THE Scottish Parliament has hit back at comments made by senior Scottish Tory Stephen Kerr in which he blasted the institution as “sterile and uninspiring”.

Parliament officials claimed there were “a number of factual inaccuracies” in Kerr’s opinion piece, published in The Telegraph on Monday.

Kerr, the Scottish Tories’ education spokesperson, took aim at all facets of the Scottish Parliament’s way of doing business, calling the general standard of debate “poor” and saying that most of MSPs' time in Holyrood is taken up with “meaningless debates”.

The committee system, which he noted was hailed as one of the Parliament’s great successes when it opened, was branded a “busted flush” where SNP backbenchers were “loathe to question or test the party line”.

READ MORE: Edinburgh mosque evacuated as bomb disposal unit attend 'suspicious bags'

He added: “The level of inquiry lacks a robustness that is the common feature of House of Commons select committees.

“Government backbenchers at Westminster consider it a duty to their constituents to be the ‘critical friend’ of ministers who appear before their committees. Not so at Holyrood.

“A lively and relevant democratic culture needs a lively and relevant parliament. We badly need to reform the Scottish parliament, and we need a change to our political culture.”

His comments were backed by former SNP MSP Alex Neil and one of the party’s most outspoken internal critics, who said Kerr’s analysis was “correct” adding: “The founding principles have been abandoned. It needs to be sorted.”

Kerr also suggested there was no remedy to the parliament’s ills as he had diagnosed them, writing: “Until we have less control of who can say what and when they can say it, we will continue to see the decline of free thinking and ideas in our politics. The people of Scotland deserve better.”

Elsewhere in the piece, he said the passage of the Government's transgender law reforms before Christmas was the "nadir" of the devolved assembly, claiming the bill had been "bulldozed" through without "full consideration of the evidence presented to parliament". 

The Scottish Parliament said there were "no limits" placed by the chair on the amount of time members could speak. Two of the debates on the bill's final stages stretched into the early hours of the next morning. 

He also claimed that backbencher questions were "lodged in advance and published a full three days before they are asked" - something the parliament disputed. 

A spokesperson said: "In any week, members will have the opportunity to put well over 100 questions to the Scottish Government.

"In the most recent sessions of the Scottish Parliament, the introduction of Topical Questions and Urgent Questions provides members with additional means to scrutinise the Government.

"Normally a maximum of four questions put to the First Minister are published in advance, all others are taken on the day without any advance notice of their subject.

"Rules regarding the content of questions are enforced by the Presiding Officer and her deputies."

A Scottish Parliament spokesperson said there were avenues open to members who wished to make suggestions of how the institution could be improved.

READ MORE: Celebrations as Scottish athlete crowned World's Strongest Man AGAIN

They said: “The presiding officer welcomes constructive comment and suggestions for change, but regrettably Mr Kerr’s opinions include a number of factual inaccuracies around the management of parliamentary business.

“The presiding officer meets regularly with all political parties, and her door is always open to any member who wants to discuss how the parliament is operating.

“Furthermore any member can approach the standards and procedures committee with proposals on how to enhance parliamentary procedures. Such proposals will be given due consideration.”

Elsewhere in the article, Kerr – who has been known to loudly heckle other MSPs – added: “Tribal politics is our curse. It means seeing the people who propagate arguments that are counter to our own viewpoints as being wicked or somehow less moral than we are.

“It means we have a Parliament so addicted to conflict that any pretence or aspiration to provide a space to grow consensus is doomed.

“Consensus is not about everyone agreeing with you straight away, it is about building a story and selling your idea. It isn’t possible to do that when everyone is simply throwing insults at each other. You cannot listen when you are shouting.”