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 8 of 11.
“Natalie Don-Innes: I cannot confirm that at this point, but I can confirm that I will advise the Parliament of the decision by 26 September. I appreciate that I have not had time to respond to all the points that have been raised in the debate. I am sure that committee members will have plenty of questions for me in the morning. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate, and I close this meeting of the Parliament. Meeting closed at 18:25. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“Is it correct to say that those issues are addressed through the financial memorandum, rather than the failure to deliver a motion for a financial memorandum? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank Mr Whitfield for his point of order. It will not surprise him to hear that I wish to reflect on it further before making any substantive response. I ask the minister to conclude. Natalie Don-Innes: I was just concluding. In response to the direct question from Liz Smith on the current member’s bill, I assure members that the Government is continuing to carefully consider whether to lodge that financial resolution, and we will confirm our position by 26 September. Pam Duncan-Glancy: Can the minister confirm when the Cabinet will discuss the financial resolution?”
“It is important that Ms Smith hears from all the stakeholders who would be involved. I appreciate that time is short, so in concluding I thank Liz Smith again for raising the profile and discussion around residential outdoor education in Scotland. Martin Whitfield: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance as to the expectation of a financial memorandum, as set out in rule 9.3 of the Parliament’s standing orders. My understanding is that it is the responsibility of the financial memorandum to set out “estimates of the costs, savings and changes to revenues”, rather than, as we have heard from some members in the debate this afternoon, the pros and cons of the bill. Is my understanding of the financial memorandum right?”
“It is absolutely essential that we have a financial memorandum so that Parliament can scrutinise it. Anything else would be profoundly undemocratic. Natalie Don-Innes: I think that I have been clear about the Government’s intention to bring forward a decision on the financial resolution. I will move on to other issues around affordability. Mr Mason rightly brought up the issue of the workforce. I would like to correct Mr Ross. I did not feel that it was Ms Smith’s responsibility to negotiate teacher contracts—absolutely not. However, it was reasonable for Ms Smith, who has assumed that teacher participation would continue on a voluntary basis, to meet the unions to listen to their concerns and views on the bill. From my meetings with representatives of the five main professional associations, I have not had assurance on that.”
“That difficulty is compounded by the fact that the total potential costs, which I have discussed with Ms Smith at length, remain unclear, due to gaps in the data available and the assumptions underpinning the proposed delivery approach. I have discussed those issues with the member, and they remain outstanding. Michael Marra: Will the minister give way? Natalie Don-Innes: Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back, minister. Michael Marra: The minister makes some legitimate points regarding prioritising spending. That is clear. However, Parliament is saying quite clearly tonight—and it said this at stage 1—that withholding a financial memorandum as part of the process is not a legitimate way for Government to make that decision.”
“On affordability, in the current financial context, introducing new duties to fund forces extremely difficult choices about what to defund in order to accommodate any new expenditure. Even in a targeted form, a potential annual recurring cost of between £15.3 million and £16.8 million would require significant adjustments in the education portfolio budget. I hear what members say about a preventative spend—many aspects of the education portfolio budget are a preventative spend. Ms Smith has not offered any suggestions about what in education could be stopped in order to preference residential outdoor education when ministers bring forward a budget for Parliament’s consideration.”
“Doing so would pre-empt the Government’s decision on whether to lodge a motion for a financial resolution, which we will confirm by 26 September. Liz Smith: Can the minister tell me what the Government’s stance is on the proposals that I have brought to the table? That is absolutely essential if we are to move any further on the financial resolution. Natalie Don-Innes: The proposals that Ms Smith has made are very welcome and have helped to inform the Government’s decision on the financial resolution. I have been very clear that I am very thankful for the effort that Ms Smith has made and the ways that she is willing to change aspects of the bill. Liz Smith: Will the minister give way? Natalie Don-Innes: I would like to make progress, please.”
