Russell Findlay
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Will Kate Campbell give way? Kate Campbell: I will make progress. Although money for, investment in and a focus on those priorities are very welcome, we need to be realistic about what is driving crime and offending—and the evidence exists.”
“Stephen Kerr: Kate Campbell made a point a moment ago about poverty. Does she agree that the last thing that we should be doing in this Parliament is agreeing to budgets that involve cuts to the college sector, putting higher education into financial difficulty or threatening the number of apprenticeships?”
“Scottish Prison Service statistics show that individuals from “the 10% most deprived areas … accounted for 31% of all arrivals to prison in 2022-23”. That is a massive, disproportionate overrepresentation. We know that people who end up in prison are much more likely to have faced disadvantage, trauma and poverty.”
“I begin by congratulating Douglas Lumsden on his election as MP for Aberdeen South, and I welcome our new MSP colleague, James Adams, to Holyrood. Former members of the Scottish National Party’s audit and finance committee are also here today.”
“On average, families of people in custody spend £180 a month on supporting that person. Only yesterday, we found out that one in five families are left with just £12 a week after outgoings— those are the families living with the highest levels of poverty.”
“That includes using peer mentoring projects, such as the turn your life around project, to help young people who may not have the role models that they need in their lives; restorative justice, which empowers victims and survivors while helping offenders to understand the impact of their crimes on other people; or trauma-informed communit…”
The complete record
Every one of 265 lines we hold for Russell Findlay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 6.
“I thank the cabinet secretary for advance sight of her statement. The Scottish National Party Government did not want to talk about grooming gangs; it said that they were not a problem in Scotland. Well, those gangs—or paedophile rings—are a problem in Scotland. Every survivor I have spoken to has no trust in the Government in relation to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation. The justice secretary has been sidelined because she misrepresented an expert, then denied doing so and has still not corrected the record. Her responses today raise even more questions about her conduct and her integrity. This morning, I met Kimberley Hutchison, who is a survivor of child sexual exploitation that started when she was 10 years old. She told me that the Government is “behaving in the same way as those who exploited and trafficked us”.”
“This is about truth; this is about respect; this is about simple decency. Therefore, I urge every MSP who is here today to vote to remove the justice secretary for misleading the Parliament, the public and grooming gang victims. I move, That the Parliament has no confidence in the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, in light of her failures in candour and openness in her misrepresentation and subsequent misleading statements made to the Parliament with regards to Professor Alexis Jay and grooming gangs. 14:37”
“In a letter to all MSPs, Taylor’s mother says: “Within 24 hours of leaving Bute House, the suppressed email from Prof Alexis Jay was made public.” Do John Swinney and Angela Constance really not understand what message their conduct sends to victims who already lack trust in authority? When he became First Minister, John Swinney made big statements about restoring the relationship between the public and politicians. Earlier this year, he said that he would “renew public trust in politics”. He has the opportunity to do so today; however, we all know that he will not. Even though he will not do the right thing, each of us can do the right thing. Here is the choice: we can say that it is acceptable for ministers to mislead and to cover up, or we can say that there should be reasonable consequences for doing so.”
“Many will see this tawdry defence of the indefensible for what it is—the typical actions of a calculating and cynical Government. The First Minister can look grooming gang victims in the eye and tell them that he cares, only to destroy his own warm words with his cold inaction. I have met Taylor, who, from the age of 13, was drugged and gang raped, and who was failed by the authorities that should have protected her. A recurring theme around grooming gangs is the existence of a conspiracy of silence in which police, social workers and others fail victims over fears of being branded racist. Survivors say that there is evidence of institutional cover-up. They are forced to battle for records, many of which no longer exist or have been severely redacted. Taylor raised that exact issue in her meeting with John Swinney on 9 December.”
