Meghan Gallacher
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: One example of when cutting people’s benefits does not help involves the suggestion that we take away support from disabled people, which disabled people tell us helps them into employment. We need to bear that in mind.”
“I, too, thank Maggie Chapman for bringing the really important issue of our universities to the chamber. I want to cast members’ minds back to March 2025, when Douglas Ross, as the convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, challenged the former principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee, Professor Iain…”
“As the cabinet secretary mentioned in her statement, the Scottish Government has spent billions of pounds on tackling child poverty, but it remains stubbornly high, with one in five children still living in relative poverty.”
“If we fast forward a year, we see that the University of Dundee has sadly found itself in the headlines for all the wrong reasons again. As Maggie Chapman said, that is not down to the lecturers or the students; it is down to the university’s governance and structures, as well as the financial situation that our universities and colleges…”
“On that latter point, I went to Fife Gingerbread this morning and spoke to families and their support workers about the work that that organisation and others do to ensure that women are supported into employment in a way that encourages their confidence, builds their skills and is sustainable and successful in the long term.”
“The former education secretary and now Deputy First Minister, Jenny Gilruth, said in January this year that teachers would need to relocate to where the jobs are. Mike Corbett from the NASUWT condemned those comments.”
The complete record
Every one of 420 lines we hold for Meghan Gallacher, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Màiri McAllan: Not for the first time—and probably not for the last—I completely disagree with Meghan Gallacher’s assessment. The individuals in Scotland who have benefited from our open market shared equity scheme do not consider it “inadequate”, as she has put it. I am sure that there are people throughout Scotland who consider the prospect of £10,000 support for their deposit to be very attractive. What does not help first-time buyers—nor others throughout Scotland—is the mortgage volatility that we have experienced, which was triggered not least by Liz Truss’s disastrous budget. Members: Oh!”
“The First Minister recently confirmed that, if re-elected, we will introduce a first homes fund, offering a £10,000 equity contribution to assist first-time buyers with their deposits. Meghan Gallacher: My supplementary is on those first-time buyer schemes. The Scottish National Party has tried such schemes before, but with little to no success, because they do not address the fundamental problem, which is a severe lack of building the homes that we desperately need. Does the cabinet secretary agree that those pre-election gimmicks do nothing to help first-time buyers? Does she agree that, instead, the next Government must focus on cutting red tape so that developers can build the homes that Scotland needs, while also reducing the cost of housing by abolishing land and buildings transaction tax?”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is supporting first-time buyers. (S6O-05712) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): I have heard from many young people—and, increasingly, not so young people— in Scotland for whom the hopeful prospect of owning their own home one day is becoming ever more distant. We all know that, by the end of the month, by the time that food costs, energy costs and rent have been met, there is very little left to put away for a mortgage. Through our rural and islands housing grant scheme, which has recently been announced, we will support first-time buyers in rural Scotland. We also have the extant low-cost initiative for first-time buyers, which is running currently.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to prevent further job losses in the oil and gas supply chain as a result of the energy transition. (S6O-05673)”
“The real question is this: is the bill the right way to fund cladding remediation, or is it yet another knee-jerk response from a Government that has failed to act properly and at pace? In my view, it is the latter.”
“When we first debated the Building Safety Levy (Scotland) Bill, I said that I would not support legislation that risked further damaging Scotland’s housing sector. At stage 2 and at stage 3 today, we had the chance to fix the bill, but those opportunities were missed. In my view, the Scottish Government has not engaged in the way that it should have done—constructively—with all parties on issues that have been raised not just by the relevant sectors but by house builders and home owners who have been impacted by cladding. As a result, the Scottish Conservatives will not support the bill at decision time. We all agree that building safety is not optional and we all recognise the tragedy of Grenfell and why remediation is required on all affected buildings.”
“Homes for Scotland has been crystal clear that, without transitional arrangements in place, neither it nor the wider sector can support the bill in principle. I take the opportunity at this point to thank Homes for Scotland for its support and engagement throughout the passage of the bill. It is for those reasons that I urge the Parliament to agree to my amendment 7 or to amendment 6 in the name of Michael Marra. I believe that both amendments attempt to resolve the outstanding issues. I will leave my remarks there.”
