Pam Gosal
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“I am pleased to deliver one of the final members’ business debates of this parliamentary session on a very important subject. Before I start, I would like to say a few words about my time in the Parliament over the past five years. I hope to return in May.”
“For someone who did not come from a political background or even have any friends or family in politics, it has been the absolute honour of my life to serve the country in which I was born and brought up. Here’s to not writing me off just yet. I hope to be back after 7 May. I will now turn to the subject of the debate.”
“Special thanks go out to Sam Rice from Smartphone Free Childhood and Kids for Now, to Nova Eden from One Collective Power, which provided presentations to the round-table meeting, and to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, who attended as well.”
“Businesses in my West Scotland region are under immense pressure thanks to increased employer national insurance contributions from the UK Labour Government, the failure of the Scottish National Party Government to fully pass down rates relief, and ever-increasing retail crime.”
“I declare an interest as a former trading standards officer. We are all devastated by the fire that took place on 8 March on Union Street in Glasgow, yet it turns out that the shop where the fire began was not listed on the mandatory register, as is required for a business to sell nicotine products, and was thus selling vapes illegally.”
“Ivan McKee: As I indicated, it is the responsibility of local authorities to take forward enforcement measures, and it is also their responsibility to provide the resources to do that.”
The complete record
Every one of 318 lines we hold for Pam Gosal, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“All that could have been avoided if the law had been properly implemented in the first place by the SNP Government. I am not just disappointed that the Scottish Government has refused to follow the law—I am appalled. I am appalled that the Government has tried to silence us at every point. I am appalled that, during the consideration of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, SNP ministers prioritised meetings with gender extremists who supported that dangerous bill. How could we forget that the First Minister at the time, Nicola Sturgeon, said that opponents of the bill were “deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well”? Of course, when Nicola Sturgeon and other members of her Government, including John Swinney, were asked if a male double rapist was a woman, they shamefully dodged the question.”
“It has been five months since that monumental judgment, but the Scottish National Party is still shamefully refusing to implement it in law. In Scotland, we have nurses suspended for refusing to share changing rooms with biologically male colleagues; policies that allow for dangerous biological males with male genitalia to serve time in women’s prisons; and guidance allowing transgender offenders to be strip-searched by both male and female police officers. We have school guidance stating that young people “where possible, are able to use the facilities they feel more comfortable with”. We have teachers being called transphobic for expressing legitimate concerns over the provision of unisex toilets, and Scottish Government lawyers arguing that men can become pregnant.”
“Before I begin, I welcome to the public gallery, and thank, For Women Scotland and all the organisations and individuals who are fighting tooth and nail for women’s rights. I am extremely proud to stand here today, delivering a speech on an issue that is so important to women and girls. These are dark days in politics. Nicola Sturgeon’s dangerous gender ideology has put many women and girls at risk. However, the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgment on 16 April this year was crystal clear: the definition of the word “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 is based on biological sex. There is nothing controversial about that. Men cannot become women, and it is shocking that in 2025, we need the highest court in the land to define such a simple word. Where are we now?”
“Angus Robertson: It is not the place of a Scottish Government cabinet secretary to micromanage the culture sector, which is why we have arm’s-length relations with our funding and cultural organisations. The member’s point is on the record, as is my commitment to freedom of speech. Cumbernauld Theatre 7.”
“I did note your look towards me during the supplementary question. The question in the Business Bulletin is: “To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the culture secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding action to support gender equality in the arts and culture sector’s workforce.” With that in mind, perhaps the cabinet secretary could find a way to respond to the member’s question. Angus Robertson: I answered that in reply to Evelyn Tweed’s question. I would be happy to write to the member about the issue that she raises, but I echo the points that I made to her front-bench spokesman on the issue. It is— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Gosal, please allow the cabinet secretary to respond.”
“I declare my interest as one of the proud authors of “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht”. The Government likes to bang on about its commitment to gender equality. However, the book “The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht”, which included essays from diverse women, including myself, was temporarily removed from the National Library of Scotland during the busiest time of the fringe because of staff pressure. I am looking for a yes or no answer. Does the cabinet secretary agree that banning books by feminist authors sends the wrong message to women who wish to work in the arts and culture sector? Angus Robertson: I have been asked a follow- up question about the approach of the Scottish Government to tackling occupational segregation and I am— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, could you resume your seat for a second?”
