Audrey Nicoll
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Some consider that mobile phone use by children is so ubiquitous that bans in isolation are not enough to tackle the negative impacts. It seems that there is still some way to go to find a clear, evidence-based approach that safeguards children.”
“However, Ms Gosal’s motion reflects the concerns of many—parents, teachers, legislators, police officers and children—that overexposure to the use of mobile phones carries risks. I commend the work of many organisations to safeguard children in that space.”
“What an utter privilege and an amazing experience it has been to be a member of our amazing Scottish Parliament. I thank a number of people for making it happen: my loving husband, Alex; my wonderful son, Sam; my parents, Bill and Jean; and my sister, Susan. I also thank Maureen Watt, who has been a mentor and friend throughout.”
“I thank Pam Gosal for securing this debate on a Scotland-wide ban on the use of mobile phones in schools, and I congratulate her on her powerful and comprehensive speech.”
“Having entered politics later in life, I have often found it hard to understand why we think fractious discourse and debate serve the people of Scotland.”
“Amendment 41 agreed to. 17:45 Amendment 143 moved—[Martin Whitfield]— and agreed to. Section 10F—Register of foster carers: procedure for regulations Amendment 42 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Section 10G—Register of foster carers: interpretation Amendment 43 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]— and agreed to. Amendment 144 not moved.”
The complete record
Every one of 432 lines we hold for Audrey Nicoll, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Amendment 142 disagreed to. Section 4—Request for assistance: first declaration Amendment 143 not moved. The Presiding Officer: At this point, I will suspend the meeting for a comfort break of some 20 minutes. I ask colleagues to be back in the chamber just after 7.15 pm. Thank you. 18:56 Meeting suspended. 19:16 On resuming—”
“For Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Ind) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) 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) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Abstentions Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 37, Against 79, Abstentions 5.”
“Like other members who have lodged similar amendments, I want to make sure that the bill includes that voice, because, fundamentally, it must. With that in mind, I press amendment 142. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Miles Briggs: This debate has demonstrated the heart of what many of us are balancing up. It is not just about those individuals who want access to an assisted death but about those who work in the field. During the time when I was consulting on my bill on a right to palliative care, one of the best parts of that job was meeting those who work in our palliative care sector and seeing both the passion that they bring to the job and their delicacy around the families. Fundamentally, the bill aims to ensure that the wishes of the person who is dying are fulfilled. However, many individuals have expressed to me—and to every member in the chamber—that, if the bill passes, they will not want to be involved in some of that work.”
“Finally, I turn to amendment 229, which the Scottish Government considers may raise issues of legislative competence relating to the H1 reservation of employment. From a technical perspective, the person referred to in subsection (3) is not linked to the persons mentioned in subsection (2). That means that, unlike in subsection (1), subsection (3) does not say “A person mentioned in subsection (2)” or words to that effect. That means that the subsection would appear to have wider application, including to natural persons, which could encompass employees and the protections that apply to them. The Scottish Government has no comment on the remaining amendments in the group. The Presiding Officer: I call on Miles Briggs to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 142.”
“Amendment 148 would provide that a registered medical professional has no duty to participate in or facilitate the provision of assistance and should not suffer any adverse employment consequences as a result. Amendment 230 would provide that any individual or organisation must not be subject to direct or indirect pressure to participate, including threats to employment. It is the Government’s view that those amendments may raise issues of legislative competence relating to the H1 reservation of employment. Amendments 231 and 232 seek to provide for some form of institutional conscientious objection. It is not clear how an institution might demonstrate what its conscience position is, given that conscientious objection concerns the personal beliefs of individuals. Such a provision would be novel in our legal system.”
“Liam McArthur: On the issue of legislative competence, and following on from the contribution that Ross Greer made in articulating the importance of amendment 133 in giving this— or a future—Parliament a say over anything before it is implemented, can he confirm that the Scottish Government’s view is that amendment 133 is certainly within competence? Neil Gray: I confirm to Mr McArthur that, as he will hear in the remainder of my contribution on this group, I have no comment to make on amendment 133, and that should help colleagues recognise that we do not have a concern about legislative competence or otherwise around amendment 133.”
