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 4 of 6.
“Why is the First Minister not focused on those issues here in Scotland? Foreign affairs are not his remit; they are reserved. He keeps saying that we must be “good global citizens” and that Scotland should play its part, but we do. As part of the United Kingdom, we have a long and proud record of helping those in need. Is it not about time that the First Minister focused on the many serious issues here in Scotland? The First Minister: Let me assure Russell Findlay that I am very focused on the issues and challenges that face the people of Scotland. As a result of that, and as he will have seen from the news this morning, there is data demonstrating that waiting lists are falling and that the number of procedures that are being undertaken in our health service is increasing.”
“John Swinney wants us to believe that his motives are sincere, but I question why he thinks that foreign affairs should be his focus. There are so many challenges here in Scotland. Those should be his focus. One in six Scots is on national health service waiting lists. On his final day of his trip to Africa, the Scottish Government revealed that half of all Scottish adults are now living with at least one long-term health condition. Scotland is suffering a dental crisis, but John Swinney uses taxpayers’ money to train dentists overseas. He uses taxpayers’ money to help other countries address climate change while missing almost every domestic climate change target. Furthermore, Scotland’s economy is stagnant, with too few opportunities for young people, and our school system has lost its international reputation for excellence.”
“Yesterday, John Swinney launched yet another taxpayer-funded paper on independence. He has called it a fresh start. [Interruption.]”
“I am proud of Britain’s long history of immigration. I am proud of the strength and richness of our diversity. I am proud of our culture—decent, welcoming, tolerant and respectful. I am just back from our party conference in the great city of Manchester, where the writer Matthew Syed said of his father, an immigrant from Pakistan: “He knew that this is perhaps the most meritocratic and least sectarian nation on earth.” I value colleagues from a broad range of ethnic and religious backgrounds, including Kemi Badenoch, the first black leader of any major United Kingdom party, and Rishi Sunak, the first ever non-white Prime Minister. Neither today, tomorrow or, indeed, ever will I accept lectures from Scottish National Party or other left-wing politicians who falsely accuse our party of xenophobia.”
“I begin by noting the horrific attack on the Jewish community in Manchester this morning. I send our very best wishes to all those who have been affected. Disposable income is what people have left to spend after paying their taxes and their bills. Put simply, it is about how many pounds they have left in their pockets. Scottish Conservatives have analysed Office for National Statistics data that reveals that the average Scottish household now has less disposable income, in real terms, than it did in 2007. People in Scotland are worse off than when John Swinney and the Scottish National Party came to power. He must surely be ashamed of that fact.”
“Amendment 350 disagreed to. The Presiding Officer: At this point, we will have a comfort break. I ask members to be back in the chamber at 17:57 sharp. 17:41 Meeting suspended. 17:57 On resuming— After section 51”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) 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) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (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) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) 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) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 85, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 349 disagreed to. Amendment 350 moved—[Richard Leonard]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 350 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) 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) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) 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) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) 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) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 84, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 348 disagreed to. Amendment 349 moved—[Richard Leonard]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 349 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Natalie Don-Innes: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Don- Innes. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had a problem with the app. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Findlay. We will ensure that that is recorded. For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) 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) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) 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) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) 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) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 24, Against 85, Abstentions 0.”
“This is Scotland’s first-ever national innovation week, with a series of events including today’s national innovation summit in Edinburgh. We can all agree that innovation is critical to business growth, creating jobs and a healthy economy. When the Scottish National Party Government launched its innovation strategy two years ago, it produced a scorecard to measure performance. The scorecard was updated this morning, and I have it here. It shows that performance is declining across more than half of the Government’s own key measures. Is that really good enough?”
“The Auditor General today confirms that the Scottish National Party has a £1.2 billion black hole in social security spending for this year alone. The SNP’s benefits black hole is going to get even bigger, reaching £2 billion by 2030. The Auditor General says: “The Scottish Government has not yet set out a detailed strategy for how it will manage the forecast gap between social security funding and spending within its overall budget.” The Government will spend £2 billion a year more on benefits than budgets provide, yet it has no plan to pay for it. Will John Swinney tell us what his plan is, or whether he even has one?”
