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 13 of 22.
“There is scope to amend, but, because we are a unicameral Parliament with no revising second chamber or any scope to address unintended consequences post-stage 3, it is very important that matters that make fundamental changes should not be introduced just prior to stage 3, especially where there has been zero discussion of them in any of the previous stages. Yet, here we are, considering amendment 55, which was introduced on 4 September, and which seeks to make a fundamental and decisive change to a 30-year-old act. It will do so based on this debate today—a debate in which Government back benchers will have been whipped to support it, regardless of what I or anyone else in the chamber says.”
“In doing so, I remind members that I am a practising solicitor and that I am registered with the Law Society of Scotland. At the outset, I once again express my significant disquiet with the increasingly blurred distinctions between each stage of the legislative process in this, our unicameral Parliament. The bill was first introduced in April 2023. The stage 1 vote, on the principles of the legislation, took place on 23 April 2024. There then followed extensive rewriting of the bill, many representations from expert groups, further committee evidence sessions and a long, detailed, intense and—I dare say—very constructive stage 2 process. Stage 3 is the stage at which this Parliament votes to pass or not pass a bill.”
“In doing so, we inadvertently removed the right of the accused and the prosecutor to make an application to lead evidence of a deceased complainer’s sexual history or character. The purpose of amendments 56 and 57 is to reinstate the fundamental balance afforded by section 275, to ensure that proceedings continue to be fair and that an accused is able to make an application under section 275 where they consider that to be necessary. I therefore call on members to support the amendments, which do not alter the current law on how sections 275 and 274 apply to deceased complainers, but ensure that the accused continues to have access to their rights under section 275 in those cases. I move amendment 55. Liam Kerr: I rise to speak to—but neither for nor against, at this stage—amendment 55.”
“As the right to independent legal representation is linked to applications under section 275, those groups of witnesses and complainers will be entitled to independent legal representation. Amendments 56 and 57 are two vital correcting amendments relating to deceased complainers. They address an unintended consequence of an amendment that was agreed at stage 2, during which I set out our position on deceased complainers and access to independent legal representation. Section 274 protections already apply to deceased complainers under the current law, as is necessary in cases where a woman is raped and murdered, for example. However, at stage 2, we lodged an amendment to change the definition of “complainer” at section 275 to make it clear that the right to ILR does not apply to the complainer if they are deceased.”
“I consider that the intimate nature of the relationship between the accused and the complainer, together with the vulnerabilities associated with coercive control, means that the restrictions should apply to all such complainers when they are giving evidence about behaviour that could amount to a sexual offence. Amendment 55 provides certainty and reassurance to the complainers about the protections that they can expect, and will mean that the prosecutor does not have to seek an order from the court before the restrictions are deemed to apply. As with docket witnesses, the accused and prosecutor will have the right under section 275 to apply for the evidence to be admitted during the trial; the decision lies with the court.”
“I absolutely agree that fairness to all parties is essential. That is why the right to section 274 protections comes with the associated statutory right for the accused or prosecutor to ask the court that the evidence be admitted under section 275. The second element of amendment 55 seeks to extend the restrictions in section 274 to cover complainers in all cases that involve offences under section 1 of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, which introduced the new offence of abusive behaviour towards a partner, where the course of behaviour includes behaviour that could amount to a sexual offence. The current law requires the prosecutor to satisfy the court that there is a substantial sexual element contained in the charge for the restrictions to apply.”
“A docket can be added by the prosecutor to an indictment or complaint when it is necessary to lead evidence of criminal conduct but not competent to libel a charge that details that conduct. That might be, for example, because the offence is time barred or the accused has already been tried for the behaviour. I stress that an accused cannot be convicted of any conduct that is contained in a docket; however, the evidence that is led in relation to that conduct can provide corroboration for the charges on the indictment or complaint. Amendment 55 will ensure that the restrictions in section 274 will apply also to witnesses who give evidence in relation to an act or omission on a docket that could amount to a sexual offence. That means that they will be given the same protection as is given to complainers.”
