Liam McArthur
Scottish Liberal Democrats · Scotland
“I associate myself very much with the comments and requests of Kristopher Leask. This weekend sees the second Water Sound bluegrass festival take place in Burray, in my Orkney constituency. I therefore ask the cabinet secretary to offer congratulations to the organisers, Pete and Gail McAndrew, for getting the festival up and running.”
“I think that he said that it is taking place this weekend, in which case I hope that the weather holds up, as that could add something very special to a bluegrass festival.”
“I, too, thank the cabinet secretary for early sight of her statement, which obviously comes on the back of eye-watering rises in business rates earlier this year.”
“I have a constituent who, for the past nine years, has desperately sought treatment for swelling on his legs and groin that has progressively worsened and is now profoundly incapacitating. Having sought treatment in Scotland, it is clear that that is not available.”
“Jenny Gilruth: The Liberal Democrats engaged with us throughout the budget process last year and they were able to extract a number of things from the Government. I hope that other Opposition parties will learn from their good behaviour.”
“There are strengths in the current system but I accept that there are inherent challenges in relation to the issues presented by revaluation, for example, and the wider challenges that businesses are facing.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,163 lines we hold for Liam McArthur, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 24.
“Amendment 295 relates to statutory guidance that the Scottish ministers have the power to issue in connection with the tolerable standard, which is set out in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. The amendment would make it clear that such guidance “may further specify the circumstances in which a house is to be considered to be substantially free from rising or penetrating damp”. Ministers already have the power to issue guidance on such matters, and we were already planning to do so in connection with the implementation of Awaab’s law. That will be done as part of our targeted engagement. I am therefore very much in agreement with Mark Griffin and am happy to agree to amendment 295.”
“Although I understand why Mr Griffin is seeking to impose that, it is highly unlikely in the Government’s view that any registered social landlord or local authority would use unskilled workers in any event, including for repairs and inspections. Social landlords are likely to have contracts with suitable, appropriately qualified tradespeople, and we therefore see the amendment as unnecessary. Perhaps most importantly, there is a risk that making such a regulation could reduce the number of tradespeople who would be available to undertake remedial work; it could therefore extend the time required to complete repairs. That would run contrary to the intention to achieve timeous repairs that underpins Awaab’s law, which I know Mark Griffin is supportive of.”
“I re-emphasise that adding a further housing standard would create considerable confusion for landlords, tenants and local authorities as to which standards the landlord must comply with. There are already existing standards and, accompanying them, there are broad powers to amend the existing standards where we need to, so I cannot support the amendments. I turn to the amendments in the name of Mark Griffin. Amendment 294 seeks to amend the enabling power in the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, adding to the non-exhaustive list of matters about which ministers may make provision so that it includes “the qualifications required by an inspector to undertake an inspection” relating to damp and mould in a house.”
“Under amendments 71 and 71A, the regulations would have to specify the method by which the landlord can demonstrate compliance with the standards, as well as the complaints procedure by which tenants can challenge the landlord’s compliance. The amendments expand on what can be covered in the regulations by noting that the minimum standards may be defined with reference to the statutory tolerable standard and repairing standard. Amendments 5, 28, 78 and 78A would replicate those amendments for non-rent control areas. Although I agree on the importance of all rented properties complying with appropriate standards, a suite of statutory standards and enforcement measures is already in place for rented properties—the tripartite that I have mentioned.”
“Although I recognise that there is more to do, my starting point is about strengthening the existing powers and standards. I have already confirmed this, but I reiterate my intention to bring forward Awaab’s law across the rented sector in Scotland from March 2026, starting with damp and mould. The Scottish Government is currently hosting a series of round- table events this month to better understand the timescales for investigating and commencing repairs and their potential impact on tenants and landlords. I turn to amendments in the name of Maggie Chapman. Amendment 3 would provide that rents in rent control areas would not be increased unless the property met minimum standards. Amendments 71 and 71A are alternatives to amendment 3. They would, in addition, provide that standards may relate to repairs and safety.”