“That would risk misleading victims, creating confusion or unnecessary distress and, ultimately, undermining trust in the justice system.”
“I simply make the point that having a default position that required prosecutors to contact everyone in all circumstances would be a blunt approach and would not be trauma informed. I understand very much what Mr Greene and others are trying to achieve, but it would be remiss of me not to raise the issues that I have raised today. I also ask parliamentarians to be aware of how the justice system operates in practice. When a case is marked “no proceedings” or “no action”, that often does not reflect a final or irreversible decision. Prosecutors retain the discretion to raise proceedings at a later stage if new evidence emerges or other victims come forward, yet amendments 101, 64 and 65 would mandate communication at that early point.”
“Many victims are not signed up to those schemes, because they were never invited to sign up to them and were unable to have future opt-ins to them. Surely the default position should be that the Crown would want that information to be in the hands of the victims, unless there was some explicit mechanism for that not to be the case. 15:45 Angela Constance: Mr Greene will not find any argument from me on the endeavours that must be made to improve registration with the victim notification scheme and with the victim information and advice service that the Crown Office provides. In later groups, we will debate the good steps forward that have been taken as part of the journey to improve, in particular, the victim notification scheme.”
“I consider that victims should be supported and empowered to choose what information they would like, at a time that is good for them, and not be forced to make decisions about individual pieces of information at specific points in the criminal justice process. That would add complexity to a system that victims already consider to be opaque and difficult to navigate. Jamie Greene: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Angela Constance: Of course. Jamie Greene: We all know that there are many issues with victim notification schemes as they stand, and I need not rehearse the arguments on that. However, the stark reality is that it is inconceivable that the Crown, particularly in grave cases, would simply drop or discontinue proceedings and not tell the victim.”
“If victims wish, they can request to be told of decisions by the prosecutor not to take action in a case or to discontinue proceedings. However, Mr Greene’s amendments 64 and 65 would give the victim no choice about whether to receive that information. Under amendment 64, they would simply have to be told and, under amendment 65, it would be for the prosecutor to decide that, without giving consideration to the victim’s views. Although Ms Dowey’s amendment 101 would require taking the victim’s views into account, it would also require the victim to opt out of receiving information specifically about a decision not to prosecute.”
“Angela Constance: I would like to make a wee bit of progress. Maybe later. Neither do I support Mr Findlay’s amendment 102, which would make it the default that prosecutors must contact all victims about plea adjustments unless they have specifically opted out. In my view, that unfairly puts the onus on precisely those victims who do not wish to engage. I turn to amendments 64 and 65, in the name of Jamie Greene, and amendment 101, in the name of Sharon Dowey. I acknowledge the good intentions behind those amendments, but I have given the members concerned advance notice that I cannot support them. Choice and empowerment are core principles of trauma-informed practice. Victims should have meaningful control over whether and how they are kept informed about their case, if that is what they wish.”
“They are individuals who, understandably, for their own reasons and having made a personal choice, might wish to move on from what has been a traumatic or distressing experience and not wish to have further contact with the Crown Office. To force information about plea adjustments on to victims in that way would be completely incompatible with the trauma-informed practice that is being embedded in our justice system. I remind Mr Findlay that part 2 of the bill creates a statutory duty for prosecutors to “have regard to” trauma-informed practice. I would have hoped that, if Mr Findlay had listened to victims collectively, as he says that he has done, he would not want to whole-heartedly support an approach that undermines that. Russell Findlay: Will the cabinet secretary give way?”
“Angela Constance: What I would acknowledge about the discussion that we had, which will probably inform our debates on later groups, is that the language on opt-in and opt-out models is misleading and tends to create barriers that stop us coming together, not only to agree on the best ways forward for victims to receive information that recognises their agency and their choice, but, equally, to build systems that are far more proactive in reaching out to victims. My concern about amendment 63 is that it would deny victims choice. It would compel prosecutors to contact victims who had expressly opted out of receiving information from the Crown Office.”
