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 14 of 22.
“If we in this Parliament fail to heed that experience, it will be the victims of sexual offences who fail to see the improvements that we all agree are needed. Ms McNeill has recognised that specialism is needed. If that is the case, she must surely agree that we need an approach that we can be confident will actually be effective at embedding specialism. Creating divisions of existing courts is not an effective way to do that. Indeed, it could be argued that the High Court already has the power that it needs to create divisions, but it has not considered that appropriate or sufficient to deliver the changes that are needed. Judicial specialism develops when cases of a particular type are considered together in a single forum, where it can be enhanced by bespoke training, practice and rules.”
“As I said, the amendments in this group present us with a choice. Fundamentally, the case for establishing a specialist division of the High Court has been resoundingly rejected. The establishment of specialist divisions of existing courts is little more than a continuation of the iterative, piecemeal approaches of the past, which, despite the best intentions, have simply not delivered meaningful improvements in the experience of victims of sexual offences. As Lady Dorrian set out, those who work in the criminal justice system have learned from experience the shortcomings of seeking to introduce changes to the management of sexual offences cases within the confines of existing court structures.”
“What was needed was a court of full national jurisdiction, with trauma-informed practices embedded; common training of individuals across the court; procedures that are uniformly applicable to the sheriff court and the Court of Session, which is not currently the case; and uniformly applicable practice notes and directions, which, again, is not currently the case. High Court directions apply only to the High Court, whereas the sheriff court and the sheriff principals in each sheriffdom are responsible for issuing directions in that sheriffdom. Uniformly applicable procedures, expectations and case management, with uniformity from Dumfries to Wick, are therefore required.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 January 2024; c 3-4.] We want consistency of treatment for all victims of sexual crime.”
“I will quote Lady Dorrian’s response to a question from the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee about whether her review group had considered specialist divisions. Lady Dorrian said: “Our view—although the review group was not unanimous on everything, it was unanimous on this—was that an approach was necessary that would go beyond tinkering and creating a little specialist group within the overall judiciary ... we felt quite strongly that simply creating another division of the High Court, for example, would not achieve the necessary end.”
“Pauline McNeill has suggested that we abandon plans for a distinct sexual offences court that have been developed over years with victims and partners and, instead, pursue specialist divisions of the High Court and sheriff courts—a proposal that has been resoundingly rejected by virtually every senior figure in the criminal justice system. Douglas Ross: On that point, why does the cabinet secretary believe that the Faculty of Advocates has said: “Faculty considers that there is no single feature of the proposed court which could not be delivered rapidly by introducing specialism to the existing High Court and Sheriff Court structures.” Is the faculty wrong? 19:00 Angela Constance: I believe that, in this instance, the Faculty of Advocates is wrong.”
“We must design it with the jurisdiction and the judiciary that will enable it to succeed in delivering meaningful and sustained change for victims. The status quo is not an option. That is why I cannot support any of Pauline McNeill’s amendments in groups 16 or 17, which are symptomatic of thinking that prioritises hierarchies, status and tradition over progressive and practical solutions that will improve the experiences of complainers in sexual offences cases. As MSPs, we regularly hear about such cases in our casework, just as we hear about high-profile cases at the centre of many campaigns backing the creation of the specialist court. The amendments in groups 16 and 17 present this Parliament with a choice about how it proceeds with the creation of a specialist court that will work for victims.”
“It will drive reform of practice, process and culture, and it will increase efficiency and effectiveness, reducing the number and frequency of unnecessary court adjournments and ensuring that cases reach trial more quickly. I would have liked the support of all of this Parliament for the creation of the sexual offences court, which is backed by victims, their support organisations and leading members of the justice system. They have been clear that the court can deliver future improvements in culture, process and practice. However, despite that strong backing, it has not been possible to reach collective consensus across Parliament. That is a disappointment to me, as it will be to victims. We must, as a Parliament, recognise the opportunity that we have in establishing the new sexual offences court.”
“They would create no obligation, and they therefore represent no guarantee of action being implemented. The creation of the sexual offences court is a key reform in the bill that has been shaped by the voices of victims and survivors and their families. We know that victims of sexual offences require additional support throughout their interactions with the court system. A stand-alone national specialist sexual offences court will respond more appropriately to the unique needs of victims in such cases while continuing to protect the rights of the accused. The court will embed specialist approaches to the way that such cases are managed and the way that complainers are treated.”