“Currently, section 66A requires the Scottish ministers to undertake two reviews of the operation of the bill once it has been enacted. The first review must be concluded as soon as reasonably practicable, five years after royal assent; the second must be conducted five years after the first review. Ministers must prepare a report on each review, which they must publish and lay in the Scottish Parliament. Amendments 1 and 2 will require each report to also set out any changes to the law relating to corroboration that have taken place during the review period. I move amendment 1.”
“On 30 October 2024, the High Court of Justiciary published an appeal judgment about how corroboration is used in Scottish criminal trials. The judgment was published after the Lord Advocate had asked the court to review how corroboration is used and the specific requirements for corroboration in sexual offence cases. The judgment sets out that, from now on, although corroboration is still required, there is “no requirement to prove the separate elements of a crime by corroborated evidence.” The change means that “distress which was observed by a third party ... could corroborate a complainer’s account” that they had been raped. Penetration does not need to be corroborated separately. Rape Crisis Scotland said that the judgment was “a seismic change in the approach to corroboration in sexual offence cases in Scotland”.”
“Amendment 150 disagreed to. Amendment 151 moved—[Rona Mackay]—and agreed to. Amendment 152 moved—[Maggie Chapman]. Amendments 152A, 152B and 152C moved— [Maggie Chapman]—and agreed to. Amendment 152, as amended, agreed to. Section 66A—Review of operation of Act The Presiding Officer: Group 21 is entitled “Review of Act”. Amendment 1, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 2 and 153 to 156. Pauline McNeill: Amendments 1 and 2 will expand the reporting requirements in section 66A. I thank the Government for working with me on the amendments. At stage 2, I highlighted the importance of the Parliament maintaining the power of scrutiny of the law on corroboration, which the courts may continue to develop.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] 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) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) 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) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 52, Against 61, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 148 disagreed to. Amendment 149 not moved. Amendment 150 moved—[Maggie Chapman]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 150 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] 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) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) 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) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) 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) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 12, Against 101, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 147A moved—[Pam Gosal]—and agreed to. Amendment 147, as amended, agreed to. Amendment 148 moved—[Maggie Chapman]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 148 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Brian Whittle: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whittle. We will ensure that your vote is recorded.”
“As she outlined, there is currently a gap in the law that arises when a court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland imposes a protective order that is breached in Scotland. Amendment 151 will introduce a direct enforcement model and will ensure that an individual will be protected in Scotland in the same way that they are in the jurisdiction in which the order is made. I welcome that additional protection to close an identified gap, and I urge members to support amendment 151. Amendments 164 and 165 are minor consequential amendments relating to amendments 3 and 151, and I ask members to support them. The Presiding Officer: I call Sharon Dowey to wind up, and to press or withdraw amendment 3. Sharon Dowey: I have no further comments. I press amendment 3. Amendment 3 agreed to. Amendment 147 moved—[Pam Gosal].”
“I merely point out that her amendment asks us to do something that there is no existing mechanism to do. The broader point is that the information that Ms Chapman seeks is not information that can or would come from the Scottish Government but from the courts. The courts have established systems for operational purposes to manage cases as opposed to gathering data, but I very much appreciate Ms Chapman’s point about the lack of available data, which is important and considered. It is a fair point, and I will raise it directly with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service when I next meet the chief executive. I urge Ms Chapman not to move her amendments in the group, but, if she does, I ask the Parliament to oppose them. I thank Rona Mackay for working with me on amendment 151.”
“Ms Chapman’s amendment 150 would require the Scottish ministers to report annually on matters relating to the use of NHOs by the criminal courts. However, that would require reporting on matters about which information is unlikely to be available—for example, cases in which the victim asks for an NHO and the court declines to make one cannot be recorded, as there is no formal mechanism in law for victims to request that the court make an NHO. Maggie Chapman: The example that the cabinet secretary has just given, where somebody requests an NHO and it is not granted, is surely exactly the kind of case on which we should be gathering information so that we can better understand whether there are other protection mechanisms that we can provide for victims/survivors. Angela Constance: I do not disagree with Ms Chapman’s point of principle.”
“Although amendment 149 is well intentioned, it is for the independent council to decide its priorities. Its current business plan includes progressing guidelines in the areas of sexual offences and domestic abuse—exactly the type of offences where NHOs are often imposed by the court. In addition, the Scottish ministers already have power to request that sentencing guidelines be prepared on any matter. That means that there are existing routes that do not require legislation in order to feed into the council’s programme of work. Therefore, I commit to the member and the Parliament that I will write to the council this week to request that it confirm that it will consider the use of NHOs as part of its work on those guidelines. That will include making as much relevant information and data available as possible.”
