Ben Macpherson
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“It would be helpful to understand from the member’s supplementary question what he means by degrees that “offer limited value”, so that we can understand the point that he is trying to make. Thomas Kerr: I will get a list over to the minister. I am always happy to educate the education front bench about pointless degrees.”
“I am sure that, collectively, we all want to congratulate the 2024-25 school leavers, 93.5 per cent of whom were in a positive destination nine months after leaving school. We will also, I am sure, want to recognise together the dedication of the practitioners who supported them to achieve that.”
“Can he guarantee that every pound that has been allocated to apprenticeships is being spent on apprenticeship training, rather than elsewhere in the education budget?”
“This year, building on previous work and initiatives, the Scottish Government has introduced a new Government-led skills planning model—which has been developed in close partnership with stakeholders, including those in industry—to ensure that our post-school education and skills system becomes even more responsive to Scotland’s strategic…”
“We want to support all our young people to choose a pathway that suits their strengths and enables them to fulfil their potential to the greatest extent, developing their skills and critical thinking. Our all-age careers support, delivered by Skills Development Scotland and other partners, promotes every pathway to our young people.”
“Ben Macpherson: Daniel Johnson knows that I like to be constructive in my dialogue in the chamber, but I must gently point out that one of the key problems that those in industry have emphasised to me is the impact of the national insurance increase, as well as other pressures and costs that have affected the number of apprenticeship star…”
The complete record
Every one of 643 lines we hold for Ben Macpherson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“Greater opportunities for sport, third sector engagement and youth work will make a difference in reducing the prison population in the future. We could say a lot more on the topic, and I hope that, in future debates, we will have more time to talk about challenging and serious issues of the rule of law in our society, as well as prevention and rehabilitation. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We move to closing speeches. Maggie Chapman will close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. 16:10 Maggie Chapman: In my opening speech, I spoke about language—the language of contempt and the language of care. I have been encouraged by the fact that we have not heard any of the language of contempt during the debate.”
“How do we improve the housing offering for individuals in that situation and make sure that that is part of their support? The other challenge, which is part of the immediate issue but is also about how we build a better situation in the future, is why so many people end up in prison and engaging in crime. In line with the Christie principles, which we collectively committed to 10 years ago, we need to ask how we mitigate the social and economic circumstances that have been referred to that contribute to a situation in which individuals engage in crime. We still have an issue in Scotland with a culture of violence. As I have raised in Parliament in recent times, I am particularly concerned about our young people in that regard.”
“The support that Fresh Start, Circle Scotland, Turning Point and other groups based in my constituency provide to those who are leaving prison and the families of those who are either in prison or leaving prison is important in making sure that we tackle the challenge of reoffending, break the cycle and have throughcare in place. I know that the review will look at that issue. One question that I wanted to pose—I am sure that it will be under consideration by the Government and the review—concerns housing. Over the years, I have had a great amount of casework involving single men who have left prison coming to my constituency surgeries or writing to me about the challenges that they are experiencing—I note that Edinburgh’s housing crisis is the most acute in Scotland.”
“I hope that that will be part of a continuing increase in that budget, because the evidence that we heard at the Criminal Justice Committee in favour of increased investment in the criminal community justice part of the portfolio suggests that it can only help us in the collective challenge of reducing reoffending and reducing instances of crime. The third sector is also referenced in the Government’s motion. I cannot, on the basis of my constituency experience, emphasise enough how important its role is in the collective challenge.”
“That is an important part of making sure that the review is a success, and I know that prominent academics such as Professor Lesley McAra would emphasise that point. Of course, the review is happening because the current situation that we find ourselves in collectively is extremely challenging, with the number of people in our prisons exceeding 8,300 last year, and there is a need for action. As part of that, the Government’s commitment to provide significant further investment in community justice in the budget, which I hope that Parliament will pass on Tuesday, is important.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on this important subject, and I welcome the establishment of the independent review. I agree with what others have said about the chair and the other members of the review, and I particularly welcome the inclusion of David Mackie, whom I have had the privilege of dealing with on a number of occasions. I pay tribute to the work that he has done on the prevention of crime since retiring as a sheriff. I hope that the establishment of the review will mean that the people who undertake the work will have access to all the data that is available across the Government and more widely, and that they will be able to commission the procurement of any data that they require.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My device would not connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Macpherson. We will ensure that your vote is recorded.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before I call the minister, I remind members that I have now made three appeals for brief questions. We need a bit more brevity, or members who want to ask questions will not have an opportunity to do so. Tom Arthur: In the interest of brevity, I thank Mr Macpherson for his previous engagement and recognise the sterling work that has taken place in north Edinburgh. His key point is that some activity is developing organically, so one of the key roles of Government is to support and facilitate that activity. We recognise the need to drive forward national implementation while also allowing for local flexibility.”
