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 6 of 13.
“We all want to have an effective system in place for the release of prisoners, which keeps victims and their families informed and supported while maintaining confidentiality, the integrity of decisions and the safety of all who are involved. I have done significant work with Jamie Greene on the issues that he has raised, particularly on parole. I have agreed to amendments that he lodged at stage 2 and have worked with him on amendments 40 to 45 and 47 and 48 in this group. Mr Greene has long campaigned on those issues, and that package of amendments seeks to strengthen the factors that the Parole Board and, where relevant, Scottish ministers must take into account when considering release and licence conditions.”
“We can and should debate whether the period should be increased further, but today the Government must listen to survivors and make that commonsense change to protect victims and the public. Angela Constance: I understand and appreciate how difficult, stressful, turbulent and traumatic it can be for victims and their families when the offender linked to their case comes up for parole and potential release. I have met many victims who have shared with me their personal experiences and views on how the system could be improved to better support them during that stage of the justice process. We all want to ensure that victims and their families are informed about how and why decisions are made.”
“Just this weekend, we heard that it is being taken back to court for its refusal to properly implement a Supreme Court verdict. I cannot help feeling that the public would far rather that their Government was going to court to fight for killers and rapists to stay behind bars for longer than for some of the matters that it has recently chosen to litigate. We are talking about incredibly dangerous violent and/or sexual offenders who have been locked up for life or given an order that says that they continue to pose a danger to the public. The period before reconsideration of parole should be three years. I come back to Linda McDonald, because who would know better than someone who has been through such an experience? She has said that such a length of time for their parole would be a step in the right direction.”
“The cabinet secretary also puts to me that she is concerned that the amendment could be open to legal challenge, presumably from convicted killers on life sentences. I counter that by saying that prisoners can already be locked up for life, even under the European convention on human rights, as we can see from the fact that England has had whole-life orders that provide for that for decades now. In the previous parliamentary session, when I proposed my whole-life sentences bill, the Government was very quick to argue that keeping people locked up for longer was already an option and already legitimate in Scotland. Besides, members in the chamber will be well aware that this Government is never shy about going to court at the drop of a hat to defend policies from legal challenges.”
“To be honest, three years is probably still too short in my view, but it would at least allow, in most cases, a safe harbour of one year either side for victims in preparing for the hearing or dealing with the traumatising aftermath of the hearing and the relitigating of their experience. The cabinet secretary has written to me on amendment 46 and put some points to me. She says that she cannot support my amendment because the current timescale of two years is current practice throughout the UK. I am afraid that the irony of an SNP Government member arguing that it wants to maintain alignment with the UK over doing the right thing will not be lost on anyone in the chamber, particularly given that the bill that is before us today introduces jury majorities and a stand-alone sexual offences court, which are completely unheard of elsewhere.”
“However, almost immediately, she was eligible for parole again, and there followed several hearings at which she might have been released again—hearings that, for various reasons, did not consider the substantive issues or come to a decision. I cannot imagine the trauma and retraumatisation caused to Mr Donaldson’s family. They have described everything about that—from the early release to the repeated parole hearings and delays—as “a disaster”. This is appalling. Victims are constantly one year away from preparing for the next parole hearing or dealing with the aftermath of the last one, with all the trauma and resurfacing of emotions that that will naturally bring with it. That is no way to treat anyone, let alone victims of crime, the bereaved and the appallingly wronged.”
“In powerful and compelling testimony, Linda says that she lives with the dread that every two years the killer is considered for parole. She says, as do many victims, that the regularity with which victims need to interact with the parole system is one of the drivers of retraumatisation in the current set- up. It will not be lost on anyone in the chamber that one of the primary functions of the bill is to make the entire Scottish justice system more trauma informed. Tasmin Glass was sentenced to 10 years for her role in the 2018 murder of her ex-boyfriend, Steven Donaldson, in Kirriemuir. She was granted parole halfway through her sentence under strict conditions, but she was returned to prison in early 2025.”
