Douglas Ross
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to comments by the Scottish Information Commissioner who stated, in relation to the Government’s handling of information concerning the Salmond files, “I can no longer trust the government to handle this information unsupervised and will explore more intrusive options to ensure complianc…”
“I literally follow sport from the sidelines in my role as a match official but, more than that, as a parent of two boys in Moray, I give credit to the sporting organisations in Moray and across the Highlands that provide so many opportunities for young people—boys and girls— throughout the country.”
“When we are thinking about the bill, which will undoubtedly pass at stage 3 today, I am sure unanimously, we might consider what she said in her email: “Calum can’t advocate for himself due to his complex disability, but he can express this truth: the children aren’t naughty, they are scared.” Children should not be scared in Scotland, an…”
“I rise to make my final speech in the chamber. I chose to speak in this debate, on this subject, for a number of reasons. First, the member in charge proved to be a very conscientious and determined member in getting the bill through.”
“The work that I have done as an individual member, as a party spokesperson, as a party leader and as a convener has been assisted by their tremendous efforts.”
“I am frustrated that we have politicians who cannot speak for four minutes without having the lectern up and reading from a script, daring not to deviate by taking an intervention.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,089 lines we hold for Douglas Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 22.
“There is a lack of clarity about how many staff members it is proposed to transfer from Skills Development Scotland to the Scottish Funding Council; what the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations—TUPE—implications would be; and, critically, what pension arrangements would be put in place. The committee believes that the Scottish Government should have and could have done more work to accurately estimate the costs in advance of the bill’s introduction, and we believe that it was imperative that members had accurate costings for the bill ahead of today’s debate. I know that work has been done on that. The fact that the minister has said that the costs have been reduced by a third raises serious questions about how the initial costs were calculated and presented in the financial memorandum.”
“It is disappointing that, ahead of today’s debate, we did not have more information about how the apprenticeship committee will work, but I know that there is a commitment to provide that detail ahead of stage 2, which the committee and, I am sure, all MSPs will appreciate. One of the most profound concerns for the committee is the lack of certainty about the costs involved in the bill, particularly given how significant they could be. I note that the minister took a number of interventions, but there was only a very short section in his speech about the main issue that the committee is particularly troubled by, so I think that we would appreciate more information.”
“It will be critical for the Scottish Funding Council to have the necessary skills and knowledge to cover not only its current responsibilities, which we all acknowledge are extensive, vast and under significant pressure, but those that will be added as a result of the SFC’s new functions should the bill progress. We called for employers to be represented on the council and for there to be employer involvement in the SFC’s apprenticeship committee, which the bill will establish. We therefore welcome Graeme Dey’s determination to ensure that the employer voice is enhanced by the bill. In his response to our report, he stated: “The SFC is developing proposals for the potential role, remit and membership of the apprenticeship committee”.”
“However, it would be helpful to hear more today from the new minister about modern apprenticeships, including the plans to develop a new delivery model and how that will be used to expand their availability. The committee heard concerns that the Scottish Funding Council does not have expertise in modern apprenticeships or working relationships with employers and industry. In our report, we emphasised our belief that “the voice of employers in Scotland’s skills system” must be “at least maintained if not strengthened by this Bill”.”
“The minister stressed that the current system needs to be improved in terms of the agility of modern apprenticeships, the graduate apprenticeship model and the consistency of the vocational education offer across the country. In his response to our report, Graeme Dey stated that the bill will enable “an increase in the range, quality and quantity of apprenticeships and work-based learning”. He said that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to expand the graduate apprenticeship offer to “cover a wider range of sectors and occupations”. It is welcome that that work will progress immediately, and the committee looks forward to being kept informed of that progress.”
“On the consolidation of funding, the Education, Children and Young People Committee could see the benefit in streamlining funding to remove duplication and reduce bureaucracy. However, we repeatedly heard concerns about a potential reduction in the number of apprenticeships at a time when demand for many apprenticeships outstrips supply. Several contributors also pointed to a lack of growth in the SFC-administered graduate apprenticeship scheme in recent years. In response, we heard from the then minister, Graeme Dey, that apprenticeship funding will continue to be prioritised in the future, which the current minister has reiterated today. However, the committee urged the Scottish Government to provide more detail on that to the sector, in order to provide the reassurance that is evidently needed.”
