Katy Clark
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I welcome the fact that we are taking steps to reduce the prison population, but there needs to be a wider discussion—I think that we are all agreed on that. Community justice must be expanded.”
“The chamber has been designed so that members speak through the chair, which also means that the microphones will work. If you face me, your microphone should work. Alyn Smith: I am grateful to Amanda Bland for her comment. She is a good colleague on the Criminal Justice Committee, and, as ever, that was a sensible question.”
“Yesterday, I met constituents outside the Parliament who are concerned about the potential impact on local communities and the environment of the energy consumption of proposed AI data centres in Irvine, Bishopbriggs and Hunterston, in my region. At least 24 controversial sites are being considered across Scotland.”
“The member cannot take an intervention, as she is already in additional time. Pauline McNeill: I will conclude with a specific point on deaths in custody, which the Criminal Justice Committee had a brief chat about on Wednesday morning.”
“I move amendment S7M-00469.2, to insert at end: “; is concerned that the current prison population crisis is chronically hampering effective rehabilitation; calls on the Scottish Government to increase its investment in GPS technology and speed up its roll out, and notes that the current approach to rehabilitation, community justice and e…”
“I understand that there is a request for national guidance, but that would be a deviation from where we are as a Parliament. However, if the mood of the Parliament is changing, the Government is open to listening, and that is a conversation to be had.”
The complete record
Every one of 635 lines we hold for Katy Clark, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that local authorities receive fair and sustainable funding settlements. (S6O-05561)”
“Amendment 11 moved—[Graham Simpson]— and agreed to. Amendment 52 moved—[Sue Webber].”
“Where appropriate, there is detail about the regional poll process that mirrors the detail for the constituency poll. I welcome the consistency in approach on the power to amend dates relating to the poll, including confirmation that that responsibility will rest with the Presiding Officer. I also welcome clarity on the point that regional returning officers would set the date for the poll, in consultation with constituency returning officers. Mr Simpson and I have had several discussions about the details of his recall provisions. The amendments would help to redress the balance between matters that should rightly be considered by and agreed by the Parliament and matters that should be dealt with by the Scottish ministers by means of regulations with agreed parameters, and I support them. Amendment 10 agreed to.”
“The amendments in this group go some way towards achieving that. Although I have already expressed my thoughts on how I would have wanted a regional recall process to be, I recognise that the proposed process has been changed. If it is to go forward, Scottish Conservatives will support the amendments in the group. Graeme Dey: I support all Mr Simpson’s amendments in the group, as they will enhance the clarity of the regional recall process by putting more detail in the bill. The committee asked for that at stage 2, and the Government agreed. New amendments that reflect consultation and engagement with parliamentarians were needed. The latest amendments would make the roles and responsibilities of those who will be responsible for administering the regional recall process clearer.”
“Amendment 28 provides that regulations made under section 21 may make provision about the times of day that must, or must not, be designated for voting in the regional poll. Amendment 29 would align the language that the bill uses about voting in a recall poll. In summary, many of those provisions will sound familiar to members because they reflect existing electoral processes. In addition, the provisions in amendments 10 to 13, 15, 16 and 28 mirror the bill’s sections on the constituency recall petition process to ensure that those processes are as similar as possible so that members would be treated fairly and parity of esteem would be employed. I move amendment 10. Sue Webber: At stage 2, the minister was clear that the regional recall process would need to be redesigned by the member in charge, and to quite a degree.”
“Amendment 15 sets out that a person is entitled to vote in a recall poll if, on polling day, they would be entitled to vote at a Scottish Parliament election. It also provides for when alterations are made to the relevant electoral register to determine people’s eligibility to vote in the poll. Amendment 16 is on entitlement to vote in person, by post and by proxy. It proposes that a person may vote only once and cannot withdraw that vote. They would be permitted to vote more than once only if they were acting as a proxy. Amendment 17 provides for a minor tweak, for consistency, on the entitlement to vote. Amendment 18 provides clarity on the meaning of the key terms “entitled to vote” and “polling day”.”