“At the moment, a prisoner who is on a life sentence or who is subject to an order for lifelong restriction can be considered for parole. The process involves notification of victims, at least one hearing that the victim can attend, representations from the victims at that hearing and uncertainty for all involved. If parole is refused, the prisoner then needs to wait a maximum of two years before the next consideration. My amendment would make a simple yet crucial change. It would simply extend the maximum period that such a prisoner must spend between failed parole bids from two years to three years. Members will know who Linda McDonald is. A savage thug was already on a life sentence for murder, yet he had been let back on our streets. He viciously attacked Linda and left her for dead.”
“I spoke with one victim who is a passionate advocate for Suzanne’s law, a man called Colin Higgins. Colin was abused in childhood by two paedophiles. After he confided in a female friend called Alison McGarrigle, she was murdered by those two paedophiles, who are now in custody. At some point, they will come up for parole. I believe that there is no way that they should be allowed out until they disclose the whereabouts of Alison’s remains. Colin firmly believes in this Parliament taking the bold and necessary step to give the Parole Board the unambiguous power to keep a killer behind bars. Please, let us remove any risk of the amendments not having sufficient teeth and back amendments 106 and 107. Liam Kerr: Amendment 46 is simple but far reaching and important.”
“I spoke with one victim’s family today, who agree that, rather than taking a risk on a potentially weaker version that might be open to successful legal challenge, we should be bold and empower the Parole Board to explicitly prevent release where there is not disclosure of where a body is kept, as has happened in many other places around the world. Amendments 106 and 107 do much the same thing. Amendment 106 does it by way of amending an amendment in the bill, and amendment 107 does it more completely by way of legislative description, offering full legislation that would give the Parole Board the right to use non-disclosure as a reason to prevent a killer from being released. Such cases are extremely rare, but they are horrific and unthinkable.”
“As far back as 2019, at the time of the Margaret Fleming trial, Humza Yousaf set out proposals to allow the Parole Board to take into account a prisoner’s failure to disclose. Various similar headlines have appeared in all the years since, including ones around amendments that we are considering today in the names of other members. However, there is a potentially critical problem with those other amendments. They say that the Parole Board “must”, instead of “may”, take non- disclosure into account. There are very real concerns, despite what has happened with legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, that those provisions will be subject to legal challenge and will be unsuccessful. I want this change to work on behalf of all those victims’ families, and my amendments 106 and 107 would ensure that it does.”
“The turning point came in 2003 with the first successful prosecution in such a case, for the murder of Arlene Fraser, and the others followed from that. I have long campaigned for Suzanne’s law, since giving evidence that helped to convict the killers of Margaret Fleming. That was in 2019. One of her killers has since died in prison, and one of them is still in custody. I do not believe that that killer should be allowed to get out until they do the decent and right thing and disclose the whereabouts of Margaret’s remains. Put simply, I believe in the absolutism of no body, no release. I am concerned about some of the long-term spin that there has been around legislation on this issue. It has been talked about for years.”
“Russell Findlay: Surely there can be nothing worse than losing a loved one to murder, but there are families whose suffering is worse and, in fact, is never ending. They are the ones who have lost a loved one to murder and cannot leave them to rest because the killer refuses to disclose the whereabouts of their remains. Suzanne Pilley, Margaret Fleming, Arlene Fraser, Alison McGarrigle and Patricia Henry are all women who were murdered in Scotland and whose remains have never been found. Suzanne’s law is named after Suzanne Pilley. We should commend the police and the Crown Office for securing convictions for those murders when the past presumption was that, with no body, there was no conviction.”
