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 5 of 13.
“Tackling climate change internationally is something that I am passionate about, like many others, but I have been passionate about it since way before that became a common view. This is a global challenge. Although we need to think global and act local, we have to accept the reality: in terms of the numbers, we in Scotland have very little ability to tackle climate change at an international level. We are a small contributor to emissions, and given past emissions, and what other countries are emitting at present, our ability as a small country to affect climate change internationally is small, too. Yes, we should play our part; yes, we should do our bit; and yes, new technologies that we are leading on can make an impact beyond our shores, but our ability to effect the cessation of or reduce global climate change is limited.”
“In addition to the steps that we are taking in Scotland to support many businesses in our town and retail centres, we will continue to consider any changes in regulation and in the planning system that we could apply that would make it easier for businesses to trade and to create the type of economic opportunities that we want to be available in our town and retail communities.”
“The First Minister: Such a measure would certainly help the hospitality sector and would go some way towards dealing with the negative consequences of the increase in employer national insurance contributions. It is beyond my conception as to why it is a good idea for a United Kingdom Government that is supposedly interested in growth to apply an increase in employer national insurance contributions. Such increases stifle growth, and we are seeing the effects of that in many communities around the country. Mr Macpherson set out the arguments that the UK Government will need to consider in the budget. We will, of course, make representations to the UK Government on that question.”
“It is well understood that hospitality businesses bring people to town and city centres, which benefits all, including retail, as happens in the superb Shore area in my constituency, and on Leith Walk and elsewhere. However, I know that too many of our hospitality businesses are struggling at the moment, largely because of the increases in employer national insurance contributions that were made earlier this year, as well as other factors. Does the First Minister agree with the view, which I and UKHospitality share, that the United Kingdom Chancellor of the Exchequer must consider a VAT cut for hospitality in the UK Government’s upcoming budget?”
“It can be bandied around to justify any action or, in this case, inaction.”
“I have heard absolutely no good reason for it not to happen, and I do not think that victims would be particularly assured by workshops, talking shops or any such thing. Audrey Nicoll: We all understand, I think, the point that Russell Findlay is making. However, the Lord President’s letter stresses the “extended delays” that could be expected in both criminal and civil cases, which is contrary to being trauma informed and trauma responsive. Further, with respect to the member, his party is frequently critical of the backlog of criminal court cases, with which we are still grappling. Russell Findlay: There is that phrase “trauma informed” again. I still do not know what it means. It seems to mean whatever the person who uses it wants it to mean—there is no actual definition.”
“I see merit in the arguments for integrated courts to deal with civil and criminal aspects of domestic abuse, but we need to ensure that we have thought through the issues carefully—and, vitally, that we work closely with the courts on potential models. I therefore invite the Parliament to reject amendment 108 and to accept amendments 152, 152A, 152B and 152C. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Russell Findlay to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 108. Russell Findlay: I repeat the point that amendment 108 would not impose any burden on the courts or the judiciary. At stage 2, the cabinet secretary accepted that such a provision would not meddle with the independence of the judiciary but would cause it to have regard to the implementation of a single sheriff or judge for parallel criminal and civil cases.”
“I was frank with Russell Findlay at stage 2 and was clear about the work that I wanted to be progressed on the matter; however, it is an area in which work has to be done, and done properly; and, particularly given the Lord President’s views, I do not think that there are any shortcuts in the matter. As I said, I am happy to support amendment 152 and the manuscript amendments to it in Maggie Chapman’s name. It will be of use to explore further whether more information should be shared between the criminal and civil courts in relation to domestic abuse, how such information should be shared and whether criminal courts that deal with domestic abuse offences should have jurisdiction over related or connected civil proceedings.”
“Russell Findlay: On the Lord President’s position on imposing unnecessary burdens on the court, surely that is completely contradicted by my amendment, which says only that the judiciary should “have regard to” having a single sheriff or judge preside. Angela Constance: I appreciate Mr Findlay’s views on the matter, but I am sure that he will understand that I also have to give consideration to the views of the Lord President, who has said: “However, this potential amendment is counter- productive and at odds with the trauma-informed approach that all of us so strongly support ... This amendment would entail wholesale reshaping of the way that the courts operate, in both civil and criminal cases”, and that he is concerned about “extended delays”.”