“On specific Government proposals relating to Ms Smith’s bill, in line with my commitment made at committee on 11 June that I would be happy to discuss proposed amendments, I discussed areas for potential stage 2 amendments with Liz Smith at our meeting on 1 July. At that meeting, she indicated that she would be open to a potentially more targeted approach, which I welcome, as well as to a change in the commencement provisions. However, I have made clear to Ms Smith that, procedurally— Liz Smith: Will the minister give way? Natalie Don-Innes: I will just finish this point. I have made it clear to Ms Smith that, procedurally, we are not at the point at which producing draft legal text of stage 2 amendments is appropriate.”
“Does the minister think that it is democratic for a stage 1 debate to be undermined by a Government that is unwilling to lodge a financial resolution after the Parliament has voted in favour of the bill at stage 1? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for the intervention, minister. Natalie Don-Innes: As I have said, that is still being considered by Government. The financial resolution follows a legitimate and important process that is set out in standing orders to ensure that ministers and Government can exercise their responsibility and accountability for appropriate management of the Scottish budget. That is not a power or position that is unique to Scotland. I now need to make some progress.”
“I have sat through the whole debate and it all comes down to exactly the point that Graham Simpson made. Will the minister answer the challenge from Graham Simpson? Will she announce the financial resolution—yes or no? Natalie Don-Innes: I will now respond to some of the points that have been raised in the debate. However, I wanted to cover the general idea of outdoor learning in all its forms. I recognise the support that has been shown by the Parliament for the general principles of the member’s bill at stage 1. Whether the Government will lodge a motion for a financial resolution to the bill is a matter of on-going consideration. Liz Smith: It is not just a matter of on-going discussions; it is a matter of parliamentary democracy.”
“Around 150 home owners in Aberdeen’s Balnagask area could lose tens of thousands of pounds because of the presence of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, plunging them into debt and mental health crises. I notified the Government that I had found £20 million to fix that last spring, but the Cabinet Secretary for Housing still has not decided whether to release the funds. Will the First Minister instruct his cabinet secretary to urgently repurpose the £20 million and, if she will not, to use a fraction of the billions that were promised for housing this week to give a fair settlement to the Torry home owners who are affected by RAAC?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what alternatives are being piloted to enable older patients to be cared for outside of hospitals. (S6O-04882)”
“I look forward to folk getting to choose between a Scottish Government that is focused on delivering for them and a broken Britain that looks to be in its dying days. 16:25”
“From baby boxes and best start grants to funeral support payments and everything in between—free university, free doctor appointments and a helping hand when folk have children—those are the Scottish Government’s priorities. I can see the difference that they make to people’s lives as the Government works towards and delivers on those priorities every day. In contrast, I am not so sure that I see what the UK Government’s priorities are, and I am unsure whether Keir Starmer does, either. However, I can see what the UK has delivered for people: a proliferation of food banks, record levels of inequality, reduced opportunities, Brexit, attempts to sow division and two decades of wage stagnation.”
“The UK Government has utterly failed to take any meaningful action to save energy jobs in Scotland, be that in the north-east or at Grangemouth. The Scottish Government has stepped up, not just with the £500 million just transition fund but with a range of local investments, such as the millions of pounds that it has committed to Aberdeen’s first green academy building in Hazlehead, which conveniently ties in with all of the Scottish Government’s priorities. I turn to the fourth and final priority: delivering and sustaining good-quality public services. I grew up with the idea that a welfare state would support me from the cradle to the grave. Although the welfare state has been eroded by 15 years of austerity, it is still worth fighting for, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government is delivering in the same spirit.”
“The focus of that event is the future of the energy industry, which is a priority for all of us, especially those of us in the north- east. The motion talks about being hampered by the policy decisions of the UK Government, and the north-east and the energy industry represent probably the clearest example of where it is getting it wrong. It has been far too quick to announce a windfall tax only for energy companies, it has been far too quick to increase it and it has been far too quick to remove investment incentives, while it has taken far too long to back and invest in the Acorn project. I suspect that we will be waiting a very long time to see any meaningful amount of jobs created within Great British Energy.”