“One of the organisations that the minister has engaged with in recent years is the north Edinburgh response and recovery—or R2— group, in my constituency, which is a remarkable coalition that was originally established to respond to the pandemic, but has since been engaged in sharing knowledge and in generating lasting and positive change. I highlighted that group to the minister and, through that engagement, secured two paid staff members to help the organisation with community wealth building in north Edinburgh. Will the minister say what reflections he and his officials have on the almost organic community wealth building that is happening in north Edinburgh, and will he explain how local representatives can engage constructively with the Government to achieve practical change and investment in their communities?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the economy secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding establishing a stand-alone postgraduate business school to help create more companies, attract talent and boost innovation. (S6O-04288)”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is engaging with local authorities to enable supply teachers to work in and across a number of different local authority areas. (S6O-04274)”
“We need to consider whether we need systemic change to encourage more people to stay here, and we need to think about the finance that we are spending on training other people’s workforces. 13:21”
“Organisations such as Edinburgh Science, which is based in my constituency, and local networks do a lot to raise awareness of the opportunities that exist for young people, but it seemed to me when I was on the Education, Children and Young People Committee that we lacked consistency across the country in how we let people know about opportunities. That feeds into our collective ambitions to address poverty and to ensure that we encourage our young people towards positive destinations. Unfortunately, we know what effect a small minority of people going in a bad direction can have on our community and on them. The second point is about retention. We are losing a lot of skilled people who have been trained in Scotland, including in engineering, to other countries.”
“When I speak to people in the industry, whether they are involved in the mass growth at the port of Leith or in other sectors of engineering that operate in Edinburgh Northern and Leith and in Edinburgh as a whole, they are not shy about saying to me that they want industry to be more involved and that they want us to make change and progress. I am interested to hear what the minister will say on that today and in the coming weeks. I will raise two points that we need to consider. One is about awareness.”
“Within the UK economic framework, we are still uncertain and very worried about what the effect of the national insurance increase will be. We cannot take for granted the opportunities that are related to net zero and engineering in Scotland. We must be strategic and proactive in how we plan for what is ahead. I commend the Government for instigating the Withers review and taking the time to consider it. I look forward to the minister’s summing up today as well as to the statement next week to learn more about what the Government will do in this area. Some of those decisions will be quite difficult, and change may be required. Collectively, we need to make sure that we consider what is in the best interests of young people and of the future needs of the economy. We also must be brave when it comes to the disruption that might be needed.”
“We must ensure that a growing number of people go into that area of our economy, which is necessary for our nation’s future as well as for our wellbeing, productivity and gross domestic product. We must also ensure that we create a system that meets our needs, with regards to not just the net zero transition that is in front of us and the huge opportunities that will emerge in the decade ahead and the one after that, but to how we build the future of the Scottish economy in the 21st century. We are considering this issue in a time when the Scotland’s opportunities and potential are buoyant and wide, when it comes to net zero but also in other industries. However, we also face a global scenario of significant challenges because of what is likely to come from US economic policy and its effects on the stability of the global economy.”
“Coincidentally, on Monday, I was in the offices of Arup in Edinburgh. Colleagues will be aware of that firm’s significant impact on engineering across countries, including Scotland and the UK. There I was reminded of what Lorna Slater has talked about. I had the privilege of working for an engineering firm for some time in my 20s, and I know that people who work in engineering are solution-focused and creative and a really inspiring bunch to be around. They are also an integral part of our economy now and certainly will be into the future. That is why it is commendable that Alex Rowley has brought the motion to Parliament so that we can discuss the importance of having a reliable pipeline of new engineers coming into the Scottish market and future proofing our systems.”
“People are buying puppies and dogs on Gumtree, from puppy farms and sometimes out of the back of vans, so there is a scale and urgency to the issue, which is why I do not want the process to be overwhelmed by an extended consultation. It is urgent that the code is published, and that the certificate and code are in operation as quickly as possible. The bill has already been consulted on in depth with key stakeholders. Maurice Golden: I thank the minister and the member for their collaboration on the amendments. I echo Christine Grahame’s sentiments and press amendment 4. Amendment 4 agreed to. Amendment 15 moved—[Maurice Golden]—and agreed to. Section 2—Content of code: in relation to sale or transfer of dog of any age Amendment 5 moved—[Maurice Golden].”