“Again, I heard Mr Briggs’s and Mr Greer’s points about the mental health legislation from 2003, and Ms Baillie has just put that on the record, too. I can clarify that we have engaged with the UK Government and reached our position following those discussions. We have considered other examples of legislation as part of that process, as well as amendments lodged at stage 3. We are clear that those issues must be considered on their own merits and terms. That is as much clarity as I can provide on how the Government has arrived at the position that we have.”
“The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, colleagues. Neil Gray: Mr Greer asked for a clarification of that point, as did Mr Briggs. I will come to it shortly, because, as well as our own considerations, that point has been discussed with UK colleagues. On amendments 7, 8 and 20, it is not clear how establishing a statutory register of psychiatrists for the purposes of assisted dying assessments might align with the existing professional regulatory frameworks. There are also potential deliverability challenges in establishing and maintaining what would appear to be intended to operate as an opt- in register for psychiatrists. Similarly, the Scottish Government’s view is that amendment 142 may raise issues of legislative competence in view of the G2 reservation.”
“As I have said, although it is not a requirement that amendments to bills must be within legislative competence, the Parliament has a responsibility to consider such issues when considering legislation. The Scottish Government’s view is that amendments 7, 8 and 20 might raise issues of legislative competence in view of the G2 reservation regarding regulation of the health professions. Jackie Baillie: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Neil Gray: Very briefly, Ms Baillie. Jackie Baillie: I genuinely say to you that there is no problem with competence, because, when the legislation that created the register of psychiatrists that is operated by the Mental Welfare Commission went through this Parliament, there was no need for a section 104 order, and amendments 7 and 8 are entirely in keeping with that approach.”
“I heard the point that Mr Doris and Mr Balfour made about Parliament expressing a view, but, if amendments that are potentially outside this Parliament’s competence are accepted, there is a risk that the bill will be referred to the Supreme Court. Bob Doris: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Neil Gray: I am sorry, but I have to make progress. I have tried to be as generous with interventions as I can. The legislative competence of the bill, as introduced, was first raised by me in a memorandum in September 2024, following the stage 1 vote. As I have said, the Scottish Government has sought to remedy that issue. However, there are amendments in this group and in other, later groups that would bring the bill further outwith legislative competence.”
“and accountability are significantly constrained.” Does the cabinet secretary recognise that the proposed solution of a section 104 order is causing real anxiety to medical organisations? Neil Gray: I absolutely recognise the perspective that Ms Nicoll has put on the record. I cannot make any comment on that, as the Government is neutral on the bill. All I can do is set out where there are issues of legislative competence or where there are technical issues or further ramifications that I and the Government feel that the Parliament should be aware of while it is coming to a determination. I will now turn to the amendments that I wish to comment on. Amendments 226, 227 and 228 in this group seek to amend section 18. As I have already outlined, section 18 should be removed from the bill entirely.”
“I am worried that you or your successor will be left in a difficult place because of that. The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Neil Gray: I will come to that point in a second, and I note that Mr Doris made a similar point. I will give way to Ms Nicoll, and then I will make progress to cover the amendments. Audrey Nicoll: I am sure that the cabinet secretary is aware of a joint statement that was signed by seven medical groups in Scotland, including some of the royal colleges, which says: “A Section 104 Order, by its nature, receives limited parliamentary scrutiny”. We have been discussing that point this afternoon. It also says: “Matters central to professional regulation, employment protections, and the rights of staff should not be left to a later process in which detailed debate ...”
“Will the member give way? Neil Gray: I will give way to Mr Balfour and then to Ms Nicoll, and then I will need to make progress. Jeremy Balfour: I wonder whether the cabinet secretary could help me out. There is obviously a clear difference among some members in regard to how far we should go. Should religious institutions be allowed to opt out? Should people who are not medical professionals, such as secretaries, be allowed to opt out, as my amendment 227 would provide for? My understanding is that we will not vote on these amendments, because, if we agreed to them, they would make the bill incompetent. How, then, will the cabinet secretary, or his successor after the election, know what the Parliament wants regarding opt-outs? We are not being allowed to make a decision that would enable us to tell you how we want you to act.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support women with MRKH syndrome to access fertility treatment. (S6O-05589)”
“That is the standard that the committee’s report sets, and I commend it to the Parliament. I move, That the Parliament notes the findings and recommendations in the Criminal Justice Committee’s 1st Report, 2026 (Session 6), Inquiry into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scottish Prisons (SP Paper 956). 15:54”
“If we treat it as an individual failing, we will ignore structural drivers. However, if we treat it as a health issue that is embedded in a justice context, we have a chance to reduce harm meaningfully. The committee’s report contains 50 practical, evidence based and cross-party recommendations across six themes. They acknowledge the dedication of staff and recognise financial and operational constraints while being clear that incremental change will not be enough. Today’s debate is not just about highlighting gaps and shortcomings but about ensuring that custody does not deepen addiction and that release does not mark the beginning of a renewed crisis. The measure of our justice system is not only how securely it confines people but whether it reduces harm, improves health and strengthens community safety in the long term.”