“Michelle’s law is named after Michelle Stewart, who, sadly, was murdered by her ex-partner. Her family have been campaigning for years to ensure that their voices and those of other victims are heard during parole proceedings, and that the safety, security and wellbeing of families are at the forefront of all decisions that the Parole Board makes. These amendments do just that. They are not the end of the journey—those families want the Government to go further in strengthening the rights of victims and their families around parole. However, I think that they are a good start, and I hope that all members will consider them positively. I move amendment 86. The Presiding Officer: I call Russell Findlay to speak to amendment 106 and other amendments in the group.”
“It states that the Parole Board “must”— again, I use that word carefully— “take into account ... the safety and security” of victims and their families as a primary consideration before deciding whether an offender should be released. It would do that in the same way as my Suzanne’s law provisions, which is by requiring ministers to make provision that requires the Parole Board to take the “safety and security” of the family into account. 17:30 Amendment 48 covers the second part of Michelle’s law, which is on exclusion zones. Exclusion zones are a vital tool in maintaining the safety of victims and their families after someone has been released. In practice, the amendment would ensure that the Parole Board “must consider” whether an exclusion zone is suitable ahead of that person’s release as part of their licence conditions.”
“Members will note that, as I have often stated, these laws have a name attached to them— Suzanne’s law, Michelle’s law, Helen’s law and others—and they all relate to the female victims of horrific crimes and the repercussions and the effect that that trauma has had on their families. What has driven me throughout this whole process over the past three years is to ensure that Suzanne’s law and Michelle’s law are introduced, in so far as they can be, in a competent fashion that will have a meaningful effect and benefit victims of similar crimes in the future. That is what has driven these amendments. Amendments 47 and 48 would incorporate the lion’s share of Michelle's law into the bill. I would like members to focus on amendment 47, because it is an important one.”
“Carol and Gail said: “We understand that there may be some people in the room who consider that this amendment is not strong enough or necessary. We have seen the headlines and we have listened to the lawyers who say that this will not make any difference. But this amendment is a first step and we want it publicly known that we wholly support it. This may not result in the finding of Arlene or Suzanne. However, it does give us a great sense of peace to think that this could help keep the two men found guilty of their murders behind bars.” Frankly, if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me. My last two amendments in the group, amendments 47 and 48, relate to Michelle’s law.”
“If that is not enough, I want to let the families who will be most directly affected by this know that, as a Parliament, we have been listening to their thoughts and feelings. It has been hugely traumatic for them to live through these experiences and for this to be played out in the Parliament and in the media so much in the past few months. I say a huge thank you to Carol Gillies and Gail Fairgrieve for meeting me, my team, Victim Support Scotland and the cabinet secretary to help us to shape these amendments to get to a place that they are comfortable and happy with. Carol and Gail wrote to me and they want me to say these words about the amendments. I want the chamber to hear their words—not mine—and I want this to be in the Official Report.”
“My amendments, which were agreed to at stage 2 and which can be enhanced at stage 3, go further and far enough for the families that they directly affect, because they mirror the wording of Helen’s law, which was passed in England and Wales. That states that “the Parole Board must take into account the prisoner’s non-disclosure”. Helen’s law, as worded—and as replicated in the wording of this bill—has already been instrumental in blocking the release of killers. For example, the releases of the killers of Linda Razzell, Julie Paterson and Danielle Jones were all blocked as a direct result of the introduction of Helen’s law and, by default, the wording of Suzanne’s law. This approach works in practice, as we have seen from what happened in England and Wales.”
“Amendment 44 states that the provision would also apply where the Parole Board has a belief that the prisoner knows either “how or where the victim’s remains were disposed of” or where the victim’s remains are located. That covers more eventualities or possibilities than the stage 2 amendment. Amendment 45 would remove the definition of a “victim” from the section introduced by the stage 2 amendment. That allows us to clarify the law in many regards, as there were some technical tidy-ups that we had to do. I am aware that there is a debate about whether these provisions go far enough. For example, the concept of no body, no parole has been mooted in the press and has been suggested with regard to other amendments in the group. I note that Victim Support Scotland has asked members to reject those amendments.”