“The liability date ignores the investment in the land deal, ground investigations, planning costs and professional fees for design that a developer has already borne before they start building and well before the building is completed. A retrospective levy risks stalling delivery and hindering much-needed investment. I am certain that the minister does not wish the building of homes to be stalled, considering that the next Government needs to deliver at pace to tackle the housing emergency that Michael Marra has just outlined in his speech. The minister has agreed to provide 22 months’ notice of rates from June this year, but there has been no consideration that developers will already have appraised and agreed land deals without taking into account the fact that the levy will come into effect from April 2028.”
“Amendment 7 is similar to the amendment that I lodged at stage 2. It relates to transitional arrangements. The amendment would exempt from the levy a new residential unit where a building warrant application has been submitted on or before 1 April 2028—in other words, where a development has progressed before the legislation’s commencement date. The approach matches the established principle that regulatory treatment follows the rules that are in force at the time of a building warrant application, and it recognises the significant up-front investment in viability decisions that are taken without published levy rates. Home builders have been clear in explaining that development does not simply start when the foundations are cut. There are years of planning processes, as well as investment, before buildings are constructed.”
“To ask the Scottish Government when it was first informed of water and mould ingress at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. (S6O- 05630)”
“I assure the member, Parliament and, most importantly, families that it is of the utmost importance to me and the Government that we provide such assurance and restore confidence.”
“As I said in my statement, I have sought a direct assurance from the chief executive of the health board that all appropriate mitigations and safeguards are in place and that day-to-day care is being delivered safely. I recognise the on-going independent work of the Mental Welfare Commission and HIS in providing such assurance. We are working with HIS to put in place a programme of on-going inspections, the need for which was previously highlighted by members. With regard to what further assurance can be provided by way of whistleblowing mechanisms, we already have such mechanisms in place, but I am happy to consider further, along with ministerial colleagues, any additional measures.”
“Meghan Gallacher: Does the minister support the creation of a new national whistleblowing officer for the national health service and the social care sector who will deliver in such circumstances? Does he honestly believe that the families who have come forward with such harrowing experiences have been treated fairly by the systems that were designed to protect them? Tom Arthur: I thank Ms Gallacher for her question, for her resolute campaigning on these matters and for consistently working to represent the interests of her constituents and those who have been affected. It is of the utmost importance to me and the Government that we provide assurance and ensure that public confidence is fully regained, given what we have been contending with at Skye house.”
“One family has exhausted every avenue in trying to hold the system accountable for the trauma that their daughter has endured. An independent review of their case was commissioned, but, when the report was finally published, it was the parents, rather than the professionals who were involved, who were portrayed as the problem. Too often, when families speak up, they are dismissed, ignored or made to feel as though they are the obstacle to change. My experience in supporting that family points to a culture of closed ranks in parts of our health and social care system. When systems close in on themselves, instead of protecting the most vulnerable, public trust is inevitably eroded. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We need a question, Ms Gallacher.”
“I thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and, more importantly, for the way in which he has approached the issue—not only meeting me but meeting families—because it is a real and serious issue. I first raised the issue of Skye house in the chamber almost a year ago. Although I welcome the steps that are now being taken to listen to families and improve services, systemic issues remain. When I raised the issue of the BBC documentary, I revealed that the Government was aware as far back as June 2023 of the abuse that young people were experiencing. I believe that that is yet to be investigated as part of the wider concerns. I continue to work with affected families because their concerns have not been properly addressed.”
“It said: “We believe that there are … key reasons why Scotland should incorporate the Charter … It would improve the outcomes that national and local government can deliver … It would give Scottish communities rights that are already commonplace internationally … It would build partnership working into Scotland’s governance for the first time … It would ensure that Scotland fully complies with international treaty obligations”, and it would “Help give Local Government the powers it needs to deliver lasting, meaningful change for our communities.” It is time to hit the reset button and finally get the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill into law.”
“There is clearly work to do, and reform of the Scotland Act 1998 should be on the table. The cabinet secretary has referred to some of the academic thinking about that, which needs to be taken seriously. I will leave the last words to COSLA, which has campaigned for this bill for years.”