“On early intervention, the Government notes alignment between strategies. However, our report recommends a custody-focused prevention and early intervention framework that explicitly integrates mental health and substance use services from admission right through to release. Integration is essential. On accountability, the Government indicates that existing reporting structures will provide updates. The committee’s position is that the Parliament must be able to track measurable outcomes, reductions in drug-related deaths, improved access to treatment and increased engagement in recovery work. One of the strongest areas of consensus during the inquiry was that substance misuse in prisons is fundamentally a public health issue with criminal justice consequences. If we treat it as a security problem, we will chase supply endlessly.”
“The response highlights important work that is under way, such as the target operating model for prison healthcare, the alignment of the SPS alcohol and drug recovery strategy with the mental health strategy, the implementation of medication assisted treatment standards, recovery cafes, the operational regime and roster review, and action to manage population pressures—all of which is extremely important work. Those are significant steps, but our inquiry requires us to ask whether the frameworks that exist are delivering consistently across the estate. For example, the Government’s response emphasises that prison healthcare “must be equivalent to” community standards, yet witnesses described variability between health boards in staffing levels, access to therapies and clinical capacity.”
“We recognise the exceptional strain on the prison estate. Overcrowding, high turnover and workforce pressures were repeatedly cited as barriers to effective prevention and early intervention. Without protected time for purposeful activity, therapeutic work and consistent staff engagement, progress will always be fragile. I welcome the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service’s joint initial assessment of our recommendations and the commitment of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs to continued engagement on the issue.”
“They spoke about withdrawal following arrival, self-medicating anxiety and the difference that it makes when a member of staff treats them as a person rather than a problem. Those contributions were among the most powerful evidence that we received. They shaped our recommendations on trauma-informed care, recovery-focused regimes and continuity of supply on release. I put on record my personal thanks to all those who spoke to us. Evidence shows that 63 per cent of people in prison have an alcohol use disorder and that 40 per cent report being drunk at the time of their offence. However, specialist alcohol referrals remain strikingly low in comparison to need. Alcohol may be less visible in custody than synthetic drugs, but its role in offending, harm and post-release mortality is significant.”
“We heard that drug-trend testing shows high levels of drug positivity on admission, meaning that many people who arrive in custody are already living with addiction. Witnesses repeatedly told us that boredom, long hours locked in cells, inconsistent access to purposeful activity and gaps in mental health provision all drive substance use in prison. Where distress is unaddressed, substances can fill the void. We were struck, in particular, by the evidence around dual diagnoses. Mental ill health and substance dependency are frequently intertwined, yet services are not always integrated in practice. We also heard directly from people who have experienced addiction in custody.”
“The first and most consistent message that we heard was that substance misuse in prisons cannot be understood in isolation from the wider public health challenges in Scotland. The report sets out clearly that people who enter custody are disproportionately affected by poverty, trauma, adverse childhood experiences, unstable housing and poor physical and mental health. Prison does not create those inequalities, but the evidence suggests that it can intensify them. We heard about the changing nature of drug supply: synthetic cannabinoids, which now dominate seized samples, increasingly potent substances arriving via drones and contaminated items, and the constant adaptation of organised crime networks.”