“There is already a requirement for the courts to consider imposing an NHO in all domestic abuse cases. If agreed to, Sharon Dowey’s amendment 3 would extend that to cover those convicted of sexual offences, stalking and intimate image offences. I reassure the Parliament that the current system allows the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to exercise discretion to apply for NHOs, where appropriate, in all other cases involving misconduct towards the victim. That strikes a sensible balance by focusing the courts’ attention on those cases where an NHO is most likely to improve victim safety. Ms Chapman’s amendment 149 would mandate the Scottish Sentencing Council to prepare sentencing guidelines on the use of non- harassment orders.”
“That interference with the independence of how prosecutors, on behalf of the Lord Advocate, conduct prosecutions is outwith the legislative competence of the Parliament. Even if that was not the significant concern that it is, the term “misconduct” is likely to capture a wide range of offences, potentially including fraud and theft, even where there is no direct contact between offender and victim. 20:15 The amendment could impact on around 30 per cent of all convictions in Scottish courts. That would, therefore, dramatically increase the number of cases requiring judicial consideration of NHOs, placing unsustainable pressure on the Crown Office and the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service and risking diverting resources away from those cases where consideration is most needed.”
“I have been able to work with Sharon Dowey on her amendment 3, which will ensure that courts must consider non-harassment orders in cases involving sexual offences, stalking and intimate image abuse. I am sure that all members will be able to support that amendment, as well as Pam Gosal’s amendment 147, subject to amendment 147A being agreed to. Unfortunately, as I have said, I cannot support Maggie Chapman’s amendments. In the case of amendment 148, my main objection is that there would be considerable legislative competence concerns, as it would remove prosecutors’ discretion by requiring them to apply for an NHO in every case in which an offender was convicted of what the relevant legislation calls “misconduct towards another person”.”
“Amendment 151 includes the power, subject to affirmative procedure, for Scottish ministers to add to the list of protective orders covered by the offence. That could be used if there were changes to relevant legislation in other jurisdictions in the UK. My amendment 165 would amend the long title of the bill to reflect amendment 151. I ask members to support both of my amendments. Angela Constance: The amendments in the group are on protection for victims and I am pleased that I have been able to work with members on that important issue. Even though I do not support the amendments in the name of Maggie Chapman, I welcome her continued and constructive engagement on the issue.”
“Amendment 151 would make it an offence for a person to “knowingly and without reasonable excuse” do “anything which the person is prohibited from doing by a relevant UK order, or fails to do something which the person is required to do by such an order.” Those relevant UK orders are restraining orders, non-molestation orders and stalking protection orders that are imposed by courts in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The maximum penalty for the offence on conviction on indictment would be five years’ imprisonment, unless the maximum penalty for the equivalent offence for breach of the order under the law applicable in the other jurisdiction was lower, in which case that would be the maximum penalty.”
“Members might be aware of a recent case in which a person residing in Scotland found that conditions contained in a restraining order made by a court elsewhere in the UK against a person convicted of abusing them could not be enforced in Scotland. That is clearly unacceptable. The case highlighted a wider issue in the law that needs to be resolved, and I hope to use today’s bill proceedings to address that. A protective order such as a restraining order can prevent an individual from doing a range of things, which might include acts that would otherwise be legal, such as approaching or contacting a victim. In such situations, where behaviour amounting to a breach of a condition is not a criminal act, protecting the victim through the restraining order cannot take place in Scotland. That is what amendment 151 would change.”
“It is correct that the number of NHOs has increased in recent years, but we still do not know the details or reasons for that or for when NHOs are not made. I am aware that the cabinet secretary will ask me not to move amendment 150, given the volume of work that would be required. However, I hope that she will be able to recognise the need to get to grips with the important tool of NHOs, which should be being used to protect victims/survivors, and that there will be further work in that regard. Rona Mackay: Amendment 151 would address a gap in the law concerning the ability of police, prosecutors and courts to enforce certain protective orders imposed by other jurisdictions in the UK.”