“Amendment 40 clarifies that the Scottish ministers must change Parole Boards so that they comply with what was passed at stage 2. Amendment 41 is a technical amendment that adjusts the placing of the word “must” in that provision, with “must” being the key part of the amendment that was passed at stage 2. In other words, it is now an essential requirement for the Parole Board, when making its decision, to take into account any failure to disclose that information. Amendment 42 would clarify that the consideration applies only to decisions that are made on initial release, because decisions that are made on release after recall to prison are usually focused on breaches of bail rather than on the initial decision to release. Amendment 43 would clarify that the provision will apply only “where the victim’s remains have not been recovered”.”
“The amendment is supported by Victim Support Scotland, which says that the prospect of someone being released can cause significant anxiety and distress. When the Parole Board decides to release someone, the very least that the victim deserves is an explanation of the reasons behind that. I hope that the Parliament will support amendment 87 and I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for working on it with me. Amendments 40 to 45 form the essence of something that I introduced at stage 2, which is commonly known as Suzanne’s law. I will go through amendments 40 to 45, which are technical amendments that enhance what was already agreed to at stage 2 in the committee. Suzanne’s law would require the Parole Board to consider any failure to disclose the location of a victim’s remains when making a decision about whether to release a prisoner.”
“That is important because victims have long felt that decisions made by the Parole Board can feel distant and opaque in comparison with the reality of the trauma that they have experienced. They absolutely do not feel involved in proceedings and often feel that no attempt is made to help them to understand how the Parole Board comes to what are, of course, complex and difficult decisions. My amendment seeks to ensure that victims are given the appropriate information, not only about whether a release will take place and whether conditions have been imposed but about why. Amendment 87 goes hand in hand with my other amendments, which would form part of Michelle’s law, to which I will now speak.”
“The current law, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, says that the Parole Board must inform a victim whether it has recommended release and whether any conditions have been applied to such a release. My amendment 87 would go a step further by adding that such information would include “a summary of the reasons for their decision” as part of the additional right that victims would have, while retaining the original provision that only victims who wish to receive that information would do so, a detail that goes back to a point that we have already debated. In effect, amendment 87 would mean that the Parole Board would have to explain to victims why it has arrived at its decision.”
“That idea was met with a lot of opposition at the time, particularly in connection with the lack of “trauma-informed practice”, to use a phrase that has been used a lot today, and the fear that victims might be cross-examined if they were able to participate in hearings. Following conversations with victims and with victim support organisations, it is clear that, at the very least, they want to observe hearings. The proposal has been welcomed by VSS and I urge members to consider and support it. Amendment 87 would make another change to how parole operates in practice by ensuring that there would be “a summary of the reasons” behind parole decisions. That amendment, if agreed to, would require the Parole Board to provide a written “summary of the reasons for its decision” either to release or not to release a prisoner.”
“The Parliament will be familiar with a number of very high-profile cases in which victims have been excluded from parole hearings. One such example, the case of Ellie Wilson, who was excluded from her attacker’s parole hearing, was raised with the First Minister earlier this year. It was reported that, in response, the First Minister said that the decision to exclude Ms Wilson from the parole hearing was “odd, strange and not very transparent”, and he is right. I agree, as do campaigners. Therefore, if the First Minister is still of the view that such exclusion is “odd, strange and not very transparent”, I encourage him and his Government to support amendment 86. The amendment is a far softer proposal than the one that I originally planned, which would have allowed victims to make representations in these hearings.”
“Subsection (2) of the proposed new section 17ZB that my amendment seeks to insert in the 2003 act makes it clear that the chairing member of the Parole Board would retain the power to exclude a victim or their family member from the hearing if they considered it appropriate to do so, which would provide some flexibility in respect of the proposed new right. However, in doing so, the chairperson should notify the victim or their family member in advance and, more importantly, should inform them of the reason for their exclusion from the proceedings. I think that that is a fair and balanced caveat to my proposal. I will establish why the amendment is needed. The right has long been campaigned for by victims and support organisations.”