“As we know, the Lord President has recently written to the Criminal Justice Committee to outline major concerns with what Mr Findlay is proposing. In particular, the Lord President raises concerns about potential delays and scheduling issues, and says that the amendment “would impose unmanageable burdens”. We need to work with the courts and not against them, so I urge the Parliament to reject amendment 108. I am happy to support amendment 152, as amended by amendments 152A, 152B and 152C, which would require the Scottish ministers to carry out a review and to provide a report to the Parliament.”
“We are already carrying out further research on integrated domestic abuse courts, which will be published early next year. In addition, we have an on-going programme of work using improvement methodology. I have also written recently to the Criminal Justice Committee, seeking its comments on our draft policy paper to go to the Scottish Civil Justice Council, proposing new civil court rules. We will also progress this year a Scottish statutory instrument under section 102 of the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 to give the courts the power to make an order in relation to a person who has behaved in a vexatious manner in civil proceedings. Mr Findlay’s amendment 108 is in the same terms as the amendment that he lodged at stage 2, which he did not press.”
“I am confident that the collective intelligence in our legal and political systems can determine a way through this knotty problem, so that we can better support and protect women and children in domestic abuse and child contact situations, in particular. Angela Constance: Amendments 108 and 152 and manuscript amendments 152A, 152B and 152C are about the interface between the criminal and civil courts in relation to domestic abuse. The Scottish Government can support amendment 152, as amended by amendments 152A, 152B and 152C, but not amendment 108. I fully recognise that the criminal-civil interface in relation to domestic abuse is more than worthy of further consideration, which is why the Scottish Government is already doing work in that area.”
“It would also help to bridge the current disconnect between the child protection, child contact and domestic abuse issues, and prevent the manipulation, coercion and on-going abuse of victims/survivors. I appreciate that the Scottish Government is probably not willing to support that approach, as outlined in relation to Russell Findlay’s amendment 108 just now. My amendment 152 seeks a review of connected proceedings, which would consider how best to share information and whether shared jurisdictions would be helpful and appropriate, among other things. I also hope that the discussions could identify what else might be done in the shorter term to improve the connections between related criminal and civil cases.”
“A recent report by the Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research identified key problems, including a lack of mechanisms to communicate information between different court proceedings and a limited, siloed understanding and consideration of domestic abuse by the judiciary. Various recommendations have been made, some of which have been implemented, but we know that the problems persist, at huge cost to the wellbeing of women and children. Scottish Women’s Aid suggested the solution that, where possible, the same sheriff would hear both the domestic abuse and child contact cases. That would make it much more likely that the evidence of abuse and its effects would be properly considered in all its depth and breadth.”
“Victims/survivors have said that the lack of communication between criminal and civil cases that are clearly connected is a source of great distress. Scottish Women’s Aid has been campaigning on the issue for a very long time. The connected issues of domestic violence, child protection and child contact are not well considered in our current justice systems. That is a cross-jurisdictional problem. A recent report from England and Wales describes how victims and survivors of domestic abuse do not feel understood or taken seriously in the family court. In the Scottish context, the issue has been discussed by the Law Society, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and others.”
“I move amendment 108. Maggie Chapman: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for the discussions that we have had about this issue, especially as I tried to get a more prescriptive amendment, which was quite similar to the one that Russell Findlay just moved, into the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at stage 2. I am glad that we can discuss the issue here. I am also grateful that manuscript amendments 152A to 152C have been accepted for debate this evening. They would make amendment 152 clearer by requiring a review to take place within two years of the section coming into force. We know that, sadly, in many criminal cases of domestic abuse, parallel civil cases are required to deal with questions of child contact, guardianship and the like.”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for her comments at stage 2, when she said that she agreed that I had “attempted not to interfere with the independence of the judiciary”.—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 12 March 2025, c 54.] Amendment 108 is backed by Victim Support Scotland and Scottish Women’s Aid. SWA told me that every sheriff they have spoken to thought it was a good idea, while Victim Support Scotland said in support of the amendment that “women, children and young people are endangered and harmed through courts making decisions without information and understanding of the context and abuse”. They recognise that the amendment is clean, simple and effective. It would do exactly what it sets out to do and would make a very real difference to victims in the real world, so I urge all members to back it.”