“She said: “In time, it may also be possible to bring more of Ministers’ functions within the scope of the section 2 compatibility duty, for example, if UK Act provisions in devolved areas are re-enacted in Acts of the Scottish Parliament or a mutually acceptable solution can be found to the issues around s.28(7) of the Scotland Act.” It is now for the next Scottish Government to take those opportunities. The Supreme Court took a view of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 that surprised many people. As Professor Chris Himsworth said: “It was, for most commentators, I believe, wholly unexpected and constitutionally shocking. At the very least, it has given rise to great uncertainty.” That perhaps speaks to some of the reasons why it has taken so long to bring the bill back to the Parliament for reconsideration.”
“However, if the 1973 act were to be repealed and re-enacted by the Parliament in the future, it would need to be in line with the charter and the important principle of local government empowerment. The window is open for further reform and the bill provides the foundation on which future ambition can be built, if there are the political will and consensus to do that. I welcome that the cabinet secretary wrote to me ahead of the reconsideration stage.”
“Being a normal European country that respects communities would feel like progress. Several members talked about the Verity house agreement. Alexander Stewart referred to some of the frustration that council leaders have at the moment with the agreement’s implementation, and Mark Griffin talked about on-going financial challenges. We will not talk about where those financial challenges originate from, which is Westminster. Fulton MacGregor highlighted some of the progress that has been made. I hope that we can agree that there is a need to ratchet up the reforms. The bill will not give courts the power to declare whether the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, for example, is compatible with the charter. That is regrettable.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his kind words about Jim Wallace. Does he recognise that, as Donald Dewar said about devolution being a process, not an event, so too is the devolution of power to our communities away from the Parliament? Mark Ruskell: Absolutely. The bill raises questions about where we are now regarding our levels of government and responsibility. Those questions can be opened up if there is a cross- party consensus in future sessions of the Parliament. Given that Scotland—and the UK—is one of the most centralised democracies in Europe, it will take time for the bill to empower communities. However, going forward, I hope that the bill will provide a strong basis to do so. If we approve the bill tonight, Scotland will be the first country in the UK to be in compliance with the charter.”
“Mark Griffin also spoke about the need for councils to be seen as partners, not administrators, which is an important point. I was pleased that Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about the quiet work of Jim Wallace in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. It was part of the blueprint of this Parliament that the European charter would be embedded into our working. That shows how long overdue the bill is and that it should form part of what we do in the Parliament. I reflect on Jim Wallace’s view that we need to strike a “new balance” between the Parliament, local government and communities. There will always be a debate about the will of Government to achieve national objectives and the local accountability that is needed. I am sure that that debate will continue well into the next session of the Scottish Parliament.”
“16:54 Mark Ruskell: I thank the cabinet secretary for her kind words and I thank members across the chamber for their speeches. I have my fingers crossed that I might be heading for an unusual record of getting two member’s bills agreed to at Holyrood within a fortnight, but we will see what happens next Thursday. At this point, I should also pay tribute to Andy Wightman, who had the foresight to introduce the bill in the previous parliamentary session. We in the Scottish Greens undoubtedly have a deep-seated commitment to localism and the need to empower communities. Of course, we do not have a monopoly on localism. Alexander Stewart spoke well about his commitment to the bill, drawing on his experience over many years as a councillor and his commitment five years ago to getting the bill into law.”
“We have to be honest, not just on the Government benches but on the Opposition benches, about the questions of Government and whom Opposition members want to hold accountable for delivery of services. Presiding Officer, I can see you looking at me with raised eyebrows. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is a bit of time in hand. Shona Robison: I will finish on this point. I hope that members across the chamber, despite some of the challenges that we have just alluded to, come together today to support the amended version of the bill and agree to Mark Ruskell’s motion to enable Scotland to become the first part of the UK to incorporate the European Charter of Local Self-Government into domestic law. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mark Ruskell, the member in charge of the bill, will wind up the debate.”
“My point was about responsibility and accountability for delivery. There will always be tensions around where responsibility should lie for the delivery of a particular outcome that is important to people. To be honest, people are not that bothered about where responsibility lies. They want delivery and accountability when things are not delivered as they should be. Without doubt, these issues will continue to be debated in the next parliamentary session— Alex Cole-Hamilton rose— Shona Robison: No, I want to finish. They will continue to be debated in the next parliamentary session, when I will not be here. There are tensions that will always be there.”