“I want to address some of the issues that were raised, to ensure that the Parliament is clear on the effect of what is proposed. I also want to make clear that the regime that is set out in sections 274 and 275 has, in its current form, been in place for 23 years, and the European Court of Human Rights has expressly approved those provisions and stated that they are capable of being applied in a manner that is compatible with the accused’s right to a fair trial. Nothing that we do should look to unpick those protections—nor, equally, should we unpick the fairness to the accused. I turn to the detail of the amendments. Amendment 55 will extend section 274 protections to docket witnesses.”
“After section 63 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 19 is on restrictions on evidence and independent legal representation in sexual offences cases. Amendment 55, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 56 and 57. Angela Constance: Amendment 55 is a response to a gap that I believe should be covered by the restrictions in section 274 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Those restrictions prohibit the leading of evidence that relates to the sexual history or the character of complainers in sexual offence cases. Those protections can be removed when certain conditions are met, and it is for the court to decide when that may be permitted, by applying the statutory test that is contained in section 275 of the 1995 act. I am conscious that, over the weekend, there was media interest in these amendments.”
“Amendment 54 will therefore remove that presumption while maintaining the provision in section 271E of the 1995 act that allows for the parent or guardian of a child witness to give views about how their child should give evidence. The overall effect of amendment 54 is to allow the court to give appropriate consideration to the views of child witnesses and their parents or guardians, based on the circumstances of the case and the best interests of the child. Amendment 163, which is a related amendment, will make the relevant changes to the long title of the bill. I move amendment 54. The Deputy Presiding Officer: No other member has asked to speak, cabinet secretary. Do you have anything to add by way of winding up? Angela Constance: No, thank you. Amendment 54 agreed to.”
“Those changes removed the distinction between children aged under 12 and children aged 12 or over, to enable the court to give due weight to the views of all children about how they would prefer to give their evidence in the sexual offences court and other criminal courts. However, reference to the distinction remains in section 271E of the 1995 act, albeit that that is compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because it does not prevent the court from having due regard to the views of children under 12. Nevertheless, our broader policy position is that we should move away from presumptions that children of a certain age or older are able to form a view about how they wish to give evidence.”
“Section 62—Sentencing power of the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 145 not moved. Section 62A—Exception to rule against double jeopardy in the Sexual Offences Court: new evidence Amendment 146 not moved. After section 62C The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 18 is on special measures in criminal cases. Amendment 54, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 163. Angela Constance: Amendment 54 relates to changes that I made at stage 2 about how the pre- recording of evidence of child witnesses will operate in the sexual offences court and how it currently operates in other courts under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.”
“Section 53—Sexual Offences Court records Amendment 135 not moved. Section 54—Sexual Offences Court records: authentication and electronic form Amendment 136 not moved. Section 55—Sexual Offences Court procedure Amendment 137 not moved. Section 56—Prohibition on personal conduct of defence Amendment 138 not moved. Section 58—Ground rules hearings Amendment 139 not moved. Section 59—Pre-recording of evidence Amendment 140 not moved. Section 60—Taking of evidence by a commissioner Amendment 141 not moved. Section 60A—Admission of the record of a prior examination of vulnerable complainer as evidence Amendment 142 not moved. Section 61—Giving evidence in the form of a prior statement Amendment 143 not moved. Section 61A—Statutory offences: art and part and aiding and abetting Amendment 144 not moved.”
“After section 43 Amendment 123 not moved. Section 44—Sittings of the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 124 not moved. Section 45—Transfer of cases to the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 125 not moved. Section 46—Transfer of cases from the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 126 not moved. Section 47—Rights of audience: solicitors Amendments 127 and 128 not moved. Section 48—Rights of audience: advocates Amendment 129 not moved. Section 49—Statement of training requirement for prosecutors Amendment 130 not moved. Section 49A—Rights of audience: review Amendment 131 not moved. Section 50—Clerk of the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 132 not moved. Section 51—Deputy Clerks of the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 133 not moved. Section 52—Clerk and Deputy Clerks: further provisions Amendment 134 not moved.”