“Members of the working group on the code of practice include representatives from the SSPCA, SAWC, Blue Cross, the PDSA, the BVA, the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, OneKind, Scotland’s Rural College and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. Those are the types of stakeholders to whom amendment 4 refers. The amendments reflect what is happening in practice to develop the code, which is why we support them. Christine Grahame: I support Maurice Golden’s amendments, which make it clear that the consultation on the code should include—as rightly it should—representatives of buyers and sellers. I support and welcome that. However, I make a plea to the Scottish Government that the code does not turn into what I call “War and Peace”, like the existing code for owners who already have dogs, but instead is short and, importantly, will be read.”
“Amendment 13 disagreed to. Amendment 14 not moved. The Presiding Officer: We move to group 2, which is on consultation on code. Amendment 4, in the name of Maurice Golden, is grouped with amendment 15. Maurice Golden: The amendments in the group would insert into section 1(3) a list of who Scottish ministers would be required to consult, which would be those whom they consider to be representative of dog breeders and buyers, such as dog charities. I move amendment 4. Jim Fairlie: The Scottish Government supports Maurice Golden’s amendments. An initial stakeholder workshop took place in 2024 and we will be holding further workshops to refine the code.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay] Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (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) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) 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) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) 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) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 28, Against 84, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 12 disagreed to. Amendment 13 moved—[Ross Greer]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 13 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“For Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Gillian Mackay] Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) 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) Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) 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) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) 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) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) 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) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) 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) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Jamie Hepburn] McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 27, Against 85, Abstentions 0.”
“As this is the first division of stage 3, I suspend proceedings for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system. 16:43 Meeting suspended. 16:49 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: Before we move to the vote, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, to propose that the time limit for groups 1 to 3 be extended by 30 minutes. I invite the Minister for Parliamentary Business to move the motion. Motion moved, That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the time limit for groups 1 to 3 be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jamie Hepburn] Motion agreed to. The Presiding Officer: We come to the vote on amendment 12, in the name of Ross Greer. Members should cast their votes now.”
“The Presiding Officer: Please close, Mr Greer. Ross Greer: With respect, I do not think I did misrepresent the member. I have given the minister and the Government multiple opportunities to make any kind of commitment to move the issue forward and therefore to avoid my having to press my amendments to a vote. The minister has failed to do so. We are long past the point of ending this very specific form of animal cruelty. Parliament should have the opportunity to vote on the matter today, in the absence of any Government action to deliver a ban on the use of shock collars. I will therefore be pressing my amendments. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 12 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“I ask him to please tell that constituent to give their dog to a shelter, because every major animal welfare organisation that runs shelters is also opposed to the use of shock collars. Those who have the most experience of working with the most difficult dogs are opposed to shock collars and support my amendment, so I would welcome it if he relayed to his constituent that the appropriate thing to do with a dog that the owner genuinely cannot look after is to give that dog to a shelter and not have it put down. Fulton MacGregor: The member has misrepresented what I said, which was that many constituents to whom I had spoken talked about training rescue dogs and the choices that they faced in those unique circumstances. It is definitely not like Ross Greer to do so, but he has misrepresented me.”
“This afternoon, we gave the minister an opportunity to confirm that the Scottish Government still maintains the policy position against the use of shock collars that it published in 2018, but he would not do that either. The minister has had multiple opportunities to avoid putting members of his own party through a vote on the issue, but he has failed to do so. I will not let down the many people outside Parliament who have campaigned for a ban for a long time—I will be giving Parliament the opportunity to vote on this today. In closing, I will make a few brief points. Fulton MacGregor referred to a constituent who said that they would put down their dog if the ban went through.”
“Jim Fairlie: I give the member an absolute commitment that I will write to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee to arrange to go back to that committee for a full and proper debate about whether shock collars should be banned. Ross Greer: I will be pressing my amendments, because we have had that debate and the Scottish Government has taken advice from the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. It is very frustrating. Christine Grahame was right to identify what I have proposed as a plan B. It is my B plan, but it is not even a B plan, because we gave the minister an opportunity to clarify whether he would bring forward regulations, but he would not do that. We then gave the minister an opportunity to clarify whether he would bring forward draft regulations, but he would not do that.”