“It was more about where responsibility lies and where accountability for delivery lies. If 32 local authorities deliver on their responsibilities with varying levels of success—or otherwise—where does accountability for that lie? Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shona Robison: Go on. Alex Cole-Hamilton: We have 32 local authorities because we have reached a settled will that that is a fitting number to serve the communities of Scotland. I point to the national care service. Nothing about the national care service would have made the delivery of care easier in places such as Strathpeffer or Aboyne. It would have asset stripped those communities of the ability to deliver social care in their areas. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, I can give you the time back. Shona Robison: That was not my point.”
“Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. This is often the excuse that her Government leans into when it is rightly challenged about problems that have occurred because of the centralisation that it has undertaken, whether that is with Police Scotland or the centralisation around other emergency services. It is a very convenient excuse, but we will always stand up for devolving power closer to the people whom it serves. Shona Robison: Given Police Scotland’s record on solving crimes of a very serious nature, and the current record low levels of crime, I am a major advocate for having Police Scotland instead of the legacy forces, through which, sexual crimes, for example, were not investigated and prosecuted in the way that they are now. The point that I was trying to make was not overtly party political.”
“On the point about funding, there is a real-terms increase in funding for local government in the budget that was passed last week, without the support of Alexander Stewart or Mark Griffin, who did not vote for that additional funding for local government. Actions always speak louder than words. I refer to the point that Alex Cole-Hamilton made about the tension between centralisation and localism when it comes to accountability. For as long as I can remember, ministers have always and regularly been held accountable for the delivery of responsibilities, whether those responsibilities sit within this Parliament, including the ministerial responsibilities of the Scottish Government, or with local government. Alex Cole-Hamilton: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shona Robison: Of course.”
“To those who have never held ministerial office, I can only say that it is not an easy task to get agreement with another Government on the detail of issues such as competence. We required the Advocate General to give us comfort that there would not be the risk of a further referral to the Supreme Court, and we did not get that. We could talk all day about why it took so long, but I say to members candidly that it is difficult to negotiate these matters, in particular where matters are not clear cut. They were complex, and we therefore had to work through all the detail and find a compromise that was acceptable in particular to COSLA, as the main stakeholder. Those were the hard yards that we worked through to get to this point.”
“The Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at decision time, and I look forward to its being passed. 16:48 Shona Robison: I thank members for their contributions to this short debate, and I will touch on a couple of issues that have been raised. The first is timing, which was raised by Alexander Stewart, Mark Griffin and a couple of others. First, it is important to say that the timing was not wholly within the gift of the Scottish Government, given the substantial engagement that was required with the UK Government. It was a two-way process that—far from being about parliamentary theatre, as Mark Griffin suggested—involved the hard yards of trying to get agreement with two successive UK Governments.”
“Local government has borne the brunt of quite a lot of the decisions that have been taken in the chamber, and councils have not had the political, administrative and financial independence to decide whether a particular decision is best for their area or whether they face financial or resource constraints on their ability to implement legislation that is passed in the chamber. That needs to be reflected on. Mark Griffin was right to touch on the need for safeguards to ensure that local authorities can make decisions that best fit their own communities, and to avoid a repeat of what we have seen in previous years under the SNP Government, whereby councils have not been taken into account when decisions have been made. I will leave my remarks there.”
“The cabinet secretary also mentioned that the amendments that have been passed today will now be legally competent, which is good to hear. That will be good for councils, and for the former member who originally introduced the bill in the previous session of Parliament. A lot has been said today about centralisation, and that is a huge point that should perhaps have been raised previously in relation to other matters, not just this bill, in the current session of Parliament.”
“This is perhaps an opportunity for the Scottish Government to reflect on those points, given the number of bills that we are rushing through towards the end of the current session of Parliament. If we had had more time to look at this bill earlier in the session, we would not be here today, rushing it through in the last few remaining weeks. To touch on what Mark Ruskell said, it has been good that COSLA has kept up the pressure and that it wanted the bill to come back to Parliament as soon as possible, because it is a huge opportunity for national Government and local government to work together and to ensure that rights for councils, which are commonplace internationally, can be put in place in Scotland, too.”