“I do not need to live in Scotland for digital abuse to continue and therefore the Judge has been negligent in choosing not to eliminate that risk if it was at his disposal to do so.” My amendment 149 would require the Scottish Sentencing Council to provide clear sentencing guidelines on the use of non-harassment orders. I appreciate that that demand is perhaps beyond what we should ask of the council, and I ask the Scottish Government for any clarification or confirmation that it can give about engagement with the council on the issue. Amendment 150 seeks a report on non- harassment orders, their use, how many were issued, for which offences they were issued, those that were applied for but not issued, and so on. I firmly believe that we need to collect and monitor that information.”
“A King’s counsel, referring to the case, said: “Clearly there are unlimited ways that an offender can harass a person in England from a location in Scotland. As to the second, that strikes me more as an argument for making an order—the last order worked.” Amelia has said: “In the sentencing statement for my case, Lord Boyd references the online abuse and humiliation I suffered at the hands of my abuser which ultimately was the cornerstone of his conviction. He didn’t attempt to contact me on bail when there was the deterrent of custody but, without this deterrent, I have no doubt that he will.”
“She asked about NHOs that were granted in cases of rape against a partner, and the Scottish Government said that it did not have that information. On domestic abuse cases, although we know that the number of such orders have increased, there are still more cases in which NHOs are not granted than cases in which they are. Amelia’s own story was that her former partner was sentenced to a 49-month custodial sentence after being unanimously found guilty of assault and rape by strangulation. An NHO was not granted on the grounds that Amelia had moved to England and her abuser had not contacted her while he was on bail, but one of his bail conditions had been that he was prohibited from doing so. Neither of those factors was relevant to her risk after the trial.”
“Indeed, the Justice Committee discussed it in 2017, at stage 2 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill, when Linda Fabiani lodged an amendment calling for mandatory non- harassment orders. It was supported by John Finnie and by Scottish Women’s Aid. Linda Fabiani had heard evidence that she described as “compelling” and quoted a survivor, whom I will quote again this evening. The survivor said: “A criminal conviction ... was of absolutely no use to me as a victim since that conviction on its own contained no provision to protect me ... from further abuse”.—[Official Report, Justice Committee, 21 November 2017; c 22.] However, that was not enough to change people’s minds eight years ago. Amelia Price, who is a dedicated campaigner on the issue, says that those words still resonate with her.”
“I believe that amendment 3 will help survivors. I am proud to support it today, and I hope that members will, too. Maggie Chapman: I begin my comments on the amendments in this group by recognising the work and tireless campaigning of Amelia Price. She has shown true dedication to bringing about change in how non-harassment orders operate, not just for her but for victim and survivors in the future, as she does not want anybody else to go through what she went through. I have three amendments in this group— amendments 148, 149 and 150—and I will speak to them in turn. Amendment 148 would turn NHOs, which are currently optional, into mandatory orders. The need for that has been recognised for a long time.”
“Although the Government did not support that, I am glad that the cabinet secretary has reached a compromise with us to instead make it mandatory for the courts to consider imposing a non- harassment order in such cases. Over the summer recess, I met representatives of Action Against Stalking, which is an organisation that helps survivors of stalking to regain control of their lives. They made it clear that stalking is a terrible crime that often goes hand in hand with other offences such as domestic abuse and that experiencing it can leave survivors scarred for life. That is why I am particularly pleased that the offence of stalking has been added to the amendment, which would rightly extend the power that the courts have to make provisions to protect children who are impacted by stalking cases.”
“My amendments in this group would ensure that survivors of domestic abuse continue to be protected, and I urge members to support them. I hope that the Scottish Government finds some common sense and makes the right choice to support my amendments, along with other Scottish Conservative amendments, and truly transform victims’ rights. I turn to amendment 3, in the name of my colleague Sharon Dowey, which I support. It would rightly require a court to consider imposing non- harassment orders, without the need for the prosecutor to make an application to the court, in all cases involving sexual offences, stalking or intimate image abuse. During stage 2 of the bill, I—alongside Sharon Dowey—submitted an amendment with the intention of making it mandatory to impose non- harassment orders in sexual offence cases.”
“It told me about a legal gap where bail conditions such as non-harassment orders are put in place to protect survivors but expire once an offender is sentenced. As a result, if a non- harassment order is imposed in such cases, the victims of those crimes are left vulnerable, with the perpetrator still able to contact them from prison. Shockingly, Families Outside reports that some victims are coerced into contact with the offender as a result. That is why my amendment 147 would require courts to consider any bail conditions that have been imposed when deciding whether to issue a non-harassment order in domestic abuse cases, including where the offender is imprisoned or remanded in custody. My amendment 147A would make a minor change to ensure that that requirement would apply only in domestic abuse cases.”