“Ross Greer: In a second. The minister has put SNP members in a difficult position. We have all repeatedly given him opportunities to resolve this by indicating in concrete terms how the Scottish Government will take the issue forward, but he has failed to do so. I see him consulting with other ministers and would be grateful at this point if he could give some indication of a concrete next step and if he could specifically address my question whether the Scottish Government still maintains its 2018 position against the use of shock collars. Presiding Officer, I will begin to wind up once I have taken that intervention.”
“At this point, I will take Christine Grahame’s intervention. Christine Grahame: I support Ross Greer, in that my understanding of parliamentary process tells me that bringing forward draft regulations to lay before a committee is a parliamentary process. All he is asking is for the Government to have a plan B and that if it will not give a commitment today it will at least commit to putting draft regulations before the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee so that evidence can be taken and we can have a proper vote on a proper piece of legislation. The Presiding Officer: Please wind up, Mr Greer. Ross Greer: Presiding Officer, I appreciate that this has become a debate within a speech, which is something that we have not done in a while. I emphasise to the minister— Jim Fairlie: Will the member accept an intervention?”
“The issue is that the Scottish Government’s position is that it is opposed to shock collars. The Scottish Government took that position in 2018—it just would not enforce it. Christine Grahame: Will the member give way? Ross Greer: I will give way to Christine Grahame in a second. What we have heard from the minister today represents a significant departure from—indeed, a significant rolling back on—the position held by the Scottish Government since 2018 of being against shock collars. Before I take Christine Grahame’s intervention, I ask the minister this: is it the Scottish Government’s position that it is opposed to the use of shock collars? Jim Fairlie: I will have an opportunity to sum up. Ross Greer: The minister will not have an opportunity to sum up. I am summing up on this group of amendments.”
“Ross Greer: At this point, I happily invite the minister—this has become a somewhat oddly structured debate—to make an intervention to respond to Christine Grahame’s request. Will he bring forward draft regulations to ban shock collars in this session of Parliament? Jim Fairlie: I will not commit to anything at this stage until we have gone through the full process. Ross Greer: There you go, Presiding Officer. That is my frustration. I absolutely did not want this debate to take the tone that it is now taking. The minister has asked us to follow the process, but for how many years and decades must members keep following the process? The minister has said that this debate has brought up strong positions on both sides—it has indeed. Any member is entitled to argue against a ban on shock collars.”
“I would very much like us, as a Parliament, to be able to have that debate in full, with all the details. Regardless of who wins or loses, that will be the result of that debate. Mr Greer has asserted that he brought the matter to me in the past, but that is not necessarily the case. Ross Greer: I found that— Christine Grahame: Will the member take an intervention? I hope that it is helpful. Ross Greer: I will happily do so. Christine Grahame: I ask the member to ask the minister to introduce draft regulations that will be put to the committee, so that we can get a move on through the proper processes. That way, I hope that Ross Greer and I will both get to the destination that we want to get to. Perhaps we can get the minister to give a timescale for laying draft regulations—the Welsh model is there—and we can proceed on that basis.”
“Jim Fairlie: It is up to me to ask the question that I want to ask in my intervention, rather than be required to answer the question that has been put to me. I cannot recall Ross Greer making a specific request to me during the bill process to ban electric shock collars. He has asked a number of parliamentary questions at various points, but at no point have I been approached and asked to include such a ban in any part of the bill. I understand the strength of feeling in this debate—I genuinely do—but we have to go through the process. We have examples of people who did not know that certain things were going to happen in their lives and who have been caught out as a result of what has happened to other bits of legislation at stage 3. Many views have been expressed on both sides of the debate.”
“That is why I am giving Parliament the opportunity to consider them. I could see the discomfort of members across the chamber—SNP members in particular—who want shock collars to be banned and who wanted the minister to give some indication that the Government was moving towards such a ban. That is why I intervened on the minister, and it is why I have repeatedly asked him that question. He has very obviously avoided it, because the Government has no intention of banning shock collars. That is my frustration, and it is why I lodged my amendments. Jim Fairlie: Will the member take an intervention? Ross Greer: I will happily take an intervention from the minister. I again ask him: will the Scottish Government introduce regulations to ban shock collars in this session of Parliament?”