“I hope that, in considering what Pauline McNeill has proposed at stage 3 and what Russell Findlay and the Scottish Conservatives proposed at stage 2, the Government will recognise, even at this late stage, that, although the intention may be good and valid, the reality is that the bill might end up failing victims. That is not what any of us would like to see. That is why I will support amendment 112, which I hope will remove section 37 from the bill. Angela Constance: I have a lot to say about the amendments in group 16, but I assure the Parliament that what I have to say is important and that it relates to the amendments in this group and group 17. Ms McNeill’s amendments are, in my view, a licence to do nothing. They would only give the High Court the power to establish specialist divisions.”
“However, what if it simply involves changing the name on the door or is basically “window dressing”, to use the words of Simon Di Rollo, who said that “there is a danger that creating a specialist court would be just a bit of window dressing”?—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 24 January 2024; c 39.]. If so, I do not think that that is the right approach to take. I do not think that it is the right approach to spend £1.4 million—I think—on that when we could use that money and the resources to better support our victims through the current system and see whether there are other changes that could be made instead of making a fundamental change that has not brought victims with it.”
“When you get the information through that the trial is going to the High Court, there is an element of realising how important that is.” Another rape survivor, Ellie Wilson, told the committee: “Rape is one of the most serious crimes in Scots law; such cases are only ever heard in the High Court. That solemnity is sacred, and it is important that we maintain it.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 43, 4.] When the victims are telling us that and when they come to a committee of the Parliament to raise such concerns, there is an obligation on us to listen to them. I know that there will be arguments from the cabinet secretary that others support the proposal. I think that everyone would support the general idea of a specialist court.”
“Pauline McNeill was right to speak about the High Court, which is the highest court in our land and which was established under the Scotland Act 1998. It has a status. When a crime goes to the High Court, people know that it is the most severe crime. At the committee’s session on 17 January 2024, victims of crime and survivors of crime raised concerns about the status of their crime and what they had gone through if the cases had not gone to the High Court. Rape survivor Sarah Ashby said: “I would not like for such cases to be dismissed or for us to be made to feel that they are any less significant than they are.”
“For me, that is the risk and the worry. Pauline McNeill was right to say that, currently, 69 per cent of High Court cases are sexual offences cases. At committee, Sharon Dowey made the point that the area is one of the increasing problems in our society. Since 2020, the number of sexual crimes has gone up by 11 per cent; rape and attempted rape is up by 25 per cent; and sexual assault is up by 15 per cent. Those are horrendous crimes, and they are becoming more common. More victims are suffering, so, for them, we have to ensure that the justice system is working. There are many elements of the issue about which victims are speaking out and raising their concerns. It sounds like a positive proposal, but the detail in this element of the bill might cause more problems.”
“Maybe we should consider the option of making a specialist division of the High Court or sheriff court. I am sure that the cabinet secretary, in summing up, will use the same argument that she used at committee, which is that Lady Dorrian, in her review, suggested that specialist courts are the way forward. The cabinet secretary also asked whether, if we do not take this opportunity, there will be people in the same room—the committee room where the issue was discussed—in 40 years’ time making the same argument. However, what if we go down this route and make this massive change, which has so many questions around it? Will there be people in 40 years’ time saying, “Actually, the Scottish Parliament took the wrong decision—it didn’t enact legislation in a way that serves the victims of the most horrendous crimes”?”
“However, when we start to look at the evidence that the committee took—I have to say that the cabinet secretary’s responses were quite dismissive of serious points that were made, whether about the costings in the financial memorandum or some of the words of victims, which I will come on to in a moment—we find that there are serious concerns about that. We all want sexual offences to be treated extremely seriously. We want justice for the victims, offenders to be severely dealt with and a better experience for victims. What we have to determine tonight is whether the suggestion in section 37 is the right approach or whether it sounds like a positive suggestion that we should support but is one in relation to which, when we look at the detail, too many questions remain unanswered and too many issues are yet to be rectified.”
“I come at this series of amendments as a member who was not on the committee but who has followed the issue with interest. I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which shows that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland. I wanted to speak because amendment 112, in Pauline McNeill’s name, is the same as an amendment that Russell Findlay lodged at stage 2, which was spoken to by my colleague Sharon Dowey. I listened to Nicola Sturgeon’s intervention. On the face of it, if we suggest to people in the wider public that we are going to introduce a specialist court for sexual offences, that sounds like something that would garner support and be positive.”