“Will the member take an intervention on that? Jackie Dunbar: I will take a quick intervention, although time is quite tight. Liam Kerr: I am grateful. The SNP’s draft energy strategy maintains its presumption against new oil and gas. Does the member support that presumption? Jackie Dunbar: I am talking about the energy industry in Aberdeen; the member has gone off topic just slightly. The climate crisis and the efforts to tackle it will affect everyone but, with the right investment and support, Aberdeen will lead Scotland and the world in the move to net zero. As I am standing here now, more than 30,000 industry professionals and our Deputy First Minister are attending the Offshore Europe conference in my Aberdeen Donside constituency.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking in response to the overall increase in recorded crimes in the past year, including rape, violent crime, antisocial behaviour and shoplifting. (S6T-02626)”
“Nearly a decade on from when I first started campaigning, it is long past time for this Government to get its act together. 13:32”
“The council said that there was nothing that it could do due to the legislative framework and that the problem was the property owner’s responsibility; it also sent me a nice leaflet about living with urban gulls. Here we are, all these years later, with member after member queuing up to show that the problems are worse than ever, thanks to a Scottish Government that slopey shoulders them and a Government agency that, as Douglas Ross said, has an extraordinary conflict of interest—an agency that seriously proposed that people should use an umbrella to go into local shops and/or send their dugs up on to the roof. This is a serious problem, and it needs serious solutions. Douglas Ross has proposed some— which I am four square behind—to protect humans and businesses from the menace of gulls.”
“At the time, former Edinburgh councillor Nick Cook advocated funding for de-nesting. More recently, Aberdeen has tried a hawk and Aberdeenshire is trialling sonar devices. However, where in all this is the Government or NatureScot? Rhoda Grant gave us the answer to that earlier—they are passing the buck. I found a parliamentary question from 2015, in response to which Aileen McLeod MSP stated flatly: “It is the responsibility of local authorities to address problems caused by urban gulls.”—[Written Answers, 17 September 2015; S4W-27335] In 2019, following constituent complaints in Airyhall in Aberdeen, I demanded action, but Roseanna Cunningham simply said that it was for the local authority to deal with the situation. Later that year, I wrote to Aberdeen Council on behalf of constituents in Torry.”
“A 2015 University of Bristol study showed that the number of urban gull colonies in the UK and Ireland had more than doubled to just under 500. In 2017, The Independent reported that the number had nearly quadrupled. That was eight years ago—the number will be huge by now. I first started trying to find solutions in 2017. Mark Ruskell: Will the member take an intervention? Liam Kerr: No, I do not have time. I saw then that, as long ago as 2010, the Scottish Government had commissioned research into the use of falcons to displace nesting gulls and into other actions, including egg and nest removal and egg oiling. In 2016, the House of Commons suggested that buildings could be seagull proofed, councils could issue gull-proof bin bags and people could be educated about seagulls.”
“I am delighted that Douglas Ross lodged this motion. Since being elected in 2016, I, too, have been inundated with concerns from constituents about screeching gulls dive-bombing people, particularly the elderly and small children, for food or territorial reasons. In Aberdeen, the council receives around 200 complaints and inquiries about gulls every year, most of which concern aggressive behaviour, noise and damage to buildings. Just last week, on Schoolhill, I saw an enormous gull on the pavement, squaring up and refusing to budge. It was facing off against a terrified elderly woman and eyeballing her food. Aberdeen’s Marischal college, the second-largest granite building in the world, has sustained structural damage from the birds. I must correct Mark Ruskell’s unevidenced assertions about numbers.”
“The mere thought disgusts me, and any other MSP who feels the same must vote against the SSI tonight. 21:40”
“As was the case with the other measures, we have been given no evidence that it will either aid rehabilitation or, ultimately, reduce the prison population. Crucially, there is no consideration of the victims of crime. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs told the Criminal Justice Committee that no specific research has been undertaken on the impact that the SSI might have on victims. Last month, I raised the case of violent thug Andrew Brown, who, just one year into a four-year sentence for repeatedly subjecting Demi Hannaway to appalling mental and physical abuse, even when she was pregnant, will get home leave. That is under the current rules. If colleagues vote to approve the SSI today, they are voting to allow criminals such as Brown to be eligible for HDC after seven months.”