“I gave an accurate quote and indeed the correspondence that Ms Jay sent to me acknowledged that the quote that I gave was accurate.” I note that we are not allowed to use the word “lie” or to call anyone a “liar”, so I will not. However, it is little wonder that Professor Jay sent another email to the Government on the very same day, in which she said: “The current position is unsatisfactory for me.” After all of that—misleading the public, Parliament and grooming gang victims—Angela Constance has still not admitted her mistake. She has still not corrected the record and she has still not apologised. That is the problem. It is not that a mistake has happened, but that Angela Constance, John Swinney and the whole Government want to pretend that it never happened and that it does not really matter. Well, it did happen, and it should matter.”
“At that point, the justice secretary was obligated to correct the parliamentary record, as stipulated by the Scottish ministerial code. She had 20 days in which to do so, but she did not. Instead of coming clean, it was decided that a correction would be made to the online minutes of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is buried on an obscure Government web page and was not posted until 18 November. Then, on 26 November—more than two months after misrepresenting Professor Jay—Angela Constance doubled down. She publicly denied that she had misrepresented Professor Jay. When asked whether she had misrepresented Professor Jay, Angela Constance said: “No, certainly not.”
“That amendment sought to begin the necessary work of establishing a grooming gangs inquiry—an inquiry that would answer questions about the sickening sexual exploitation of children, and that would establish why so many were so badly failed, why abusers acted with impunity and why whistleblowers were silenced. The amendment was imperfect, but it was the only mechanism at our disposal. In rejecting it, Angela Constance cited leading abuse expert Professor Alexis Jay. The justice secretary said that Professor Jay shared her view that a grooming gangs inquiry was not needed. However, Professor Jay did not say that—and she did not say that because that is not her position. Ten days later, Professor Jay emailed the Government to object.”
“I also disagree with the Government’s position on grooming gangs. However, this motion and today’s vote are not about the fact that we disagree. They are about the conduct of the justice secretary. This is about the fundamental importance of honesty and integrity in Government and in Parliament. No matter the attempts of John Swinney, Kate Forbes and other SNP members, Angela Constance’s conduct is inexcusable and her position is no longer tenable. The starting point for today’s proceedings was 16 September, when my colleague Liam Kerr lodged an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill.”
“Today, my party brings forward a motion of no confidence in the justice secretary. I will now explain why that is a necessary course of action. In my four years at Holyrood, I have had more dealings with Angela Constance than with any other member of the Government. Our encounters have usually been courteous, sometimes fiery and mostly serious. We fundamentally disagree on the Scottish National Party’s approach to justice. That can be defined as seeking to excuse criminal behaviour, which I believe fails crime victims and Scotland’s law-abiding majority. I disagree with the Government’s closure of police stations and releasing hundreds of prisoners early. I disagree with gender self- identification in the justice system and weak bail laws. I disagree with unjust under-25 sentencing guidelines and a £1 billion price tag for a new prison.”
“Our party—through my colleague Liam Kerr—lodged an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to secure a grooming gangs inquiry in Scotland. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, Angela Constance, rejected it and said that further inquiries were not necessary. She told the Parliament that a leading expert, Professor Alexis Jay, “shares my view”—that is a direct quote. However, Professor Jay does not share Angela Constance’s view. In an email to the justice secretary, which we forced the Government to release, Professor Jay says that her views “had nothing to do with Mr Kerr’s amendment, or the position in Scotland”. Professor Jay asked for her position to be “clarified”. Can John Swinney explain why, therefore, his justice secretary did not correct the parliamentary record?”
“The SNP has been shamed into finally issuing this FOI response, albeit that it is redacted. It confirms that the cabinet secretary misrepresented Professor Jay, but instead of coming clean, the Government embarked on a contemptuous cover-up, in breach of the ministerial code. I empathise with the minister for the position that her Government has put her in, but does she know whether the cabinet secretary has offered her resignation? The Presiding Officer: Minister, again, please answer in relation to the substantive question. Natalie Don-Innes: I have been very clear about the facts that have been laid out in relation to the quotes that have been put forward by Ms Constance and Alexis Jay. We have got to the bottom of it, we can draw a line under it and we can focus on the serious work ahead in relation to this most important issue.”