“I thank everyone who provided evidence, either in person or by responding to our call for views, as well as those who gave evidence to the Economy and Fair Work Committee on skills delivery, which informed our report. Thanks, too, go to my committee colleagues for their work on the bill so far and to our team of clerks and researchers, as well as to members of the Finance and Public Administration Committee and of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee for their work. As the minister has outlined, the Scottish Government’s main objectives for the bill are to consolidate funding for the provision of apprenticeships and national training programmes; improve the operation and governance of the Scottish Funding Council; and designate private providers for student support.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Education, Children and Young People Committee about our scrutiny of the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill. I take the opportunity to warmly welcome Ben Macpherson to his new ministerial role, and I thank Graeme Dey for his many appearances before the committee and his input to our work. It is quite an introduction to a new brief for the minister to have to lead a stage 1 debate during his first week. He will also be appearing before our committee next Wednesday. I assure him that he will receive the same warm welcome that we give to all his colleagues when they come to the committee. [Laughter.] That was not a joke—it was very sincere.”
“Amendment 38 disagreed to. Amendments 97 to 99 moved—[Màiri McAllan]. The Presiding Officer: Does any member object to a single question being put on amendments 97 to 99? Members: Yes. The Presiding Officer: As there are objections, I will put the questions individually. The question is, that amendment 97 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now. The vote is closed.”
“For Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) 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) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (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) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) 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) 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) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 8, Against 98, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 212 agreed to. Amendment 38 moved—[Maggie Chapman]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 38 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Ross. We will ensure that that is recorded. For 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) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) 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) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Fulton MacGregor] Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Ind) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) 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) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 69, Against 39, Abstentions 0.”
“The cabinet secretary will know about the funding that the Scottish Government has given to Moray Council for a replacement Forres academy. That is very welcome, but there are significant concerns about the siting of the new school. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the money has been allocated to Moray Council, that the siting is a local decision and that, should the council decide to move the school to an alternative venue, that would not put the funding under threat? Jenny Gilruth: I understand the challenges in relation to the new high school in Forres, and I am more than happy to write to the member on the specifics. I understand that the location is a matter for the local authority, but I will write to the member in due course to give him a specific answer.”
“Since the Minister for Victims and Community Safety is here, I say that I want tougher punishments for people who wilfully set fires, because of the damage that they do. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I thank all members for their co-operation, which has allowed me to give all members an equal opportunity to participate in a heavily subscribed debate. I call the minister to respond to the debate. 13:38”
“I was perhaps naive: I assumed that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service had assets such as helicopters that could come in and put water on the wildfires. I always assumed that those assets were Government or Fire and Rescue Service assets, but they were not. Those assets were used because estates spend a lot of money on insurance and can afford the use of those helicopters. If it was not for that, we would have been in an even worse state. Finally, I will talk about something that is not a wildfire. We have been experiencing too many deliberate fires in Moray. In Lossiemouth, a spate of them have been worrying close to homes and individuals. One young person has now been arrested and charged.”
“Fergus Ewing: Does Mr Ross agree with a keeper who told me that, had it not been for muirburn that was carried out in past years on the Muckrach estate, the fire would have reached Grantown and people would have died? Douglas Ross: Yes, I agree, because I, too, have heard that. Over the summer, I met representatives and owners of Moray estates, which are probably some of the biggest to be affected by the fire. To see the scale of devastation over the work that they have put into that area for so long is, to be frank, heartbreaking. We were extremely lucky that no lives were lost, but we lost much work that had been done to develop our peatlands and woodlands over many years—perhaps 30 years. All of it was lost in those fires. I want a better response from the Scottish Government. I agree with Edward Mountain’s point about assets.”
“We got nothing from the First Minister of Scotland when the biggest-ever wildfire was affecting our communities in the north. I hope that the Government will reflect on that, because our words mean a lot and I was surprised that the Government was silent on the issue. The ones who were not silent and who did not stand back were the firefighters, the gamekeepers, the farm labourers and the estate workers. I will be very clear: it was a horrendous wildfire that was threatening to get out of control. It was brought under control only because of the incredible efforts of those people, and because of mother nature— because we had one of the biggest rain storms that I can remember. The relief was palpable in Moray and the Highlands on that day. I had been worried that the wildfire would get out of control.”
