Annabelle Ewing
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Before we turn to the next item of business, I hope that members do not mind if I say a few words. I would like to say specifically what an honour it has been for me to serve in the Scottish Parliament, which, of course, was reconvened by my late mother, Winnie Ewing, in 1999.”
“There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-21180, in the name of John Swinney, on a motion of thanks, be agreed to.”
“I hope that members feel that I have discharged my duty. I thank you for having given me the opportunity to be your Deputy Presiding Officer, along with Mr McArthur, and I wish each of you all the very best.”
“Members! Màiri McAllan: Equally, the prospect of scrapping the land and buildings transaction tax or stamp duty land tax is for the birds, and I am afraid that it demonstrates that the Conservatives realise that their chances of implementing any such policies are, to put it politely, very slim.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises the importance of sport and activity as a force for good that goes beyond just physical health; considers that they have a significant impact on mental health, as well as contributing to community and national cohesion and wellbeing; believes that sport breaks down barriers of colour, race, r…”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with concern the reported decision by the Lloyds Banking Group to close 11 Bank of Scotland branches between June and July 2026, including the Rutherglen branch; understands that this is the latest in a series of bank closures across the UK; believes that these closures will have a significant imp…”
The complete record
Every one of 792 lines we hold for Annabelle Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 16.
“Amendment 137, also in the name of Tim Eagle, would require the review of the changes to deer legislation to report on every modification made by the bill to the 1996 act that has not been used during the review period. However, the bill makes changes across much of the 1996 act, and it is not clear what the term “used” means in this context. The amendment as drafted risks turning the review exercise into a lengthy and technical inventory, rather than a focused assessment of whether the changes are delivering better environmental outcomes, effective deer management and improved deer welfare. Although the wording of the amendment means that it cannot be accepted, I think that I understand what Mr Eagle is trying to get at.”
“However, reducing the review period from 10 years to five years is not appropriate, because the objectives that we are seeking to assess, such as restoring the natural heritage, achieving the aims of deer management and improving deer welfare, are long-term outcomes that cannot be fully evidenced within five years. It is also important that we have at least one national deer management plan in place and progressing before undertaking a meaningful review. A 10-year timescale provides a more realistic and robust basis for assessing both effectiveness and any unintended consequences. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 136, and, if he does, I will vote against it.”
“However, introducing a statutory duty to deliver a national dashboard within five years risks a significant resource burden and it might not resolve the current data gaps. We are already strengthening the evidence base through NatureScot’s new deer app, improvements to cull returns via the fit and competent register and trial dashboards at NatureScot and Forestry and Land Scotland. Our focus is on getting the data right first and then presenting it well. On that basis, I ask the member not to move the amendment. I understand the intention behind amendment 136, in the name of Tim Eagle, and the desire to see early reassurance that the changes made by the bill are working as intended.”
“Although we agree on the importance of having a national plan, amendment 98 would hardwire into legislation detailed population estimates, geographically broken down cull targets and delivery requirements that do not reflect the regional variation and complexity of deer management across Scotland. Amendment 98 risks imposing a one-size-fits-all model, whereas amendment 20 provides a more balanced, flexible and deliverable framework. For those reasons, I ask the member not to move amendment 98, but if he does, I urge members to vote against it. I appreciate the intention behind amendment 59, in the name of Beatrice Wishart, and I thank Ms Wishart for highlighting the importance of transparency in deer management, because we share that goal.”
“It makes clear that, when preparing or reviewing the national deer management and venison plan, ministers may take into account the very different circumstances in which deer are managed, the challenges and the costs involved, the species and the numbers of deer present, and the need to balance environmental, social, economic and welfare considerations. The amendment will strengthen the national plan by reflecting real- world complexity across both Highland and Lowland Scotland, and I encourage members to support it. Amendment 98, in the name of Mark Ruskell, seeks to establish a national deer management programme, but it goes significantly further than the approach that the Government supports.”