“Meghan Gallacher: Would Maggie Chapman give way on that point? Maggie Chapman: I am afraid that I do not have time. The motion before us assumes that Scottish social security spending is too high. It is not; it is too low. UK payments still sit among the lowest in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Scotland is lifting them, but from a very low base. The Scottish Government must indeed plan sustainably, but if we are building new roads during a climate crisis, and if wealthy shooting estates can benefit from reliefs that are intended for small businesses, we are looking in entirely the wrong places for savings. We should not balance the books on the backs of the poorest people. We must build a system that is rooted in dignity, equality and compassion, because that is the Scotland that people deserve. 15:39”
“The Scottish Parliament information centre tells us that around a quarter of the families receiving it are so deep in poverty that £27 a week cannot move them out of it at all. While a technical premium for the most deeply impoverished families is not deliverable in the short term, we can act now by using family characteristics that correlate strongly with poverty risk. Young people, especially young single parents, are losing out because UK benefits pay them less, purely because of their age. Some 55 per cent of children with a parent under 25 are in poverty. One Parent Families Scotland and 81 partner organisations have called for a Scottish child payment top-up for young parents, at a cost of only £20 million. That would be an excellent use of the additional funds that are now available.”
“With the £150 million that is now available, we could increase the payment by £10 a week, which would lift 20,000 additional children out of poverty. That is the scale of difference that bold action could make. We have to confront barriers, too. The Scottish Fiscal Commission estimates that, next year, 5 per cent of eligible families—17,000 children—will miss out because they do not apply. That does not include families who are entitled to, but are not claiming, the benefits that they should have. Let us commit to doing far more to help people access what they are due, working with advice services, community organisations and trusted local partners. We must also acknowledge that, for some families, SCP as it stands will never be enough.”
“Spending on social security is rising not because Scotland is reckless but because need is rising. Westminster austerity has deepened hardship, and Scotland has chosen not to abandon people. We spend £1.3 billion more than we receive from the UK Government. That is a political choice, and it is one that I support. If we are to be serious about tackling poverty, we must take further steps. The Scottish Government’s commitment to redirect money that was previously set aside to mitigate the two-child cap into other anti-poverty measures is very welcome. That structural investment will make a tangible difference to families. The SCP remains our flagship tool in the fight against child poverty, but we will still not meet our targets in the next five years unless that payment rises significantly.”
“15:35 Maggie Chapman: In case it was not clear, the Scottish Greens profoundly disagree with the premise of the Conservatives’ motion. The idea that Scotland’s “benefits bill” is somehow a problem to be controlled, rather than a lifeline that allows people to live dignified, independent lives, tells us everything about their priorities. Social security is a human right. It is an investment in our people, with real returns: reduced poverty, better health and the ability for people—disabled people, parents and carers—to participate fully in our society and economy. The briefing that we received for today’s debate from Scottish Action for Mental Health is clear that, for many disabled people, especially those with mental health problems, support such as ADP is not a luxury. It enables survival, independence and basic rights.”
“Jamie Hepburn: Exactly—I do not know what point he thinks he is making. If he thinks he is making a point, it is a stupid point. The fundamental point is that the Scottish Government has balanced the budget every year, including for expenditure on social security. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Jamie Hepburn: It is telling that the Conservatives say that they want to cut social security but, when they are invited to, Mr Stewart either does not have a clue what he wants to cut or, as I suspect, is not brave enough to stand up and say what he wants to cut. That is the reality of the Conservatives’ position. I am proud of the Scottish Government’s record, and I will continue to stand behind its investment in the people of Scotland. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to closing speeches.”
“Will the member give way? Jamie Hepburn: I am afraid that I am not going to give way to any Conservative members. We have been given four minutes each to speak in the debate, and I intend to use the entirety of the four minutes that I have been given. The Tories referred to the Audit Scotland report, but they failed to mention what it cited, which is that “87% of new ADP clients feel they have been treated with kindness”. Of course, the cost of administering social security in Scotland is lower than was initially forecast. I turn to affordability. It is the case that the Scottish Government has presented a balanced budget each and every year since 2007. I heard the dulcet tones of Mr Kerr earlier when that was mentioned, saying that we are “legally obliged to do so”. Of course we are legally obliged to do so. Stephen Kerr: Yes!”