“On the day of that fire, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, in her role of leading on resilience, asking her to activate the Scottish Government’s resilience room. She refused to do that, although she sent me helpful updates, which I appreciate. I do not understand why the biggest-ever wildfire in Scotland did not trigger the need for the Scottish Government’s resilience room to be launched and opened. I know that the minister wanted to intervene on Fergus Ewing on that; I will give way to him if he wants to make the point now, or he may do so in his closing remarks. The point is important. Ben Macpherson mentioned the wildfire on Arthur’s Seat. That was serious. However, it got an immediate response from the First Minister, who was tweeting about it within minutes or hours.”
“I, too, congratulate Emma Roddick on securing the debate. I do not agree with every word in her motion, but I supported it because I wanted to make sure that there was cross-party support so that we could at least have the debate. Over the summer, I wrote to my friend and colleague Finlay Carson, who is convener of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, asking that a committee of the Parliament look at the issue, because it is of such great importance to both the Highlands and the rest of Scotland. What we witnessed in the early summer months was a horrific fire. I will not forget the scenes—or my kids’ reaction when the sky went extremely dark in the middle of the day. It was a terrifying experience for those of us who were many miles away, and I know how bad it was for the people who were right at the centre of it.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You know what I am going to mention, because I emailed you this morning seeking to raise the matter after First Minister’s question time. First Minister, as I left the chamber yesterday, I was physically assaulted and verbally abused by your Minister for Parliamentary Business, Jamie Hepburn.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the unified statement agreed at the community council convention of the Highland Council area regarding the impact of major energy infrastructure in the region, in Beauly on 14 June 2025, what the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy’s response is to the statement and whether she will attend a future convention meeting to discuss it. (S6O-04953)”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the next speaker, I advise members that, given the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 8.14.3 of standing orders, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Pam Gosal to move a motion without notice. Motion moved, That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Pam Gosal] Motion agreed to. 17:53”
“They will then flick over a few more pages and wonder why it took so long for this Government, which says that it respects the decision, to do anything about it. Minister, I hope that, in some ways, you are uncomfortable with the contributions tonight, because the situation should not be comfortable for the Government. As Jackie Baillie said, you cannot, on the one hand, make the laws of the land and, on the other hand, refuse to implement legal judgments. There is an onus on the Government to act, and act quickly, for the Parliament, for MSPs representing our constituents and for Scotland. We are watching for the Government finally, even at this late stage, to acknowledge, respect and therefore implement the ruling of the Supreme Court. That must be done, and it must be done now.”
“I am not sure that the Government really respects the ruling. If it did, it would have implemented it. It would have issued the guidance that is needed in our prisons and our schools, but that guidance is still not being delivered. I recently had the privilege of being in the audience when Trina Budge was speaking about the case. I know that she is in the public gallery, so I hope that I can spare her blushes, but she had the audience captivated, although it was also immensely frustrated at what Trina and other campaigners in For Women Scotland have had to do. When people look back at the history books, they will be amazed and appalled that women had to go to court against their own Government to simply get the definition that sex means biological sex in law.”
“If Westminster says something that it does not like, the power of the civil service and SNP ministers comes tumbling down within minutes, or hours. If there is an issue around independence that needs to be politicised, the Government will do that immediately. However, when the rights of women and girls are reaffirmed by the highest court in the land, we get nothing. I would like to hear from the minister exactly what the Government has done for five months. She said, in her response to Pam Gosal, that the Government is waiting for more guidance and that it will then update everyone, but what more is needed than the final word from the Supreme Court? That was as clear as day to those who had to take their Government to court and won that case, and they expected the judgment to be implemented immediately.”
“I would challenge anyone to listen to her contribution, or to read it in the Official Report, and not hear the words of a woman who is very passionate about the issue for which she is fighting. What she said was very personal. We are privileged to hear her open up like that, but surely that sends a clear message to the minister: an impassioned plea from your own back benches, from your own party— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Douglas Ross: That message must be listened to, and it must be heard and accepted. My question to the minister is: why are we here, five months after a Supreme Court ruling? This is a Government that can, at lightning speed, introduce legislation and get involved in any one of a host of issues.”