“Ross Greer: I think that that contribution was beneath the member. I have followed the correct parliamentary process. If I had not, I would not have been able to lodge my amendments. However, as I explained earlier, at stage 2, the minister was still telling me that the Government was considering its response to the report of 2023. It is not doing that. It has kicked the issue into another report, and I am quite sure that, after that, it will kick it into another report, commission, working group or some other form of throwing the matter into at least the next session of Parliament. That is my frustration. For a start, the minister said that the code of practice does not criminalise behaviour. My amendments would criminalise the specific form of behaviour that I am addressing.”
“Do you not see that you stood to undermine Christine Grahame’s— The Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair, please. Finlay Carson: I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. It is quite clear that amendments at this late stage could undermine Christine Grahame’s bill and the general principles behind its introduction. Mr Greer has been in Parliament long enough to recognise that, if we are to pass good legislation, the issue should have been raised at stage 2. I ask him why, given his passion for a ban to come into law, he did not raise the matter at stage 2 to allow the committee to gather evidence. In that way, the Parliament could have been united in banning shock collars, instead of the member grandstanding and potentially getting a Green press release out of it, and the legislation falling at the first hurdle.”
“Beatrice Wishart called for a full ban in explaining why she would not support my amendments, but this is how we can force the issue to a full ban. The Government has been failing to ban shock collars for years. I do not believe that my amendments are the only way of doing that—I have made that clear. They are not even my preferred way of doing it. However, I have lodged the amendments, because the Government refuses to take forward the preferred way to deliver a ban. Finlay Carson: Will Ross Greer take an intervention? Ross Greer: In a second. The preferred way has been advocated for by a number of members from across the chamber, including Finlay Carson, who was a supporter of previous efforts to ban shock collars by regulation. Finlay Carson: I thank Ross Greer for giving way.”
“That evidence is absolutely clear, whether it be the evidence that has been gathered by every animal welfare organisation in Scotland that has made representations to the minister in support of my amendments or by the Government’s Scottish Animal Welfare Commission. I want to draw on the SAWC report to address the points that have been made about potential ambiguity and the point that Maurice Golden raised about whether the bill would bring in electric fences. I note that the definition in my amendment 18 is the SAWC definition—I have lifted my definition word for word from that. I am not freestyling or coming up with something brand new. It is the definition that was produced by the Government’s expert advisers.”
“I should say to Ariane Burgess that the issue is already raised in section 2(2)(e) of the bill, in which veterinary costs are among the things that we ask people to consider in advance of sale or transfer, so that they have a happy relationship. I hope that, having highlighted the issue, Ariane Burgess will not seek to move amendment 19. I ask Ross Greer, as a fellow traveller, not to press or move the relevant amendments on a ban on shock collars. The Presiding Officer: I call Ross Greer to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 12. Ross Greer: I want to preface my comments by making it absolutely clear that I have no doubt that all the dog owners who have been in touch with MSPs to defend the use of shock collars love their dogs. However, that does not change the reality or the evidence of the cruelty of those devices.”
“We had that big row over XL bullies, which I lost—that was, I am afraid, another piece of bad legislation that members voted for. I support those helpful and considered amendments and thank Maurice Golden for them. I understand the purpose behind amendment 19, in the name of Ariane Burgess, and I welcome her highlighting the issue. However, I note that the existing code in relation to having a dog is 36 pages long—it is “War and Peace”—so I want this code to be simple and easy to follow, including by it asking only the basic questions. It has to be concise, engaging and people friendly. I do not consider the sourcing of a vet to be a central issue to include in its content.”
“Members, please do not vote for these particular amendments, because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Please pursue the Government to get in place regulations that will be enforceable with specific penalties—including fines and imprisonment—and definitions, which is what anybody should do when making law. However, I support amendment 16, which I discussed with Ross Greer, because I want to move the issue forward and I want pressure to be kept up on the Government. I encouraged Ross Greer to lodge a more general amendment, so that we can keep the heat up. My goodness, I am hot and bothered now. Amendments 5 and 6, in the name of Maurice Golden, make it clear that the provision does not have to refer to a pure breed of dog; the acquirer can be accessing a type of dog.”
“Martin Whitfield: I am grateful to Christine Grahame for the passionate way in which she has brought her experience and wisdom to this matter. In an attempt to allow the temperature or pressure to recede a bit—with no disrespect to the Presiding Officer, who has the final decision on stage 3 amendments—is it perhaps time to look at the purpose of stage 3 proceedings and at what happens when, as Christine Grahame said, a new matter is presented at this stage of a bill? 16:30 Christine Grahame: As we know, the selection of amendments is a matter for the convener of a committee at stage 2 and for the Presiding Officer at stage 3. I am certainly not going to give advice on selection to either a convener or the Presiding Officer. That is my view. I return to the issue.”
