Liam Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Producing the same amount of electricity through ground-mounted solar—a technology that I stress I support and that must form part of our energy mix—requires many times more land. Most of us would agree that reducing emissions matters.”
“In the years since I first contributed to a debate in this Parliament on new nuclear power in Scotland, four of the six parties in the chamber have come to support the proposition that I put forward, in some form or other. In that, they are on the side of the majority of the public, which supports nuclear power.”
“No wonder: electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen production, advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and high-tech industries all require enormous amounts of reliable power. That means nuclear. However, we do not just need reliable power. We need local power.”
“In 2019, it even legislated for a 75 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030, although it scrapped that target five years later because it could not meet it.”
“In fact, over the year, wind turbines operate only around 25 to 40 per cent of the time. The point is that we must be able to guarantee electricity when homes, businesses and hospitals need it.”
“For more than 65 years, the STV North news programme has done far more than simply report the news. As Maggie Chapman said, it has given a voice to rural and regional communities. It has reflected local priorities and provided scrutiny, balance and accountability at every level of Government and public life.”
The complete record
Every one of 538 lines we hold for Liam Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“The International Energy Agency’s latest “World Energy Outlook”, which was published during the opening days of COP30, shows that global oil use is set to peak around 2030 and that global gas use is set to do so by 2035. That is based on the current policy intentions of the world’s Governments. At the same time, clean energy use will surge, with wind power up by 178 per cent and solar power up by 344 per cent by 2035. However, even that reflection of the policy status quo would result in global warming reaching 2.5°C in this century, so, if we are remotely serious about avoiding catastrophic impacts, we need to accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels. It would be utterly reckless to approve Rosebank. If the Scottish Government chooses to remain on the fence, it will be choosing to throw away the last shred of its climate credibility.”
“The Scottish Greens were proud to support campaigners who brought a successful legal challenge against the UK Government’s initial decision to approve the field. Now, the oil giants behind the project have had to submit a revised environmental impact assessment that takes account of the full emissions that will arise from drilling and burning Rosebank’s fossil fuels. Oil and gas giants can no longer get away with assessing the impact of only a fraction of the climate-wrecking emissions from their dirty business, thanks to the efforts of dedicated climate campaigners. The science is clear: any new oil and gas field in the North Sea would represent an abandonment of our role in achieving the global target of keeping the temperature rise below 1.5°C.”
“Everyone, which I think includes the Greens, accepts that oil and gas demand is not going away. On any analysis, we will still need oil and gas in the UK by 2050. To satisfy that need, we would need to import more if we did not drill Rosebank. Therefore, the environmental case suggests that we should drill Rosebank. Is that not correct? Patrick Harvie: That completely ignores the fact, which I will come on to, that the vast majority of production from Rosebank will be for export. Rosebank’s projected carbon emissions are vast—some 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. The harm to our precarious climate will be somewhere in the order of 50 times as damaging as the developers first admitted. That is why not only campaigners but scientific experts have consistently opposed the development of the field at every step of the process.”
“The member might be aware that I chair the serious organised crime task force, which I will be doing again tomorrow. On the budget, we have a due process to go through. I very much hope that, on this occasion, Opposition parties, as part of their negotiations, will advocate for budget for the police. Last year, the only person who advocated for an increase in the budget was the Cabinet Secretary for”
“Cuts to police budgets and nearly 1,000 fewer officers since the pandemic have led to shop theft rocketing by 124 per cent. Worse, the Scottish Retail Consortium says that those figures mask a hidden epidemic of unrecorded theft and retailers warn that shoplifting is effectively decriminalised. Will the cabinet secretary combat that by giving the police what they say they need in the budget, and by extending the funding for the retail crime task force beyond 26 March? Angela Constance: The Government and the justice ministers were pleased to secure that specific funding of £3 million to tackle retail crime. I am happy to write to the member to tell him about some of the benefits that that resource has had. It is important to recognise the scourge of shoplifting, particularly where it connects to serious organised crime.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much money has been distributed by Creative Scotland in the previous 12 months. (S6O-05123)”
“Those are not just numbers on a spreadsheet: they are people, families, mortgages and communities, especially in North East Scotland where one in every six people works directly or indirectly in oil and gas—a figure that is one in every 30 people across the entirety of Scotland. On the economic point, I was told last week that Shell alone contributes £12 billion to the UK’s gross domestic product and accounts for 78,000 jobs, which means that this is not only an energy issue but an economic and social one.”