“I am very proud to open the debate on the Criminal Justice Committee’s report into the harm caused by substance misuse in Scotland’s prisons. I thank our excellent clerking team, particularly Lucy Miller, and Scottish Parliament information centre and participation and communities team colleagues for their support during the inquiry. The inquiry began with accumulation: rising drug-related deaths in custody, escalating use of synthetic substances, repeated warnings from oversight bodies and persistent concern from families and staff that the system is not reducing harm in the way that it should. Over months of evidence taking, prison visits and private engagement sessions, we examined what drives substance use in custody, how effectively it is prevented and treated, and what must change.”
“That funding is specifically intended to support the capacity and the expertise required for work that is so complex and important. Police Scotland has strong foundations for taking a national approach to this most serious of issues, including through the national child abuse investigation unit.”
“The specialist investigatory and intelligence role of Police Scotland is crucial to bringing perpetrators to account. Can the cabinet secretary provide an assurance that the officers who are conducting the review have the necessary experience, training and resources to undertake this highly complex and specialist piece of work? Jenny Gilruth: As Audrey Nicoll knows, Police Scotland has a well-established specialist capability in that area, including officers and staff who are specifically trained in child protection, sexual abuse investigations and trauma-informed engagement. The Government recognises the scale and the sensitivity of the work, which is why, in the budget, we have provided £2.7 million of additional funding to Police Scotland to ensure that dedicated resources are available for it to undertake the specialist review.”
“The recent announcements of multiyear funding for the delivering equally safe fund, disabled people’s organisations and advice services have increased the total funding by a further £29.4 million. Where it is possible to do so, providing multiyear funding increases the stability of the third sector. I am pleased that the early evaluation of the pilot indicates the positive difference that two-year funding certainty has had on the stability of the organisations, on their ability to plan further into the future and on staff recruitment and retention. Visitor Levy (Scotland) Act 2024 (Child Disability Payment Exemption) 6.”
“Many charities that are facing rising costs and falling donations need much more security and stability to enable them to plan and develop. I welcome the introduction of the new fairer funding pilot, which will provide additional multiyear funding in the form of 45 grants to organisations in Scotland. That is an important first step in more widely mainstreaming multiyear funding agreements across the third sector. Will the cabinet secretary say more about how that funding will support organisations, particularly in planning for the future and making the most of their resources? Shona Robison: Increasing multiyear funding opportunities is the backbone of the fairer funding principles.”
“Police Scotland stated: “We would need to find a model that allows us to be satisfied that the crime of the purchase of sex is complete.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 5 November 2025; c 9.] The Crown Office stressed the importance of managing expectations with regard to the evidential difficulties in proving the offence. It is an offence that would invariably take place in private, that might be arranged online, and that could involve highly vulnerable individuals who might be reluctant to give evidence to secure a conviction. We also heard concerns about the definition of a sexual act, including that behaviours excluded from the definition could be confusing.”
“However, after careful consideration of the evidence, the committee reached some unanimous conclusions: first, prostitution causes untold harm and misery for many of those who are involved; and secondly, we are fully supportive of the overall goal of the member in charge of the bill to reform the laws on prostitution in order to reduce the demand for and prevalence of prostitution in Scotland. However, we identified concerns with the bill as it was drafted. A key concern is whether a new criminal offence could be enforced in such a way as to reduce the amount of prostitution in Scotland, as stated in the policy memorandum.”
“The committee took a great deal of time to agree and prepare our conclusions and recommendations, and I will highlight the main findings in our stage 1 report. The most controversial proposal in the bill is a new offence to criminalise the purchase of a sexual act. The challenge that we faced in our scrutiny was to determine the likely impact of that proposed new offence and whether, as drafted, it could achieve its stated aims. In the time that was available to the committee, we considered the impact of the proposed offence on demand and on related activities such as human trafficking and, importantly, the implications for policing, the prosecution of offences and the safety of women. Much of the evidence in that policy area is highly contested, which made reaching conclusions very difficult.”
“The committee approached our scrutiny in a constructive and collegiate manner, and there were many areas of common agreement. The committee is grateful to all who gave evidence, particularly those with lived and living experience. We appreciate the bravery and honesty with which they shared their experiences and insight. In addition to our oral evidence sessions, the committee received a substantial volume of written evidence, which set out strongly held views across both sides of the debate. Our aim has been, within the time available, to allow individuals on both sides of the debate to set out their positions. In considering the evidence, it cannot be overstated that our overriding collective objective is to reduce the harm that is associated with prostitution.”