“I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move such a motion. Motion moved, That the last sentence of Rule 9.8.5A be suspended.— [Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Under rule 9.8.5A, I am minded to accept another motion without notice to extend the debate on amendments by 30 minutes. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to move such a motion. Motion moved, That, under rule 9.8.5A, the third time limit be moved by up to 30 minutes.—[Graeme Dey] Motion agreed to. Màiri McAllan: The overall condition of housing in Scotland has been steadily improving over the years. That has been driven principally by the tolerable standard, the Scottish housing quality standard and the repairing standard.”
“Although I do not believe that this was intended, I think that amendments 300 and 301 continue the rhetoric that I mentioned earlier regarding the demonisation of landlords, the vast majority of whom maintain their properties to the highest of standards. I welcome the member’s tone, which was different from the tone that we have heard from other members this evening. However, for the reasons that I have set out, we will not support her amendments in this group. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members will be aware that, despite extending the previous time limit by 30 minutes, we will shortly reach the next time limit, and we have two more groups to debate. As a consequence, I am minded to accept a motion without notice to propose that the last sentence of rule 9.8.5A be suspended.”
“I understand that we will soon vote on amendments that relate to damp and mould issues, which I hope will improve building standards for many people in the private and social rented sectors. On amendments 300 and 301, which are in the name of Ariane Burgess, I am concerned that no permissions will be sought from the landlord directly even though they own the property. There are other processes that deal with concerns that tenants raise with rental properties, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for local authorities to effectively have more authority over landlords in respect of maintenance, safety and quality.”
“Graham Simpson: I will attempt to answer Ms Gallacher’s question. I will not move amendment 228, and I will probably not move amendments 230 and 231, which relate to Awaab’s law. I hope that that helps. Meghan Gallacher: That is a helpful clarification. I asked the question because I believe that it would not always be practical for landlords to carry out repairs in 14 days, as would be required if amendments 230 and 231 came into force broadly. Things such as seasonal holidays, weather conditions and rurality could impact on landlords’ ability to carry out repairs within that timeframe. However, I understand and agree that landlords must carry out repairs within a reasonable time and as soon as possible.”
“Considering other amendments that we are discussing this evening, I do not know whether the cabinet secretary is in a position to set that out tonight but, if she is not able to do so, we would welcome her coming to the committee or providing a statement to give an update on where we are in relation to remediation of those types of buildings. In particular, I would like an update from the Government on where we are with regard to the recommendations in that report. It was some time ago, but I believe that Graham Simpson said that he is not going to move his amendments in this group. Is that right? [Interruption.] I am sorry—I have caught him off guard. I understand what Graham Simpson is attempting to do with his amendments. He has done a lot of work on issues of damp and mould in properties.”
“In fact, I wrote to the previous minister, Paul McLennan, on the matter, and I thank him again for the time and engagement that he gave to the issue while he was in post. Identifying buildings and remediation has been incredibly slow, and I am concerned that the method for testing fire performance, BS 8414, is still a route for buildings to fall within compliance. Buildings such as hospitals, care homes, boarding schools and hotels are, in effect, dwellings—they are buildings that people can stay in. For that reason, they need to be captured in the ban on combustible facade material. I lodged amendment 375 to continue to raise those concerns and to consult the Scottish Government to try to ascertain its position on including in the ban hotels, hostels, boarding schools and any other building that falls into that category.”
“Although there are budgetary constraints that limit how many CPOs a local authority can achieve, those steps are useful. They are, of course, complicated, time consuming, costly and resource intensive, but we can build a learning curve. In Glasgow’s case, they are dependent on building a partnership with housing associations. The Government should consider accepting the amendment, moving forward with the approach and testing how it could perform. Meghan Gallacher: I appreciate that I have probably been rather cheeky in lodging my amendment, as I also did so at stage 2, and I understand that it probably does not encompass the exact intent of the bill. However, I have had several discussions with previous ministers regarding the publication of the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 2 report recommendations.”
“That could be a useful mechanism for the Government to implement now and test how it works and performs with local authorities. Some of the properties that have previously been targeted for CPOs have been lying empty for more than 14 years, while other properties have been designated as being below the tolerable standard for more than five years. All those empty properties, because they are generally tenemental stock, create environmental blight and affect neighbours in the wider community and even in the same close. Therefore, the benefit that is derived from bringing those properties and other homes back into use is massive, particularly for tenants and owners who live in close proximity and who have suffered because of abandonment or the poor quality of maintenance.”