“I am a wee bit puzzled why Mr Findlay was not content with the approach that I outlined, why he lodged an amendment that he now seems to be somewhat equivocating on and why he has gone on to lodge other amendments that he knows will deny victims a choice. Russell Findlay: For the record, the cabinet secretary and I had discussions prior to recess, and nothing was agreed or set in stone. The cabinet secretary said that she would go away and look at whether it would be an opt-in model, an opt-out model or something in between. It was only right on the cusp of the deadline for lodging amendments that I saw the amendment that showed it to be an opt-in model, which I was never in favour of—hence my new amendments. I would like the cabinet secretary to at least acknowledge that as being the case.”
“However, the service has received an increase in its funding of more than 50 per cent—56 per cent, in fact— since the start of the previous parliamentary session. To address matters on which we agree, I agree very much that victims deserve to be kept informed, to understand what is happening in their case and to feel that the system is working for them and not around them. Amendment 38 will strengthen the rights of victims to be informed about plea adjustments and, by law—this will be set out in the bill—will require prosecutors to inform victims in solemn cases. Amendment 38 not only delivers on the approach that I discussed and agreed with Mr Findlay but goes further, by including a power to allow for an extension to summary cases in the future.”
“Russell Findlay: Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, due to the inherent problems in the criminal justice system of people being under strain, and due to the difficulties that prosecutors face every single day, an opt-in system is inherently flawed? Victims might not even know that they have the right to opt in, hence the problems with the cabinet secretary’s hand-out amendment 38. Angela Constance: There are inherent flaws with an opt-out approach, which I will come on to. I appreciate that, due to the success of prosecutors and the rise in the number of successful prosecutions of domestic violence and sexual crime, the Crown Office works extremely hard and, without a doubt, will be under pressure.”
“Angela Constance: I make it absolutely clear that the bill will deliver for victims; it will make landmark reforms that are much needed; and it has been informed by the voices of victims, their families and support organisations. I have listened to Mr Findlay and other members of the Parliament on the bill since it was introduced more than two years ago. Members might be a wee bit surprised to hear that I have had constructive meetings with Mr Findlay and that I took on board his contribution at stage 2 in relation to plea adjustments and offered to work with him ahead of stage 3. We agreed an approach to an amendment that we could both support, which enhances victims’ rights, supports informed choice and strengthens the justice system’s accountability—that is amendment 38, which I am very happy to support today.”
“The amendment would give ministers the power to make regulations for how victims could express their wish not to receive that information. It is crucial that victims are not kept in the dark, as they often report feeling like a witness in their own case, excluded from important decisions that concern them. It is common sense that, if they want to receive such information, they should be kept informed about what is happening with their case. Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid both support my amendment, with Scottish Women’s Aid saying that providing information about the decision not to prosecute is important to women who are experiencing domestic abuse. My amendment 101 would put victims first.”
“However, given the Government’s failure to do so, I urge the Parliament to back my amendments in the group, as has been requested by Victim Support Scotland. The only other amendment that I will mention is amendment 38, because I do not believe that it is a big ask. Indeed, the whole package of amendments in the group should be supported accordingly. Sharon Dowey: Amendment 101 would require that, when a prosecutor makes the decision not to prosecute an offender, the prosecutor must inform the victim of that decision. As Jamie Greene said, I have included an important safeguard—I hope that the Government will recognise it as a compromise—which would ensure that victims can opt out of receiving such information, in keeping with trauma-informed practice.”