“Amendment 14 would allow a regional poll to be rescheduled in the same circumstances as are set out for a recall petition for a constituency MSP, subject to the same requirements for consultation with the returning officer, the Electoral Commission and the convener of the Electoral Management Board. For example, it might not be possible to hold a poll due to a snap UK general election or a local disaster such as a flooding event. Amendment 14 sets out the requirements on the Presiding Officer, and would set an outer limit of eight weeks, from the original date that was designated as polling day, for the new poll to take place. The provision is modelled on section 2 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows the Presiding Officer to postpone a Scottish Parliament general election.”
“The returning officer must ensure that there are “reasonable facilities” for in-person voting, including those that are accessible for disabled people. The amendment also includes a requirement for returning officers to consult constituency returning officers on the poll date. Amendment 12 would add detail on the provision of notice to the electorate that a recall poll is to take place. The notice of the poll must be issued at least 20 working days before the polling day, to ensure that adequate notice is given. Amendment 13 would require the returning officer to ensure that a person who is entitled to vote is able to do so in person at the designated times and places or by post.”
“The Welsh bill would allow a period of three months for that process, but I consider that it could take place within seven weeks and that, in working to shorter timescales, people on the ground, who would have informed experience, would be best placed to identify a workable date. The seven-week period proposed in amendment 11 would broadly mirror the timescales for the recall petition process for constituency MSPs. As I mentioned during the debate on group 1, I want to ensure that MSPs are treated fairly, which would include giving constituency and regional MSPs comparable campaigning time to inform the electorate’s decision. Amendment 11 sets out that the returning officer must ensure that those who are entitled to vote in the poll have a reasonable opportunity to do so.”
“I am aware that that is the approach in the Welsh Government’s bill and that our Presiding Officer already sets the date for by-elections. However, in my view, using the regional returning officer option would be preferable. First, returning officers would set the date for the constituency recall petition process, so appointing the regional returning officer would ensure consistency. Secondly, the poll must take place within, at most, seven weeks of the recall initiating notice being issued. On that basis, regional returning officers, working alongside constituency returning officers, would be best placed to establish the date, based on practical considerations such as the availability of polling place venues.”
“One amendment was disagreed to on the ground that there was insufficient detail in the bill. The minister was concerned that the Government would need to decide on matters during the development of regulations, as opposed to the Parliament deciding the detail in primary legislation. My amendments in this group would set out much more detail in the bill. However, they would not detail question wording for the poll, so that the Electoral Commission could conduct user testing on proposed wording once the bill was passed. I think that that is entirely right. 16:00 Amendment 10 would require the returning officer to designate voting places and the days and/or the times of day when people could vote. The returning officer would set the poll date. Another option would have been to require the Presiding Officer to specify that date.”
“The new process would involve only a poll, which would be held on one day in the relevant region. If more than 50 per cent of voters were to say that the MSP should be recalled, the member would lose their seat and be replaced in the usual way. At stage 2, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee gave unanimous cross-party support to the proposed new process and supported all but one of my amendments. The new proposed process would be simpler, easier for the electorate to engage with, quicker, cheaper for the taxpayer and more reflective of electoral processes. It is based on advice from the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Management Board and the process set out in the Welsh Government’s equivalent bill, which is also at stage 3.”
“Amendment 9 disagreed to. Section 14A—Meaning of expressions used in Chapter 2 Amendment 51 moved—[Graham Simpson]— and agreed to. Section 17A—Returning officer’s duty to organise poll The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 4 is on the recall poll process for regional members. Amendment 10, in the name of Graham Simpson, is grouped with amendments 11 to 18, 28 and 29. Graham Simpson: I will probably speak on this group for about five minutes, which might help members decide what to do—I see that some are leaving. I always try to be helpful. At stage 1, 81 members supported the bill, but concerns were raised about the regional recall process. At stage 2, I made changes in response to those concerns, and I later lodged further amendments for consideration at stage 3. The original proposed process involved two stages: a petition and a poll.”
“For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South 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) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) 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) 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) 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) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) 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) 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) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 26, Against 83, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 8 disagreed to. Section 4—Criminal-offence ground: expiry of appeal period Amendment 50 moved—[Graham Simpson]— and agreed to. Amendment 9 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South 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) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) 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) 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) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) 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) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (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) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 26, Against 84, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 6 disagreed to. Amendment 48 not moved. Amendment 49 moved—[Graham Simpson]— and agreed to. After section 9 Amendment 7 moved—[Graham Simpson]— and agreed to. Section 3—Criminal-offence ground Amendment 8 moved—[Sue Webber]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 8 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not vote. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Clark. Your vote will be recorded. For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Ind) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) 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) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) 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) 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) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 23, Against 81, Abstentions 0.”