“Less than three months ago, my party asked the Parliament to instigate a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry. We did so because we knew that it was necessary—we knew it then and we certainly know it now. Our amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill was the only legal mechanism available to us to do it. However, the Scottish National Party voted the amendment down. In doing so, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs cited the leading expert, Professor Alexis Jay. Angela Constance said that Professor Jay “shares my view and has put on the record and stated to the media that she does not support further inquiries into child sexual abuse and exploitation”.—[Official Report, 16 September 2025; c 31.] Does John Swinney think that the justice secretary’s statement was honest?”
“I will end by paying tribute to Mr Norfolk, who passed away six months ago, and to all of Scotland’s child abuse survivors, who are still not being heard. John Swinney can and should instruct a robust and independent grooming gangs inquiry without any further delay. End Scotland’s conspiracy of silence. I move amendment S6M-19980.1, to leave out from “clarify” to end and insert: “establish an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland.” 16:18”
“They question why the inquiry granted anonymity to abusers at some of Scotland’s leading private schools, yet refused anonymity to abuse victim Kevin Sutherland. His family blamed the inquiry’s refusal for his suicide one year ago. The victims who I have spoken with also have no faith in the Scottish Government’s strategic group on child sexual abuse. They see it as a talking shop that is controlled by the very same authorities that failed to protect them. They are angered at the justice secretary misrepresenting the views of grooming gangs expert Professor Alexis Jay, who today spoke publicly about the need for urgent action. I believe that the justice secretary’s position is no longer tenable.”
“I have spoken with victims such as Taylor, whose case files confirm a conspiracy of silence. What shocked many is that there are two tiers of child abuse victims in Scotland. The Scottish child abuse inquiry is closed to many due to its remit, which was set by Scottish Government ministers and which they have consistently refused to broaden. Locked out are young footballers such as Peter Haynes and Stuart McMillan, who were targeted by paedophiles. Locked out is Susie Henderson, whose lawyer father allowed her to be raped by members of the legal establishment. Locked out are many of Scotland’s grooming gang victims. Yes, some victims might be able to engage with the Scottish child abuse inquiry, but they have no faith in an inquiry that has already cost taxpayers more than £114 million.”
“In the words of Mr Norfolk: “They were treated like sub-human species for the pleasure of these men”, yet those poor children were often branded as troublemakers, even as prostitutes. Victim blaming has never been so obscene. The crimes were abhorrent; the conspiracy of silence was shameful. Fourteen years after Mr Norfolk’s first report, I believe that there is a risk of history repeating itself. There is growing evidence that so-called grooming gangs—although I think that “rape gangs” is a much more accurate description—were active across Scotland. However, just as we saw elsewhere, there is also evidence that some sought to cover it up. This week, I spoke with former residential social workers who suspected what was going on in the early 2000s in Glasgow. They were told to keep their mouths shut.”
“A “conspiracy of silence”—that was the phrase that was used by journalist Andrew Norfolk, who, in 2011, uncovered what became known as the grooming gangs scandal. Initially, he was squeamish on hearing allegations of vulnerable white girls in Rotherham being targeted by gangs of predominantly Pakistani Muslim men, but he went on to lay bare the epic scale of those heinous crimes in Yorkshire and beyond. He established that the authorities often knew what was going on but covered it up. Police officers and social workers, fearful of being branded racist, looked the other way, and those who did try to speak out were silenced. Children in local authority care were targeted, stupefied with alcohol and drugs, trafficked and gang raped. Some were as young as 10 years old.”