“Amendment 101, in Sharon Dowey’s name, would give an expanded version of what I am seeking to achieve by offering the so-called opt- out clause that the Government said was not in my amendment 64. I am happy to support Sharon Dowey’s amendment 101 if mine does not pass. Amendment 64 is not a new amendment. It was brought before the Criminal Justice Committee at stage 2 in March this year. The reality is that, if there had been any competency issues with its wording, or if there had been any other issues that could have been flagged, addressed or even raised by the Government ahead of today, they were not. Ultimately, it would have been preferable if the Government had lodged amendments to provide a workable solution to the very live issue of victims not being notified of decisions not to prosecute.”
“I wish to put this on the record, because I hope that members will consider their opinion on it: VSS has stated that it strongly believes that it should not be for a victim of a crime or their family to actively seek information about whether the crime has been prosecuted; it should be for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or its representatives to proactively contact victims to inform them of such decisions. In cases where the victims are not told, they cannot make use of their right to appeal such decisions in situations where it could be legitimate to do so. We all know the reality that very few victims go on to appeal decisions not to prosecute, and the success rate of that is incredibly low—in fact, it is staggeringly low.”
“It is both my and Victim Support Scotland’s assertion that amendment 64 represents the strongest possible option “by creating a broad, unconditional notification duty covering both non-prosecution and discontinuance.” My amendment on the matter had very broad public support when I consulted on it. Back in 2021, 84 per cent of respondents were fully supportive of my proposal, when I consulted on my proposed victims, criminal justice and fatal accident inquiries (Scotland) bill, that all victims should have the right to be notified of a decision not to prosecute their case.”
“If someone has reported the crime and the Crown decides, for whatever reason, that it will not proceed with the case, the person who has been identified as a potential victim ought to have the right to know that. We might expect that to be the case already but, sadly, the reality is that it is not the case. Too many cases are dropped or discontinued, and the victim is the last person to find out, if they find out at all. The cabinet secretary suggests that, because I have failed to provide an opt-out clause in my amendments, those amendments are not “trauma informed”. That concern is not shared by Victim Support Scotland, which, I would say, knows quite a lot about trauma-informed justice practice.”
“The question here is similar to what Russell Findlay was saying about plea deals and the lack of transparency. Why do we need the amendment or a version of it? The reality is that it is too often the case that victims are simply not informed that their case has been dropped or that a decision has been made not to continue prosecution. At that point, many people will not have had the opportunity to opt in to any victim notification scheme, perhaps because cases are not yet live in the system, at that stage when the Crown has information from Police Scotland and is considering whether to pursue a case. There are many reasons why the Crown may drop a case: there might be a lack of evidence, or it might believe that the case might not be successful.”
“It does so by adding a new section to the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 that states that, where a prosecutor decides to discontinue prosecution or not to prosecute a case, “the prosecutor must, as soon as reasonably practicable, inform” the victim. Amendment 65 is materially similar—it is almost identical—but it includes an extra caveat, which says: “unless the prosecutor considers that it would be inappropriate to do so.” That gives the prosecutor some necessary flexibility if they deem it appropriate. For example, in complex cases, that information might put the alleged offender’s safety at risk, where they have been identified, or it might compromise future, simultaneous or concurrent investigations into the same alleged offender.”
“He has made some salient and well-presented points about the nature of information that victims get or do not get, as the case may be, and I note his comments. My amendments in this group are in a similar vein but, rather than being related to plea deals, they pertain to where the Crown has decided to drop a case—in other words, to decisions not to prosecute, as they are more commonly known. Both my amendments seek to achieve the same thing, but in slightly different ways—and I will happily explain that. Amendment 64 would give victims a right to be informed by prosecutors when a decision has been made not to prosecute an alleged offender or to discontinue the proceedings against them.”
“If members will indulge me, I will end with a quote from Liz Shanks, who has fought so hard for transparency. She said: “They’re pretending to listen. They just want to be seen to be doing the right thing—but not doing what’s actually needed. Crime victims are not being listened to. They’re being let down every single day ... and they will be badly let down by this bill which could have done so much more.” I find it hard to disagree with her, not least in respect of the plea deal amendments. Let us, please, show Liz and all the other victims out there that we are, in fact, listening by getting these critical amendments across the line. I move amendment 38. 15:30 Jamie Greene: I add my support for amendment 38 in the name of Russell Findlay.”