“It provides that a victim or a victim’s family member—if the victim is deceased, for example—should be given the opportunity to observe parole proceedings in relation to the offender’s case and potential release. It would do so by adding a new section into section 17 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, stating that a victim or their family member “must be afforded the opportunity to attend, for the purpose of observing proceedings”. The amendment would not give the right to, nor even force, victims to participate in these proceedings or hearings, nor would it give the victim or their family member the right to speak at the hearing or to interrogate either the parole panel or the offender.”
“Amendment 85 disagreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I suspend the meeting for 15 minutes for a comfort break. I would be grateful if members could be back in their seats by 5.15 pm. 17:00 Meeting suspended. 17:17 On resuming— The Presiding Officer: Group 12 is on release of prisoners. Amendment 86, in the name of Jamie Greene, is grouped with amendments 87, 40 to 42, 106, 43 to 45, 107, 46 to 48 and 162. I point out that, if amendment 106 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 43, because of pre-emption. Jamie Greene: There are quite a lot of amendments in this group, covering very different themes, so—with members’ patience—I will try to get through them as best I can. Amendment 86, as the lead amendment, is on the right to attend parole hearings.”
“For Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) 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) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) 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) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Michael Marra] Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Reform) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) 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) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) [Proxy vote cast by Willie Rennie] Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Don-Innes, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Ewing, Annabelle (Cowdenbeath) (SNP) Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (Ind) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) 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, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 54, Against 59, Abstentions 0.”
“We have to respect it and operate within those bounds, but that must increase our resolve to find those other solutions in a systemic approach so that the system is far more proactive in supporting victims to exercise their rights. Amendment 84 agreed to. Amendment 103 not moved. Amendment 85 moved—[Jamie Greene]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division.”
“It is important that, with any changes that happen in future—I hope that there will be further changes to both processes—all justice partners know that they have a duty to signpost people to the wonderful organisations that we all know can make such a difference in helping people to navigate through the justice system. I encourage members to support amendment 84. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up if she has anything further to add. Angela Constance: I will respond briefly to Ms Chapman and Mr Greene. There is a clear need to improve referrals, and I believe that amendment 84 will be part of the solution to that. I acknowledge the point, which Ms Chapman made powerfully, that referrals have fallen by 90 per cent in comparison with pre-GDPR levels. GDPR is the law. We cannot ignore that.”
“In the black and white of legislation, does it mean that the person’s data is taken by a third party and passed on to somebody else, or is a referral simply the signposting of a victim to a third-party organisation, in which case there are no data issues? I do not think that that is entirely clear from the amendments. The latter approach is easier, of course, because it does not fall into GDPR issues. However, I understand the reasons why Maggie Chapman will not move amendment 103, and I certainly will not move it. I hope that members will support amendment 84 as a compromise. Overall, it simply represents a first step in the right direction. Not only Police Scotland but all justice partners need to be far more proactive in signposting victims to both support and notification schemes.”
“I understand the pushback around the data-sharing issue, but my interpretation of the amendment as it is stated in black and white was that the police, as soon as was reasonably practicable after the person had been identified as or appeared to be a victim, would refer the person to a victim support service unless that person intimated that they did not wish to be referred. That opt-out and that agency would always have existed, so no one’s information would ever have been passed on without their consent. In that regard, I would have supported the amendment. However, I understand that Police Scotland has pushed back on that issue. The amendments in the group also raise the question of what we mean by a referral.”
“It very much echoes an amendment that I lodged at stage 2 but which I agreed not to move and to work with the Government on. I understand the reasons why the amendment is in the cabinet secretary’s name and not in mine. There have been many technical conversations about the sharing of data and they underlie a lot of the proposed changes. When the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 came into play, the technicalities of GDPR issues became very different. However, an amendment of that nature is needed. I was sympathetic to Maggie Chapman’s amendment 103.”