“I am very pleased to open on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee. At the outset, I advise members that I have limited time to set out some of the key details from our stage 1 report; I will therefore take interventions at the end, if there is time. First, I thank our excellent clerking team for the support that we have come to expect over the years, and the Scottish Parliament information centre and participation and communities team colleagues who supported us through the complexities of trauma-informed engagement with witnesses with lived and living experience. Although I have a deep personal interest in tackling gender-based abuse in Scotland, I speak today as convener of, and on behalf of, the whole committee.”
“That is vital, because regular monitoring allows us to keep measures under review and assess the impact on the prison population and on the communities to which released prisoners return.”
“The Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025 required a review of the operation of the reduction of the automatic early release point to be published by this time next year. That is a really important part of post- legislative scrutiny. Will the cabinet secretary today commit to a review of the change that is being proposed this afternoon? Angela Constance: Ms Nicoll has raised a very important point of detail. Although the 2025 act requires a statutory review of the operation of the reduction of the release point for certain short-term prisoners from 50 to 40 per cent, the regulations cannot create a similar statutory duty, because they are secondary legislation. However, I commit that the Government will review the impact of the changes that are proposed under the regulations.”
“In policing, the chief constable told us of the continuing escalating reporting of mental health- related incidents, alongside an alarming rise in social disorder, violence against the police and online-related crime and cybercrimes. She said that “More than £2.5 billion ... should be invested back into policing”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 5 November 2025; c 26.] in Scotland, but that policing’s allocation is £1.7 billion for the coming year. The Scottish Prison Service capital budget is set to grow by £103 million, but that increase is largely to fund the construction of the new HMP Glasgow and”
“The committee heard from Police Scotland, the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service, the Scottish Prison Service, the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. We also heard from community justice and third sector organisations working in the restorative justice space. They did not hold back when they told us what society demands of them in 2026, set against the impact that flat-cash funding has had on their organisations for the past three years. They painted a bleak picture; indeed, the justice secretary acknowledged that the warnings from the sector are “stark”. Of the major justice organisations, only the Crown Office will receive a total settlement of the size that it said that it requires this year.”
“Craig Hoy: Can the convener say whether any stakeholders have expressed the same concerns that we are seeing across a number of portfolios: that the Scottish Government’s pay policy already looks like it is going to be breached over the cycle and that, in many areas—including, no doubt, in the Scottish Prison Service—there will have to be a real-terms cut in salaries in year 3? How does the convener think that that will go down with those stakeholders who make representations to our committee? Audrey Nicoll: While there was a significant amount of discussion on pay and the impact of pay settlements, I do not recall that the specific point that Mr Hoy raises was part of the discussions that we had in our evidence sessions on the budget.”
“The committee recognises that there are no easy budgetary choices currently facing the Scottish Government. However, it is clear from the evidence that we have taken that the alarm bells are now ringing across Scotland’s criminal justice system. The justice budget for this year is £4.6 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but—for context—it accounts for only 7 per cent of the total Scottish budget. Of the justice budget, 74 per cent, or £3.4 billion, is resource funding, which mostly covers pay and salaries. There is also a significant capital allocation of £643 million. However, taken out of the wider context, those figures mask a significant resource problem, in which, I fear, this budget will start to make only a small dent.”
“I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Criminal Justice Committee, and I thank the Finance and Public Administration Committee for bringing the debate to the chamber. I thank everyone who works in the criminal justice sector for their commitment and support. We very much appreciate the work that they do, and we recognise the challenges that they face day in, day out. I also thank everyone who gave evidence to inform our budget scrutiny, and our clerks and SPICe colleagues for their support in preparing our report. Justice impacts everyone; therefore, the importance of having an effective, well-functioning justice system in which the public trusts cannot be overstated. The aim of the committee’s scrutiny is to focus on how sustainable the fiscal situation is for the justice sector.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the transport secretary has had with the justice secretary regarding action it is taking to tackle freight crime in Scotland. (S6O-05379)”
“There was a 7.4 per cent reduction in the overall number of incidents that were attended by the SFRS last year, and I welcome the 4.9 per cent decrease in fire incidents. A few weeks ago, I was at the Tollcross operational fire station and had an opportunity to see how things worked on the ground when 999 calls came in. I encourage any MSP to do likewise if they have the opportunity, to get a deeper understanding in how response times work. I will end as I started, by commending the SFRS and its staff. I fully support its work to reduce fires, support local communities and promote safety. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate. 13:54 Meeting suspended. 14:30 On resuming— Portfolio Question Time Climate Action and Energy, and Transport”
“Those include geography; crews attending other incidents; extra time when a 999 call is taken, to ensure that the right resources are deployed; extra time for crews to enter an appliance, so that they can travel in safety; and extra time in travelling to incidents, due to traffic conditions and street furniture. Each of those elements can be relatively small but they can easily add up to the 90-second increase that has been quoted by the FBU. Although the time that is taken to arrive at an emergency can be important, we should concentrate on the right resources being deployed to provide a successful outcome, and the SFRS continues to respond to every emergency incident with the appropriate level of resources. The latest statistics, which were published in October, are very encouraging.”