“At present, however, we have a chopping block—a knife is going to come down on the bill in just a few days’ time, unless the minister, who I see as the roadblock to the legislation, takes a decision. I hope that she responds positively to Liz Smith’s question, because it is now on the Government. The Government can either take the approach that, as the Parliament has supported the bill at stage 1, it will support a financial resolution, or it can take the unprecedented—and, I think, dangerous—step of refusing to allocate funding to a bill that would make a huge difference. I hope that we get an answer tonight. If we do not, I assure the minister that she will be questioned on it in committee first thing tomorrow morning. 17:42”
“John Mason: As well as the financial aspects, there is the question of teachers. If the provision of residential outdoor education becomes a statutory duty, would they be required to go? Douglas Ross: We looked at that point in committee and, again, I felt some unease at the minister’s response, which was to say that Liz Smith, as the member in charge of the bill, should go to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and negotiate teacher contracts in that respect. It is a tripartite issue that can—I hope—be resolved. We heard from teachers who were very positive about their experiences of outdoor education, and I think that that aspect can be developed as the bill develops.”
“Personally, I think that the bill is an example of a spend-to-save approach. Spending money in this area can create the opportunities that young people need and provide the positive benefits that will, as we heard in committee from teachers and educationists, be delivered by taking a universal approach There is a dichotomy, in my view: I think that £30 million is a lot of money, but I also think that it is a drop in the ocean for a Government that has hundreds of millions—billions—of pounds to spend. I echo Liz Smith’s point that it is about choices. It is about the Government choosing to support the residential outdoor education sector, to support the campaigners who want the bill to pass and to support young people, now and in the future, to get the opportunities that we all know that they need and deserve.”
“As convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, I sat through all the sessions in which we scrutinised the bill, and I heard almost nothing but praise for it. Some people raised concerns, as John Mason did regarding finance; I will come to that in a moment. However, when people simply looked at what the bill seeks to do, how it seeks to do it and the opportunities that it provides, they saw that it is about literally breaking down barriers. At present, not enough young people have the opportunity to benefit from residential outdoor education. As we have heard, however, for those who have that opportunity, it can make a huge difference to their school life. Fulton MacGregor spoke about choices having to be made and making cuts to take money from elsewhere.”
“It should involve taking on board suggestions from others in an area where the Government has decided that it is not going to legislate, and doing all the hard work—the hard graft—that is involved. I know that Liz Smith has previously thanked the members of the non-Government bills unit—who do not, I think, get enough praise in the Parliament—for what they have done to get the bill to this stage. As someone who also has a non- Government bill currently going through Parliament, I think that Liz Smith is an excellent example of how members should be impassioned, determined and forthright in their views to get legislation on to the statute book. That is why I share her frustration and disappointment that we are here again this evening.”
“I congratulate Liz Smith on the way that she has introduced the debate and on the motion that we have in front of us, which is very strong—and it is strong for a reason. I also credit her for the way that she has taken the bill through Parliament over the past three years, for what she has achieved to date and for what I hope that she achieves in the future. I think that Liz Smith will be held up as an example for future parliamentarians in future sessions of Parliament of how a non-Government member can take the nucleus of an idea and bring it forward in a bill that can command significant cross-party support. That is exactly what a non-Government bill should do. It should be about looking at an area where we can improve things and where we can improve people’s lives and opportunities—in this case, for young people.”
“Under the protest policy, certain areas of the building are restricted, including the canopy to the building, which is to ensure safe entry in and out of the building. Beyond that, it is the responsibility of the police to carry out policing of the area. The corporate body meets the police annually, but the security team meets the police several times a month to discuss protest activity and other activities that are relevant to the Parliament. Again, I emphasise that it is not for the Parliament to direct the police on their decision making. If any criminality has taken place, it must be referred and reported to the police.”
“Options are available to the police that clearly were not taken last week. I want to ask about the Parliament’s policy on protests and demonstrations. It states that Parliament has the power “to move the location of your protest to another part of the estate, if asked to do so by a Parliamentary official or member of the Parliament’s Police Unit. This would be to avoid obstructing others’ use of the estate or if it becomes evident you may be causing a safety risk to yourself or others”. Was there any discussion by the corporate body about using that power last week? Why was it not used? Why was that one individual allowed to continually disrupt a peaceful protest that attracted hundreds of people in support of For Women Scotland? Claire Baker: The member has referred to our protest policy.”