“Rachel Reeves has increased taxes by £26 billion. Under Labour, taxes will be at their highest levels in history. The freezing of income tax bands will force millions of workers to hand over even more of their wages. The Labour chancellor is not only screwing taxpayers; she is also borrowing even more money, leaving more debt to future generations. She did all that despite saying that she would do none of it. Does John Swinney intend to keep the Scottish National Party’s manifesto promise not to raise tax on Scottish workers?”
“I move amendment S6M-19895.1 to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert: “calls on the UK Government to deliver a budget that supports a fairer, greener economy for Scotland by introducing an annual wealth tax on the wealthiest 1% of households in the UK, raising between £70 billion and £130 billion a year, to invest in communities, public services and climate action across Scotland, including reducing the cost of energy and other essentials for those who are struggling with the cost of living and inflation.” 16:23”
“High growth has categorically not enabled the USA to tackle any of those problems. In fact, as the benefits of growth in the US have largely been felt by the richest, it has actually made the problems of inequality worse. It simply is not true that the best way to run an economy is to try to maximise growth. The way to run an economy is to balance opportunity and obligation, so that everyone can thrive, and to invest in the commons—that is, the things that contribute to everyone’s wellbeing, such as effective public services, public infrastructure and transport. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Slater, please conclude. Lorna Slater: We are all richer when we have good universal healthcare, reliable trains, and clean air and water.”
“However, until the theoretical notion of stuffing carbon back under the North Sea is proven to work at scale, I do not support that type, because it is not proven to work and it sounds like it could be highly dangerous and risky. That is my answer to that question. Let us talk about growth. The Tories, the Lib Dems and even the Labour Party have the peculiar idea that we need to have growth before we can fix any problems, whether the problem is poverty, quality of life or climate change. The answer is always that growth will fix it, but that just is not correct. Let us compare Japan, a low-growth country, with the USA, a high-growth country, as examples. Japan—the low-growth country—has lower rates of crime, lower inequality, better public transport, much lower maternal mortality and universal healthcare.”
“Do the Greens support the scientists in that regard by supporting CCS? Lorna Slater: I am aware of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation. There are two different types of carbon capture—Fergus Ewing may or may not be aware of the technology. One type involves the theoretical idea that carbon can be stuffed into caverns in the North Sea, which is totally unproven, and we are not sure that it would work at scale. The other kind of carbon capture is something that can be fitted on to industrial sites to temporarily decarbonise them as the energy system decarbonises. We absolutely support the second type as part of a transition to clean energy.”
“Russell Findlay: Does Lorna Slater not see— Fergus Ewing: Will the member take an intervention? Lorna Slater: Certainly. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Which member is Lorna Slater giving way to? Lorna Slater: I will give way to Russell Findlay. Russell Findlay: Does Lorna Slater not see the difference between supporting Scotland’s oil and gas industry, which we are proudly and rightly doing, and supporting the journey to net zero in a responsible and affordable fashion? Lorna Slater: I will come on to the state of Scotland’s oil and gas industry, why it is in decline and what we must do about that in detail in my closing remarks, but first I will take the other intervention. Fergus Ewing: On the science, the UK Climate Change Committee states unequivocally that carbon capture and storage is “essential” to achieving net zero.”
“Will Lorna Slater point me to any such denial of science? I do not recall any such interjection on my part. Lorna Slater: Russell Findlay has come to the chamber several times, including in supporting the two Conservative motions today and on at least two occasions at First Minister’s question time, to challenge the climate science around the extraction of oil and gas and the need to stop burning fossil fuels. We absolutely and urgently need to stop burning fossil fuels in order to prevent global heating beyond 1.5°C. If Russell Findlay is in full support of climate science, he will understand that the recommendations that are made by the Climate Change Committee must be taken seriously and implemented. That means no more expansion of oil and gas extraction in the North Sea.”
“The Scottish National Party’s justice secretary misrepresented the views of Professor Alexis Jay on grooming gangs, so will the minister be very clear in responding to this question? Will she make public any correspondence from Professor Jay on this matter? Natalie Don-Innes: I think that I was very clear in the chamber last week, to Mr Findlay’s colleague Mr Kerr, in relation to the misunderstanding and the way that that was appropriately cleared up. I have been very clear that Professor Jay is another valued member of the national group, and I will continue to be informed by the work of that group and those expert voices.”
