Remediation) (Scotland) Act 2024, which was unanimously supported in the Parliament just over 12 months ago.”
“I think that the minister may have misunderstood Craig Hoy’s question. He was asking about the £97.1 million that the Government received from the Treasury for the purposes of the amelioration of cladding on high-rise buildings. Craig Hoy’s question was about how much of the £97.1 million has been spent and how much remains in the fund. Ivan McKee: The member is aware that that money will all be spent on cladding remediation. Of course, we first need to identify the buildings and go through the proper process to identify where it will be spent, which is an important part of the process. The levy in England was introduced by the previous Conservative Administration and is being delivered by the current Labour Administration. The regulations to give effect to the levy achieved cross-party support last year.”
“However, as Mr Kerr knows, we have invested in our teachers and in teacher training. Modern Apprenticeships 7.”
“The ministers are making a huge mistake by dismissing Fergus Ewing’s serious suggestion as lightly as they are, because touch typing and keyboard skills are critical to productivity. We have 550 computing science teachers in Scotland right now, which is the lowest that it has been for five years. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please ask a question. Stephen Kerr: That is 28 per cent down on the number in post when the Scottish National Party came to power. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please ask a question. Stephen Kerr: My question is this: how many computing science teachers are currently in training? The Deputy Presiding Officer: That is not directly relevant to the topic, but the minister may answer. Natalie Don-Innes: I would have to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to write to Mr Kerr with the specific details.”
“As colleagues have made absolutely clear, what we have heard from the Government in response to some very carefully argued points by those of us who are in favour of Murdo Fraser’s motion is SNP ministers and members carefully deflecting or simply ignoring the issue—as ever. The reality is that businesses across Scotland are facing a genuine cost of business emergency, and the rates revaluation is just another layer of their concern. In the spirit of trying to build a coalition around Murdo Fraser’s motion, I will resist the urge to say too much about Labour’s spokesman talking about how Labour has some kind of sympathy for business when it did more damage to the business communities of this country in a single stroke, in Rachel Reeves’s first budget, than any chancellor did for as long as I can remember—[Interruption.]”
“We have rehearsed the arguments really well, on the side of those of us who want the Government to take some positive action. Indeed, my colleague Murdo Fraser set out—as does his motion—specific actions that the Scottish Government could commit to, because they are general in tone; they are not specific. There is no compromise of any kind of secrecy around the budget—at least, not until at least Tuesday morning, when we buy our copy of the Daily Record, where we will, no doubt, read most of the budget speech already leaked to it, which would be consistent with the pattern of this Government. Ministers take no lessons, but they love to give Paul Hutcheon whatever Paul Hutcheon asks them for, so that John Swinney can continue with his weekly column in the Daily Record.”
“Until you have run a business and hired people—and, sadly, until you have had to make people redundant in order to meet a cost base—and until you have done the hard yards for what makes the economy tick and you understand something about it, then when you talk about some of the things that we have been debating, it is just at the level of theory, and it is at that level of theory that we are doing damage to the confidence of the Scottish business community. Fergus Ewing: Does Mr Kerr agree that the Scottish Government has statutory powers to intervene and take action to order assessors what to do—that those powers have been conferred on the Government and it should use them rather than pretend that it cannot do anything? Stephen Kerr: That is absolutely right.”
“What is the slogan of the SNP Government that has been in power for the past 19 or 20 years? “We’ll take no lessons.” That is what ministers often say from their front bench: “We’ll take no lessons.” They learn nothing from repeated disasters and from putting the Scottish business community through the wringer periodically. They learn nothing. I expect better from Ivan McKee, because I think that he understands something about business. [Interruption.] Members dismiss that. Perhaps he does not know anything about business—I stand corrected. On the basis of his non-speech in this debate, we could be forgiven for thinking that he knows nothing about business. We need to do something about our collective business literacy.”
“People often say that the problem with the Scottish Parliament is that there is too much business illiteracy. Frankly, people could be forgiven for agreeing with that, given some of the things that have been said in this afternoon’s debate. The problem is that too many of us have never run a business. We do not know what it is like to get up in the morning and to have the responsibility not only of running a business but of employing people and keeping them in employment. Daniel Johnson: I wonder whether the member might agree with me that it was somewhat odd for the minister to reply that the issues that we are debating always come up when the revaluation takes place. Does that not suggest that there might be something fundamentally wrong with the revaluation process? Stephen Kerr: That is absolutely right.”
“Winding up—that is what I do well, so I am glad to take the opportunity. [Laughter.] First, the speech that Richard Lochhead just made was absolutely disgraceful. As Ivan McKee did, he hid behind the budget, saying, in effect, “We can’t talk about this. There’s a budget.” What is the best thing that the ministers, with combined voice, can tell the business community of Scotland? “Make representations.” People have made representations. That is why the Scottish Conservatives have listened and have brought this subject to the chamber today. We are the party that is listening to business, because we are, unashamedly, the party of business. But what do we hear from the SNP? “Tell them about the appeals process.” Really? That is the best that the Scottish ministers can come up with in the face of a debate on the subject of NDR revaluation.”
“We continue to make the right decisions to support businesses in Scotland. The Scottish Government has a strong track record of delivering a generous non-domestic rates package. Decisions on non-domestic rates policy will be set out in next week’s budget. I move amendment S6M-20295.1, to leave out from “are facing” to end and insert: “have seen increased costs in recent years due to rampant inflation and increased energy costs; notes the reliefs and support that are currently in place on non- domestic rates, and recognises that policy decisions by the Scottish Government on these matters will be set out in the Budget on 13 January 2026.” 16:13”
“The valuation of all domestic properties is a matter for the Scottish assessors, who, as has already been identified, are independent of central and local government. Their independence in carrying out valuation judgments is critical to the credibility of the system. Evidence-based representations to the assessors on draft rateable values can be made—and are being made by many NDR payers—before the roll is finalised in March. I met the assessors before the Christmas recess to talk through that process. Economic growth is at the heart of the Scottish Government’s agenda, and we will continue to take that approach. That is why the economic growth numbers, which were ignored by the Conservatives, show that Scotland has been growing faster than the rest of the UK during recent months.”
“As members well know, those decisions will be set out in the budget on 13 January 2026, so I urge them to contain their excitement until next week, when they will understand the Scottish Government’s position and the policies that we are undertaking following our engagement with businesses to address the concerns that have been raised. I am aware of the concerns regarding increases in rateable values following the publication of the draft valuation roll on 30 November. The final valuation roll for the 2026 revaluation will come into effect on 1 April, based on a tone date of 1 April 2025. The shorter one-year tone date responds to a recommendation of the independent Barclay review of NDR to ensure that rateable values better reflect property market conditions.”