“Amendment 102 represents a bit of a halfway house between the Scottish Government’s opt-in model and my full disclosure model. It would mean that victims would have to opt out of being told about plea deals. I would still have reservations about any system that was reliant on Crown Office communication, given the strains that it is under, which is why amendment 63 is by far and away the best option. In all the decades that I have been working with victims during my time in journalism and in politics, I have yet to meet a victim who has said that they want less information about their case, which is what the Government’s hand-out option—amendment 38—would, in effect, amount to. Scottish Women’s Aid supports amendment 102, and Victim Support Scotland supports all three of my amendments.”
“The fundamental problem with amendment 38 relates to how a victim would know that they had the right to opt in. The short answer to that is that they just would not know. We can look at some of the opt-in models that have been used in the justice system in recent years. For example, after the mass release of prisoners, only something like 2 or 3 per cent of people opted in to find out whether the person who had caused them harm had been set free prematurely. We know that opt-in models do not work, which is why we need amendment 63 or amendment 102. Amendment 63 is my preferred option. It would mean that all victims in solemn cases would be told about plea deals. That amounts to basic transparency—it is simple common sense.”
“I think that that approach could be improved. Given that victims are entitled to know the outcome of their case—whether it be a conviction or an acquittal—why on earth would sharing the details of a plea deal somehow cause further trauma? Surely victims are entitled to that basic level of transparency. Amendment 38 almost gets there, but it perhaps risks giving an illusion of transparency and could actually make things worse for victims. I say that because, at a meeting to discuss the issue, the Lord Advocate told me that all victims are already told about deals, even though we know from the abundance of evidence in the public domain that that does not routinely happen. If that should happen but does not currently, how would amendment 38 change the position?”
“Again, the deal favoured the accused, who was able to see certain charges dropped despite an abundance of evidence—in this case, closed- circuit television evidence—against him. In both those cases and in many others, the victims found out that there had been plea deals only because there happened to be journalists in court. As I said at the outset, such things happen every single day of the week. After some discussion prior to the recess, I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving me amendment 38 as a hand-out. It proposes to give victims in solemn cases the right to opt in to receive information about plea deals. The Scottish Government says that that approach is trauma informed. The cabinet secretary has already used that term today, but I still do not understand what it actually means.”
“However, far too often, such deals are taken in secret, and some very concerning decisions have been made. In one particular case, it took four years for a serial domestic abuser to be found guilty after he used every dirty trick in the book to evade justice. Having done so, he was still offered a favourable plea deal, which meant that some charges were dropped altogether, despite an abundance of evidence, and other charges were diluted to remove their worst elements. That is commonplace—it is happening in courts across Scotland, and it happens every single week. Another case that springs to mind is that of Liz Shanks, who has campaigned on plea deal transparency ever since her own case of domestic violence went through the courts. She discovered only after the event that a deal had been struck.”
“I have three amendments in the group, which relate specifically to plea deals in solemn cases. At stage 2, I lodged some amendments in relation to summary cases, but having listened to the cabinet secretary’s warning about them potentially adding to court delays, I withdrew them. It is perhaps interesting to note that the ratio of summary to solemn proceedings in court is approximately six to one, so there are far more summary cases than there are solemn ones. There is absolutely nothing wrong with plea deals. For years, they have been used very effectively by prosecutors in the conduct of their business. They can spare victims and witnesses from giving testimony. They can save the courts time and money, and they can incentivise early guilty pleas for the benefit of everyone involved.”
“Next week, members of the Scottish Parliament will vote on the Government’s Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. During my time here, I have tried to help crime victims whose suffering is far too often compounded by a justice system that is slow, secretive and unjust. My party has campaigned to give victims a meaningful voice and greater rights to basic information. We campaigned to end the not proven verdict, which is addressed in the bill, and it is welcome that John Swinney listened to our concerns about the plan to remove juries from some trials, which has now been dropped. The Government has shifted its position on the bill, and we truly welcome that, but it has not gone far enough. Does John Swinney really think that the bill will make a material difference to victims?”