“In fact, throughout the debate, members have referred to the importance of taking the bill forward and the desire from local councils the length and breadth of the country to have the legislation in place. The issue was that the court found that parts of the bill went beyond the Scottish Parliament’s competence regarding what it is legally allowed to do. Alexander Stewart referred to the length of time that it has taken for the bill to be brought back to the chamber and the commentary from the Law Society of Scotland that such delays do not make for good law. I agree with that, and I also agree with the Law Society’s comment that reconsideration of the bill should have taken place within a two-year period.”
“The Scottish Conservatives will be supporting the bill at decision time because it protects the political, administrative and financial independence of local government. Of course, as many have mentioned, Parliament unanimously agreed to the general principles of the bill and passed the bill at stage 3 back in March 2021. However, it is important to touch on the question of why we are back in the chamber today, reconsidering certain elements of the bill. It is because the UK Government referred the bill, under the Scotland Act 1998, to the UK Supreme Court. We should note, too, that the court did not reject the principle of strengthening local government.”
“That is why we need to look at the private, voluntary and independent sector and at what is not working right now. Presiding Officer, I know that I need to finish, but this is not a niche policy area for me. Parents sit at the kitchen table, working out affordability, every single week. They tour nurseries, asking about hours and flexibility. They worry about job stability and providing for their children. We owe it to them to do better than broken promises, better than half- hearted ambition and better than a system in which going to work leaves families barely breaking even. Childcare will be an election priority for parents in May— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Gallacher, you are over your time. I move on to Davy Russell. I indicated to members that we are under time constraints today. Please speak to your allotted time. 13:12”
“It says that 66.1 per cent of childcare costs are the same or more than the parents’ income, and 34.5 per cent of those who responded found themselves agreeing with the statement “I often find myself choosing between paying for childcare and household essentials”. That shows that something is broken in the system. We need to reflect on the policies that we have spoken about in this chamber. In 2023, the Scottish National Party made a commitment to expand funded childcare from nine months onwards. That never materialised and we do not know what happened to the pilot programmes. That lack of ambition has prevented us from pushing forward. We need to be honest about delivery. My experience shows that choice and flexibility matter for parents.”
“Christine Grahame: I am trying to be helpful. Does the member think that remote working, which is not available to everybody, has helped to build in some flexibility for parents? Meghan Gallacher: I remember that, during the gender recognition reform debate, I broke my maternity leave because it was important to me to vote on the issue. I had Charlotte in one arm and I was trying to vote with the other hand. It can work, but not in all circumstances, although I take Christine Grahame’s point. Pregnant Then Screwed has announced its latest state-of-the-nation report, which is important to what comes next in terms of our childcare settings.”
“That is the practical reality of modern life for working parents. Across Scotland, parents are juggling shift patterns, commuting times and the part-time roles that have been stitched together just to make ends meet. They are also making complex spreadsheets to work out whether, financially, they can stay in employment. That is why we are seeing many parents reducing their hours—it is not because they want to; it is because childcare structures leave them with no alternative. The work of Pregnant Then Screwed has consistently shown that childcare costs are pushing parents, particularly women, out of the labour market. Some are delaying having children, and others are deciding against growing their family entirely because the numbers simply do not stack up. There is too much month left at the end of the money.”
“That is nearly £12,000 a year for just one child. That is not a small household bill; it is the equivalent of a second mortgage payment every month. Even once the 1,140 hours are available, the challenge for parents does not disappear, because, on its own, the availability of funded hours does not guarantee flexibility or choice, as my colleague Roz McCall rightly highlighted. Like many parents, my husband and I have sat round the kitchen table researching nurseries and childminders and asking the same questions. Does it open early enough? Does it cover school holidays? What happens if our work meetings run late? What happens if we do not finish work until after 6 o’clock at night? Can we juggle more than one care setting? Who will fill in for the drop-offs and the pick-ups?”
“I declare an interest: I sit on the advisory board of Pregnant Then Screwed. I come to this debate not as a member of the Parliament but as a parent. Last year, my daughter began her 1,140 hours of funded childcare. Like many parents, I was grateful for that support. If it works, it makes a difference. It can ease the burden, and it may allow families to breathe a little bit easier when it comes to their finances. However, I have also experienced the first-hand reality behind the policy headline, which comes down to the fact that, every month, parents face the dreaded calculation about whether they can afford to have children and be in employment at the same time. I have done my own sums for my daughter. If she happened to be at nursery full time, the costs would be just short of £1,000 per month.”