“I congratulate Pam Gosal on securing today’s debate, on the motion that she lodged and on her opening speech, which set the scene very well. She rightly recognised the women in the gallery and, in particular, For Women Scotland for everything that they have done on the issue and, sadly, for everything that they will have to continue to do, which I will get on to in a moment. I have often been quite critical of the level of debate and the quality of contributions in the chamber—I would include myself in that at times. I have to say that, tonight, I feel that that view was cemented, having had to endure Maggie Chapman’s—to be quite frank—disgraceful speech. However, if I see that as a negative, I see as a positive the fact that I have been in the chamber to listen to Michelle Thomson.”
“He came to the chamber months ago and said: “I will have a summit later this year to discuss with members and the people who are raising those issues”.— [Official Report, 28 May 2025; c 9.] The summit that he plans to go ahead with next Tuesday is excluding members, because politicians are not invited; it is excluding the public, because it is not open to the public; and it is also excluding the press. A cast-iron commitment that was given, in the Parliament, to have a meaningful summit is now turning into a Scottish National Party talking shop, and the participants will be talking to themselves. Jim Fairlie will be sitting in Great Glen house, which is the headquarters of NatureScot, listening to his officials, listening to himself and listening to quango bosses, and not listening to the public.”
“I agree with everything that Liz Smith has just said, but I want to move the subject on slightly. As you will know, Presiding Officer, I have tried numerous times this week to get a statement on Minister Jim Fairlie’s seagull summit, which is happening next Tuesday. You have competing demands to deal with, Presiding Officer, and you have your own reasons for not selecting questions, and I respect that. However, through parliamentary procedures, I now have an opportunity to speak for up to five minutes on the issue. The reason why I want to raise it is that what the minister is doing next Tuesday is a sham and a farce.”
“I would genuinely have been pleased to be able to vote for the bill at decision time, but I cannot, and it is with a heavy heart that I cannot, because it could have been so much better and done so much more for victims and witnesses across Scotland. Sadly, I believe that it is a missed opportunity. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Christine Grahame, who is the final speaker in the open debate. 16:02”
“I have to say that the cabinet secretary’s response to the alternative proposals that were put to her was dismissive. She believes that her option is the only option but, as Pauline McNeill said yesterday, that is not the case. The proposal will cost a lot of money. That money could be better spent on changes in the current justice system. I understand that Lady Dorrian does not agree with specialised units or divisions in the High Court, but she also does not agree with the approach that the Government has taken forward on the sexual offences court. I believe that that is another missed opportunity.”
“However, I still cannot understand or get my head around the fact that the opportunity was not taken in the bill to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs. We see that issue all over the news and all over the media. The Labour Government at Westminster originally tried to do the same thing and tried to refuse such an inquiry, but it eventually had to U-turn because of public pressure. I am pretty sure that in a number of weeks, months or perhaps years—sadly, if it gets to years, it will be far too late—an incumbent Scottish Government will have to do the same thing, so why not take the opportunity under the bill? On amendment 112, which I spoke to yesterday, I understand that there are disagreements on sexual offences courts. Some members believe that that is the right approach, and some believe that it is the wrong approach.”
“I gently say to Jamie Greene that he cannot shame Opposition members—I do not think that he was absolutely doing this—for opposing the bill when there are good elements in it. There are undoubtedly elements in the bill that I support. I know that there are families in the chamber who would like all MSPs to back it because of the individual elements that they have rightly and fiercely campaigned on for so long, but that does not mean that we can ignore the elements that I believe could have been improved if the justice secretary had gone a bit further yesterday in the stage 3 amendments or at stage 2. As Liam Kerr said, the Conservatives have made the bill better with the amendments from Russell Findlay, Sharon Dowey and Pam Gosal.”
“We all want an improvement for anyone who goes through the horrific and horrendous experience of being a victim of crime, and the bill concerns some of the most serious crimes that we could ever imagine. We all want to make it better for people to be involved in the justice system—to be a witness and give evidence. Some of the most harrowing cases that I have ever had to deal with as a constituency representative have involved those who went into the legal system as a victim or a witness and came out of it almost more traumatised by that experience than by the crime itself. With the bill, there was an opportunity to make a difference that all of us could get behind and support.”