“We would, of course, consult those environmental and nature conservation organisations with an interest in the national deer management plan as part of the on-going process, so I see no reason not to set that out here. For those reasons, I urge members to support amendment 20E. Amendment 33, in the name of Emma Harper, is a helpful and constructive addition to the national deer management and venison plan. It recognises that deer management in Scotland is about far more than red deer on open hill range.”
“For those reasons, I urge members to vote against amendments 20C and 20D. Amendment 20E is not strictly necessary, but I appreciate Mark Ruskell’s aims and will be happy to support it. Amendment 20 requires ministers to consult NatureScot, those undertaking deer management, the venison industry and anyone else that ministers consider appropriate. That allows full discretion to consult environmental nature restoration bodies where relevant. However, I know that the member is keen to ensure that the national deer management plan is centred around the environmental impact of deer populations and our priorities in tackling those.”
“Amendment 20B seeks to lock in delivery and funding arrangements for those national targets, before the underpinning data is robust and before we know what intervention is appropriate in different places. For those reasons, I urge members to vote against amendments 20A and 20B. Likewise, I recognise the intention behind amendments 20C and 20D; however, I do not believe that those amendments are necessary. I agree that access to venison-processing facilities and community larders is important. That is why “the venison industry, key venison facilities and venison supply chains” are already included in the national deer management and venison plan. However, providing the level of detail that is in amendments 20C and 20D is not appropriate and is repetitive, given that venison is already included.”
“I recognise the intention behind amendments 20A and 20B, in the name of Mark Ruskell, but I cannot support them. Amendment 20A would require ministers to set national density targets and annual cull quotas. That would risk imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that does not reflect the very real regional variation in deer impacts, species and land use and that cuts across our commitment not to treat deer as a pest species— because deer are not a pest but an asset to Scotland. The Government’s approach is instead targeted and evidence led. We have already set out our broad ambition to increase deer culls by around 25 per cent, focusing effort where deer pose the greatest environmental risk.”
“I have also taken into account and into consideration my conversations with Tim Eagle following his stage 2 amendments in relation to financial support for deer management. We all share the ambition of having venison recognised as one of our key national assets. It is a vital component in addressing rising deer populations. Amendment 20 will introduce a relatively straightforward plan that will require the Scottish ministers to set out their deer management priorities, how we will support people to deliver those through specific measures and actions, and how we can maximise the opportunities that venison can bring. For those reasons, I urge members to support the amendment, which seeks to introduce a national deer management and venison plan.”
“We resume consideration of amendments. Group 6 is on reporting and planning in relation to deer. Amendment 20, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 20A to 20E, 33, 98, 59 and 136 to 140. Jim Fairlie: [Inaudible.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, will you please put your card in and start again from the beginning? Jim Fairlie: My apologies. My amendment 20 seeks to address the issues that were raised by members and stakeholders during stage 2 proceedings. I thank Mark Ruskell, Rhoda Grant and Rachael Hamilton, all of whom I met earlier this month to discuss those concerns, and I am grateful for their willingness to work collaboratively on the amendment.”
“As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 15:17 Meeting suspended. 15:23 On resuming— The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will proceed with the division on amendment 22. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“However, the bill clearly says that one of the topics is “the condition or extent of any habitat”, not the condition and extent, as the cabinet secretary said. On that basis, will she reconsider her position on my amendments 46 and 47? Gillian Martin: I will not reconsider it, because I believe that the stated intention of the wording in the bill is already comprehensive, so it is not an issue that needs to be resolved. That is me finished. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Beatrice Wishart to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 22. Beatrice Wishart: I have nothing further to say. I press amendment 22. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“15:15 I am grateful to Mark Ruskell for his willingness to work with me on amendment 27, which I encourage members to support. I support amendment 70, and I am grateful for Mercedes Villalba’s engagement on the issue. I reiterate that I do not envisage that any changes will be required when it comes to nominating ESS to undertake the role of the independent review body, but I appreciate the concerns that were raised with me. As such, the amendment is intended to act as a safeguard to ensure that the crucial independent review body function can be carried out only by an independent public body. Mercedes Villalba: I am grateful for the cabinet secretary’s support for my amendment 70. To take her back to amendments 46 and 47, she referred to the policy memorandum as a basis for rejecting those amendments.”