“Despite that, by February 2025, prison numbers exceeded the pre-summer-release figure by almost 100, not least because more than one in 10 of the original cohort was back behind bars within weeks. The SNP tried putting more people on community service, yet almost 30,000 such orders have been breached in the past decade or so. Roughly 8,000 of those involved got the jail for their breach, thus adding to the numbers. Then the SNP changed the law such that short- term prisoners would automatically be released after serving just 40 per cent of their sentence, despite evidence showing that too little time in prison can prejudice proper rehabilitation—yet the prison population remains stubbornly high. Clearly, this SSI is just the latest knee-jerk attempt to reduce the prison population.”
“This SSI makes a small but far-reaching change to the home detention curfew regime, in which, subject to licence conditions, eligible prisoners are released from custody into the community. At the moment, a prisoner can get HDC once they have served a quarter of their sentence. The SSI reduces that to a mere 15 per cent. A prisoner who is sentenced to two years in prison would therefore now be eligible for HDC after just three and a half months. We all know that, due to a lack of any overarching strategy and an inability to build capacity, our prisons are running way over capacity. However, absent any such strategy, the Scottish National Party knee-jerks its response: last summer, and again earlier this year, the SNP opened the gates and let hundreds of prisoners out early.”
“Prior to 2023-24, Scotland had a violent and property crime victimisation rate that was either lower than or similar to that in England and Wales. However, Scotland’s crime victimisation rate, including fraud, was 19.9 per cent in 2023-24, which is above the equivalent for England and Wales at 16.1 per cent. Findings from the next survey will be needed to understand whether the higher rate this time is a temporary fluctuation. However, prior to that, we remain fully committed to tackling crime in Scotland, including through the delivery of increased police funding year on year since 2016-17.”
“In response to the 2019-20 crime and justice survey, the then justice secretary Humza Yousaf crowed that “adults in Scotland were less likely to experience crime than those in England and Wales.” However, the latest survey shows that Scots are now more likely to be a victim of crime in general and twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime than those in England and Wales. After 18 years in charge, does the Government accept any responsibility for those frightening figures? When, if ever, will there be a whole-system strategy to arrest those rising rates? Angela Constance: In Scotland and in England and Wales, there have been substantial falls in victimisation rates for violent and property crime since 2008-09.”
“As I said in my opening answer to Audrey Nicoll, we are working closely with Acorn partners to understand the specifics of last week’s announcement and how we can best work together to build pace and momentum, and that is exactly what we will do.”
“The Scottish cluster needs meaningful support. Years ago, the SNP promised £80 million to help to bring it online, with no strings attached. Later, the SNP introduced a condition that it would be paid only when the UK Government promised funding, and then the Green Party blocked it anyway. Now that the UK Government has met the retrospectively imposed criteria and the Greens are, thankfully, out of government, when will the Scottish cluster get the £80 million that was promised? The First Minister: The Scottish Government’s commitment to £80 million remains intact. In the programme for government, I indicated that the Scottish Government would be open to providing additional financial support to ensure that the project is able to progress.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on when the consultation results of the A96 corridor review will be published. (S6O-04821)”
“At the stroke of a pen, she can instantly make it right for the people of Torry and the thousands of people across Scotland who are trapped by RAAC, and—quite literally—save people’s lives. Alternatively, she can ignore the home owners, follow the instructions of the SNP hierarchy, shift blame and forever reflect on the consequences of inaction. I pray that she chooses wisely. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to the open debate. 17:47”
“He had not the courtesy to respond to me before he slunk away, so, on hearing of the new cabinet secretary’s appointment last Thursday, I immediately forwarded the letter and pleaded for urgent answers. I have yet to receive a response, but perhaps she will tell us all in her closing remarks. We have heard—and throughout the debate, we will hear—about communities whose hopes and dreams stand on shaky foundations as a result of decisions that were made decades ago and the slopy shoulders of politicians today. Will it take a tragedy, and a Netflix documentary, before the SNP takes responsibility and does the right thing? The cabinet secretary faces a choice today.”
