Liam Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Producing the same amount of electricity through ground-mounted solar—a technology that I stress I support and that must form part of our energy mix—requires many times more land. Most of us would agree that reducing emissions matters.”
“In the years since I first contributed to a debate in this Parliament on new nuclear power in Scotland, four of the six parties in the chamber have come to support the proposition that I put forward, in some form or other. In that, they are on the side of the majority of the public, which supports nuclear power.”
“No wonder: electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen production, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and high-tech industries all require enormous amounts of reliable power. That means nuclear. However, we do not just need reliable power. We need local power.”
“In 2019, it even legislated for a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, although it scrapped that target five years later because it could not meet it.”
“In fact, over the year, wind turbines operate only around 25 to 40 per cent of the time. The point is that we must be able to guarantee electricity when homes, businesses and hospitals need it.”
“For more than 65 years, the STV North news programme has done far more than simply report the news. As Maggie Chapman said, it has given a voice to rural and regional communities. It has reflected local priorities and provided scrutiny, balance and accountability at every level of Government and public life.”
The complete record
Every one of 538 lines we hold for Liam Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 11.
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: No other members have asked to speak, and the cabinet secretary does not have anything to add by way of winding up. Amendment 1 agreed to. After section 8 The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 5, on review of misconduct policies, practices and guidance. Amendment 7, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is the only amendment in the group. Sharon Dowey: What good is a new code of ethics if it is not reflected in practice by Police Scotland? One of my biggest concerns about the new code of ethics would be that it becomes simply another piece of work that sits on a shelf and gathers dust for years, not making the change that was promised. My amendment 7 creates a new free-standing section that places a one-off duty on the chief constable to review misconduct policies, practices and guidance.”
“Amendments 2 and 3 relate to the provisions in the bill that give the PIRC a new power to review a policy or practice of the police, where the PIRC considers that it is in the public interest to do so. At stage 2, the Criminal Justice Committee supported an amendment lodged by Sharon Dowey to require that the PIRC must consult HMICS before undertaking such a review, which I supported. The provision that that inserted would better meet the intention if it appeared on its own and earlier in the process, so amendments 2 and 3 remove the provision from its current location and insert a new subsection requiring the PIRC to consult HMICS before deciding whether to carry out the review. I ask all members to support technical amendments 1 to 3. I move amendment 1.”
“Sharon Dowey: I have wound up, so I press amendment 5. Amendment 5 agreed to. Amendment 6 moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to. Section 7—Scottish police advisory list and Scottish police barred list Amendment 26 not moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 4, on minor and technical amendments. Amendment 1, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 2 and 3. Angela Constance: The three amendments in this group are minor tidying-up amendments. The first relates to the advisory and barred lists provisions in section 7. It simply removes unnecessary repetition of a number—namely “59A”—to comply with standard drafting practice and does not have any practical effect.”
“A requirement that conduct regulations state a time limit of no more than one year from the date of resignation, after which misconduct procedures cannot be applied, is another provision that was intended for inclusion in regulations. I agree that it is important to prevent stale allegations from being pursued against former constables, but of course the time limit must be capable of being disapplied, when justice requires it. The regulations will set out tests or special criteria that will determine whether it is reasonable and proportionate to apply the disciplinary procedures to former constables after more than one year to provide for exceptional cases. I hope that Parliament will support the amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Sharon Dowey to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 5.”
“Secondly, although amendment 6 means that disciplinary proceedings could not be pursued against an officer for an indefinite period of time, that would not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against an ex-officer over historical allegations. That is a sensible measure to add to the bill. I am happy to move amendment 5. Angela Constance: Again, I am happy to have engaged with Ms Dowey after stage 2 on amendments 5 and 6, which I support. It was intended that requiring notice to be given to a constable that proceedings would continue in absentia should be provided for in regulations, so I support the principle of amendment 5.”
“It would also ensure that stale allegations were not routinely pursued to the extent that the investigatory body was overwhelmed by historical allegations that limited its ability to investigate current and live officer misconduct. That comes with two caveats. First, this is a presumption only, and the Scottish Government assures me that the regulations will set out tests or special criteria to determine whether it is reasonable and proportionate to apply the disciplinary procedures to a former constable after more than one year. I would appreciate it if the cabinet secretary would reaffirm that when she sums up.”