“John Swinney’s Government promised a Mossmorran transition plan 18 months ago, so where is it?”
“In 1998, aged 25, I spent three glorious weeks at France 98. There was no Google, no smartphones, no social media and no Scottish Parliament. It has been almost “30 years of hurt”, as our English friends would say, but we never stopped dreaming. On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives and the tartan army, I congratulate and thank our Scotland heroes. [Applause.] I turn to my questions for the First Minister. Hundreds of Scottish jobs are at risk, this time in Fife. Thousands have already been lost: 400 at Grangemouth; 250 at Harbour Energy; 200 at Hunting PLC; 500 at Apache and 2,000 at Petrofac. Now 400 more jobs are at risk at Mossmorran. Scotland’s oil and gas industry is being destroyed before our eyes and the Labour and Scottish National Party Governments are causing that to happen because it suits their net zero agenda.”
“Taylor was a vulnerable child in local authority care in Glasgow. She should have been protected, but she was preyed upon by grooming gangs. Last night, she wrote to John Swinney, telling him that she and her friends were plied with alcohol and drugs and were sexually abused by at least 10 Pakistani men. Taylor and other victims say that there must be a grooming gangs inquiry in Scotland. They say that it is the only way to uncover the scale of the abuse, establish why it went unchecked and ensure that it cannot continue. Will John Swinney agree to the inquiry that is being asked for by Taylor and other victims?”
“On remembrance Sunday, our nation will stand in collective silence to remember the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our country and our freedom. The powerful symbol of our remembrance is the poppy that grew on the battlefields of the first world war. Recently, I had the privilege of visiting the Lady Haig Poppy Factory in Edinburgh. The veterans who work there have seen service in every British military campaign since the early 1970s. It was an honour to talk with them about conflict, loss and remembrance. They want us to remember not just on one day but every day, and to remember not only those who served in the past but those who are serving now. Our remembrance is about history and about respecting those who keep us safe today.”
“Claire Inglis was a loving and happy young mum who was tortured and murdered by a man whom she had just begun a relationship with. The judge described Claire’s murder as “beyond sadistic”. The serial criminal who killed her had 40 convictions and was a known danger to women and children, yet he was repeatedly bailed to the home that Claire shared with her young son. Claire’s parents, Fiona and Ian, have spent four years fighting and pleading for information, and they are here today. It is their third time coming to the public gallery during First Minister’s questions. Does John Swinney agree that no family should be forced into the media glare and on to the political stage to get answers from Scotland’s justice system?”
“Amendment 270 agreed to. Amendment 28 moved—[Edward Mountain]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 28 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) 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) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 84, Against 25, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 142 disagreed to. Amendment 143 moved—[Mairi Gougeon]—and agreed to. Amendment 144 not moved. Amendment 270 moved—[Rhoda Grant]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 270 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Ind) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (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) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 27, Against 80, Abstentions 0.”
“19:45 The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Rhoda Grant to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 142. Rhoda Grant: I have nothing more to add. I press amendment 142. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 142 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Amendments 273 and 274 would both seek to ensure that the total £40,000 penalty that is currently set out in the bill is imposed only “for repeat offences”. That would create clarity in the legislation as to when such a sizeable penalty should be enforced. Before I stop, I will pick up on a comment that the cabinet secretary made about drafting issues. I do not know quite what the cabinet secretary was getting at with that. I put forward what I thought was reasonable to the legislation team, and it came back to me with the draft. If we have accepted it into the stage 3 proceedings, surely it is a reasonable amendment to have lodged. I am therefore not sure that I get what the cabinet secretary is attacking me for in relation to that. Perhaps she is trying to defend what is an absolutely disgraceful cost to be imposing on landowners.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Through the chair, please, Mr Doris. Tim Eagle: Five thousand pounds was the figure that the Government minister and Government workers in the background thought was reasonable at stage 1. I think that they were right—it is a reasonable figure, and I think that we should go back to it. The increase to £40,000 is far too disproportionate. Under the bill as amended at stage 2, a further fine of up to £40,000 could be imposed on a landowner who does not remedy a breach of obligations under a land management plan. Our amendment 150 proposes, once again, to reduce that figure to £5,000, as it was originally drafted. My amendments 273 and 274 follow the same reasoning as amendments 271 and 272, except in the context where it is found that a breach has not been remedied.”