“The Parliament is responsible for security inside the building. The police make decisions on and have to deal with protests that are outside the building. It is helpful if organisations let us know when they are having protests. For Women Scotland did that, which was helpful. Once an event starts, if it is taking place outside the building, it is the police’s responsibility, and they are the ones who make the decisions. Douglas Ross: I understand what the member is saying about it being a police responsibility, but she accepted in her opening response that there was a full debrief immediately after. Therefore, the Parliament is involved. Just today, we had reports of a protest outside Parliament that was interrupted by the constant tooting of a car horn. The driver of that car was told to desist, which they did.”
“There was controlling and intimidating behaviour by one individual against those at the rally, and that was facilitated by the police. At the time, Joanna Cherry KC said that Police Scotland “seem unaware of their positive duty to facilitate our right to protest and speak.” What further work and response does the corporate body expect from Police Scotland? Does Claire Baker agree that there should be a full statement from Chief Constable Jo Farrell, who has been silent on the issue, and that, at the very least, there should be an apology from Police Scotland to For Women Scotland? Claire Baker: I understand the strong feelings around the issue. The member has outlined his understanding of what happened outside. It is for the police to interpret that behaviour, and the issues that are raised are better directed to them.”
“Following a request from For Women Scotland, the Parliament’s police unit asked Cabaret Against the Hate Speech to turn down the volume of its music, a request that the police told us was complied with. It is for the police unit to balance the rights of protesters outside the building. Douglas Ross: I will say from the outset that I am the strongest possible supporter of our police. They do an extremely challenging job in difficult circumstances right across the country, and particularly so here in our Parliament. However, the images and the response last Thursday beg many questions. It looked as though, instead of dealing with the problem, the police assembled a protective cordon around this individual to allow him to disrupt an organised rally that was trying to get a message across to the Government.”
“I remind members that my wife is a sergeant with Police Scotland. To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body what discussions it has had with Police Scotland about the policing of the For Women Scotland rally outside the Parliament on 4 September, regarding reports of disruptive behaviour by an individual and a lack of action taken against him by the police. Claire Baker (Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body): There was an immediate debrief from the Parliament’s police unit after the For Women Scotland rally and counter-protest by Cabaret Against the Hate Speech. In the debrief, the Parliament’s police unit advised us on the steps that it had taken to manage interaction between the groups.”
“I have now—on the record—committed three times to doing so, but the group has not yet replied. I put that on the record today. If Mr Ross would like, I can share details of that correspondence and our attempts to arrange that meeting. I would be very pleased to have the meeting that I have already agreed to.”
“Not only do its members say that the cabinet secretary has not met them, but they say that they have had no correspondence with the cabinet secretary since November last year. Why is the cabinet secretary saying that she will be meeting the group’s members when they have not heard from her? Does she agree that she should meet them as a matter of priority? Jenny Gilruth: I gently say to Mr Ross that his final statement in relation to there having been no correspondence since last November is not accurate. There has been consistent correspondence between my private office and the group that he outlined. My special adviser contacted it during summer recess and we have not heard back from the group. We have tried repeatedly to obtain a date to meet the group.”
“The cabinet secretary mentioned the statement that she gave in the chamber in May about the issue. During that exchange, I asked her about supply teachers in particular and the group Scottish Teachers for Permanence, and she responded to that question. I followed it up again on 11 June at the Education, Children and Young People Committee, and asked when the cabinet secretary would meet Scottish Teachers for Permanence. She said: “I am scheduled to meet the group’s members shortly. You raised this ... with me in the chamber and I am scheduled to meet them in the coming weeks, I think— before the end of the term.”—[Official Report, Education, Children and Young People Committee, 11 June 2025; c 25.] I have spoken with Scottish Teachers for Permanence this afternoon.”
“That is why we are making the investments that we are making. I was able to recount the position in relation to improvement in both in- patient and day-case activity and out-patient activity, as well as record numbers of hip and knee operations. We are providing specific support for NHS Grampian through its escalation process, which Douglas Ross will be aware of. We are also looking at how regional support can be provided to bring down its waiting list so that there is wider health service activity to support the position for the constituents that Douglas Ross referred to, allowing them to be seen faster.”
“In my summer surgeries this year, one of the biggest issues was lengthy waiting times at NHS Grampian. I had an elderly constituent in Portgordon, who has been told that he will have to wait 18 months for a cataract operation, and another in Hopeman, who has been waiting since February 2023 for a referral to ear, nose and throat services, and who has been told that the waiting time is 137 weeks. Can the cabinet secretary defend those lengthy waiting times? If— as I hope—he cannot, what is he doing with NHS Grampian, a board that is in dire financial straits, to get those waiting times reduced, because patients urgently need that care? Neil Gray: I know that the waiting times that Douglas Ross has outlined are not acceptable. They are not in the position where we expect them to be.”