“Before I speak to my amendments 147 and 147A, which relate to domestic abuse, I want to put it on record that I am grateful to the Scottish Government for its advice to support my amendments on non- harassment orders, particularly on removing the proposed subsection (2) from amendment 147. That is the reason why I asked for a manuscript amendment, which is amendment 147A. I am also grateful to the Presiding Officer for allowing that. Even though I believe that the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill has many shortcomings, I have proposed my amendments in the hope of improving the bill. My amendments 147 and 147A would address a serious gap in protection for survivors of domestic abuse. I was recently contacted by Families Outside, which is an organisation that works to support families who are affected by imprisonment.”
“I have been flooded with emails from constituents who have expressed concerns about the poor enforcement of the pavement parking ban. The ban went live in East Dunbartonshire on 1 September. However, there seems to be confusion about how it has been implemented. Constituents, including disabled constituents, have said that cars are now pushed on to road parking, making it difficult for blue-light services to pass. On the other hand, other constituents have written to me saying that cars are still parked on pavements, making access difficult. Why has the Scottish Government’s guidance led to such a poorly executed plan?”
“We gave that information to the police, and it was up to the police to decide what to do with it.”
“Claire Baker: As I said, our protest policy is in place to ensure that everyone can take part in protests in a safe environment. As I also said, For Women Scotland informed us that it was planning to come outside the Parliament—we appreciate that, as we appreciate foreknowledge. However, organisations or individuals do not need permission to protest outside the Parliament. It is for the police to decide when someone is making a legitimate protest. I again say that it is for the police to decide how things are managed outside the building. We will have discussions with the police if we know that protests are happening, and we will advise. For Women Scotland made us aware that an individual was expected to come along to the event who could be challenging to them.”
“I attended the For Women Scotland rally that was held outside the Parliament last week. It was a peaceful protest. Unfortunately, it was disrupted by a counter-protester, who does not appear to have got permission to protest outside Holyrood, as everyone else is required to do. That seemed to be a breach of the Scottish Parliament’s rules, yet no action was taken against the protester. The fact that women who were protesting to protect their rights in Scotland appeared to have been treated differently from trans rights activists can give rise to perceptions of bias in the enforcement of the rules. That is an unacceptable situation for the Scottish Parliament to be in. What action have the parliamentary authorities taken to ensure that everyone is being treated equally under the law?”
“I have been contacted by constituents who have expressed concerns about the change in working patterns at Helensburgh and Milngavie fire stations. Last month, I met Scottish Fire and Rescue Service representatives who cover the west of Scotland and I expressed the concerns of local residents. The representatives to whom I spoke admitted that response times could increase, as on-call firefighters would have to travel from their homes to the station and then to the destination. Does the minister agree that that model risks putting lives in danger? Siobhian Brown: No, I do not agree with the member’s assumption. As I said, this is an operational issue for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. No decisions have currently been made, and I encourage the member and her constituents to take part in the consultation. The Promise 3.”
“The member made an important point in the first part of her question about how to deliver those services most effectively, which gets to the heart of the work that we are taking forward in the public service reform strategy. The work builds on the Christie principles to focus on prevention and ensure that the money is most effectively directed to the front line to better integrate public services so that her constituents and others across the country receive the best possible service from local government. Public Services (Empowering Local Communities) 7.”
“The East Dunbartonshire health and social care partnership has highlighted in its 2025 to 2030 strategic plan that there is a need to move away from traditional service models to a whole person and community approach due to financial challenges and increasing demand. In April, council tax for East Dunbartonshire residents rose by 13 per cent. This summer, the people I spoke to at their doors said that they are not receiving value for money. What is the minister’s response to all those who are paying more but risk receiving less when it comes to social care? Ivan McKee: First, those decisions are made locally and, as I have indicated, record funding is going into the system across local government and social care.”
“Obviously, many of those issues— indeed, all of them—will be taken forward at a local level, because they involve local planning considerations, and it is right that local authorities are taking the lead in that respect. As part of the process that I am setting out today, the Government will engage with local authorities about how that agenda is taken forward. The best way to address the errors and failings of the past, particularly in relation to questions such as poor accommodation, is to ensure that, in the future, accommodation is better and meets the needs of the communities. That is the objective that the Government brings to Parliament today.”