“That is not a lobbying document or a press release; it is a rigorous, data- driven assessment of the future of the United Kingdom’s offshore energy workforce, and its conclusions should give every member pause for reflection. The report warns that, without urgent co- ordinated action, the UK’s oil and gas workforce could shrink by around 400 jobs every fortnight for the next five years, which is the equivalent of losing the entire Grangemouth workforce every two weeks. It also warns that, if Scotland’s Government fails to pursue renewable energy at scale while continuing to let oil and gas decline, almost 30,000 direct employment offshore industry jobs could be lost by the early 2030s.”
“I am grateful to cross-party colleagues for their support for this debate. Signing a motion in Parliament does not necessarily mean agreement with it. Rather, it shows a willingness to debate, to listen and to test arguments that may not accord with one’s own views, and any debate on oil and gas can often polarise views. I am somewhat appalled that members of the Green party, so recently a party of Government and one that has called a debate on oil and gas for tomorrow, have not only refused to sign my motion, which I carefully drafted to avoid being divisive, but have not bothered even to attend to hear arguments that might challenge their ideology. This debate is not about ideology; it is about the evidence contained in the “Striking a Balance” report from the Energy Transition Institute at Robert Gordon University.”
“It could use existing powers to bring in alcohol and drug tags to reduce risks and reoffending, as is the case in England. Instead, the Government presents MSPs with what was originally a knee-jerk response to a wholly predictable crisis as the sole default option, with no guarantee that it will not be extended to long-term prisoners in the future.”
“It retraumatises victims, it diminishes respect for our courts and it exposes the SNP’s failure to expedite the over-budget and delayed HMP Glasgow and HMP Highland. Do not forget the SPS’s recent warning that a new prison the size of HMP Grampian or HMP Shotts would be needed to address the overcrowding—a new prison that the cabinet secretary refuses to even contemplate because, as she put it, “If we build, they will come.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 October 2025; c 8.] However, there are alternatives. The Government could heed prison inspectors and address the 27 per cent of the prison population that is on remand. It could note His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s comments that the long-term population is key and look at its proposed solutions.”
“Indeed, Victim Support Scotland told the Criminal Justice Committee that early release is “not effective in reducing the prison population in the medium or longer term.” Scotland’s chief inspector of prisons has pointed out that short-term releases do not reduce the numbers over the longer term, because they do not “address any of the root causes of the problems.” The cabinet secretary will argue that early release provides short-term relief, but Scottish Prison Service statistics show that 11 of our 17 prisons were full mere days after the previous early release programme. Early release only exposes the public to risk, as data shows high levels of reoffending by previous early-release prisoners.”
“I will not vote tonight to release more than 1,000 criminals early from prison. Yes, the Scottish National Party’s failure to come up with a holistic justice strategy has led to our prisons being dangerously overcrowded, but throwing open the gates and freeing criminals early is not the solution. During the passage of the Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025, the cabinet secretary said: “The measures in this Bill will bring about a sustained reduction in the prison population”. As I warned, that was nonsense then and it remains nonsense now.”
“It is deeply regrettable that Link has failed to deliver the banking hub that is so desperately needed. However, I am sure that, once it has seen this debate, received my petition and reconsidered the arguments, it will choose to do the right thing by lower Deeside and give us the banking hub that we desperately need. 13:08”
“I am dissatisfied, as are my constituents, because Link’s decision is based on a fundamental misunderstanding; does nothing for financial inclusion and everything for abandoning my communities; and looks like a classic piece of decision making by a body that has no base in— or, indeed, any knowledge of—the north-east. I recently set up a petition that would show the strength of local support. It has hundreds of local signatures already. I have been contacted by local facilities, such as the churches and the Cults library team, offering to host a banking hub. Let me be blunt: Link, there is a big local petition coming your way, with a reiteration of why your decision is so flawed and detail of some of the solutions that will make it easy to get to yes.”