“If that money is not drawn down by 2027, it will disappear. It will be absorbed back into the coffers of the Scottish Government to pay for whatever it chooses, which, this week, would seem to be special advisers and lawyers. Since the turn of the year, I have sent six letters to the Scottish Government, asking it to release those funds, but the former Minister for Housing refused to budge. Then, in early May, Aberdeen City Council said that it and Aberdeenshire Council have made at least 12 applications for the money but are continually rebuffed because they do not meet the criteria. What are the criteria? The councils say that the Government, in the past nine years, has not told them. I wrote to the housing minister around six weeks ago, requesting urgent answers.”
“The block grant has been at record levels since the pandemic and, this year, it is £50 billion. Last week’s spending review announced an extra £2.9 billion coming to Holyrood on top of that. It is the Scottish Government that chooses not to spend £5 million to alleviate the problem. However, it is apparently okay that Scotland has spent £3.5 million on independence planning since 2021 and £5 million in three years on public consultations, and that the around 130 Scottish quangos have had £120 million to spend annually on public relations, external consultants, overseas travel and hospitality. Even allowing for those poor choices, I have flagged a £20 million pot from the Aberdeen city region deal for housing projects of exactly the sort that we are discussing today, and yet not a single penny has been drawn down since 2016.”
“Meanwhile, Aberdeen City Council pleads poverty, while ignoring every solution that is put forward by the home owners. I accept that Aberdeen City Council is cash strapped, following years of SNP underfunding. Nonetheless, the council’s budget is nearly £1.5 billion a year, and it makes choices as to how it spends that, with residents being only too aware of the choices that it is currently making. As campaigners have noted, the former SNP councillor Alex Nicoll explained at last week’s panel event that, under the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, councils can go to the housing minister to ask for funds to be reclassified, but—as he said—the councils had never collectively done that. Let us be clear: the Scottish Government has not given a single penny to the Torry home owners. As with the council, that is about choices.”
“It is appalling and shocking, but not as shocking as the buck passing that we have seen. Campaigners have seen councils and the Scottish Government desperately try to blame the United Kingdom Government. Even today, the new Cabinet Secretary for Housing spent longer pointing at Westminster than proposing solutions, yet RAAC is a devolved matter. Of course, whenever Westminster tries to intervene directly—for example, on freeports, investment zones or shared prosperity funds—this Government kicks up about undermining devolution. Even were it not so, let us never forget that, in 2020 and 2021, the UK Government gave the Scottish Government more than £97 million to remedy the Grenfell cladding issue. Five years on, the SNP can account for only around £10 million of that having been spent.”
“At The Press and Journal’s “Trapped by RAAC” panel event, Torry general practitioner Dr Crofton said that his practice is looking after 60 people with new health problems that the situation has caused. Patients are reporting depression, anxiety, insomnia and stress-related conditions such as chest pains. Some, tragically, have turned to drink, and, in one particularly harrowing testimony, one dad reported that he was considering driving into the harbour so that his family could get the insurance. Residents report a community torn apart, children separated from friendship groups and elderly and disabled people ripped from their support networks, all for the sake of £5 million, which, according to campaigner Raymond Davidson, could ensure that those home owners got the proper value for their homes and could— literally—move on.”
“Only yesterday, Mr Allard was quoted as saying that the Torry home owners will be out by winter; that followed on from him asking one owner whether they had considered bankruptcy as a solution. That aside, in December 2023, nine landlords confirmed the presence of RAAC in 953 council homes; that does not include former council homes. In that year, Aberdeen City Council warned that around 500 homes in the Balnagask area in Aberdeen contained RAAC. Of those, 150 were private homes, whose owners were told that the council would buy their houses at the post- RAAC value. I ask members to imagine the situation: either to stay in a house where the roof might fall in, or to accept the lower price and move elsewhere instead, with £40,000 or perhaps £50,000 of outstanding mortgage left over their head. The consequences are disastrous.”
“I thank colleagues from the Greens, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and, of course, the Scottish Conservatives for signing my motion. It is notable, but regrettable, that there is not a single signature from any member of the Scottish National Party. However, I genuinely thank Audrey Nicoll, the incumbent MSP for the constituency that is becoming Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine; her refreshing unwillingness to toe the party line and her willingness to stand with me for her constituents contrast directly with the approach of Aberdeen’s absent member of Parliament and that of the council co-leader, Christian Allard, who, last month, was delivering leaflets for himself 70 miles away in Angus.”