“Despite Scottish Government action, Scotland’s Gypsy Traveller communities are still some of the most marginalised and isolated. Those communities still face significant challenges, particularly in accommodation, with sites across Scotland in need of funding and updates. Just last year, funding for improvements at a site in Dumbarton was delayed despite a desperate need for investment. Such challenges are found across Scotland. What discussions has the Scottish Government had with local authorities to ensure that they have made necessary upgrades? The First Minister: Work is on-going with local authorities to address the issue that Pam Gosal puts to me.”
“Violence can affect women and girls of any age. With youth violence on the rise, we see more and more examples of boys behaving violently towards girls. Earlier this month, I attended a conference that was hosted by Beira’s Place in Edinburgh, where speakers spoke about the prevalence of coercive control in teen relationships. However, they also stressed that education is key— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ask a question. Pam Gosal: —in identifying disturbing behaviour and patterns. Does the minister agree that domestic abuse education should be provided in schools as standard? Siobhian Brown: Education is vital. This is the crux of the problem. If we are going to change societal behaviour, it must start with education. Police Dog Zara 3.”
“I have said, of course, that it is an interim position, that a consultation is taking place and that we remain committed to inclusivity. That is the primary objective of the work that we are doing.”
“Let us be clear—we are talking about the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The law is the law, and nobody is above it. This morning, the EHRC was on a call to MSPs and stated very clearly that public bodies should comply with the law now. Sex Matters has warned that it will come after organisations that refuse to follow the ruling, which will, once again, leave taxpayers footing the bill. Will the Parliament therefore commit to following and implementing the interim update that was issued by the EHRC on the protection of single-sex spaces? Jackson Carlaw: How other organisations respond is up to them, but it is the responsibility of the corporate body to implement the law and the advice that we receive. That is the corporate body’s duty.”
“However, the fight against mesothelioma requires more than just the efforts of dedicated organisations. We need a concerted effort by the Government to implement stricter regulations on asbestos and to fund research for better treatments. Public awareness campaigns are also essential in educating people about the dangers of asbestos and the importance of early detection. Let us honour those who have lost their lives to mesothelioma by committing to action. Let us support the organisations that are making a difference and call on the Scottish Government to take stronger measures. Together, we can raise awareness, support those who are affected and work towards a future in which mesothelioma is no longer a threat. 13:04”
“The group has called for the safe and urgent removal of asbestos from all public buildings, as there have been increases in the numbers of younger people and women being diagnosed with the condition. Some of those people never worked in the traditional industries that are usually associated with asbestos exposure; indeed, some are working in public buildings. The group is also a strong advocate of the Cape must pay campaign, which aims to make Altrad Cape pay £10 million towards research into the condition. Cape Intermediate Holdings was one of the largest asbestos companies in the world, and its asbestos products were widely used in construction. The campaign argues that those products lie at the heart of the epidemic of the condition in the UK.”
“The dedication of such organisations to supporting those affected by the condition is truly inspiring; they provide crucial services such as legal advice, emotional support and advocacy for better healthcare services, and their work ensures that patients and their families do not face the battle alone. Clydebank Asbestos Group offers a lifeline to many. It assists people with navigating the complex legal landscape in order to secure compensation for victims; it runs support groups that provide a space for individuals to share their experiences and to find solace in a community that understands their struggles; and its advocacy efforts have led to improvements in healthcare policies and increased funding for research on the condition.”
“However, behind those numbers are real people and their families who are enduring immense suffering. Those people are not just statistics; mesothelioma is a painful reality for many. The symptoms are debilitating; the prognosis is often grim; and patients and their loved ones face physical, emotional and financial hardship. The stories that we hear remind us of the urgent need for action and support. I have had the privilege of meeting organisations that specialise in mesothelioma, such as Clydebank Asbestos Group in my West Scotland region.”
“I thank Marie McNair for bringing such an important topic to the chamber. Action mesothelioma day is dedicated to raising awareness of a devastating disease that has affected many lives in Scotland and beyond. In 2022, there were 2,257 mesothelioma deaths in the United Kingdom, with a significant number occurring in Scotland. Scotland’s industrial history, particularly of shipbuilding and construction, has left a legacy of asbestos exposure, leading to high rates of mesothelioma. More than 70 per cent of such deaths occur in individuals aged over 75, which highlights the disease’s long latency period. According to the Scottish mesothelioma network’s 2023 clinical audit report, the number of newly diagnosed mesothelioma patients in Scotland that year was 132, which represented an increase on the 127 patients identified in the 2022 audit.”