“One woman in Culter told me that she had to ask neighbours to withdraw cash for her because she cannot manage the bus journeys. Another in Milltimber has not spoken to a bank employee in more than a year and feels invisible. I pointed out to Link that its response to the community council assessment was fundamentally flawed in its scope, substance and assertions. Link reviewed my correspondence, rejected my evidence and concluded: “This is my final response ... if you remain dissatisfied ... you can refer the matter to the Independent Assessor”, whose role is to review the handling of the complaint, not the decision. Link has washed its hands.”
“It says that the location of banking hubs will be considered based on things such as distance to nearest cash services, and vulnerability and digital exclusion. So is Link doing all that it can to ensure the financial inclusion of lower Deeside? Er, no. After an approach from Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber community council for a banking hub was rejected by Link, I got involved. I wrote to Link and pointed out that I speak to constituents every week at surgeries, in shops and on doorsteps, and they are telling me just how deeply they are affected by the loss of local banking services. Many are elderly, isolated and living with mobility issues. They are frightened of the internet, distrustful of online banking and increasingly cut off from the financial services that they once relied on.”
“Their nearest banks are at Banchory, which is a 35-minute bus ride from Bieldside—the midpoint of that 8-mile corridor—or at Queen’s Cross in Aberdeen, which is an hour- long trek involving two buses. Craig Hoy’s motion calls for Link to do all that it can to maintain access, and rightly so. Link is a not-for-profit operation that, among other things, “has a public interest objective to protect access to cash across the UK.” One of its key roles, which is peppered through all its communications, is “financial inclusion”, to which end it runs a “financial inclusion programme” and “supports the rollout of shared banking hubs in areas affected by bank branch closures”. Finlay Carson: Will the member give way? Liam Kerr: I really do not have time—sorry.”
“I am grateful to Craig Hoy for securing the debate. Bank closures are something that we are all too familiar with in Aberdeen. The lower Deeside area, which is a roughly 8-mile corridor between Anderson Drive and Peterculter, used to have eight banks. It now has none. All the communities in that 8-mile corridor, including Cults, Bieldside, Milltimber and Peterculter, are without a bank. Imagine an older person with suspicions about the internet and phone banking, having seen all the fraud warnings; someone who is wary of banking apps with their artificial intelligence-driven helpdesk; one of the many businesses in that corridor that need to bank cash or withdraw a float; or someone who just needs to speak face to face with a staff member.”
“I tried to amend the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill to set up a Scottish grooming gangs inquiry, but Scottish National Party and Green MSPs voted against that amendment, so it fell. In light of this shocking case, and having had a chance to reflect— [Interruption.]”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the prison population reaching a record high of 8,430 prisoners. (S6T-02716)”
“Between April 2024 and March 2025, crimes involving knives and weapons in Aberdeen schools increased by 150 per cent. Since the beginning of 2024, more than 40 weapons have been seized in Aberdeen schools, including knives, blades and BB guns. What action is the Government taking to prevent weapons from entering schools? Will the cabinet secretary encourage the roll-out of regular anti- weapons lessons? Angela Constance: Mr Kerr is correct about the work that takes place in our schools to support good behaviour and to ensure that our children have the skills and resilience that they need to lead successful lives—successful, law-abiding lives. I will not repeat the information that the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills has frequently updated the Parliament on.”
“It is fair to say that, although the memoranda are fairly clear about publication and the like, they are less clear about the full cost of staffing and training, or of the costs of maintenance of new information technology and digital systems, of bringing court rooms up to standard for virtual hearings, and, perhaps, of any additional legal aid or court representation, should there be increased numbers of hearings or reviews, or more people requiring assistance because of the shifting of some processes to court or review. All that said, at decision time, we will be asked whether the Scottish Conservatives will vote for the bill, and I confirm that we will do so. 15:55”
“It has been said that the stage 1 financial memorandum and the revised memorandum that was to be produced after stage 2 proceedings were not expected to give rise to any additional costs on local authorities. However, the cabinet secretary will recall the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s concerns in recent years about the quality—or otherwise—of financial memoranda in the Parliament.”