“Gillian Martin: One thing that we need to see is consistency around procurement when it comes to all the contracts that could be available to local suppliers, and by that I mean not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK. A great deal of work is happening in the energy space around transmission infrastructure, and I would like to see conditionality in that area. However, Katy Clark has a point. If we do not see companies proving that they have local procurement, there will be questions to ask about the viability of their licences.”
“One of the advantages of having the Crown Estate devolved to Scotland is that we were able to put conditionality into the licence options. However, I have been told that one of the biggest gaps in local procurement is in the transmission infrastructure build-out. There are no conditions around local procurement—or even UK procurement—for the build-out of transmission infrastructure. We are seeing contracts for cabling going to companies that are based in mainland Europe instead of companies that are based in Scotland. I have also been writing to the UK Government about that. [Interruption.] I seem to be being heckled by someone. The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. Gillian Martin: One thing that we need to— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the cabinet secretary.”
“Scotland continues to lag behind the UK offshore wind farms’ local content target of 60 per cent. For example, there is no conditionality for local employment in the supply chain development statements that Crown Estate Scotland requires developers to produce. Those statements require developers to set out how much they spend in Scotland, the UK, the European Union and other countries, but they do not translate those capital commitments into local job creation. Does the cabinet secretary recognise that, for Scotland to meet its ambitious local content targets and deliver meaningful employment, there must be conditionality for local employment and training in the ScotWind process? Gillian Martin: I agree with that.”
“The Scottish Government has been asked to introduce legislation over a number of sessions of Parliament, but it has failed to do so, which is why I introduced this member’s bill. I was approached in 2021, when I was first elected to the Parliament, and asked whether I would proceed if the Government would not. I welcome the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s support for some of the bill’s provisions. It supported a requirement for the Scottish Government to consider proposals from the Scottish Information Commissioner to extend the number of bodies that need to comply with freedom of information law.”
“Council house issues were previously subject to freedom of information but, when council houses were subject to stock transfer to bodies such as housing associations, that was no longer the case. It took 13 years of campaigning before information rights were reinstated by the current minister. In most other areas, rights that have been lost over the past 25 years still have not been reinstated. The Public Audit and Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee in the previous session of Parliament and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, in its stage 1 report on the bill, were right to conclude that “legislation is now needed to update the freedom of information regime in Scotland” and that the Scottish Government has been slow to exercise its powers under the 2002 act.”
“I understand the concerns that have been raised about parliamentary time, but my concern is that no proposals have been brought forward by the Scottish Government since the 2020 committee report. I fear that, if the bill fails to pass stage 1 today, we will have the same debate again in five years’ time, still with no proposals forthcoming from Scottish ministers. Whether it is in local government, justice, transport or social care, private companies have increasingly become major providers of public services, but they are not covered by current freedom of information laws. For example, when ferry services are publicly owned and funded, they are covered by freedom of information legislation, but that is not the case when they are publicly funded but run by private providers such as Serco NorthLink Ferries.”
“The provisions of the current bill were based on that committee report, the recommendations of all four Scottish Information Commissioners who have held that post since the 2002 act was passed, the consultation on the proposal for the bill and previous consultations. The bill reflects proposals from freedom of information campaigners, FOI practitioners and the Information Commissioners. The bill would close loopholes, strengthen the power of the Information Commissioner and address the reduction in freedom of information coverage that has taken place since the 2002 act. Significant work has been carried out with the Information Commissioner, his policy and legal experts and others to ensure that the bill is workable.”