“However, I accept that Police Scotland has raised concerns about amendment 103, specifically that the data sharing that is required could present challenges, given UK data protection legislation. Although I will not move amendment 103, I urge the cabinet secretary and Police Scotland to be very clear about the need to improve the ways in which referrals happen, to ensure that victim survivors have access to the support that they need and deserve when and where they need it. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise the issue again, because we must do better. Victim survivors deserve nothing less. Jamie Greene: I am speaking in group 11, as I have added my name in support of amendment 84, which was lodged by the cabinet secretary.”
“Victim Support Scotland and others have long campaigned for an automatic referral system unless the victim or survivor does not wish to be referred. That is what my amendment addresses, as Jamie Greene sought to do at stage 2. All victims must have easy access to the support that they need when they need it to recover and move on from the crime that was committed against them. I accept that amendment 84 goes some way to address the issue, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. My amendment would ensure that there was always a follow-up—always that next question—which would allow the victim the opportunity to consider the range of support options that should be open to them.”
“I have really valued the conversations and discussions that I have been able to have with those organisations and survivors about elements of the bill. One such area is awareness and availability of support services for victims and survivors. From my previous work experience and from listening to survivors, I know that awareness of the full range of support services that is available to them is nowhere near as high as it should be. Information is not easy to find, and the practice of referring to such support services by police officers and others is inconsistent at best and non- existent at worst. Indeed, according to Victim Support Scotland, referrals have dropped by 90 per cent over the past eight years. We cannot accept that.”
“I ask Ms Chapman not to move her amendment 103, and I urge all to support my amendment, which will deliver our objective of providing a stronger referral pathway for all victims and provide a person-centred approach. I move amendment 84. Maggie Chapman: As this is my first substantive contribution to this afternoon’s proceedings, I thank the cabinet secretary and all of her officials for their discussions about the bill and my amendments over many months. I also refer colleagues to my entry in the register of members’ interests: prior to my election to the Scottish Parliament, I worked for a rape crisis centre. I am indebted to organisations that provide support and advice to victims and survivors of some of the worst crimes imaginable.”
“That reflects the Scottish Government’s assessment of some of the risks that amendment 103 poses, as I have already set out. I will also take this opportunity to inform members that Police Scotland has already begun a programme of work, in conjunction with victim support organisations, to ensure that victims are referred to support agencies. That has included improved guidance and operational briefings for officers, and changes to information technology systems to make it easier to make retrospective referrals and a refreshed care card for victims, following the people-at-heart approach to communication, which was informed by people with lived experience.”
“On the other hand, an opt-out model means that a victim’s personal data is shared unless they request otherwise, which could have unintended consequences if they do not realise that they have to make such a request, or they are not in the right frame of mind to make the choice at that time, and it increases the risk of data being shared without genuine consent. It also does not distinguish for vulnerability or for child victims, and the caution that is required in relation to understanding what the process involves and having the capacity to make the choice to opt out. Police Scotland copied me into a letter to the Criminal Justice Committee that raises concerns about the automatic data-sharing aspect of Ms Chapman’s amendment, which sets out the significant barriers to Police Scotland operationalising it.”
“Maggie Chapman’s amendment 103 would result in the referral mechanism being one that victims need to opt out of. However, not providing for explicit consent from victims poses the very risks that I have mentioned of non-compliance with data protection legislation and, ultimately, being inoperable. Furthermore, I would be concerned that an opt-out model is not the most straightforward and transparent way for victims to make a choice at a traumatic time. Our amendment sets up a framework that supports a clear choice and recognises that victims might change their mind over time.”
“Passing on people’s data without their consent rightly needs to be necessary and proportionate, because an individual has a right to privacy. Our consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office reinforced the significance of adherence to the principles of necessity and proportionality, transparency and fairness and of the need for consent to be informed, affirmative and explicit for the sharing of personal information. My amendment provides such a model of consent. It is essential to ensure that any referral process is compliant with those principles. If we do not do so, we risk passing an amendment that cannot be operationalised by the police, and there is a significant risk that it would fall foul of the data protection regime.”