“In all the cases to date in which compulsory purchase orders have been confirmed, once Glasgow City Council has invested in the property, it has entered into back-to-back agreements with local community-based housing associations, of which there are more than 60 in Glasgow, which have carried out the necessary repair works with support and grant funding to bring the property up to a tolerable standard and back into active use in order to provide affordable housing for those who need it. Given the housing emergency in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland, that need is particularly acute, so it would be a useful tool to bring in now. We need not wait for the Government’s on-going consultation on wider CPOs, because the pace of change needs something to get ahead of it.”
“Fifty-two homes across Glasgow have been pursued for compulsory purchases since 2019, and 34 of those cases have concluded with the acquisition of the property. In other cases, with the serving of the notice, 13 owners opted to sell voluntarily to housing associations, and a further two properties were sold or occupied by family members, which meant that the planned compulsory purchase order was not continued.”
“The compulsory purchase order process has been a good way of responding to the blight that has been caused by derelict and abandoned flats and homes that have been left vacant for a variety of reasons, or properties that have previously been let out but are now below the tolerable standard. With the Government’s recent announcement of an increase in the acquisitions fund from £40 million to £80 million, that would be a useful way of focusing that money into areas of priority need. Glasgow’s promotion of compulsory purchase orders has sent a message that the local authority is active in taking steps against private landlords or other individuals who fail to address problems with their property, although it is seen as a last- resort measure.”
“In that way the authority does not incur that full cost of acquisition—it can offset it. There is reasonable scope in the bill to do something useful to improve the mechanisms that are available to local authorities to bring dilapidated housing stock back up to a reasonable standard for habitation. 20:15 As has been mentioned, Glasgow has been at the forefront of using compulsory purchase orders to tackle problems of long-term vacant properties, which has increased affordable housing supply and ensured the upkeep of pre-1919 tenement stock in particular, of which there was around 70,000 in the city, with an estimated repair backlog of £3 billion.”
“It would allow for the established best practice of using CPOs to take over long-term vacant housing stock to be expanded to the takeover of housing stock that is generally in poor condition, although habitable. That approach has already been undertaken in Glasgow districts such as Govanhill. If that best practice were scaled up on a national basis, it would be more systematic in nature and lessons could be learned from it. There is already such provision in legislation. For example, section 45 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 allows for “a direction for minimum compensation”, such that, when the local authority acquires a property, it can offset the costs of repairing the building against the property’s value.”
“After doing so, it could transfer the property to an appropriate local registered social landlord, whether that be the local authority itself, in the case of local authorities that have council housing, or a third-party housing association, in the case of local authorities, such as Glasgow, where direct local authority operation of social housing no longer takes place. The Government could underwrite that procedure and recover the costs of the purchase over a reasonable period—for example, 25 years from the receiving social landlord taking ownership of the property. That would have the effect of making the policy, in effect, cost neutral for the Government. It would also be a much more sustainable investment strategy than, for example, having to fund emergency temporary accommodation on a haphazard, ad hoc basis.”
“As has been intimated by colleagues across the chamber, the purpose of amendment 115 is to ensure that if a property in private let is deemed to be substandard by failing to meet either the repairing standard or the tolerable standard for a period of longer than 12 months, the tenant would have a right in statute to apply to the local authority to initiate action, in addition to the obligations of the local authority that already exist in statute, as was already discussed, in several housing acts going back to the 1980s. In addition to the provisions that already exist for a local authority, such as for the issuing of closing orders, demolition orders, maintenance orders or repairing orders, the local authority could consider escalation to issuing a compulsory purchase order for the property.”
“It is important that remote, rural and island homes have access to viable and reliable secondary heating options. They are not luxury items in our homes or just something that looks nice in the corner of the room. They help to keep people safe, warm and alive in the worst of conditions. It is vital that regulations made here in Edinburgh take into account the needs of those communities—our communities across the Highlands and Islands and other parts of rural Scotland, where help is further away and takes longer to arrive. I urge members to support my amendments 244 and 259. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Paul Sweeney to speak to amendment 115 and other amendments in the group. Paul Sweeney: I rise to speak to amendment 115 and the associated amendment 117.”