“It is almost 25 years since the passing of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, also known as FOISA. My bill is not a criticism of that act, which has been a great success. Indeed, the same voices who campaigned for that legislation have been campaigning for the bill, such as the Campaign for Freedom of Information in Scotland and the late Jim Wallace—a prominent freedom of information campaigner who took FOISA through the Scottish Parliament. In May 2020, as a result of campaigning for freedom of information reform along the lines that are being proposed today, the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee produced a report with a range of recommendations and concluded that, although the 2002 act had significantly improved transparency, an urgent update of the law was needed.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the greater use of private bodies to deliver public services, what its position is on whether freedom of information law should be reformed to close loopholes, strengthen the powers of the Scottish Information Commissioner and enable the speedier extension of the coverage of freedom of information to relevant bodies. (S6O-05499)”
“The committee heard about the challenges that that could pose for HIS, including the added burdens that it will place on staff and resources. It is vital that HIS is properly resourced to carry out its functions and the committee report calls on the Scottish Government to provide assurances that, in the short term, it is committed to putting funding in place to ensure that HIS can properly enforce the bill from the outset. The committee report also calls on the Scottish Government to publish an implementation route map, and we fully support that, too. If the bill is to be effective in improving patient safety and tackling rogue operators, it must have sufficient funding attached. I look forward to hearing from the Scottish Government about how it plans to achieve that. 16:41”
“That is worth considering if the bill proceeds to stage 2. During its evidence sessions, the committee also heard that the fines proposed in the bill could be absorbed as a business cost by so-called rogue operators. It is essential that any sanctions within the bill act as a sufficient deterrent to those operating outwith regulations. The committee report calls on the Scottish Government to establish stronger penalties for offences committed under the terms of the bill, and the Greens fully support that. Healthcare Improvement Scotland will have an extremely important role to play in light of the bill, as it would be granted new inspection powers under enforcement to investigate unregistered settings suspected of breaching the law.”
“The committee report acknowledges business concerns and includes a recommendation that the Scottish Government should provide appropriate support and guidance to help responsible providers of non-surgical procedures to make a successful transition to the new regulatory framework. As Alex Cole-Hamilton and Maurice Golden acknowledged, there are skilled and ethical practitioners who should be supported. The Scottish Greens endorse that approach, because it would support businesses to do the right thing while still prioritising patient safety. We support a ban on procedures for people under the age of 18, although I note the calls from the Royal College of Nursing, which said that there is merit in considering additional safeguards, such as requiring a GP or healthcare professional to carry out all procedures on younger people.”
“Does the member agree that the purpose of the bill is to drive costs and safety up, as compared with allowing a race to the bottom? Gillian Mackay: I fully agree with Stuart McMillan’s point about driving up standards. The heart of the bill is about patient safety and making sure that people are safe when they enter into these procedures. Healthcare professionals are subject to high fees but also to high standards. We should expect that the same applies to any others who carry out procedures that include a risk of complications that range from burns and infections to scarring.”
“We know that there are and always will be rogue operators. The bill aims to simply ensure that all those who operate in the sector can be held to the same high standards. In committee, a representative from the industry argued that the cost of treatment has to be considered as well. If what is proposed in the bill becomes a hugely costly exercise for business, the burden of cost will be passed on to the consumer. However, I think that it is important that we do not look to drive down business costs at the cost of patient safety. Stuart McMillan: The aspect of costs is really important to this debate. As we understand the situation, people who are at the top tier are getting a lot of the products that they are using through the proper procedures. For others, that is not always the case, and so they will incur higher costs.”
“In his contribution this afternoon, he reflected on how we support those who have made a genuine mistake, including supporting them to improve. Given some of the bad press around these procedures and the potential for practitioners to be demonised for a genuine mistake, we need to make sure that regulation supports improvement across the sector and that opportunities for learning are taken. I hope that that ethos will be at the heart of the regulation, rather than there just being punitive measures. During its evidence sessions, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard that the bill will create a level playing field, as healthcare professionals already provide aesthetic procedures in HIS-regulated clinics. If the bill is passed, it will ensure that all providers have to meet the same standards.”
“I believe that the Scottish Government must put in place appropriate support and guidance to help the transition to the new regulatory regime by clarifying requirements for clinical supervision. The Parliament has to say very clearly today that we need regulation as soon as possible. I am therefore pleased to support the general principles of the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer : Thank you, Ms Clark. We come to closing speeches. I note that Mr Cole-Hamilton is not in the chamber after having participated in the debate, which is disappointing. I will expect an explanation and an apology. 16:37 Gillian Mackay: I spoke in favour of regulating the medical aesthetics industry when Stuart McMillan held a members’ business debate on the topic back in October 2024.”