“It has been contended that a lot of the finance will be known only on implementation, but given the Scottish Police Federation’s warning to the Criminal Justice Committee, which has been reported widely today, that policing in Scotland could be “unsustainable” without further funding, the lack of financial certainty seems particularly concerning, especially as the legislation loads yet more responsibility on to the police. Indeed, before stage 1, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities noted: “The financial memorandum does not reflect the costs and capacity needs of local authorities and their strategic community planning partners”.”
“I worry that, because there has understandably been so much focus on other bills, we as a Parliament might have inadvertently missed taking some of the opportunities that Scottish Women’s Aid has suggested, although I am pleased that the cabinet secretary takes its suggestions very seriously. I mentioned the costs of the measures earlier. At stage 1, I highlighted that Police Scotland had flagged that the financial memorandum was “silent on the anticipated financial impact on the police budget.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 29 January 2025; c 27.] I have not seen any significant additional information or reaction since then.”
“The provisions have been welcomed throughout the bill’s passage, but it is fair to say that more involvement has been required when it comes to things such as definitions, overlaps and, especially, costs, which I will return to in short order. Before I do that, I want to raise again my concern about the bill’s timescales. We have received a very helpful stage 3 briefing from Scottish Women’s Aid, which has campaigned for the provisions that are set out in part 2 for nearly 10 years. Crucially, the briefing seeks to draw members’ attention to concerning omissions from the bill.”
“Those measures include electronic signing and sending of documents in criminal cases; enabling virtual attendance at criminal courts; removing geographical limitations on criminal courts dealing with initial stages; permitting digital pictures to be used; raising the limit on fiscal fines; and dealing with time limits in solemn cases. The Scottish Conservatives are entirely comfortable that part 1 achieves the policy memorandum’s aims. Part 2 establishes a framework for a national system of domestic homicide and suicide reviews. The idea is to identify what lessons can be learned and potentially applied following a death in which domestic abuse is known or suspected in order to help prevent future abuse and deaths.”
“There are those who might fear that the bill has been somewhat rushed or that it has been given less attention than it merits, and that, as a result, the risk is that opportunities are missed—a theme that I will return to when I deal with part 2. According to the policy memorandum, part 1 contains measures that aim to improve “future resilience, effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal justice sector through modernisation, in particular through greater use of digital processes.” It does so principally, but not entirely, by making permanent some of the provisions in the temporary coronavirus legislation.”
“Although that is not the case with this bill, there is a risk that, if we do such things with bills, those who might support one part very strongly but perhaps oppose the other are left in a quite invidious position when we come to stage 3. I also remain of the view that the timescale for consideration of the bill is not ideal. As I flagged at stage 1, the Criminal Justice Committee and the Parliament as a whole have wrestled with the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, which passed fortnight ago. Last week, the Parliament passed the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and proceedings on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill are imminent. At stage 1, that is exactly what I warned about when I referenced an op-ed by my colleague Edward Mountain.”
“The Scottish Conservatives will vote for the Criminal Justice Modernisation and Abusive Domestic Behaviour Reviews (Scotland) Bill at decision time today. Before I deal with the specifics, I wish to reiterate some remarks that I made earlier in the process. My first point is about the fact that the two parts of the bill cover quite distinct aspects. Part 1 is focused on introducing, on a permanent basis, some of the criminal justice measures from the coronavirus legislation, while part 2 introduces a review mechanism for deaths in the context of abusive domestic behaviours. I remain unpersuaded of the merits of locking two very distinct mechanisms together in such a way. My fear, as I set out at stage 1, is that it can lead to different parts of the bill receiving different levels of scrutiny and interest.”