“We now know that they do not like it because we have since seen a letter from the Lord President to the Parliament’s Criminal Justice Committee. I will not address all the points that were in his letter or that were put to me by the cabinet secretary at stage 2, but it is enough to say that what I am proposing would be entirely subject to judicial discretion. I will make two points. Amendment 108 would simply require the Lord President or the sheriff principal to “have regard to” a single judge or sheriff hearing parallel cases, where that is possible and practical. The amendment is therefore not political interference with the independent judiciary.”
“Abusers often use the civil courts to delay criminal proceedings, and vice versa, causing further painful delay. Such civil actions are often weak or downright vexatious, with those men effectively weaponising the criminal justice system to continue abusing their victims. There is even a name for that: legal system abuse. We can fix that today by ensuring that the same sheriff or judge hears the parallel civil and criminal cases as they go through the courts, which would give the courts critical information and would curtail such system abuse. I lodged an amendment on a similar theme at stage 2 but did not press it. At the time, the justice secretary was fairly cryptic about whether the judiciary was in favour of the proposal.”
“Amendment 46 disagreed to. 18:15 Amendments 47 and 48 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to. The Presiding Officer: Group 14 is on connected proceedings. Amendment 108, in the name of Russell Findlay, is grouped with amendments 152, 152A, 152B and 152C. Russell Findlay: Amendment 108 is a clean, simple and necessary amendment. It is informed by victims’ experience of the justice system, specifically that of victims of domestic violence and abuse who often suffer the prolonged and dramatic ordeal of a criminal justice prosecution process while subject to simultaneous civil proceedings. There have been some real horror stories of women being dragged through the small claims court or being subjected to civil cases in relation to child custody by the very same men who abused them.”
“For Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con) Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) 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) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 28, Against 86, Abstentions 0.”
“Amendment 106 disagreed to. Amendments 43 to 45 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to. Amendment 107 not moved. After section 29H Amendment 46 moved—[Liam Kerr]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 46 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The 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) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) 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] Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (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) 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) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 45, Against 71, Abstentions 0.”
“Section 29H—Parole Board rules: decisions where prisoner has information about victim’s remains Amendments 40 to 42 moved—[Jamie Greene]—and agreed to. The Presiding Officer: I remind members that, if amendment 106 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 43 due to pre-emption. Amendment 106 moved—[Russell Findlay]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 106 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“Fiscal fines should be seen as an important measure that provides a proportionate response to lower-level offending, and prosecutors must continue to have the discretion and flexibility to make decisions independently on the use of such fines. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 53, and I urge the Parliament to oppose it. The Presiding Officer: I call Sharon Dowey to wind up and say whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 105A. Sharon Dowey: I have nothing else to add, and I press the amendment. Amendment 105A agreed to. Amendments 105B, 105C, 105D and 105E moved—[Sharon Dowey]—and agreed to. The Presiding Officer: I ask Sharon Dowey whether she wishes to press or withdraw amendment 105, as amended. Sharon Dowey: I will press it. Amendment 105, as amended, agreed to.”
“If the intention of amendment 53 is to actually bind prosecutors to take action to prosecute in all cases where a fiscal fine is refused, it is outwith the competence of the Parliament, given the independence of the Lord Advocate. We must also recognise that not all those who are offered a fiscal fine will have committed an offence, and that, if fresh evidence is available, prosecutors should be able to take that into account when deciding what action to take after a fiscal fine is refused. I appreciate that members are keen to understand how fiscal fines are used; as I said earlier, the Lord Advocate has been writing to the Criminal Justice Committee with updates at regular intervals.”
“Liam Kerr: The cabinet secretary adduces the reasons why that might happen; she does not produce data to say why it is happening. Perhaps she could provide that to members. Angela Constance: There is data produced by the Crown Office. I am also aware that the Lord Advocate very regularly writes to the Criminal Justice Committee on those matters. I assure Mr Kerr that, as I have indicated, prosecutors have an on-going obligation to consider any change in the situation at any point and, as a result, the requirements of amendment 53 would mean that the notification to an accused would not always be accurate, and would in fact misrepresent the role and the independence of prosecutors.”