“A caveat to that was that the bill also included a requirement that a time limit must be set out in regulations for disciplinary proceedings to be brought forward after a constable had resigned. That is sensible, in my view, as it is important to prevent stale allegations from being pursued against former constables for an indefinite or lengthy period after they have ceased to be a constable. As such, the effect of my amendment 6 would require that those regulations set out that disciplinary proceedings cannot be brought against an officer more than a year after they have resigned or retired. That would ensure that investigations into an officer’s misconduct were current and timely, and would prevent regulations from allowing for a time limit that is of an undue length.”
“That means that, at the point at which the constable is informed that there are proceedings against them, they are also informed that those will continue whether or not they resign. The drafting ensures that notice is given at the most useful time, making sure that the constable has all the information that is available before they make any decision to resign. Amendment 5 is very similar to an amendment that I lodged at stage 2. I thank the Scottish Government for working with me to bring it back at stage 3, ensuring that constables are kept fully informed of the new rules at the earliest possible opportunity. I turn to amendment 6. The bill as originally drafted would allow for disciplinary proceedings to be conducted against police officers after they had left the force as long as they were being disciplined for gross misconduct.”
“However, when taking evidence on the bill, the Criminal Justice Committee heard concerns that officers might not be aware of that change. As such, a constable might resign, thinking that that would get them off the hook, only to realise, when it is too late to rescind their resignation, that proceedings will continue in their absence. My amendment 5 therefore seeks to ensure that a constable is informed at the earliest possible opportunity that resignation or retirement is not a route to avoiding disciplinary proceedings. It does that by requiring notice to be given to a constable, following a determination that the allegation against them amounts to gross misconduct, that disciplinary procedures may be applied in relation to a person who resigns or retires.”
“Amendment 14 disagreed to. Amendment 15 not moved. Amendments 16 and 17 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to. Amendments 18 and 24 not moved. Section 3B—Procedures for vetting Amendments 19 to 23 and 25 not moved. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes discussion on group 2. Section 6—Procedures for misconduct: former constables The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on procedures for misconduct. Amendment 5, in the name of Sharon Dowey, is grouped with amendment 6. Sharon Dowey: Prior to the bill’s enactment, a police officer whose behaviour was found to amount to gross misconduct would be able to avoid disciplinary proceedings simply by resigning or retiring. Fortunately, the bill seeks to close that loophole.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay] Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 46, Against 70, Abstentions 0.”
“I thank the Government for the response on amendments 16 and 17. Amendment 12, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 13 not moved. Amendment 14 moved—[Pauline McNeill]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 14 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend proceedings for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 15:39 Meeting suspended. 15:46 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We proceed with the division on amendment 14. Members should cast their votes now.”
“In addition, as I have said that I will support Pauline McNeill’s amendment 17, to ensure that written reasons are given for vetting decisions, I intend to consult on further safeguards to be built into the vetting processes as part of the vetting regulations for constables. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the member. Pauline McNeill: I was going to get to amendments 16 and 17. I fully welcome the Government’s position on them, as it will make a substantial difference in relation to fairness. I welcome the Government’s response. I remain concerned about not having something in primary legislation on correcting information on vetting, but I am content for the most part. The only amendment in the group that I intend to move is amendment 14, on appeals; I will not seek to move the other amendments in my name.”
“My problem with the statutory proposal is that the person will already be dismissed at that point—but perhaps I am wrong. Angela Constance: Perhaps I could put this to Ms McNeill so that we have clarity on the record. It is my view and the view of the Government that a key way to protect the rights of staff and constables, while allowing for a vetting regime that protects the public, is through a very robust appeals process. Police constables who are dismissed or demoted as a result of failing to maintain the minimum required vetting clearance will be able to appeal to the police appeals tribunal, which, as I outlined earlier, is an independent tribunal. Police staff already have full access to an employment tribunal.”