“I ask members to support my amendments, which provide a proportionate solution to a practical issue raised by justice agencies, and to reject other amendments in the group, which are unnecessary. I move amendment 4.”
“Therefore, the addition of the provisions would only add unnecessary confusion to an established process that is working in practice. The purpose of national jurisdiction, which has been working well for five years, is to ensure that custody hearings can be dealt with swiftly. I strengthened provision at stage 2 to address concerns over the ability of courts sitting with national jurisdiction to sentence in summary cases following an accused’s failure to appear after trial. National jurisdiction does not undermine the principle of local justice, which is an important part of our justice system. It enhances the existing framework for dealing with custody hearings, and it remains the case that national jurisdiction cannot extend to trial hearings.”
“That court would not necessarily be the local court that would have jurisdiction over any complaint or indictment—jurisdiction follows the locus of the offence, not the residence of the accused—so the information would not be available. As such, if the information sought by the sheriff concerned the accused’s previous offending or was about whether there was a particular problem in a localised area, the amendments would not be guaranteed to assist, as the local court where the offending was alleged to have occurred might not be in the sheriffdom where the accused lives. However, to come back to where I started, I note that all that information is already available to sheriffs through material that they have or existing avenues that they can access.”
“15:00 Sheriffs have not raised any issues regarding access to sufficient information in allowing national jurisdiction to operate effectively over the past five years in which it has been operating. If background or other reports are required by the sheriff in order to deal with a case, the sheriff will request those. Alternatively, if, for whatever reason, the sheriff feels that it is required, they can return the case to the local court for whatever further proceedings or consideration they deem necessary. I also have a concern about the references in the amendments to the sheriff requesting information from the court where the accused resides.”
“Those circumstances are where the court that heard the initial appearance is closed because of an emergency or special circumstances, such as adverse weather events like Storm Éowyn. I stress that the provision is restricted to proceedings on petition, so it will not allow hearings on indictment, such as first diets or trial hearings, to take place at a court with national jurisdiction. I do not support Katy Clark’s amendments 64 and 65, because they are unnecessary. The proposals in the bill on national jurisdiction have been consulted on and scrutinised by the Parliament, not just through the bill but through the passage of the temporary coronavirus legislation and subsequent extension regulations.”
“When making arrangements to have essential business dealt with by courts that remained open, justice partners were limited in how they could use the national jurisdiction provisions where the initial appearance on petition was not also heard under national jurisdiction. There was therefore a constraint on the ability of courts outwith red weather warning areas to assist with time-critical custody appearances at courts within red weather warning areas. I have therefore lodged amendments 4 to 8, which seek to address the issue by outlining a very narrow set of circumstances where an accused who is committed for further examination under local jurisdiction can have their next hearing take place under national jurisdiction.”
“It is at that hearing that the court can be asked to authorise the accused’s continued remand while prosecutors take the necessary time to prepare and serve an indictment on which the accused may ultimately face trial. Under existing provisions, if the accused’s first appearance was heard by the court in the sheriffdom in which the offence is alleged to have occurred, the accused must also appear at that court for their full committal hearing. Alternatively, if the accused’s first appearance was in a court sitting with national jurisdiction, the accused’s full committal can be heard either under national jurisdiction or by the local court. During storm Éowyn, several courts were closed because of red weather warnings.”
“The committee’s views were instrumental in further refinement through stage 2 amendments to make the end point of national jurisdiction clearer in the bill, underlining that trials cannot be heard under national jurisdiction. Following stage 2, justice partners raised a further issue around the capacity of the provisions to support the courts’ resilience when dealing with time-critical solemn custody appearances in emergency situations, as prompted by the experience of the courts during the disruption caused by storm Éowyn. When an accused person has first appeared on petition from custody and, after being committed for further examination, has been remanded in custody by the court, the rules require that the accused must again appear in court within eight days for what is commonly known as the full committal hearing.”