“It also takes a lot more time to measure outcomes than is possible with emissions reduction. The same approach that is set out in the climate change legislation simply will not work. However, that does not mean that there is no accountability under the target provisions, which will achieve the same effect as is intended through amendments 68 and 69. There are sufficient safeguards and comprehensive accountability mechanisms in the target provisions in proposed new sections 2CA, 2D(4) and 2E of the 2004 act, which are intended to hold ministers to account by requiring them to report on progress in meeting targets. That will not be improved or strengthened by amendments 68 and 69. Therefore, I ask members to oppose them.”
“They are intended to create a mechanism similar to climate change catch-up reports. I must be clear that, as drafted, the amendments would not achieve the intended effect. We have deliberately taken a different approach to biodiversity targets, because of the inherent differences between the two subjects. There is no single apex target for biodiversity. The actions that are required to achieve biodiversity targets will often be cumulative and complex. It is not feasible to think that, if we identify a target that will not be met, we could take action within 12 months that would have the effect of changing our biodiversity to such an extent that the target would be back on track—in most cases, it would take an awful lot longer than that. As I said, biodiversity is complex and multifaceted and recovery takes time.”
“It would not be practicably possible to carry out meaningful consultation and adequately reflect on the outcomes of that consultation and draft regulations within that timescale, especially considering the upcoming election period. I assure members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, the chamber and stakeholders that it remains the Government’s intention to introduce nature targets as soon as practicably possible. However, amendment 67 would result in the creation of rushed targets rather than carefully considered targets that are informed by meaningful consultation. For that reason, I encourage members not to support amendment 67. I appreciate the intentions behind amendments 68 and 69, which were also lodged by Sarah Boyack, which attempt to mirror the approach that is taken in the climate change legislation.”
“I encourage members to make their interventions a wee bit briefer than that, otherwise we will be here until the early hours of the morning. Gillian Martin: I understand Ms Burgess’s passion on the issue and her view that there is a need for action. However, not every inshore fisheries area is the same as Lamlash Bay. That is a great example of a no-take zone, and it would be nice to see other areas opt to do that, too, but introducing fisheries management measures in MPAs and PMFs is still a Government priority. Amendment 67, in the name of Sarah Boyack, would require target regulations to be laid within 12 months of royal assent.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament acknowledges that the Future Farming Investment Scheme sought to provide farmers and crofters with funding to help them buy new machinery, improve efficiency or reduce emissions, and was targeted towards islanders, new entrants, young farmers and tenant farmers; understands that Orkney businesses initially received only 3.48% of total funding, and Shetland 1.88%; notes with concern reports that fewer than one in 10 small farms and crofters across Scotland received funding, with many small farms from the Highlands and Islands to Aberdeenshire, Argyll and Bute and the south of Scotland also missing out; believes that much of the communication around this scheme has caused confusion, and indeed anger, among those in the agricultural sector; expresses deep regret that, while demand for the scheme was high, so few small, island and young farmers were successful, despite seemingly being from priority groups, and notes the calls on the Scottish Government to provide further clarity on how the funding for the scheme was allocated, as well as to publish its review on the Future Farming Investment Scheme, as committed by the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands on 10 December 2025.”
“The final item of business this evening is a members’ business debate on motion S6M- 20387, in the name of Liam McArthur, on the future farming investment scheme. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I invite Liam McArthur to open the debate.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20485, in the name of Richard Lochhead, on the Digital Assets (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. 15:45”
“We should await the outcome of the national performance framework review. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Clare Adamson, who is joining us remotely. 15:12”
“There is time in hand, Mr Doris. Sarah Boyack: Does the member agree that additional resources would be required? If he read the evidence from Audit Scotland, he will remember that it said that having extra duties to implement some of the measures in my bill would require more resources and could divert Audit Scotland from its existing work. Bob Doris: That is a very helpful intervention from Sarah Boyack. I put on the record that, when the refreshed national performance framework is ready for delivery, the Scottish Government should be clear about the resources that are required to ensure that it is monitored and implemented appropriately, whether by Audit Scotland or any other body that has that role. I agree with the policy intent. Unfortunately, through no fault of Sarah Boyack, the bill came at the wrong time.”