“Amendment 115 disagreed to. Amendment 116 not moved. Section 39A—Judges of the Sexual Offences Court: Lord Commissioners of Justiciary and temporary judges Amendment 117 not moved. After section 39A Amendment 88 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. Section 40—Appointment of Judges of the Sexual Offences Court Amendments 89 to 92 moved—[Angela Constance]—and agreed to. Amendment 118 not moved. Section 40A—Remuneration and expenses of Judges of the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 119 not moved. Section 41—President and Vice President of the Sexual Offences Court Amendment 93 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. Amendment 120 not moved. Section 42—President and Vice President: incapacity and suspension Amendment 121 not moved. Section 43—President’s responsibility for efficient disposal of business Amendment 122 not moved.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) 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) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 46, Against 65, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 114 disagreed to. Amendment 115 moved—[Pauline McNeill]. 19:30 The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 115 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) 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) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 47, Against 65, Abstentions 0.”
“However, the Government has set out its arguments against the amendment. With that, I will press amendment 114. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 114 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Sheriffs who are appointed to the High Court as temporary judges sit as High Court judges, and they will sit in rape and murder cases; sheriffs who are appointed to the new sexual offences court will not sit as High Court judges, so if they sit in a rape case they will sit as a sheriff. I point out that difference because the two are not the same. It was the senators of the College of Justice who raised the question where murder should be tried. Their view was that murder should continue to be tried as the most serious offence in the High Court of Justiciary. I still have some concerns about completely taking down a system that has served some purpose, for reasons that I am not too clear about. That is the point that the senators made: why would you do it? The power will not really be used.”
“Former senators have a wealth of experience in the management of sexual offence cases, and the court should be able to access that experience. Amendment 93, in my name, is a technical amendment that will add High Court judges and temporary judges to the list in section 41(8) so that they will be automatically suspended from the office of president or vice-president if they are suspended from their substantive judicial office. I urge the Parliament to support my amendments in the group and to reject those of Pauline McNeill. Pauline McNeill: I do not have much to add, but I want to make one point in relation to the appointment of sheriffs. However you view this, it is important to note that there is a distinction.”
“I am not sure how serious Mr Kerr was about his question at committee about a power grab, but, as he is clearly concerned about it, I am sure that the amendments will allay his fears. Collectively, amendments 89 to 92 will revert the position in relation to the appointment of sheriffs and sheriffs principal as judges in the court back to what was set out in the bill at its introduction. The one exception is that the appointment must be for a period of five years. That takes account of earlier concerns that were raised about security of tenure for judges of the sexual offences court. As well as streamlining the appointments process, I have lodged amendment 88, which will expand the pool of judicial resource that the Lord Justice General can draw from when making appointments to the court by including eligible former senators.”
“I will ask the cabinet secretary this, however. Does she agree that this process shows the benefit of being able to debate substantive amendments such as those before us at all stages of the legislative process, and that it will rarely, if ever, be a good idea to bring in substantive, significant amendments at stage 3 that have far-reaching consequences and that do not have the benefit of the full process that she is talking about? Angela Constance: I agree that scrutiny and debate are important in order to test all propositions. However, as a matter of record, I clearly said to Mr Kerr during stage 2 that I would continue to keep the matter under review, given its importance.”
“Accordingly, amendments 89 to 92 will remove responsibility for appointing sheriffs and sheriffs principal to the office of judge of the sexual offences court from Scottish ministers and will return that power to the Lord Justice General. Liam Kerr: At stage 2, it was the Government that changed the bill as introduced to say that ministers would appoint the judges, rather than the Lord Justice General. The cabinet secretary will remember that I raised the matter at stage 2, suggesting that the proposed change might be a power grab, but my concern was dismissed, and the cabinet secretary told me that it was necessary and in line with the committee’s recommendation. It now appears that I was right. I should say—and I want to put it on the record—that I respect the willingness to reconsider the matter and come to a different view.”
“As I have discussed with Opposition spokespeople, and as I set out in my letter to the Criminal Justice Committee, which was sent in advance of stage 3, there is concern at the lack of flexibility inherent in a process that requires sheriffs and sheriffs principal to be appointed as judges of the court by Scottish ministers. On reflection, I feel that some of the amendments to the process that were made at stage 2 tended towards an approach that is too rigid and overly cumbersome. Instead, what is needed is an appointments process that enables the Lord Justice General to identify and deploy to the court those who possess the skills and experience that are necessary to progress the changes in culture, practice and procedure that will be so important.”