“The thing that seems to be missing is the possibility of correcting something quite simple through some kind of corrections or appeals process. Martin Whitfield: I share Pauline McNeill’s concern regarding appeals in relation to the vetting process. Appeal provisions apply under the English vetting system when errors have been made accidentally and information has then become available. I am a little disappointed that the cabinet secretary was unable to give a categoric assurance that the question of an appeal in respect of the vetting process could not be put in the regulations, although she indicated that it might be if that were sought by stakeholders. Pauline McNeill: That is where I have some difficulty. We are creating a framework, but it seems to me that a right of correction or appeal should be in the legislation.”
“Given the concerns that the Scottish Police Federation and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents have raised—I note that they did not get a chance to examine the provisions at stage 2—I was trying to ensure that vetting is not used when misconduct processes should be used. I plead for that to be clear as the regulations are taken forward. As I indicated from the outset, I will seek to withdraw amendment 12, and I will not move my other amendments in the group, for the reasons that I have outlined—I have got some comfort on them. My one fundamental disagreement with the cabinet secretary relates to the appeals process. Forgive me, as I have not had a chance to examine the full detail of what an appeals process looks like under the statute, but it seems that someone could already have been dismissed.”
“For my part, had I had the detail at stage 2, I might have taken a different view—or maybe I would not have. I make the point that I supported the stage 1 report for the reasons that I have mentioned. However, now that I have had sight of the proposals, I want to examine them in detail. I get some satisfaction from what the cabinet secretary said about what she expects of the regulations. For example, I raised the issue of ensuring that evidence that was previously used to maintain vetting cannot in all cases be used at a later date. I am satisfied that some of that can be dealt with in the regulations. I have noted what the cabinet secretary said about my amendments.”
“Providing written reasons for a vetting outcome would promote fairness and transparency, which I would expect to be part of the process anyway. Pauline McNeill: I thank the cabinet secretary for her thorough response and for acknowledging that, at this stage, I am seeking to go over the provisions with a fine-toothed comb to ensure that there is fairness and that there is reasonable application of something that the Parliament did not get a proper chance to discuss at stage 2. The cabinet secretary is quite correct to say that, in our stage 1 report, the committee asked for the chief constable to have the power to dismiss an officer or a member of staff who was unable to maintain their vetting. However, the proposals that we are discussing now came after the stage 1 report.”
“Something that can seem to be risk managed on a first occasion might become more worrying on a second or third occasion, and it would be necessary to consider the information in a subsequent determination. Stakeholders have grave concerns about the amendment and have cited the escalating pattern of behaviour in the examples of David Carrick and Wayne Couzens. I am able to support amendment 16, because it would simply require the code to set down whether there were any limitations on the types of evidence that can be used to demonstrate suitability, or to list those types of evidence. I hope that that would go some way to alleviating the concerns that we have heard this afternoon. I am also able to support amendment 17.”
“The whole point of introducing dismissal for vetting is to provide for cases in which someone poses a risk but their conduct and performance are not such as would warrant dismissal. Amendments 15 and 21 would seriously undermine that purpose. Amendment 18 would require the code of practice to prohibit the use of information “disclosed during previous vetting, either as part of the recruitment process or ongoing vetting,” in subsequent vetting as a reason for the person who has undergone vetting to be subjected to a determination. I cannot support the amendment, as it would prevent a vetting decision from taking into account a cumulative pattern of behaviour that emerged over years.”
“A failure to consider less serious measures will be a good ground for appeal. The duplication of procedures that the amendments would require could lead to contradictory decisions, confusion, delays and costs. 15:30 Amendments 15 and 21 would provide “that vetting cannot be triggered by the conclusion of misconduct proceedings where it was determined that the standard of behaviour or performance was not unsatisfactory.” There are many good reasons for carrying out vetting that do not justify a finding that conduct or performance was unsatisfactory. Those reasons might come to light during misconduct proceedings or be part of wider facts and circumstances that were relevant to the conduct proceedings.”