“I pay tribute to Daniel Johnson’s very relevant observation that the date of 2016 is incredibly important to the fiscal framework in this country. I advise the cabinet secretary to revise her speaking notes on that basis. The fact that UK GDP per head grew by 4.4 per cent, compared with the 2.6 per cent figure for Scotland, is critical to the economic performance gaps: it flows through the fiscal framework, to which the cabinet secretary is a signatory. 15:49”
“Frankly, for a Scottish Government that wants to engage with the UK Government on a proactive basis and on a proper level, as we regularly hear from the cabinet secretary, it is not fit for purpose—far from it. Last week, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government agreeing with Alba and Reform that the Barnett formula should be scrapped in Scotland. It is utter nonsense to give up voluntarily an additional 20 per cent for spending on public services in Scotland. Lorna Slater asked about the funding of public services across the rest of the UK. She might have missed the massive expansion of free school meals south of the border, but she will know that £9.1 billion of additional spending is coming to Scotland.”
“Unfortunately, the SNP Government has rejected the entirety of the tax adjustments of some £45 billion, which have had to be used to try to rescue the public finances from the mess left by the Tory Government. It does not stop there. Prior to the UK budget that was set out last autumn, there were demands from the SNP Government for £70 billion of additional spending—and the Scottish Government did not stop there. In the run-up to the spending review, just in the past few weeks, there was another £20 billion-worth of demands for public spending. In total, there were £90 billion-worth of demands, with a complete rejection of £45 billion for raising the money. That is not credible and not sensible.”
“Unfortunately, however, £500 million of the heavy lifting is to be saved by drawing a target around that figure on one of the pages of the document. That is how the money is to be saved. It is a project to save half a billion pounds with no detail whatsoever about how to do it. The rest of the money is to be saved by “STOPPING THE WASTED TIME ON WOKE”. That is a risible attempt at an intervention in the public spending debate, which is not worth the publication at all. It is right-wing populism by numbers. It is fantastical nonsense. That brings me, in part, to Kenny Gibson’s speech and his rejection of the tax changes that the UK Labour Government has put in place. He is of course right to point out some of the challenges that arise from those tax changes.”
“Clearly, we will hear more about that tomorrow in a well- advertised statement: Willie Rennie expects it to be very boring but, hopefully, very detailed. The minister is well aware that the Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee has been calling for a proper programme of public service reform for years now, and many independent bodies have bemoaned the fact that there has been no evidence of it as such. This is a Tory debate, and we have heard the Tories’ proposition based on their recently published policy document. I gave it its second download just this afternoon, and a thriller it is. There are plenty of pictures of Russell Findlay looking moody. Does he ever look anything but? It sets a savings target of some £642 million. It identifies a £1.5 million saving by closing Architecture and Design Scotland.”
“We have only to look at Liz Truss’s mini-budget and Donald Trump’s big, beautiful bill—I am sure that Craig Hoy is a fan of it; he certainly sounded as if he was adopting Trumpian policies—to see how tax cutting can be counterproductive to economic success, and downright devastating for ordinary people. Tax cuts largely benefit the wealthy. Public services largely benefit people on average wages who have children, health needs and care needs. I know who I would like the Government to support. 15:45 Michael Marra: I welcome the new consensus in Scottish politics, which has been signed up to by all sides—and perhaps even by artificial intelligence—that the Scottish Government is wasting a massive amount of money.”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Lorna Slater: I am sorry, Mr Kerr. I have only four minutes, so I need to press on. The single most important tax reform that we could make in Scotland is to reform council tax. Unfortunately, every party other than the Scottish Greens voted against our proposals to revalue council tax and move away from the absurdity of using 1991 property values, which has most people paying the wrong rate and makes the tax regressive, which means that the people who have the least pay the most. That is not fair, and nor is it raising the money that our councils need to provide public services.”
“To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether the home leave for prisoners system is operating appropriately and as intended. (S6F-04167)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what work it is undertaking to prepare for the publication of the “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland” statistics for 2024-25. (S6O-04779)”