“On climate change, we continue to work to support the full implementation of the wildfire strategy. In the number of wildfire warnings that were issued and the scale of summer wildfires across Scotland, 2025 was a record year. The potential increase in the risk of wildfires and flooding is one of the main drivers of the on-going service delivery review, which is looking to ensure that the SFRS has the right assets in the right places to deal with the current and future risks. In the prevention of and response to wildfires, the SFRS works in close partnership with all partners in the Scottish Wildfire Forum, including Forestry and Land Scotland and a wide range of landowners. The issue of increased response times has been raised. As I have said previously when it has been raised with me, it is a complex issue. Many factors are involved.”
“On decontamination, I acknowledge the FBU’s work on its DECON campaign, along with Maggie Chapman’s efforts in raising that important issue in the Parliament. The safety and wellbeing of firefighters are a priority for both the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Scotland is leading the way in that area. The SFRS continues to work very closely with Professor Anna Stec in developing research on health screening for firefighters, supported by a £450,000 investment from the Scottish Government’s CivTech programme. To reduce the risk of contaminants, there has been significant change in a wide range of process and practice, and the SFRS is investing in additional personal protective equipment and facilities for firefighters, to reduce further risk. We will continue to work with the SFRS on that issue.”
“Will the minister give way? Siobhian Brown: Yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly, please. Audrey Nicoll: I express my disappointment at the recent Scottish Government budget announcement with regard to funding for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. Notwithstanding the constraints on the Scottish Government’s budget, does the minister agree that there is a case to continue calling on the United Kingdom Government to consider how borrowing and the use of reserves can be offered to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service? Siobhian Brown: Yes, I agree that that would be very helpful during these financially challenging times. I will move on, as I know that we are short of time.”
“Expanding alternatives to custody, such as diversion and community sentencing, has been proven to be very successful in reducing reoffending.”
“Community justice services play a hugely important but, sadly, often unrecognised role in the rehabilitation of offenders and in reducing recidivism. In turn, they make a significant contribution to the Scottish Government’s priorities of supporting families, promoting wellbeing and eradicating child poverty. Will the cabinet secretary reaffirm that the budget will maintain the level of support that is required to deliver sustainable and meaningful community justice services across Scotland? Shona Robison: Yes. We recognise the value of community justice. In the budget, community justice funding will increase by £10 million to a record £169 million. That builds on the £25 million of additional investment that has been made over the past two years.”
“The First Minister: Audrey Nicoll makes the very important point that we live in an energy-rich country but that we also live in a country with a high level of fuel poverty, as a result of the decisions of the United Kingdom energy market. Audrey Nicoll is absolutely right: the sooner those issues are in the hands of the people of Scotland so that we can make the energy wealth of Scotland work for the benefit of the people of Scotland, the better. Domestic Abuse Crimes 5.”
“This week’s severe weather has seen the UK’s power demand reach a seven- year high as households struggle to keep warm through the winter storms. In energy-rich Scotland, that power demand sits alongside skyrocketing energy bills as families pay through the nose to heat their homes. Does the First Minister agree that the sooner Scotland’s energy is in the hands of Scotland’s people, the better that will be for lower bills, economic growth and meaningful community ownership? [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: I hope that the First Minister heard that question. I ask those who are shouting from their seats to cease.”