“I remind members of my entry in the register of members’ interests, which notes that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland. The cabinet secretary knows that she has the numbers. She has worked hard with some parties to get the bill over the line. On Monday or Tuesday this week, we knew that the Greens would support it, before we discussed the 160 amendments that Jamie Greene referred to. The bill will be passed but, having sat through yesterday’s stage 3 amendments and looked at the work of the Criminal Justice Committee, I cannot help but feel that it is a missed opportunity. There was an opportunity for the cabinet secretary to have not just a majority in favour but a unanimous decision of the Parliament to support a bill that really made a difference for victims and witnesses.”
“As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is debate by some about the sections 274 and 275 regime, and some people have concerns about how those provisions are applied by the courts. The way to challenge that is through the courts, and not, in my view, by attacking the legal framework that upholds the fundamental protection for those whose sexual history and character have been called into question as well as for the accused. A legal matter is on-going, but that should not be conflated with what we are trying to do with the amendments in this group. Members will come to a view about whether they support the amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 55 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“Obviously, I am in favour of passing all the amendments in the group, but I reiterate that amendments 56 and 57 are technical and will rectify unintended consequences of amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 when we were changing the definition of “complainer”. They will ensure that the new definition of “complainer” in section 275 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 clarifies that ILR is not available in respect of deceased complainers. In short, amendments 56 and 57 are technical and are needed to protect the rights of the accused. Sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 act are part of a package. Amendment 55 will extend the 274 protections in a new way. I emphasise that I would not like it to be misrepresented as an entirely new issue at stage 3; it has a history and the committee has been informed of it.”
“However, without the amendments, the defence would not be able to make an application to lead evidence under section 275. They are technical amendments. I strongly recommend to the Parliament that we pass those technical, correcting amendments so that we can continue to have a fair application of the sections 274 and 275 regime. Liam Kerr: I want to be absolutely clear about what the cabinet secretary is saying. Is she divorcing amendments 56 and 57 from amendment 55, such that parliamentarians might choose to vote against amendment 55 if it is pressed, or are they inextricably linked? Angela Constance: Amendment 55 has two purposes. It will extend the section 274 protections to docket witnesses and to DASA victims where there is conduct that amounts to a sexual offence.”
“The Lord Advocate initially raised the matter with my officials back in 2022, and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service summarised those views in its written evidence to the committee at stage 1 of the bill. As for the committee, we originally shared our intention to lodge the amendments ahead of stage 2. A letter was sent to the committee on 4 March, and the Lord Advocate reaffirmed her support for the amendments in her correspondence with the committee on 18 March. I say that to give a bit of context. The issue has not just arrived at stage 3. It was our intention to bring it forward at stage 2. I make it clear that amendments 56 and 57 will not extend section 274 protections for deceased complainers. Those are already in place.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: As we are nearing the agreed time limit for groups 17 to 19, I am prepared to exercise my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) of standing orders to allow the debate on group 19 to continue beyond the limit in order to avoid debate being unreasonably curtailed. With that, I call the cabinet secretary to wind up. Angela Constance: Let me try to untangle this a bit. On the points that members have raised about why we have lodged amendments at stage 3 about the extension of section 274 of the 1995 act to DASA victims where there is a sexual element and to docket witnesses, I will run through the history of that.”
“We do not know whether it is a simple matter or not. The Government needs to give us some understanding of why it was necessary to lodge the amendment now and why it could not have been lodged at stage 2. If it had done that, we would at least have had time to consider the matter between stages 2 and 3. I know that the Government is under the same pressure as we are, to some extent, given the timescales that we are all bound by, but this has happened so quickly. When we are looking at amendments, we have to go back and check all the letters that the Government has sent us to clarify the position, and it is a lot of work. It is problematic that the amendment was thrown in at stage 3 and I would like to hear the justification for that.”
“I am not comfortable with the amendment, because there has been no discussion or understanding of it. I do not even know what docket evidence is, to be honest, not being a practitioner. I would have liked a chance to try to understand it. I appreciate that it might be straightforward, in which case I would not want to stand in the way of the Government doing something that needs to be done. That is how I feel right now. Jamie Greene made that point as well. What I do understand about docket evidence is that, rightly or wrongly, it cannot be cross- examined. That is the concern of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association. It is not saying that it is the most outrageous thing or that it is really problematic, but it is saying that that evidence cannot be cross-examined, and we do not know whether that is fair or unfair.”