“In terms of the here and now, I have mentioned the acquisitions fund, which is supporting Fife Council and others to buy homes now to relieve pressure, and, just yesterday, I laid draft secondary legislation in the Parliament that will introduce duties on private and social landlords to investigate reports of damp and mould and to commence any required repairs within a set timescale. That legislation is named after Awaab Ishak, whose death in Rochdale, in England, was linked to exposure to black mould. Although around 90 per cent of properties in Scotland are substantially free from damp and mould, we are determined that everyone should be protected. I hope that the introduction of Awaab’s law, among others, is evidence to Annabelle Ewing’s constituents that we are on their side.”
“A young couple in Lochgelly whom I was contacted by this week are living in damp and mouldy accommodation such that their one-year-old child now cannot sleep and suffers from constant colds. Can the cabinet secretary say what the Scottish Government will do to show that it is, in fact, on my constituents’ side? Màiri McAllan: I recognise Annabelle Ewing’s call for action in the here and now while that underlying work is on-going to increase supply, including through the new agency that the First Minister announced this morning, which will be called “More Homes Scotland”.”
“There is a downward trend in children living in temporary accommodation, and the council is close to launching a revised pilot private sector leasing scheme that we think will provide between 100 and 300 properties. Most recently, my quarterly meeting with Fife Council was on 7 January, and I met representatives of the council at the housing to 2040 strategic board on 14 January, when all those matters were discussed. Annabelle Ewing: I note the cabinet secretary’s contact with Fife Council, which I welcome. I also welcome the Scottish Government’s new commitments to increase housing, which it has made in recent weeks. However, I have to say that, in the here and now, my constituents are living in overcrowded houses and unsuitable temporary accommodation.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to respond to the housing emergency in Fife. (S6O- 05413) The Cabinet Secretary for Housing (Màiri McAllan): Since declaring the housing emergency, the Scottish Government has worked intensively—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Please resume your seat, cabinet secretary. Mr Kerr, I have allowed a little latitude in the exchanges that have been going on between you and members on the front bench, but could you please desist? Màiri McAllan: We have been working very closely with Fife Council to address the acute pressures that it is facing. In 2025-26, Fife Council received £4.4m from the national acquisitions programme. The council has a plan to eliminate statutory breaches by June 2026 and to return to sustainable rapid rehousing, which I discuss regularly with it.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the vital role that bridges play in connecting communities across Scotland, including in the Highlands and Islands region, supporting access to work, education, healthcare, emergency services and local economies; notes recent reported events highlighting the vulnerability of Scotland’s bridge infrastructure, including the partial collapse of the Spey Viaduct and the ongoing closure, restriction or uncertainty affecting key local bridges such as Cloddach Bridge, Kirkcudbright Bridge and the Bridge of Alford; understands that many of these structures carry thousands of vehicles each day and serve as lifeline routes for both rural and urban communities; notes with concern reports that a number of local authorities, including Highland Council, have acknowledged that financial constraints mean that some bridges will be placed into managed decline, and recognises what it sees as the significant impact that bridge closures or long-term restrictions can have on connectivity, community resilience, local economies and public confidence in Scotland’s transport infrastructure.”
“The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-20178, in the name of Tim Eagle, on supporting Scotland’s bridges. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Tim Eagle to open the debate.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20487, in the name of Kenneth Gibson, on behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, on the Scottish budget 2026-27. I advise members that, at present, there is time in hand for interventions, but that might change over the course of the afternoon. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. 15:01”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20484, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I call the minister, Ben Macpherson, to speak to and move the motion. 19:59”
“I call Willie Rennie to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 94A. Willie Rennie: I have nothing further to add. Amendment 94A, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 94 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I remind members that amendments 95 and 96 are direct alternatives. The text of whichever is the last to be agreed to will appear in the bill. Amendment 95 not moved. Amendment 96 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to. Section 15—Skills and experience of members of the Council Amendments 62 and 63 moved—[Ben Macpherson]—and agreed to. Amendment 97 moved—[Willie Rennie]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“As I have said before, that approach is supported by many of the councils that I have spoken to, by the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, by members of SOLACE— the network for public sector and local government professionals—and by the employer-led Scottish Apprenticeship Advisory Board. Why change something that is not broken? I move amendment 30. 16:30 The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will ask you formally, Mr Whittle: do you intend to press or withdraw amendment 30? Brian Whittle: Press. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 30 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed. Kenneth Gibson: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am afraid that, for the third time this afternoon, my app did not work. I would have voted no.”