“That goes against the Angiolini review, which proposed to use alternatives to misconduct proceedings when that was reasonable and appropriate. The amendments could also open up vetting determinations to challenge, even when the use of the vetting procedures was perfectly appropriate, simply because misconduct proceedings were also an option. Amendments 14 and 19 would set up the “consideration of alternative measures” as a separate procedure from the initial decision- making process and from appeal. Although there is no issue with the requirement for appeals, as it is intended that there will be an appeals process, the separate requirement for a “consideration of alternative measures” is problematic. A decision maker must already have considered a range of possible outcomes and have selected the least serious one that meets the risk.”
“Given that Police Scotland’s existing vetting manual of guidance and the equivalent version in England and Wales cover both recruitment vetting and in-role vetting, it is desirable for Police Scotland to have the ability to provide for recruitment vetting in its code, which will help to provide for a consistent and coherent system of vetting. Amendment 13 would provide that “vetting is not a substitute for or alternative to misconduct processes where there are concerns around the standard of behaviour or performance of a constable or member of police staff.” Amendments 13 and 20 would risk forcing the code to send cases down the misconduct route, even when vetting was appropriate, which could lead to increased costs and take up additional resources that were not warranted.”
“However, the assessment that is carried out at recruitment is a form of vetting and is an assessment as to suitability for the role, so the amendment would create an inaccurate statement. Although recruitment vetting and in-role vetting have different implications, they are both still assessments of suitability. The amendments could undermine the basis for on-going recruitment vetting by leaving a suggestion in primary legislation that recruitment vetting is not, and cannot be, an assessment of suitability, when that is in fact exactly what it is. The amendments would also prevent the code of practice from being able to make provision about recruitment vetting.”
“In addition, the Criminal Justice Committee, in its stage 1 report, made a clear recommendation to me, as Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, to address the issue, and I gave that commitment to the Parliament during the stage 1 debate. I appreciate that the stage 2 amendments were somewhat involved and lengthy, but they needed to be so, as the matter cannot be dealt with in a few lines. I hope that most people would agree that I needed to meet the commitment that I made to the Parliament in response to a parliamentary committee. Amendments 12 and 22 would amend the definition of vetting to say that recruitment vetting is separate from in-role vetting and that it is not an assessment as to character and so on.”
“I provided the committee with a series of dates on which my officials had engaged collectively with police and partners in the context of the Scottish police consultative forum and on which they had met the Scottish Police Federation, the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Scottish Chief Police Officers Staff Association individually. I put on record—without reading out my entire A4 sheet, Presiding Officer—that intensive engagement took place at official level. I also meet staff associations regularly, as members would expect. I remind members that my response was rooted in a clear recommendation from HMICS.”
“I am genuinely interested in this debate. How would the cabinet secretary respond to Calum Steele’s challenge this morning? He said that, because of how the provisions have come about, we have not heard evidence on them from people who will be directly impacted by them. Angela Constance: I am grateful to Mr Kerr for his contribution. As I intimated earlier, we had a substantial debate on the issue at stage 2, although I appreciate that Mr Kerr was not on the committee at that point. I subsequently wrote to the committee, because there was some confusion or misunderstanding about the level of engagement that my officials had had, whether individually or collectively, with all the staff associations.”
“I move, That the Parliament celebrates arts and culture in Scotland in all their diverse forms, past, present and emerging; recognises the transformational impact that they can have on people’s lives across Scotland; welcomes the economic contribution that the cultural and creative industries workforces make to society and the economy; acknowledges the importance of the community culture sector, and commends the innovative local organisations, in both rural and urban areas, for the work that they do to support participation in cultural pursuits; considers that a strong and successful culture sector is central to the prosperity of the nation; welcomes that, against a backdrop of cultural funding being cut by the UK Government, the draft Scottish Government Budget for 2025-26 increases frontline culture funding by £34 million, and believes that Scotland’s cultural communities can be supported to continue to develop and innovate in exhibition, performance and participation in Scotland’s artistic life.”
“I want to work with all members in all parties to realise our shared ambition for culture in Scotland. I very much hope that members from all parties will support the planned increase in culture funding through the parliamentary process in the coming weeks.”