“I will not detain the Parliament any longer other than to say—I think that I am still within the subject—that, because we were so busy as a committee this week, we could not look at the issue. Although it is right that MSPs on committees are busy—I am keen on that as a committee convener—I would like to thank the clerks and the official report and broadcasting staff, who have also sat through more than seven hours of evidence. They were long and thorough sessions and, although it is right that we, as MSPs, do our job, I believe that our clerks and others associated with the Education, Children and Young People Committee went above and beyond this week. On behalf of the committee, I offer my thanks to them. 16:21”
“I believe that my colleague Roz McCall will look into some of the details that members of the Education, Children and Young People Committee would have looked into, because we treat such matters very seriously. The minister and the cabinet secretary know that we go into in-depth detail with Scottish statutory instruments and other things, and we would have done so with the LCM had it not been for the timing of its coming here and the business that the committee already had. I urge the minister to take back to his successor as Minister for Parliamentary Business the point that we need help as committees to do our job and to allow Parliament to do its job, and more time to discuss and prepare for these LCMs would be appreciated.”
“This week alone, just in committee, we have sat for more than seven hours, taking evidence on the University of Dundee. Even if we had wanted more scrutiny of the LCM, which I believe that members would have wanted, there was literally no time to include that in our deliberations. When I received the letter from the DPLR Committee convener yesterday, I was concerned about the note in the second paragraph that “amendments and the UK Government’s supplementary delegated powers memorandum have been available since 14 May.” We got that information on 16 June, well over a month after the UK Government had finished its consideration of the matter. I echo everything that the DPLR Committee has said about the lack of opportunity to interrogate the matter further.”
“I rise to speak not about the detail of the LCM but about the process, and I endorse everything that Jeremy Balfour said. Before I come to what the DPLR Committee discussed this week, it is right to make it clear that the Education, Children and Young People Committee had its first opportunity to discuss the LCM eight days ago—just one week away from the summer recess. People will be aware that this has been an extremely busy week for those in the Parliament with an education interest—I include the cabinet secretary and the minister in that. When we discussed what we could do in our final week, we had to take on board the fact that members were going to be in the chamber late on Tuesday and Wednesday to deal with stage 3 of the Education (Scotland) Bill.”
“There is a need to ensure that the UHI, as a concept, has a sustainable long-term future, notwithstanding the financial and other challenges that it has. I am aware of the exchange on that very subject that Douglas Ross had with the principal of the UHI at the committee meeting. I expect that, as part of the on-going work—which has taken an extended period of time to get right— the UHI will look at how it can make best use of the financial resources that are provided to it, because I recognise the criticism that is made in that regard.”
“Last week, the Education, Children and Young People Committee heard from the University of the Highlands and Islands. We discussed the top slice that it takes from its local colleges such as Moray, which accounts for about £15 million that goes into the central executive office every year. However, those colleges have a deficit of about £11 million, so that money would make a huge difference to them. What does the minister think about the future of that top slice from colleges’ budgets, and what discussion has he had internally, and externally with the University of the Highlands and Islands, about it? Graeme Dey: As we have had an exchange on this before, Douglas Ross will know that I have been encouraging the reform work that the UHI has been doing, which is being driven from the bottom up.”
“I am grateful to everyone who has provided briefings for the debate, but I have to highlight the briefing that came from the charity OneKind. It says that we should avoid value-laden language and that referring to gulls as a menace or a nuisance and to their behaviour as mugging or dive-bombing creates and reinforces a perception that gulls are acting maliciously and that their presence is a problem. Well, I say that these gulls are a menace. They are dive-bombing and they are a problem.”
“Although Councillor Amber Dunbar said that she has not had any specific cases involving injuries to people, she highlighted the very good point that it is sometimes not just about physical injuries, because there is also a mental health impact. The gulls are so noisy, particularly early in the morning but throughout the day, that people end up having mental health issues because they cannot get to sleep at night. They are woken early in the morning, and shift workers cannot get to sleep at all during the day. She also made the point that, although NatureScot is there to protect and conserve bird numbers, people are seeing a reduction in the number of garden birds in areas that are dominated by gulls.”