“There are all kinds of ideas coming from across the chamber and outside Parliament that could have refreshed the post-school landscape, and we are missing that open goal. Brian Whittle: I thank my colleague for that intervention. In this case, the Government is trying to make changes for change’s sake. I do not know why we are trying to change something that is extremely successful. I want to see foundation apprenticeships increase. Everybody understands what a foundation apprenticeship is. Not one person I have spoken to across all those organisations has had any problem with calling it a foundation apprenticeship. Everybody understands what that means.”
“The Government has also committed to undertaking a review of foundation apprenticeships—work that has not been done, and yet it is making those changes. Stephen Kerr: Does my friend agree that he is making an excellent point to illustrate why the bill is such an unsatisfactory piece of legislation? There was a great opportunity for us to work across the chamber to deliver a refreshed landscape for post-school— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, could you please address your remarks to the microphone so that the official report staff can hear? Stephen Kerr: It is the funny shape of our chamber, is it not? I will face forward to speak to Mr Whittle. [Interruption.] Somebody is commenting on my funny shape, but that is a different matter. The reality is that the bill was an opportunity, and that opportunity has been squandered.”
“To reassure Mr Briggs and Mr Whittle, they also articulate that work-based learning means “education and training received by an individual— (a) in a working environment, or in an educational environment in which work-based activities are undertaken by the individual”, which should reassure Mr Briggs on the point that he raises, and, for completeness, “(b) on the basis of a work-based learning agreement.” I encourage colleagues to look at section 5(2), as amended at stage 2, and I am sure that they will be reassured. Brian Whittle: I also feel as though I am repeating myself all the time. If 96 per cent of employers are willing to host foundation apprenticeships again, that sounds like a success to me. The minister is talking about reclassifying them as “work-based learning” courses, which have still yet to be defined.”
“I feel like I need to repeat that, because statements are being made that insinuate that foundation apprenticeships will not continue. Miles Briggs: Will the member give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Briggs, the minister is intervening on Mr Whittle. Ben Macpherson: I am sure that members would not want to mislead Parliament inadvertently, so I feel that I should state that in section 5 of the bill, as amended at stage 2, proposed new sections 12I(2)(a) and 12I(2)(b) of the 2005 act define work-based learning.”
“Most importantly, 93 per cent of pupils rated their foundation apprenticeships as being good or excellent, and 60 per cent of foundation apprentices said that completing a foundation apprenticeship would encourage them to stay on at school, and re-engage them as students, while 82 per cent said that learning in a foundation apprenticeship is more enjoyable than learning in a national 4 or 5. That is why we need to ensure that there are multiple pathways for students to reach positive destinations. We cannot afford to lose foundation apprenticeships, which are a valuable pathway, just because the bill does not describe them. Ben Macpherson: I reiterate that the concept of foundation apprenticeships and what they deliver are not affected by the bill.”
“I am not one for statistics, but I was speaking to Aberdeenshire Council, and it has delivered foundation apprenticeships and sustained positive destinations—into employment, higher education and modern apprenticeships—to a level that is 10 per cent higher than the national average for those in foundation apprenticeships. There is increased average attainment of 61 per cent for all school leavers who completed a foundation apprenticeship. Is that not what we are trying to achieve? There is no lack of want from the industry, despite what the minister says. Ninety-six per cent of employers would be willing to host a foundation apprenticeship.”