“My amendment 84 will put a duty on the police to inform a victim that they are entitled to be referred to a victim support service and to explain what is meant by support service and a referral. My amendment will place a proactive duty on the police and seeks to ensure that victims understand that they have a right to be referred and the nature of the support that is available. It seeks to normalise being referred to support services by stating that it is an entitlement rather than something that the victim may request, and it will empower victims to make an informed decision. It will also require the chief constable to produce guidance on the referral process. For the processing of personal data to be compliant with GDPR, it needs to be necessary and proportionate, as well as transparent and fair.”
“Angela Constance: I thank Jamie Greene and Maggie Chapman for highlighting this issue, and I thank Mr Greene for supporting my amendment 84, which builds on one that he lodged at stage 2. I acknowledge the work of Victim Support Scotland in championing a more proactive referral process. We have a shared objective to ensure that victims get the support that they need when they need it. Since stage 2, we have worked closely with Police Scotland to develop an amendment that is rights based and trauma informed and that respects victim autonomy and choice. At present, the law requires the police to inform a victim that they may request a referral to providers of victim support services.”
“This is a small but, I hope, important piece of cross- party work, and it is great to get cross-party support for it. I thank the cabinet secretary for her support, too. I endorse and agree with all the points that were made by colleagues about the extension of the provision. There are practical and cost implications, but this is perhaps the beginning of a wider discussion. I press amendment 83. Amendment 83 agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Group 11 is on referrals to victim support services. I advise members that we will complete discussions on this group and then have a short comfort break. Amendment 84, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendment 103.”
“I am pleased to be able to support amendment 83, which will give victims of sexual offences a statutory entitlement to free transcripts and will therefore secure on a permanent basis the outcomes that were achieved through the existing court transcript pilot as operated and managed by the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. On the point made by Mr Findlay and Mr Greene about extending the measure to other cases, I note that any extension needs to be financially sustainable. I would have to discuss that with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but I hope that improvements in technology will reduce some of the costs in that area. In the meantime, I am hopeful that members will support amendment 83. 16:45 Audrey Nicoll: I thank my colleagues Pauline McNeill and Jamie Greene for their support.”
“Angela Constance: I thank Audrey Nicoll for lodging amendment 83, following our discussions at stage 2. We introduced the current pilot in March 2024 in response to victims highlighting that the costs of paying for transcripts can be prohibitive. As a result of the pilot, more than 120 applications have been made. We expect that the total funding for the pilot will be in the region of £300,000 by the time of its conclusion, in February 2026. The evidence to date suggests that the pilot has had the positive impact that was envisaged.”
“Although we are extending access to a group of people who will benefit from the amendment, many others will not. I hope that the Government will reflect on that. I would like somebody in the justice system or in the civil service directorate responsible to do a wider piece of work about how we can use technology to improve provision, with faster, cheaper and better access to court transcripts for any victim of any crime, should they need it—particularly those who have moved out of criminal proceedings and are taking their case through the civil courts, where there is an absolute necessity to access such transcripts. I hope that the Government will consider that. Either way, I hope that the Parliament will support this small step forward.”
“There are pragmatic and cost issues around that, but also, as we learned later, issues around data protection, privacy, the general data protection regulation and redaction, which cannot be dealt with in an artificial intelligence manner. I am pleased with how amendment 83 sits, but, as we heard earlier, a wider discussion should be had about extending such a measure to other offences. It is worth noting that a number of survivors of sexual offences, in particular, were keen for that. They have gone through horrific experiences, and they have been pushing the Government on it. They have been lobbying for the change for many years. To their credit, people such as Ellie Wilson have been banging the drum for extending access to court transcripts.”