“Will the Scottish Government now consider that, to give whistleblowers the confidence to come forward and stand up for victims, so that victims get the justice that they deserve? Jenny Gilruth: I hope that Meghan Gallacher welcomes the announcement today. I agree with her sentiment that any inquiry needs to be fearless and transparent and to have victims at its heart— that is exactly the approach that I have taken throughout the process. The member mentioned the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which was considering a petition on the matter this morning. I confirm that I have written directly to that committee, and I hope that the move from the Government in this area will be welcomed by the committee and the petitioner.”
“The Scottish Conservatives have been calling for an inquiry for months, but there has been no urgency from the Government—none whatsoever. It was confirmed in November 2025 that we did not know the true scale and nature of grooming gangs. I even asked a question on it, and it has taken the Government four months to come to the chamber today to announce an inquiry. What concerns me more is that the cabinet secretary seems unable to tell Parliament what further information has come to light for the Government to change its mind. The inquiry needs to be fearless and fully transparent and, most important, it needs to have victims at its heart. The Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee considered a petition that called for a national whistleblowing officer to be established.”
“Ministers are actively seeking clarity from the UK Government on how much funding will be available and when it will materialise. 15:23”
“We must be honest about what a blanket postponement of revaluation would mean. Revaluation is an independent process that cannot be switched off by ministers for political convenience, and delaying it would create prolonged uncertainty for businesses, which is the very thing that the sector has repeatedly told us that it does not want to happen. That is why the Government has taken a more responsible approach by commissioning an independent review of the valuation methodology for licensed hospitality properties. That review, which is already under way, will report later this year. The Government has already stated that any Barnett consequentials arising from the UK Government’s business rates support for pubs and live music venues will be passed on in full to Scottish businesses.”
“The Scottish Government recognises the pressures that exist, which is precisely why the budget for 2026-27 delivers a package of £864 million of rates reliefs, which will benefit around 96 per cent of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. [Interruption.] I will not take an intervention—I have only four minutes, thanks to the Conservatives’ scheduling. The Government is not sitting on its hands. It is reducing property rates ahead of revaluation and delivering the lowest basic property rate since 2019. It is continuing the small business bonus scheme, guaranteeing certainty through transitional reliefs for the next three years and providing crucial relief for hospitality businesses, including 100 per cent support in our island and remote areas. That will save ratepayers £322 million over the next revaluation period.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Clare Adamson: No, thank you. The Government’s plan is targeted and sustainable, and it supports businesses. It is worth comparing Scotland’s approach with that of the rest of the UK, where hospitality businesses face higher rates, patchier relief and less certainty beyond short-term funding. The small business bonus scheme has already been mentioned. We give significantly more support to our small businesses than is the case in the rest of the UK. Mr McKee spoke about the value of the £864 million of relief that the Government is putting in. [Interruption.] No, thank you.”
“I have also engaged constructively with the cabinet secretary, whom I thank for his approach, to explore potential and alternative ways forward, including the potential creation of a statutory aggravator, which was also suggested by the CEEAC Committee.”
“Incidentally, it is interesting to note that, when I gave evidence to members of the CEEAC Committee, every member represented a constituency or region that had at least one incident of a war memorial being desecrated. That shows that it is not an isolated event in one particular area of the country. The committee also highlighted that courts already take account of community impact and trauma, that proving intent can be challenging and that a maximum sentence of 10 years could, in fact, be lower than what is available under current sentencing powers. In coming to my decision on how to proceed with the bill, I have reflected carefully on that evidence and on my responsibility to bring forward good law.”
“As a member’s bill, it is deliberately narrow in scope and it is intended to provide clarity and deterrence without overcomplication. I am grateful to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee for its scrutiny. Unusually, the committee did not reach a conclusion on whether to recommend the general principles of the bill. Evidence from the Crown Office and the Scottish Government raised significant concerns, including that existing law already shows that such offences, if they were to be prosecuted, would not increase sentencing powers in practice and that a new offence is unlikely to improve detention, reporting or deterrence. However, from my reading of the stage 1 report, the committee sympathised with what I was trying to achieve.”