“That is important, because it defined a “shock collar” and put in place criminal penalties for abusing the legislation, ranging from fines to imprisonment. That is what I call good legislation. I am appalled that we are so far behind, but that is the route that I want to go down. I agree with Ross Greer. Okay, we might have to wait until some other report is published in April, but, at the end of the day, I want a commitment that there will be regulations in this parliamentary session—which will be my last—having gone through the parliamentary process, to ban the use of electronic shock collars in Scotland. We cannot ban their sale, because that involves the internal market. However, we should not do it in this bill, because that would be a bad way to make law.”
“I say all that without it, for one minute, reducing my commitment to a ban on shock collars. Members can tell from the way that I speak how I feel and how angry I am that we have not done that. I, too, refer to the recommendations of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission on 11 April 2023. It said: “Therefore, the Commission has concluded on the basis of the evidence considered during the course of our inquiry and in accordance with our remit to provide advice to Scottish Ministers on matters concerning the welfare of protected animals, that the use of e-collars for the training of animals in Scotland should be prohibited in Scotland.” Hear, hear. I absolutely agree. I come back to the fact that we have a pattern for this. As we know, Wales banned e-collars in 2010 through the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010.”
“Secondly, and more significantly, the amendments have been shoehorned in at stage 3, without a mention at stage 1 or amendments having been lodged at stage 2. I heard what Ross Greer said about the fact that he was waiting for things to come through and that that was why he was perhaps too late to lodge amendments at that point—I am paraphrasing. We need a belt-and- braces approach. He should have lodged his amendments in time. The debate, which has become all about shock collars and has usurped the bill’s purpose of preventing the casual acquisition of puppies and dogs, has shown that there is a range of views in here. That very fact emphasises the need for proposals on a ban to go through the parliamentary process. Martin Whitfield: Will the member take an intervention? Christine Grahame: I will take the intervention in a while.”
“To say that I am hiding behind process is not correct. Process is essential— Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Christine Grahame: Let me finish—the member has a summing-up speech. I have listened to all this, and I will come to the point. Process is essential to robust legislation in order to deliver what we want in practical terms. First, in my view, the amendments fall down here, because, although I know that they have been ruled as competent, they are outwith the purpose of the bill. I have been getting slightly agitated, because the purpose of the bill relates to the acquisition of dogs. There is a separate code, which is 36 pages long, on the duties and obligations that a person has with regard to the welfare of a dog that they own. That is my first point.”
“For more than a decade, I have campaigned for a ban on the use of shock collars. Before Ross Greer came to the Parliament, I held an event at which I encouraged MSPs to try a shock collar on their wrists. Few did, and some got really upset, because shock collars deliver different levels of pain and the reaction depends on the dog. Therefore, I will take no lessons from anyone in here—not a single person—about my commitment to a ban on shock collars. My call for a ban remains. I thank everyone for speaking in the debate. However, as a legislator—not with my political hat on but as a legislator—I have to ask this: is what has been proposed the way to introduce a ban with a robust and enforceable legal framework, and has that been tested through our established parliamentary processes, as Edward Mountain said?”
“If we are going to debate how to train dogs effectively and humanely, let us do it properly with full political scrutiny. The suggestion in Ariane Burgess’s amendment 19 that the identification of a veterinary practice could be included in the proposed code of practice is a good one, but that sort of detail should be left to officials and stakeholders to take forward as the code is developed. Stakeholder meetings on the code of practice started in 2024 and will continue after this debate has concluded. Officials will raise that proposal in the discussions with stakeholders. However, I ask Ariane Burgess not to move amendment 19. Christine Grahame: As Ross Greer knows, I cannot support his amendments 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18, but I thoroughly support the sentiment and motivation behind them.”
“A further report will be published in April by the SAWC. Once that has been delivered, let us come back and have a proper debate about the issue. Ross Greer: The minister says that we need to wait for a further report from the SAWC. What was lacking in the thoroughly evidenced report of April 2023, which included consultation with dog owners, animal welfare experts and those who use shock collars, that has meant that we need to wait for another report before we can come to a view? Jim Fairlie: I am not entirely convinced that Mr Greer understands that the SAWC report was limited in scope, covering only remote controlled training collars that use a static pulse as stimulus. There is a wide range of e-collars, and there are many other aversive devices.”