“There are many reasons why independent prosecutors, after initially marking a case for a fiscal fine, may decide to take no further action if that fine is refused, and it is absolutely right that they have the power to do that. Such decisions are made individually, case by case, and are based on assessments of the evidence and the public interest. Examples of reasons for no action after the refusal of a fine include where further evidence has been provided that undermines the Crown evidence or indicates that the accused did not commit the offence; where there is no longer a sufficiency of evidence for whatever reason, including where a witness has died; or where the circumstances of the accused, such as significant ill health, or death, mean that prosecution is not possible or in the public interest.”
“I am, therefore, pleased to support amendment 105 if amendments 105A to 105E are also agreed to. However, I cannot support amendment 53 from Liam Kerr. Figures from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service show that, over the past six years, where charges were dealt with by fiscal fine, 90 per cent were paid, deemed accepted or the subject of on-going proceedings. In the year 2023-24, of more than 12,000 charges in which a fiscal fine was offered, only 368—that is, 3 per cent—were refused and then marked for no further action by prosecutors. The amendment is therefore targeted at an extremely small minority of cases that are dealt with by fiscal fines, and in my view it is unnecessary for a number of reasons.”
“I am afraid that the argument from public interest is founded on sand. My amendment 53 would ensure that no one can get away with breaking the law without consequences, just as the now First Minister said should be the case. Angela Constance: I am pleased to be able to support amendment 105 from Sharon Dowey, as adjusted by amendments 105A to 105E. Other parts of today’s debates have examined proposals to enhance the information that victims—in particular, victims of serious offending—are entitled to. I recognise the member’s desire to ensure that we are not complacent when it comes to victims’ rights where their cases are dealt with by fiscal fines. It is right that ministers review and identify whether legislative changes are necessary to afford better outcomes for victims.”
“Given that, in such cases, one in three people get off completely free, it cannot be a surprise that, in the year to June 2025, all the crimes that I listed have skyrocketed. In her very helpful letter to me earlier, the cabinet secretary counters that prosecutors have duties to continue to review whether prosecutorial action is in the public interest. However, she must surely concede that it cannot be in the public interest to let criminals get away with no punishment at all, particularly when the very crimes for which that system is supposed to be used are skyrocketing. As far as I can establish, there is no data as to the reasons why those matters were dropped altogether. What was the public interest that was considered and found to be persuasive in the rejection of the use of prosecution?”
“An offender can in some circumstances be offered a fine of up to £500 instead of being taken through the court process. However, in the past year, a third of cases where an offender rejected an offer of a fiscal fine resulted in no further action, and that figure has remained roughly the same for years. In other words, a crime has been committed, the judge says, “You will pay a fine”, the criminal says, “No, I don’t want that”, and that is the end of it in one in three cases. In 2021, in this very place, John Swinney explained that, where a fiscal fine has been refused, “the refusal is treated as a request by the alleged offender to be prosecuted for the offence”.—[Official Report, 23 June 2021; c 64.] Apparently not.”
“It will be for the Scottish ministers to prepare and publish the review within two years of the provision coming into force. I am grateful that the Government has worked with me on my amendments. My additional amendments 105A to 105E make minor changes to ensure Scottish Government support. I also thank you, Presiding Officer, for allowing the submission of the late amendments. I move amendments 105 and 105A. 18:00 Liam Kerr: My amendment 53 would ensure that an offender is prosecuted where they reject an offer of a fiscal fine as an alternative to prosecution. Fiscal fines are commonly used to deal with crimes including common assault, shoplifting, antisocial behaviour, certain sexual crimes, and drug supply and possession.”
“Amendment 87 agreed to. The Presiding Officer: Group 13 is on fixed penalties. I call amendment 105, in the name of Sharon Dowey, which is grouped with amendments 105A, 105B, 105C, 105D, 105E and 53. Sharon Dowey: My amendment 105 will provide for a much-needed review to be conducted into the statutory entitlement of victims to receive information on fiscal fine penalties. Specifically, it will look at the information that is provided on whether a fiscal fine is accepted or rejected by an offender and the reason given by an alleged offender as to why the fiscal fine was accepted or rejected. Victims deserve to be told that information. The amendment is intended to be complementary to Liam Kerr’s amendment 53, which he will explain shortly.”
“For Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con) 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) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) 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, 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) McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) 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) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (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) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) Against Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) The Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 97, Against 19, Abstentions 0.”