“At stage 2, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice questioned the necessity of my amendments on this matter, indicating that the Scottish Government had no plans to bring forward further regulation in the area at this time. Shirley-Anne Somerville noted her concerns that those amendments “could tie the hands of future Governments, particularly where there remains scope for technological advancement.”—[Official Report, 25 May 2025; c 29.] Amendments 244 and 259 do attempt to tie the Government, and, if change is to be considered, require that it comes back and consults this Parliament. Had the provisions in those amendments already been law, that may well have saved ministers the time—and not a small amount of embarrassment—of U-turning.”
“That was followed by an excellent members’ business debate in which the topic was discussed in far more detail than we would be able to fit in today, and in which there was widespread recognition— again from across the parties, including the SNP— of the importance of direct-emission heating in remote and rural communities. I am pleased that the Scottish Government U- turned on its proposed ban on secondary direct- emission heating devices, such as wood-burning stoves, in new-build homes at that time. However, despite that U-turn in November 2024, it has become clear that secondary heating should be protected in primary legislation, with a requirement that the Scottish Government have due regard to those issues into the future.”
“Having experienced being snowed in at my own home in Orkney for five days without power, but with access to heating and hot water that was provided by our wood-burning stove, and with the ability to cook hot meals in a house, parts of which were registering temperatures below 0°C, I know all too well how important resilience and having the appropriate backup can be. Only last year, in response to proposed regulations in this area, I introduced a motion to Parliament that achieved cross-party support, including from several members on the SNP benches, on the importance of wood-burning stoves and other direct-emission heating in island and rural communities.”
“The amendments aim to ensure that, in homes in areas where essential connections might be less reliable or subject to increased risk of being lost—often, because of extreme weather—and where help or support is less readily available, facilities to heat, cook and provide hot water are maintained. There have been plenty of recent examples in which the extent of damage to energy distribution systems has caused major disruption to services to local homes, not only in my region, in the Highlands and Islands, but across the regions of many members in the chamber.”
“I advise members that, as they will be aware, we are well behind time in this debate, so I encourage members to be as brief as possible, without failing to do justice to the seriousness of the issues. Jamie Halcro Johnston: My amendments 244 and 259 are similar to amendments that I lodged at stage 2. Together, they provide that, when the Scottish Government makes regulations relating to direct-emission heating systems, it must implement a presumption in favour of secondary direct-emission heating systems in homes in remote and rural areas and on our islands.”
“Thank you, cabinet secretary. I point out to members that if amendment 136, in the group on rent conditions and designation of rent control areas, is agreed to, I will not be able to call amendment 137, as a result of a pre-emption. I call Maggie Chapman to speak to amendment 150 and other amendments in the group.”
“It is right for the Government to listen to stakeholders and give them more flexibility, and not to prevent them from doing anything that they are already empowered to do. The member’s other point, about the possibility of a levy that could be charged when someone enters a local authority area, presents different challenges. We are not actively pursuing that idea at the moment, but I am keen to have conversations with members and others who have proposals in that space, so that we can understand more specifically what they are suggesting. The Presiding Officer: It is extremely important that we protect time for the next item of business, so it would be helpful if members could be concise.”
“I am afraid that the shambles has created greater uncertainty for local authorities. Perhaps it is no surprise, therefore, that, today, Orkney Islands Council—following the same approach as Shetland Islands Council took last week—voted not to introduce a visitor levy. I understand that Western Isles Council has similarly paused its plans. In Orkney, the local tourism sector has proposed introducing a point of entry levy. Can the minister update members on when the Government plans to take a view on such proposals? Ivan McKee: All that we are doing through the legislation is responding to requests from industry and local authorities to give them more flexibility over the type of visitor levy that they can use. We have indicated that we would seek ways to provide such flexibility, if that is what they want.”