“The service will seek to build on current successes by developing connections, providing platforms and supporting cultural and creative organisations to develop the skills and capacity that are needed to work internationally. Over the past number of years, I have heard repeated calls from many members here today, and from the sector, for an increase in Government funding for culture. Today, I have outlined our proposals to provide just that. It is now critical that members from all parties work together to ensure that that opportunity for transformational change is realised. I very much welcome the ideas from colleagues across the chamber about how we collectively better serve and strengthen the sector. I look forward to hearing positive contributions to that welcome debate.”
“Nurturing a strong current and future cultural workforce is essential to fostering growth in Scotland’s creative industries. The Government will increase funding for Screen Scotland’s successful production growth fund by £2 million in the next financial year to attract international investment and encourage large-scale productions to choose Scotland for shooting, post-production and visual effects. That additional support for Scotland’s growing film and television industries will provide even more opportunities for skills and talent to develop across a range of sectors. Building on Scotland’s wider international reputation for cultural excellence and innovation, and to support the sector in its cultural and creative ambitions overseas, we will also scope the establishment of a support service for cultural export and exchange.”
“We know that the sector is also a significant employer, employing about 155,000 people in 2022. The Government understands that fair work first is a key driver for achieving sustainable, inclusive economic growth for the sector, which is why I established the culture fair work task force to support the sector’s aspirations in that area, with the aim of developing recommendations for a fair work agreement for Scotland’s culture sector by 1 June 2025. Of course, cultural and creative participation should be nurtured from a young age, and an uplift in culture funding will enable the Scottish Government’s long-standing investment in the nationwide youth music initiative and funding of the world-class Sistema Scotland programme to continue.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Angus Robertson: I hope that the member will forgive me for not doing so. I have already taken a number of interventions and I want to share a lot of good news with those in the chamber. Creative people play a unique and central role in shaping the democratic, diverse, open and innovative society in which we live today, generating ideas and innovation and imagining new futures. People who create have the right to earn a fair living from artistic and cultural professional pursuits and pathways that enable people to develop creative and technical skills in their chosen creative careers, and that should be open to all. In 2021, gross value added in the arts, culture and the creative sector was about £4.511 billion.”
“Devastated owners of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete-affected homes in Aberdeen face being out of pocket, out of their homes and out of options when Aberdeen City Council purchases their homes at post-RAAC valuation rates. Claims for compensation from the Torry RAAC campaign group have seen the council point at the Government, the local MP point at the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government point at the council. Will the First Minister step in to help the residents or will he, too, duck responsibility and point at someone else?”
“I will continue my engagement with St Mary’s and the other centres to ensure that staffing and any other problems that they might raise with me are monitored and actioned.”
“It is good that the Care Inspectorate is satisfied with the improvements at St Mary’s Kenmure, but the original report highlighted “dangerously low” levels of staffing. What is the minister doing to ensure that staffing levels are and remain appropriate across the whole estate? Natalie Don-Innes: As I laid out in my statement, and referred to in response to other members’ questions, we regularly engage with St Mary’s Kenmure. Engagement with St Mary’s continued over Christmas and prior to the period when the restrictions were in place. As I said, the Care Inspectorate is satisfied that St Mary’s has made the appropriate improvements, which allows the provision of additional capacity and enables children to be placed there.”
“It is one thing to wish for the outcomes, but another to do so without supporting the means. If Conservative or Labour colleagues want to turn up week in, week out, month after month, saying that they support culture, they should actually vote for it.”
“A reopened Belmont would be transformational for Aberdeen and the north-east, so it is disappointing to hear no capital support figure being talked about in that answer from the cabinet secretary, given that the Government has—commendably— made millions of pounds available for similar projects in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Will the cabinet secretary meet representatives of Belmont Community Cinema Ltd, including the new chief executive officer, prior to the budget, hopefully to agree to send capital funding north of the central belt? Angus Robertson: I have already met representatives of the Belmont cinema, and I will always be happy to meet them about any particular ask. What would be most disappointing, to be frank, is if MSPs were to abstain or to vote against the biggest-ever support for culture and the arts in Scotland.”