“They will have the power to embed the specialist, trauma-informed approaches that will be so crucial to improving the management of sexual offence cases. Given the vital importance of their role, we must make absolutely sure that the legislative processes in place for appointing judges to the court are appropriate and effective in delivering the pool of experienced and specialist judges required. During stage 2, I highlighted the need to strike a balance between rigour and proportionality in those appointments, but I also signalled that I would keep that under review. Having had the opportunity to reflect and engage further on the issues, including with the Lord Justice General, I now consider that further adjustments are needed to avoid unintended consequences.”
“I recognise that the member who lodged that amendment has concerns about the size of the case load and about how the volume of cases indicted to the court will be appropriately managed. However, the case load will not be an outlier compared with that of other criminal courts. It is important to note that the new court will not create new cases; it will simply redistribute the cases that we have more efficiently and to a wider number of locations, making accessing the court easier for all. I therefore urge the Parliament to reject all of Pauline McNeill’s amendments. I turn to my own amendments in this group. It is on the shoulders of those judges who are appointed to preside over cases in the sexual offences court, above all, that the success of the court will ultimately rest.”
“I would also note that the way in which it interacts with amendment 127 would mean that, while only murder would be removed from the jurisdiction of the court, both murder and attempted murder would be removed from the category of cases in which an accused must be represented by counsel. That would mean that an important measure that we introduced at stage 2— to offer the accused certainty that, if they were prosecuted in the sexual offences court for attempted murder, they would as a matter of law be entitled to be represented by counsel—would be lost. I also oppose amendment 123, on the ground that it is unnecessary and will contribute nothing to the effective functioning of the court.”
“That is the core aspect of the model that she set out, and it reflects the fact that many sheriffs are currently appointed as temporary judges and are hearing those cases. Specialist approaches must be applied consistently to all victims of sexual offences, regardless of what other offences are included on the indictment. That includes murder. There have been some deeply troubling cases in Scotland in which multiple surviving victims of rape and sexual abuse are called to give evidence in cases where the accused’s offending has escalated to murder. Those victims’ needs are the same as those of others, and they deserve to be able to access the court and benefit from the specialist trauma- informed environment that it will provide. I therefore oppose amendment 114 on grounds of principle.”
“Angela Constance: In my remarks on the previous group of amendments, I said what I wanted to say about the creation of sexual offences courts and about my opposition to Ms McNeill’s amendments in both that group and this one, but I will take the opportunity to provide some specific detail. The status of our institutions, or of those who work in them, does not protect victims from unnecessary retraumatisation. Victims must have their cases heard by judges who are capable of embedding specialist, trauma-informed approaches. Those judges include sheriffs and sheriffs principal who have a wealth of skills and experience. In the review that underpins the creation of these courts, Lady Dorrian recognised that allowing specially trained sheriffs to hear rape cases would unlock both skill and capacity, to the benefit of victims.”
“She said that the court would be “essential to meet the increased workload” in sexual offence cases, because the number of such cases has risen dramatically in recent years. I have expressed concerns about whether simply saying that the new sexual offences courts could reduce delay will, in fact, mean that they do so. Should the bill pass, I hope that the Government will give due consideration to setting out a plan that we can see. Amendment 127 is a consequential amendment that would remove the offences of murder and attempted murder from the part of the bill that sets out when solicitors have rights of audience in the sexual offences court, because that would no longer be required. I move amendment 114. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 88 and other amendments in the group.”
“The Law Society has also expressed support for that amendment, saying: “We also consider appropriate that when a charge of rape is tried before the Sexual Offences Court, at least one of the Judges should hold a relevant high judicial office. This seems to be consistent with Section 3(6) of the 1995 Act.” Amendment 123 would require the president of the sexual offences court to prepare a plan that ensures that the new court is operating efficiently and to keep the plan under review and revise it when necessary. Part of Lady Dorrian’s rationale for recommending the creation of a specialist court was to ensure that cases would be disposed of more quickly than they are currently.”
“The suggested change ignores the fact that in the very few cases where sexual offences are alleged against a surviving complainer, it is likely that the case will be tried before a judge who is also a judge of the sexual offences court and that most if not all of the benefits of that court will be able to be afforded to such a complainer. We remain firmly of the view that life imprisonment and OLRs should be the exclusive province of the High Court.” Amendment 115 would have the effect of ensuring that only a judge from the High Court, the Lord Justice General or the Lord Justice Clerk could try a case that involves the offence of rape.”