“The question is, that motion S6M-19015, in the name of John Swinney, on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister, be agreed to. Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees that Ben Macpherson be appointed as a junior Scottish Minister. Urgent Question 14:29”
“I start by acknowledging the apology that Jamie Hepburn made to the chamber earlier, which I thank him for. I also join other members in congratulating Ben Macpherson on his appointment. I have known him for his entire time in the Parliament, and he has always been committed to working across parties. He took that approach into Government during his previous time as a minister, and I am sure that he will continue that in this role. As other members have observed, the college and university sector is not without significant—some might say existential— challenges, and such an approach will be all the more important to the work. Again, I congratulate Ben Macpherson and wish him well in this crucial role. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the appointment of a junior Scottish minister.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18936, in the name of Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body-supported bodies landscape review. I invite Ben Macpherson, on behalf of the SPCB Supported Bodies Landscape Review Committee, to speak to and move the motion. 15:22”
“The next item of business is a statement by Neil Gray on improving care on the Isle of Skye. The cabinet secretary will take questions on the issues raised by his statement afterwards, so there should be no interruptions or interventions. 14:53”
“The next item of business is portfolio question time. On this occasion, the portfolio is education and skills. I remind members that questions 2 and 7 have been grouped and that, therefore, I will take any supplementaries on those questions after the substantive questions have been asked and answered. There is quite a bit of interest in supplementaries, so the usual plea stands for brevity in questions and answers. Education Infrastructure Investment 1.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with grave concern the reported increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires in Scotland, including in the Highlands and Islands, and the devastating impact these events have on the environment, economy and communities; recognises what it sees as the unique vulnerability of the Highlands and Islands due to its expansive rural landscape, peatlands and the changing climate; highlights what it sees as the significant risks posed to biodiversity, air quality and critical infrastructure; recognises what it sees as the immense pressure that is placed on emergency services, local resources and the resilience efforts that are required from everyone, from government to third sector volunteers; notes the reported role of climate change, land management practices and human activity in contributing to these events, and further notes the calls on the Scottish Government to review its wildfire prevention and response strategies, and for cross- party collaboration to develop a robust, long-term plan to mitigate the threat of wildfires, discourage irresponsible behaviours and build resilience in communities.”
“Business is resuming, so I ask members who are leaving the chamber and those who are leaving the public gallery to do so as quickly and quietly as possible. The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-18710, in the name of Emma Roddick, on the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.”
“The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-18883, in the name of Angela Constance, on the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. 15:26”
“The next item of business is a statement on Alexander Dennis Ltd. The Deputy First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:57”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of reports of concerns being raised in communities across the Highlands and Islands in relation to land auctions involving potentially misleading advertising, what action it will take to ensure that people who believe they have been affected by such practices have recourse under Scots law, including access to legal representation and support. (S6O-04941)”
“I have worked closely on the issue with Victim Support Scotland, which told me that one of the main issues with victim impact statements is that victims spend time writing out their feelings in the expectation that they will be shared in court, but they have no idea whether their statement will be read out or not. That most certainly causes victims unnecessary anxiety in an already stress-inducing and traumatising situation. Scottish Women’s Aid says that it backs the amendment because the process needs urgent attention and reform. In particular, it seeks support for women’s agency and their right to make a statement.”
“Sharon Dowey: Amendment 104 would require that, in cases where the victim is eligible to make a victim impact statement, the court must allow for the statement to be read aloud in court. There is currently no requirement for a victim impact statement to be read aloud in court, but I think that the voices of victims must be heard. The statement could be read by the victim where they have requested to do so, or by the judge or sheriff. Given concerns about the possible length of the statements, I have provided for the court to have discretion as to whether the statement is read out “in whole or in part.” Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid have expressed support for my amendment.”
“The amendment as drafted says that, if a victim statement has been made, it “must be read aloud in court”, either by the victim or, if they choose not to do so, by a judge. The problem with that is that there is no opt-out: if a statement exists, it will be read aloud, come what may. That does not cover scenarios in which, for example, the victim wishes a judge to read the statement prior to sentencing but might not wish the statement to be read aloud and to become public knowledge. I am happy for either Sharon Dowey or ministers to confirm my interpretation of amendment 104 before we vote on it. Nonetheless, I commend her for bringing it before the chamber. I hope that she and other members will support my amendment 39. I move amendment 39.”