“Save Face, a UK Government-approved register, has warned that, year on year, nearly 90 per cent of the people who make a report to it found their practitioner on social media, and the ages of people who report are getting lower every year. The need for fair and proportionate regulations to ensure the highest standards in patient safety is clear. I therefore appreciate the efforts to introduce through the bill a statutory framework to regulate high-risk non-surgical cosmetic procedures. I was concerned that we might not get any legislation on this issue this session, so I am genuinely grateful to the Scottish Government that we have the bill in front of us today, because we need regulation to be in place as soon as possible. I welcome the recommendations that were sent out in the stage 1 report.”
“Charities have warned that Scotland’s standards for patient safety are falling behind those of the rest of the UK and other countries in Europe—a point that was made earlier in the debate. The Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland has reported that 16 per cent of surveyed medical practitioners have treated someone between the ages of 16 and 20 following complications from unregulated cosmetic procedures. Many of those young women were probably not aware of the potential risks. We have heard reports in the media about children as young as 15 seeking help after experiencing medical issues from receiving Botox and filler.”
“At the moment, many users of services are unaware of the risks involved with the procedures that they are getting and of the lack of regulation. Over the past two years, Advice Direct Scotland has handled 430 cases relating to beauty and cosmetic procedures. Analysis of a random sample of 50 recent Advice Direct cases relating to non-surgical procedures found that 48 per cent involved reports of physical harm or adverse effects and that, in most of those cases, consumers sought professional medical assistance and required treatment. There is a proliferation of procedures being provided, and the increase in demand for them is amplified largely through social media advertising. They harm young women in particular.”
“I am pleased to speak in the debate and that the minister has introduced legislative proposals this session. There has been a massive expansion of the non-surgical procedures industry, against a backdrop of a lack of regulation. We know that procedures that can carry the risk of serious complications, ranging from burns and infections to stroke and, as the minister said, even death, can currently be routinely offered by individuals with minimal training, sometimes with a lack of infection control, consent or aftercare. I have met some of the survivors of such procedures who have suffered significant injury. It is clear that the lack of regulation is leading to real harm. Clients deserve to know that everything is being done to ensure that a procedure is being carried out in the safest way.”
“Scottish Labour is clear that the Parliament should agree to the general principles of the bill. We hope that it would never be used but would act as a deterrent. We also think that it is important to have it in place, in addition to the offences that currently exist, in the event of serious destruction of the environment. Adding a specific criminal offence to deter ecocide to the environmental offences that already exist could send an important signal that Scotland is serious about environmental protection. I hope that we will pass the bill at stage 1 today and that that will lead to further discussion about what more we can do. The Deputy Presiding Officer : I call Maurice Golden to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 15:29”
“Countries including France and Belgium have already passed legislation to address the threat that ecocide poses, while the environmental crime directive requires member states to strengthen penalties for severe environmental harm. The committee made clear in its stage 1 report that Scotland lacks a clear offence that reflects the consequences of deliberate or reckless environmental destruction. I understand that the committee expressed concerns, which members have spoken about today, about definitions and how the bill would interact with existing legislation. Monica Lennon has indicated that she is willing to work with the Scottish Government and other members to address some of those issues should the bill progress to stage 2. Given the lack of time remaining in this session, I hope that that work is undertaken.”
“As members have highlighted, the bill would create a new and specific criminal offence of intentional or reckless acts that cause severe environmental damage. We hope that it would deter individuals and corporations from engaging in environmental harm through sanctions, including imprisonment for individuals and limitless fines for corporations, and empower courts to seek compensation to address environmental damage. Although Scotland would be the first nation in the UK to pioneer such an approach to deter ecocide, members have rightly noted that the bill would align Scotland’s approach with actions that have been taken by a number of other countries.”
“As members have made clear in the debate, ecocide is a serious threat to our environment that we must act to prevent. Monica Lennon is correct to say that we must be more ambitious. Ecocide is the destruction of our natural environment by human beings through deliberate or negligent acts. We have already seen various examples of potential ecocide internationally, from the use of chemical agents in warfare to mining, fracking, destructive fishing practices and the deforestation of the Amazon. We have also seen many deliberate actions that harm our environment in the UK. Water companies have been accused recently of illegally dumping sewage in our rivers and seas. The bill is a way in which we can begin to take more action to deter the environmental threat that is posed by ecocide.”