“It might be fairly straightforward, but it might not be. It seems that Jamie Greene is right. Is there another way of doing this that would allow us a chance to understand it, first of all, and then to understand its implications? What would be the detriment if we did not agree to the amendment? Liam Kerr is quite right: the operation of sections 274 and 275 of the 1995 act is currently being considered by the Supreme Court in Daly v HMA. From what I know of that case, it seems to fall outwith the boundaries of what that act set out to do. I am not clear why amendment 55 has appeared at this stage, or why the Government has lodged it now. Has something happened? Is it just a case of the Government saying, “All right—we’ll tag this on because we can”?”
“We need to hear powerful and compelling reasons for why we should vote for the cabinet secretary’s interpretation of the law and reject the views that have been presented to us by the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association. We need to hear why there is no alternative to stepping back and waiting for the Supreme Court judgment, as was recommended to us. Pauline McNeill: In a similar vein, I am not comfortable with amendment 55. I think that it is more than technical. I listened to what the cabinet secretary said and I am trying to understand it. My understanding of what has been said is that a person cannot be convicted on docket evidence but that it can be used as corroboration. However, I am not wholly sure what that means in reality, because I have not had a chance to test it.”
“In the cases of Keir v HMA and Daly v HMA, the Supreme Court has yet to issue judgment, but that might directly impact the interpretation of section 274, which is sought to be amended by amendment 55. The Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates suggested that legislating now on something that the Supreme Court will shortly rule on would be less than prudent. I reiterate that the Scottish Conservatives completely understand the good intentions behind the amendment, but we will reserve our position on the vote pending the cabinet secretary’s closing speech. We need to hear an answer from the cabinet secretary to Jamie Greene’s challenge regarding why we must vote for the proposal despite the representations that we have heard.”
“Liam Kerr: Jamie Greene has precisely predicted my intervention on the cabinet secretary’s closing speech. He is absolutely right that we have received a lot of representations raising concerns about amendment 55. Equally, it must be considered that we have received a lot of interventions and communication saying why people are in favour of the amendment. We have to balance that, and we have to do that on an amendment that was lodged and put before us less than two weeks ago. Jamie Greene might also wish to consider that the Law Society and the Faculty of Advocates have raised issues regarding the sections that will be amended by amendment 55.”
“I am concerned by the two particular interventions that have been made by external partners about amendment 55 and by the sheer volume of communication that I have had from members of the public, who, if nothing else, believe that there is a perception that it will water down rights. The note that we have all been sent, which we have heard quoted repeatedly, suggests that the proposed changes would mean that juries could be asked to convict on the basis of untested and “unchallenged” evidence. The problem is that I do not know whether that is true, yet we will be asked to make a decision in a few short minutes. Could the Government find other means of introducing such changes outside the realms of the bill that would make it open to more scrutiny by the Criminal Justice Committee?”
“Then, just yesterday, we received a significant note from the Law Society of Scotland, which reiterated my point about process and suggested that, if the cabinet secretary wanted to expand the scope of section 274—the one that will be amended by amendment 55—it should have been done at earlier stages to ensure a proper and informed debate. It went on to suggest that amendment 55 may fundamentally change the evidential picture in a large number of cases where there is no sexual element. Jamie Greene: I have been listening carefully to the comments that have been made by Liam Kerr, who clearly has a far greater legal understanding than I do.”
“However, I also note that, in the restricted time that was available to consider such a far-reaching amendment, the president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association was quoted at the weekend as saying that the impact of the amendment is far from closing a loophole or a “gap”, as the cabinet secretary styled it, and that, rather, the proposal is potentially extremely prejudicial in relation to the strength of the evidence and the inability to cross-examine, and could also have the opposite effect to that intended by the amendment.”
“19:45 Against that background, let me be clear that I completely understand the principle of what the cabinet secretary seeks to do with the amendment. I totally understand why the issue is important to groups such as Victim Support Scotland, which argues that it will give complainers in such cases more consistent protection.”