“Therefore, anyone who has been impacted by a crime should be able to make a victim impact statement, should they wish to, regardless of the nature of the offence, or the court in which it is to be heard.” I urge members to support that point. I am also grateful to the Government for acknowledging that this massive change has to happen and is long overdue. I hope that the change will be agreed to as a result of today’s business and that it will benefit future victims of crime. Sharon Dowey’s amendment 104, which is the second amendment in the group, would enable a victim, if they so choose, to read their victim statement aloud in court proceedings. My concern with regard to the amendment is not with its intention, given that I support the expansion of the use of victim statements in court environments, but is more technical.”
“I am grateful for cross-party support for the amendment and, in particular, for the support of Ben Macpherson, who approached me with some deeply troubling casework that he had been working on. He believed that the provisions in the amendment are the right thing to do. The minister often likes to refer to my consultation. I am happy to confirm that, in that consultation, 85 per cent of respondents supported the proposal to expand the franchise in relation to victim statements in court. I am grateful to Victim Support Scotland once again for its support—it supports the amendment. It made a valid point when it said: “The supposed ‘seriousness’ of an offence often has little to no bearing on how the individual has been impacted.”
“It will simply expand the franchise to all victims in all solemn proceedings by making changes to section 14 of the 2003 act—notably by replacing the words “prescribed offence”. Proposed new subsection 2A(a) sets out that a victim of, “in the case of solemn proceedings, any offence” can be afforded the opportunity to make a victim statement. Crucially, amendment 39 will expand the powers of the Scottish Government to perhaps trial the approach in non-solemn proceedings. I understand the point that was made by Russell Findlay in earlier debates that expanding the approach to summary cases would result in a huge volume of impact statements. However, I still believe that there is a place for victim statements in solemn proceedings and in summary proceedings on certain prescribed offences.”
“It has had a tangible effect on the information that is available to judges prior to sentencing and, indeed, may have resulted in sentencing decisions that were based on a lack of information in the absence of the victim’s voice. The natural solution could simply have been to update the list of prescribed offences. However, as I said when I raised the issue during stage 2 proceedings, updating the list would not future- proof the bill and the provision that the amendment introduces. Put simply, it is not realistic to expect ministers to have to update the prescribed list of offences at the pace at which legislation changes and new offences are created. My amendment 39 takes a different approach.”
“As it stands, section 14 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 allows victims of prescribed offences to make victim impact statements only to a court and only in solemn proceedings. Those prescribed offences include the obvious—murder, rape, culpable homicide, fire raising and a few others. The list of offences was last updated in 2009 and it excludes victims of many serious offences that have been created since the 2009 review. Among others, that includes offences created in domestic abuse legislation that has been passed by the Parliament. That has effectively created an unfair two-tier system in which some victims’ voices are heard in the courtroom and others are not.”
“Section 29B—Co-operation with the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of sharing information with victims Amendments 73 to 76 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. Section 29D—Victim’s right to receive information concerning offender subject to compulsion order by virtue of cross-border transfer Amendments 77 to 81 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. After section 29D Amendment 82 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to. After section 29G The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 9 is on victim statements. Amendment 39, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendment 104. Jamie Greene: This is a short group on victim statements, in which I have the first amendment— amendment 39. I will start with why we need amendment 39.”
“No such organisation made any representations contrary to my proposal, nor did the Government and nor have any counter proposals been forthcoming. I therefore say to the minister that there has been ample opportunity to raise any issues with what I am proposing and to come back with alternative solutions. It remains my fundamental belief that people should be told of such decisions before someone is released. It should be a moral obligation on all justice partner stakeholders to do that. Victim Support Scotland supports that. It said: “They want to know when that person is being released and if there are conditions on that release in advance so they can plan for their own safety and get support.” I urge members to support amendment 85. 16:15 Amendment 66 agreed to. Amendments 67 to 72 moved—[Siobhian Brown]—and agreed to.”
“Siobhian Brown: I am sorry. When you consulted on your proposed victims bill, did you get any response from the SPS or the PBS regarding the timing of information provision? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Again, please speak through the chair. Jamie Greene: When a member consults on a member’s bill, it is up to individual organisations whether they choose to participate in that consultation. It was not for me to say that anyone had to respond to my member’s bill consultation. I consulted widely, but I say to the minister that that was four years ago and that there has been ample opportunity since then for the Parole Board or any other organisation that had concerns about that particular proposal to make those known. The matter also arose during stage 2 of this bill, back in March.”