“I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour and to thank our colleague Monica Lennon and her staff for all the work that they have undertaken to bring forward this important bill. I also thank the committee members, clerks and all the stakeholders who have been involved in scrutinising the bill ahead of the stage 1 debate, and I thank those who have campaigned for it. Today, the Parliament is being given the opportunity to support the general principles of the bill and to take a clear stance in defence of our environment. We recently passed the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill, which rightly set targets in relation to environmental protection, but those targets will be meaningless if they are not backed up by action.”
“The Parliament also needs to consider the wider impact of the status quo on society as a whole—on girls and women, and on boys and men. That point was made to me by one of the survivors of the sex trade. We have looked at the bill in detail and believe that there is a need to amend each of the four measures in it. We have proposals regarding how the bill could be amended, and I know that Ash Regan intends to lodge amendments. We believe that the bill can be amended but, most of all, we believe that the debate is too important for the Scottish Parliament to curtail scrutiny of the bill that is before us. Therefore, we will support the general principles of the bill when it comes to a division. 17:43”
“We appreciate that the evidence is highly contested, but there is evidence that the Nordic model has had the effect of reducing the size of the market—the number of men buying sex—and reducing human trafficking, and that, in countries where there has been decriminalisation, the size of the market has increased. There is some evidence that the approach results in fewer men buying sex. As Ash Regan pointed out, in Sweden, in 2008, 8 per cent of men reported paying for sexual services, compared with 13 per cent before the legislation was brought in there. We accept that there is a great deal of dispute about the evidence, but we are also clear that many survivors in Scotland are saying clearly to us that they believe that the framework in the bill needs consideration.”
“It is clear from the evidence that the committee received that men from all walks of life buy sex. We are very aware that the bill contains four measures and that section 1 tends to dominate the debate. Section 1 proposes the criminalisation of the purchase of sex, but there are three other measures in the bill, on the legalisation of soliciting, the quashing of convictions for soliciting and the creation of a legal right to support to exit prostitution. We believe that all four need proper consideration. There has been legislative change in many other countries in recent decades, with the so-called Nordic model being introduced in some countries and decriminalisation being introduced in others.”
“We also appreciate that there is a lack of support for members taking forward bills of this nature. We consider that it is a good use of the Parliament’s time to consider the legal framework in Scots law. We appreciate that the debate is polarised, with strong views on different sides, and we have listened carefully to the arguments. We note the lack of men who have been involved in giving evidence to the committee, and the obvious lack of direct lobbying from those who profit from this highly lucrative sector. It seems that those who profit from the sex trade did not think that it was a good use of their time to attempt to influence the evidence that was given to us directly. We are also aware that the debate is happening after the release of another tranche of the Epstein files.”
“We also know that there is a global, multibillion-pound sex trade that profits from the exploitation of some of the most vulnerable in society, and that it is closely connected with human trafficking and organised crime. One study found that, in the United Kingdom, around two thirds of those involved in prostitution and sex work had been assaulted by clients. As Pauline McNeill said, survivors of prostitution have described experiencing long-term trauma, hypervigilance and symptoms consistent with complex PTSD. In 2015, potential victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation composed a third of all referrals to the national referral mechanism, the UK’s support system for victims of modern slavery. The status quo is unacceptable. That is why we welcome Ash Regan having introduced the bill and thank her for her considerable work on it.”
“I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of Scottish Labour. Ash Regan has spoken about a number of attempts to get legislation on this issue through Parliament. Given the Scottish Government’s previous commitments, it is disappointing that it has not brought forward its own such legislation in this session or engaged meaningfully with the member’s bill. I agree with Fergus Ewing that this Parliament needs to show courage. We all know that prostitution involves abuse and violence. Michelle Thomson spoke about that in graphic detail and about the importance of evidence that comes from lived experience. We also know that most buyers of sex are men, most sellers of sex are women, and that, in Scots law, the women are criminalised and the men’s behaviour is deemed lawful.”
“I am sure that I quoted a specific figure to Ms Clark that demonstrated that, for example, investment in community justice social work services has increased by more than 50 per cent over several years. I am happy to provide that figure again to Ms Clark, but I cannot overemphasise the importance of community justice in providing effective and robust justice that makes communities safer.”