“Ben Macpherson: Will Brian Whittle take an intervention? Brian Whittle: If I can, I will address the previous intervention. At the school that I visited, we were talking about children who, throughout their time in primary and secondary school, had spent approximately one year in total in school. That had been the case for three generations, so those children were lost to the education system. The teachers were able to deliver a foundation apprenticeship that brought them back into the fold, back into education and on to positive destinations. What do we mean by a positive destination? How do we define that quality job? If we asked everyone in the chamber, I am sure that they would all give different answers. I want to use a case study, if I can.”
“Recently, along with other Edinburgh MSPs, I visited Liberton high school, which, through Tigers, is providing access to foundation apprenticeships that provide skills in key sectors, such as construction. The Government is sending the signal that the learning will be workplace based, but I am not sure that it understands that schools will not necessarily be captured. The local authorities that fund such programmes might decide not to fund them in the future, which would take away those opportunities. I have made that case several times to ministers, but it does not seem to have been heard. What guarantee will the Government give— I am sure that Brian Whittle will want to know this—that we will not lose such opportunities in translation through the bill? Brian Whittle: I have very similar concerns.”
“Always speak through the chair, please. Brian Whittle: I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I note that, although the Scottish Government committed to undertake a review of foundation apprenticeships, that work has not begun. It seems short sighted, at the very least, to legislate in this policy area without knowing the outcome of that review. Miles Briggs: In this debate, we need to focus on what often goes on in schools. I do not think that we would say that what goes on is work- based learning, but foundation apprenticeships take place in our schools. Often, those who are furthest away from the education system are the ones who access those. I have raised the issue with the minister, because I am concerned about it.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings for the UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 60A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division, and the period of voting for that division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on the amendment should press their request-to- speak buttons, or enter “RTS” in the chat function as soon as amendment 1 is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list. After section 5 The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to group 1, which is on intergovernmental co- operation on ticket touting. Amendment 1 is the only amendment in the group.”
“The next item of business is a statement by Jenny Gilruth on the additional support for learning review. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:54”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, on climate action and energy, and transport. Freight Crime 1.”
“That is obviously not a point of order, but your contribution is noted, Mr Ewing. Members will of course be aware of the various ways in which the record can be corrected. As far as Scottish Government ministers are concerned, that has to be done as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the relevant question. In response to Mr Ewing’s point about the cabinet secretary’s presence in the chamber, I note that the cabinet secretary has pressed her request-to-speak button to seek to raise a point of order, but that was after another member pressed their button to seek to raise a point of order. I therefore first call”
“Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic. I remind members that questions 1 and 5 are grouped together and I will, therefore, take any supplementaries on those questions after both have been answered. Mossmorran Task Force 1.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20388, in the name of Jim Fairlie, on the Crofting and Scottish Land Court Bill at stage 1. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. 16:00”
“I call Willie Rennie to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. You have a generous six minutes, Mr Rennie. 15:35”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes the calls for legislation to create a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation (NFS), in light of new research led by Professors Sonia Oreffice and Climent Quintana-Domeque at the University of Exeter on intimate partner homicides and NFS; understands that this is the first known study to examine the impact of standalone NFS laws on intimate partner homicides across multiple jurisdictions internationally; notes that the study finds that, in US jurisdictions where NFS has been criminalised as a standalone serious offence, intimate partner homicides fell by double-digit percentages, with female-victim homicides declining by around 14% and male-victim homicides by 27%, and estimates that more than 1,500 lives have been saved since the adoption of such laws; expresses concern regarding the view that these reductions could highlight a significant gap in Scots law; understands that criminalising NFS could be considered as a potential approach to reduce the deadliest consequences of intimate partner violence; further understands that NFS often leaves no visible injuries, yet is a strong predictor of future lethal violence, and that, in the absence of a standalone offence, NFS may go unrecorded or be prosecuted only as minor assault due to the absence of visible injuries or a weapon; notes with alarm the scale and salience of violence against women and girls in Scotland, including in the Mid Scotland and Fife region; considers that standalone NFS laws could disrupt any escalation of violence and coercive control and help prevent lethal outcomes and wider harms, and commends the research team for its ongoing work in this area.”