“Although the Government seemed content to impose a £40,000 fine on Scotland’s food producers for an administrative failing, it has been criticised for failing to provide any plan for the land that it acquired on the Glen Prosen estate despite having acquired it three years ago. A fine of £40,000 is wildly disproportionate and risks burdening farmers and landowners with unfair, disproportionate and heavy penalties. Our amendment 148 proposes to reduce that figure to £5,000, as it was originally drafted. Bob Doris: Mr Mountain said that £40,000 is “an arbitrary figure”. He is proposing £20,000, which I suppose is an arbitrary figure, too, while £5,000 is an amount that the Conservatives believe is much less than it would cost to produce a land management plan. How did you arrive at the figure of £5,000, Mr Eagle?”
“I do not support amendment 142, in the name of Rhoda Grant, because the definition of “community body” is so wide. I also cannot support amendments 270 and 144. All of Tim Eagle’s amendments in this group appear sensible to me, and I obviously support his amendment 148. However, if that amendment falls, my amendment 38 is the appropriate halfway house, and it should therefore attract the attention of the Government. Tim Eagle: Following the amendments made at stage 2, the bill will impose a fine of up to £40,000 on a landowner who breaches a land management plan obligation. A fine of up to that amount could mean that a farmer or landowner is penalised more than someone who has committed a serious environmental crime.”
“At the moment, the Government seems to discriminate against landowners—but we will come to that in due course. Members: Oh! Edward Mountain: Members can make all sorts of noises, but let us wait until we get to the vote on that amendment, and then we will see where they go on that. I acknowledge that the timescale might be tight, but, with fines as significant as the ones that are being suggested, there should be absolute clarity about when and on what scale those fines would be enforced. Bob Doris: Will the member give way? Edward Mountain: If I have time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is bringing his remarks to a conclusion. Edward Mountain: Okay—I will bring my remarks to a close. I turn to the other amendments in the group.”
“I just heard the cabinet secretary talk about an “unworkable amendment”. Does Edward Mountain agree with me that hearing the Government make accusations about unworkable amendments is somewhat ironic, given its track record of disastrous and unworkable legislation? Edward Mountain: There is definitely something in that. Conservative members are trying to help the Government to prevent ministers from getting themselves in a pickle. We tried to do that when it came to the deposit return scheme. Let us turn to amendment 37, which seeks to reduce the fine for a breach of the management plan from £40,000 to £20,000. Amendment 149 would oblige the commissioner to publish guidance on the scale of the enforcement of fines within six months of the act gaining royal assent. We are going to talk about who can be a commissioner.”
“That is because the issues that will affect Scotland will be affected by what is happening in the global south. It is unavoidable. The climate crisis in the global south will have an effect on us here in Scotland, and the issues that we are wrestling with in health programmes in the global south will have a resonance here in Scotland. One thing that I am very proud of is to lead a country that is outward looking and focused on working with others, and that is what my Government will do.”
“Our young people have just delivered a very strong level of performance in the examination system—performance that is back to pre-Covid levels—and we are taking steps to ensure that our public services meet the needs and expectations of people in Scotland. We have also been focused on economic growth in Scotland, as I was last night, when I discussed a variety of ideas with the Scottish technology council to that end. I will absolutely be held to account for my focus on domestic issues. I will be answering questions again here on Thursday on the basis of my responsibilities, but I am also very happy to be here today to explain to Parliament the Government’s commitment to making sure that Scotland fulfils our obligation as a good global citizen.”