“The Presiding Officer: Will you confirm, Mr Greene, whether you wish to press or withdraw amendment 86? Jamie Greene: I have reflected on the cabinet secretary’s comments and I will not press amendment 86. Amendment 86, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 87 moved—[Jamie Greene]. The Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 87 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“That has been taken into account in the drafting of my amendment 48. Thirdly, there must be more transparency in the Parole Board’s decisions, which amendment 87 would achieve. The board would be required to publish decisions on parole that have never previously been given to victims or their families. In the round, all that would deliver on Michelle’s law and Suzanne’s law. If we strip away all the politics, that is surely what the bill is about: improved law that is competent, workable and legislatively sound and that commands the support of Victim Support Scotland and the families who have been directly affected by the deficiencies in the law to date. That is what I have sought to achieve, and I believe that that is what we will deliver through my suite of amendments. I urge the Parliament to support them.”
“For the sake of victims and families, I urge members of the Scottish Parliament to pass this crucial, essential piece of legislation.” If the proposed legislation has Ms McCourt’s support, and if the families of Arlene and Suzanne are in support of it, I am in support of it, and I hope that the Parliament is, too. On Michelle’s law, there are three tests that I set the Government ahead of today’s proceedings. First, the safety and security of victims must be the primary consideration for the Parole Board ahead of a prisoner’s release. Secondly, the use of exclusion zones must be enhanced and increased, and they must form a vital part of the decision-making process. However, again, that is about not just the physical safety and security of those families but their mental wellbeing.”
“Just in the past 10 minutes, Marie has asked me to share these words with the Parliament: “When I was fighting for Helen’s Law, critics and sceptics said it wouldn’t make a difference. Believe me, it does and it has. Due to parliamentary delays in Westminster, my daughter’s killer came to the Parole Board before Helen’s Law was adopted. To my horror and disbelief, he was released. It was a decision that nearly destroyed me. As a result of Helen’s law, it is now a legal requirement for prisoners applying for parole to be questioned about non- disclosure.” Marie McCourt goes on to say: “Families of the missing murdered are not vindictive people. We do not wish to see killers locked up forever. All we want is information that will lead to the recovery of our loved ones’ remains so we can bring them home and lay them to rest.”
“Such challenges are more of a concern if the other amendments that are being proposed are agreed to. That is direct feedback from the families, and it is replicated in the briefing that Victim Support Scotland sent us. It “welcomes amendments 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45 ... We welcome the proposed change of ‘may’ to ‘must’ consider ... We firmly believe these provide a workable legislative solution, and progress that families welcome.” Families do welcome it. In fact, between speaking at the start of this debate and my summing up, I have had a message passed to me from Marie McCourt MBE. Marie is 81 years of age and she is the mother of Helen, after whom Helen’s law was named.”
“I know that they are watching, because I met them on Friday last week, and they said that they would be carefully watching today’s debate and the vote tomorrow. I want them to be clear that we will be passing Suzanne’s law if our amendments are agreed to. What was agreed to at stage 2 was supported by all parties represented in the chamber. I might have been sitting on the benches opposite at the time but, in the hours that followed stage 2, press releases and social media graphics went out, saying that Suzanne’s law had been passed. If that was good enough then, it is good enough today, I would argue. It does not matter where we are sitting in the chamber; it is important that we get the legislation right. There are, and were, concerns about legal challenges.”
“To pick up on a point that Mr Kerr raised earlier, the reason why it is legally competent for people to stay imprisoned for lengthy periods of time— indeed, for decades—is that they are subject to regular reviews following the punishment part of their sentence. Finally, my amendment 162 amends the long title of the bill to reflect amendments in this group. The Presiding Officer: I remind members always to speak through the chair. Jamie Greene: I thank members for their contributions on what are quite sensitive issues. I will start with the issue of Suzanne’s law. I appreciate that I had a lot of amendments to talk to earlier, but I now wish to cover one or two issues in closing. I want to be clear to the families affected by Suzanne’s law.”
“I do not have that confidence in this instance—it is only right that I am candid about it—given that there is existing case law and practice throughout the UK that suggests that two years is a suitable frequency. I urge the Parliament to oppose amendment 46. Liam Kerr: I would be interested to see it, but I know that the cabinet secretary will not disclose any legal advice that has been taken. Perhaps, however, either today or following the debate, she could set out to me the legal advice and the legal rationale behind rejecting my proposal for a three- year period. Angela Constance: As I have already informed the Parliament, there is existing case law and practice throughout the UK in regard to the matter.”