“Councillor Babs Jarvie in Nairn spoke about the huge issues for local people and for tourists who come to Nairn. If anyone looks at the BBC news today, they will see a story about the impact of gulls in Nairn and the increasing problem there in recent years. In my area of Moray, Councillor Pete Bloomfield and Councillor Elaine Kirby have raised issues in their council ward in Elgin. Pete Bloomfield told me a terrible story, which I have recited to the minister, about a lady who fell outside her house as a result of a gull attack, broke her leg, went to hospital, came out of hospital and was attacked again.”
“She has a small dog, and every time they left the house they were attacked by gulls that were nesting on her property. Such was the severity of the problem that she was given licences and permission to remove up to 10 nests every year, but the cost of getting someone in to remove a nest is £200 a time. That retired lady, who is now 73, has to spend £2,000 of her money to remove those nests every year. That is why this is an issue, and it is a growing issue. Over the past couple of weeks, I have spoken to a number of my Scottish Conservative councillor colleagues about the issue. Councillor Isabelle MacKenzie has spoken about the growing issue in the Crown area, where she lives and which she represents. She said that stonemasons are reporting problems with being able to do their work.”
“When I was told that I had the opportunity to debate gulls today, I first checked with Fergus that he would be here and able to contribute, because he has put in significant effort on the matter in his constituency and has worked very well on a cross-party basis to deliver for his constituents. I will raise some of the cases that have been highlighted to me. This morning, Moray Firth Radio reported the case of a retired couple in Hopeman. That husband and wife are now worried about going down Forsyth Street in Hopeman, because they are continually dive-bombed every time they go there. They are worried about going out of their home. Last year, a constituent came to my surgery in Miltonduff to explain that she could not leave her house.”
“Some people smirk when we say that the Parliament will be debating the issue of gulls, but it is extremely serious, which is why I am surprised that this is only the second members’ business debate on the menace of gulls since the Scottish Parliament was re-established, in 1999. The previous debate was held in 2002 and was also led by a Conservative member, my colleague and friend David Mundell. There was clearly an issue back then, because the motion that was debated said: “seagulls are causing an increasing nuisance”. That was in 2002, but, 23 years on, we are still discussing the subject. I particularly thank Fergus Ewing for the work that we have done together on the matter in recent months.”
“The people who are leaving the public gallery do not know what they are missing, because I am sure that this will be an excellent debate on gulls. A timeframe of seven minutes is quite tight, because, since the debate was announced, I have been inundated with correspondence about the issue. Following on from Stephen Kerr’s heroic efforts in the past couple of days, I have been thinking that I might look for opportunities to lodge stage 3 amendments about gulls when we debate legislation in order to allow us even more time to discuss the subject, but I will base that on the minister’s remarks later, because I hope that we will make some progress.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Police Scotland regarding the decision to euthanise police dog Zara in December last year and the subsequent review by the force. (S6O-04844)”
“Finally, I reflect on the fact that there has been extensive cross-party engagement on this topic. There has been engagement with the chair of the SQA and individually, on a bilateral level, with every member of the Opposition who has lodged amendments on the subject. I and my officials have spent time with them, although I have heard some challenges in that regard today. I think it rather unfair that some of the discussions have been characterised in the way that they have been— Stephen Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Jenny Gilruth: —because I have shown willing at every step of the way, which is why we have been able to reach a resolution with Mr Rennie and Mr Greer today. Stephen Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary give way?”
“Jenny Gilruth: The issue, which Mr Ross and I debated at stage 2, relates to the fact that that individual’s role would be created in relation to the SPCB, and the Parliament has already expressed a view in that regard. I think that Mr Rennie’s amendments cover the challenge that Mr Ross sets out. Stephen Kerr’s amendments seek to remove the accreditation function and place it under the role of the chief inspector. I have to wonder whether he has engaged with the chief inspector on that point and asked her opinion. Nevertheless, that would introduce unnecessary complexity into the landscape, and the inspectorate’s purpose should not be diluted in that way. I believe that, given the package of measures that Willie Rennie and Ross Greer have put forward, Stephen Kerr’s amendments, too, should be resisted.”
“Given the enhanced quality assurance measures that are set out in Willie Rennie’s amendments, and given Parliament’s clear presumption against the creation of any new bodies supported by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, I would urge that his amendments also be resisted. Douglas Ross: In speaking to my amendments, I made it clear that I believe that those provisions could complement and work with Willie Rennie’s amendments. Is there anything in my amendments that would conflict with those amendments and that the cabinet secretary could not support, or is it about a decision not to have an independent person in that role? It would be an independent person and not a body; the moratorium that she spoke about relates not to individuals but to the setting up of brand-new boards and quangos.”