“the policy objective is to afford those complainers the benefits of the case being prosecuted in the Sexual Offences Court.” The senators say: “While this is undoubtedly true, there are not many such cases and the anecdotal nature of para 280 gives no confidence that this major constitutional change has been thought through properly. The appropriate place for charges of murder and attempted murder is the High Court. Murder is the most serious charge in the criminal canon. It is that charge which should determine the forum.”
“We consider this is a sensible approach if a standalone court is introduced and we are supportive of this amendment.” The senators of the College of Justice said that murder should only ever be tried in the High Court and that “the anecdotal nature of para 280” of the policy memorandum “gives no confidence that this major constitutional change has been thought through properly.” Paragraph 280 of the policy memorandum says: “There are known cases in which sexual abuse perpetrated by an accused is alleged to have escalated over time, against multiple complainers, ultimately leading to a murder. Given the experience of the surviving complainers and the nature of their evidence ...”
“Section 39—Jurisdiction: sexual offences The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 17 is entitled “Sexual Offences Court: jurisdiction, judges and organisation of business”. Amendment 114, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 115, 88 to 93, 123 and 127. Pauline McNeill: Amendment 114 would ensure that cases dealing with the crime of murder may not be heard in the sexual offences court. The Law Society said: “Amendment 114 in the name of Ms McNeill maintains the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justiciary for charges of murder.”
“Amendment 109 disagreed to. Amendments 110 and 111 not moved. Section 37—Sexual Offences Court Amendment 112 not moved. Pauline McNeill: If it is helpful to know, Presiding Officer, I do not intend to move any of the consequential amendments. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will come to that—we are coming to group 17 shortly. Section 38—Jurisdiction and competence: general Amendment 113 not moved. 19:15 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members will note that we have passed the agreed time limit for debate on this part of the bill. I have exercised my power under rule 9.8.4A(c) to allow the debate to continue beyond the time limit in order to avoid that debate being unreasonably curtailed.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) 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) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) 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) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 45, Against 66, Abstentions 0.”
“I have already considered the differences that there would be if the sheriff courts were to be used; that is not included in my proposal. I will press amendment 109. It has the support of the Faculty of Advocates. We do not all agree on everything, but you cannot suggest that there are not some legal minds who think that the approach set out in amendment 109 is the best way. My worry about the proposed court is that we will spend so much time and resource on a bureaucratic change that we will not get the delays down. The question of who the practitioners will be has not been addressed by the Government. I press amendment 109. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 109 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Rape is one of the most serious crimes that can be committed, and rape cases would no longer be heard in the High Court of Justiciary; they would be heard in the sexual offences court. There is, perhaps, an argument that reducing the delay would compensate for that. However, I do not accept that the Government has demonstrated all of what it claims. There are nine High Court locations. My proposal would create a specialist division—those nine locations would be available for a specialist court. If there were a specialist division of the sheriff court, there are 38 sheriff courts that could be used. I do not understand the Government’s argument that somehow, under my proposal, there would be fewer locations.”
“We are always reforming the court system. It is unfair to say that we would be supporting the status quo: the status quo is already changing, for the reasons that I have already said. I do not think that the Government has demonstrated how delays will be reduced—it has made a series of statements about its ambitions, but there is nothing concrete about how it will reduce delay. I do not think that that has been demonstrated. I agree that it is important that there is consistency of treatment for victims, but I do not see how this is the only way to achieve it. I accept that one way forward is to change the structure of the way that we do things, but it must be acknowledged that we might lose something.”
“Those victims have given evidence to the Criminal Justice Committee to say that this is the only Lord Advocate under whom they have been able to sit down with their advocate and talk about their case. I would argue that such a single point of contact should be a statutory requirement. Victims talk about all these things—for example, how they are not told about their case, or are told not to talk to their advocate depute. Change is already happening, regardless of whether we pass the bill. However, there is no guarantee that all aspects of the proposal will work. I agree whole-heartedly with the unique emphasis on embedding a trauma- informed approach, but a stand-alone court is not the only way in which that can be done. I do not fully understand why the proposal would reduce the number of court adjournments.”