“Agreed changes to amend Parole Board rules can be made through statutory instruments. I do not support Liam Kerr’s amendment 46, which seeks to increase from two years to three years the maximum length of time that an offender who is subject to a life sentence or an order for lifelong restriction is required to serve between their parole reviews. I understand that Mr Kerr has lodged the amendment because of the impact of hearings on families in relation to uncertainty and trauma. However, my reasons for not supporting it are very similar to the reasons why I cannot support Mr Findlay’s amendments 106 and 107. It is important that we are confident that any changes that are made as part of the bill can withstand legal challenge.”
“I understand your position very well, Mr Findlay, but we have heard from Mr Greene and, at the end of the day, we are delivering what we can, without legal risk, to give at least some comfort to families. That is a big step forward. I am very pleased that we have been able to make progress on Suzanne’s law, which reflects the aims of Helen’s law; that we have provided support for amendments on the summary of reasons; and that we have made progress on exclusion zones and in writing into legislation that the Parole Board must consider the security and safety of victims and their families. This aspect of the bill contains a significant package of reforms, and having a full consultation on the areas of parole that require further examination and further work will allow us to do more.”
“With respect to Mr Findlay, I say that I cannot play fast and loose with families in that regard. Therefore, I cannot support amendments 106 and 107, and I urge members not to support them. Russell Findlay: Does the cabinet secretary recognise that giving the Parole Board powers to make the position absolute would reduce the risk of legal challenge? Does she accept that I have absolutely no intention of playing fast and loose with the families of victims? Angela Constance: I did not say that; I said to Mr Findlay that I will not be playing fast and loose with the families of victims. As I have said, anything that we introduce in this area must be legally robust, and I will not compromise on that.”
“For me, the issue goes back to amendments that Mr Greene lodged during stage 3 of the Bail and Release from Custody (Scotland) Bill in 2023. At that time, I gave a commitment to continue to engage with him on the matter, and I am glad that we have been able to progress matters to the satisfaction of the families that he represents. The Government’s position is that decisions on risk and release must be made, case by case, by the independent Parole Board, which may take all relevant information into account. In addition, amendments 106 and 107 could lead to the Parole Board’s decisions being more vulnerable to legal challenge. I do not say that lightly, because I am acutely aware that legal challenge adds risk, as opposed to removing it, and adds to the pain and trauma of families.”
“That will ensure that any changes that are required will work together in the system operationally and are legally feasible. I believe that that will be better than a piecemeal approach. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment 86, although I reassure Mr Greene that Parole Board hearings are part of the consultation’s remit. I urge him not to press amendment 86 in order to enable views from the consultation to be heard. 17:45 Amendments 106 and 107, in the name of Russell Findlay, would, in effect, require that a prisoner was held in custody indefinitely until they provided certain information. As I set out earlier, I know how important that issue is for victims’ families in such traumatising cases. That is why the Government supports Jamie Greene’s amendments in that respect, as do victim support organisations.”
“I am also willing to support Jamie Greene’s amendment 87, because it will ensure that all victims—not only those in cases where indeterminate sentences have been given, as the current system allows—will receive a summary of the reasons why a release decision has been made by the Parole Board. However, I am also aware that parole was a new topic at stage 2, and so a number of issues will require further consideration. I believe that the parole system can be improved, which is why I announced at stage 2 that we planned to publish a consultation on parole reform, which we did on 20 August. The consultation paper, entitled “Voices in Justice: A Consultation on Parole Reform in Scotland”, will enable us to gather a wide range of views and develop a suite of reforms to the parole system that the Parliament can fully consider as one package.”
“I am deeply aware of the continued distress for family and friends of the victims in cases where the location of an individual’s remains is unknown. I recently met the families of Suzanne Pilley and Arlene Fraser, and my deepest sympathies remain with them and any other families who are in such a situation. Amendments 40 to 45 do not change the effect or rationale of the provision that was accepted in that area at stage 2. Rather, they provide further clarity on the specific legal drafting to ensure that, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the prisoner has relevant information that would help to locate remains but has not disclosed that information, the Parole Board must take that into account.”