“More than four out of five businesses in Scotland fear that they might go bust within 12 months. Around one in six people in Scotland are trapped on national health service waiting lists, with tens of thousands forced to pay for private treatment. Drug death rates are still the worst in Europe, with 4,570 lives lost since the Scottish National Party declared a national mission. All those issues need the Government’s urgent attention now, so why on earth did John Swinney give a speech today all about independence?”
“As First Minister, I am expected to operate within the law, as are my ministers— and I expect it of them. The current situation in relation to the case of genocide puts ministers in a position in which, if we do not take the actions that I am taking today, we could be at risk of not operating within the law.”
“On the question of the recognition of the Palestinian state, I do not think that it is premature; it is long overdue, to be honest—long overdue by multiple decades. Finally, I met the Jewish community on Monday. I did so to explain to them face to face what I was thinking about the way in which this issue had to be handled. It is not the first time that I have met the community; I have had regular meetings with it. I am certain that the community will be disappointed by some of the things that I have said today. I am not in any doubt about that. However, I have to look at the situation in Gaza, and I have to think about the responsibility that my ministers carry to act within the law. That has underpinned the central decision that I have announced today.”
“The First Minister: I agree with Russell Findlay that we should never forget what happened on 7 October 2023, and I agree with him that we should never forget what is going on in Gaza now, which has been going on for a considerable time. I willingly accept my responsibility for the issues for which I have responsibility. I was here, in the chamber, leading a debate on those questions yesterday; I will be here tomorrow, answering First Minister’s questions, as I do every Thursday; and I will appear here whenever the Parliament asks me to do so to account for my actions. Some of my responsibilities are covered in the statement, which is about the way in which our enterprise agencies operate—that is my responsibility. I have to explain to the Parliament the approaches that we are taking.”
“I would rather that Mr Swinney provided a statement on those issues, for which he has responsibility. However, since this statement is before us, I will ask John Swinney about his demand to immediately recognise Palestinian statehood. That will be seen by many people as premature, impractical and counterproductive. [Interruption.] John Swinney says that he has spoken with Scotland’s proud and valued Jewish community in an attempt to allay their concerns. What does he expect their reaction will be to his statement today? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the First Minister, I remind members that, as emotional as this topic might be, we have listened to the First Minister with respect and we will listen to others who have questions with the same respect.”
“We must never forget the horrors of 7 October 2023: the rape, murder and kidnap of innocent Israelis at the hands of Hamas terrorists. We are all deeply disturbed by the horrors of what is happening in Gaza, with so many innocent civilians—adults and children—being killed while others starve. The events in the middle east are a blight on humanity. I do not doubt the sincerity of the First Minister’s feelings, but I also believe that the Scottish Parliament should focus the powers that it has on improving people’s lives in Scotland. Issues here need our full and urgent attention. Drug death rates in Scotland are the worst in Europe for the seventh consecutive year. Many communities live in fear of serious violence. Lives are being lost due to chronic problems in the national health service.”
“In short, Holyrood has not focused on Scotland’s priorities.”
“They watched the disastrous attempt at a deposit return scheme, which harmed business and hammered taxpayers. They watched the SNP target free speech, criminalising what can be said in one’s own home. They watched it fail to build two ferries and to stem the desperate death toll from drugs, as today’s figures show. Why does almost everything that Holyrood touches go so badly wrong? Why does it waste so much time debating things that are either outwith its remit or really not that important? All the while, it neglects the issues—the real issues—that it has the power to change. Whatever John Swinney claimed today, the blunt reality is that this Parliament has not focused on what people truly care about. It has not made it any easier to get a GP appointment. It has not fixed dangerous roads. It has not raised school standards.”