“Pauline McNeill: I think that I have demonstrated, in the Parliament, that I share the view that the cabinet secretary expressed in her last comments about how the system has failed women and girls and how much work we have still to do. What we are debating now, however, is whether the Government’s proposal for a stand-alone sexual offences court will do all that the Government claims that it will do, and whether it is the only way, or the best way, in which to proceed. We are already not standing still. We have already discussed giving evidence by commission. The current Lord Advocate has done more, during my career, to look after victims than was previously the case.”
“We have seen a shift as a result of changes over decades in culture, legislation and attitudes, but we need to support those who come forward, just as we need to continue to tackle all the underlying causes of abuse and violence against women and girls. As campaigners have said, it is the perpetrators of those offences, not the victims, who should feel the real shame. I want to see the creation of a sexual offences court that works, so I urge every member in the chamber to reject Ms McNeill’s amendments in groups 16 and 17 and back the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Pauline McNeill to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 109.”
“That will be of huge benefit to victims, as it will support their cases to reach trial more quickly and will possibly mean that the trial is closer for them to travel to, and it will ensure that we have a sustainable model for the management of sexual offences cases. That is a necessity for a number of reasons, not least because there continues to be growth in the number and complexity of such cases, as more women have faith in our justice system and report cases. We know that, for years, women simply did not report sexual offences— they stayed hidden due to stigma, shame and a lack of faith in the justice system, from reporting to court conclusion.”
“I make it clear that there is no downgrading—it is quite the contrary, as the proposal for such a court is recognition of the particular care and attention that such cases demand. The bill will deliver a court that will be able to utilise the combined court and judicial resources of both the High Court and the sheriff courts. That will not only allow the sexual offences court to call on the wealth of skills and experience that exists among the judiciary across those courts; it will ensure that the entirety of the court estate can be used to hear sexual offences cases. The High Court currently sits in nine locations and the sheriff courts sit at 39 locations. The sexual offences court will have access to all those locations, which will enable more capacity for trials to be scheduled in a way that supports the delivery of local justice.”
“While changes such as the requirement for trauma-informed training and the presumption that victims will be able to pre-record their evidence will introduce immediate benefits for how such cases are managed, the creation of a stand-alone sexual offences court is just the start of the journey. The real benefits of creating a stand-alone court lie in its role as a platform for change: one that fosters a culture that is not about status or tradition, but which is, rather, about identifying and adopting progressive and humane approaches to the management of sexual offences that are created for, and centred on the needs of, victims. Every member in the Parliament should be able to get behind that.”
“It is perhaps an uncomfortable truth, in particular for those who have dedicated their professional lives to our criminal justice system and who care deeply about the issues that we are talking about today, that the hierarchy and tradition that is woven through our system is not delivering for victims. We need systemic reform that will enable us to build a new culture, and new processes and procedures, from the ground up. We need to embrace this opportunity and equip the court with the building blocks that it needs to succeed, and that can be done through the jurisdiction, the judiciary and the sentencing powers with which the bill will endow it.”
“Those seven divisions would each have distinct processes, procedures and ways of operating that would add significant complexity and confusion to the existing court system. By contrast, the proposal for a stand-alone sexual offences court emerged from a judicial-led review into how the management of sexual offences cases could be improved to better support victims, and it enjoys strong support from senior figures across the justice system. Those who work in the criminal justice system and victims with lived experience recognise that what is required is a complete rewiring of the way in which sexual offences cases are managed. That requires us to move out of the confines of tradition.”
“That has been the experience across different jurisdictions and areas of law. The larger the pool of cases, the greater the opportunity there will be for the procedures and processes that are intended to streamline the management of these cases and better support victims. Distributing sexual offences cases across a diffuse structure of numerous specialist divisions would blunt the capacity to develop best practice and would create additional complexity and bureaucracy. Perhaps more importantly, divisions would make it all but impossible to apply specialist approaches in a consistent way across all sexual offences cases. To ensure national coverage, seven different specialist divisions—one in the High Court and one for each of the six sheriffdoms— would need to be created.”