“The Presiding Officer: I invite Pauline McNeill to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 61. Pauline McNeill: I have nothing further to add, other than to say that I seek to withdraw amendment 61. Amendment 61, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendments 62 and 63 not moved. Amendment 3 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. Section 7—National jurisdiction for custody cases in sheriff courts and JP courts The Presiding Officer: Group 3 is on national jurisdiction. Amendment 4, in the name of the cabinet secretary, is grouped with amendments 5 to 8, 64 and 65. Angela Constance: I will start with my own amendments in this group. The Criminal Justice Committee has given careful scrutiny to the provisions of the bill concerning national custody jurisdiction.”
“At stage 2, however, I recognised that members of the Criminal Justice Committee expressed a desire for the bill to be clear about the impact of the provision on the use and retention of physical evidence. My amendment 3 responds to that. It will require the Lord Advocate to prepare and publish guidance setting out factors that prosecutors will take into account when deciding whether to use images in place of physical evidence and the approach of prosecutors to the physical evidence itself when such images are used. Amendment 3 has the support of Police Scotland, which manages a large quantity of physical productions. It will continue to work with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to agree operational approaches to the retention of physical evidence. I urge Parliament to support my amendment and to oppose those of Ms McNeill.”
“Further, it would have the potential to lead to significant unintended consequences in relation to the return of property to its owner. In particular, I am concerned about the potential for an accused to manipulate the system to perpetuate control over a victim’s property. In the context of domestic abuse and sexual offending, property can include intimate images and recordings where retention may be deeply distressing to victims.” Police Scotland has also written to the convener of the Criminal Justice Committee to highlight the impact that amendment 63 would have on operations and the significant issues that it would create for its estate and its capacity to store physical evidence.”
“That could include personal items that are of value in sentiment and cost, or items that a victim has to do without for more time than is necessary. Such distress could just be avoided. More harrowingly, victims’ remains would also need to be kept and not returned to families. In her role as head of prosecutions, the Lord Advocate is uniquely placed to comment on the implications of the proposal for her staff and the wider system. The Lord Advocate shared her views in recent correspondence with me, which she has allowed me to quote from. She wrote: “any amendment which required the retention of physical productions to the stage of appeal would be catastrophic in terms of resourcing impact across the system ...”
“The amendment also represents a regressive approach to retention that is not necessary and would be to the detriment of victims, their families and witnesses. For example, when a vehicle is involved in an accident and a photograph is taken of the damage for use at trial, amendment 63 would mean the vehicle would need to be retained. Under Ms McNeill’s proposals, hazardous substances that, at the moment, can be destroyed would also need to be retained, even when no objection has been made to the use of images. When evidence is the property of victims or witnesses, the items can be returned and a label or image can be used in their place during proceedings. If amendment 63 was agreed to, the victim’s property would not be returned until a considerable time after the trial had concluded.”
“Fundamentally different factors need to be taken into account in relation to, for example, marijuana plants in drug offences, personal items belonging to victims and witnesses, and alleged murder weapons. The bill will not alter the nature of those operational decisions. However, my major concern with amendment 63 is that, when images are used, physical evidence would need to be retained for much longer than if it had been used as the production itself. It is already common practice for some evidence to be returned or destroyed prior to the conclusion of a trial, and if amendment 63 was agreed to, that could no longer happen, which would be unworkable and expensive for justice partners, who would have to store items for longer.”
“If the party leading the evidence is concerned that the other party could unilaterally require a physical item to be produced without any court consideration, they might simply choose not to use images in lieu of productions to begin with. The use of physical productions would therefore remain the default. Amendments 61 and 62 would therefore defeat the purpose of the bill, which is to support the greater use of digital productions. The bill already ensures that parties can request for physical productions to be used, and such productions will have to be produced when the court issues a direction. Ms McNeill’s amendment 63 is similar to amendments that were lodged at stage 2, and I will reiterate the points that I made then. Prosecutors have always been able to determine which productions need to be retained and for how long.”
“Amendment 61 seeks to replace that process with an oversimplified mechanism that would give parties an unqualified right to have items produced when they request it, with no role for the court in deciding whether that was necessary to avoid prejudicing the fairness of the proceedings. Amendment 62 would mean that the court would be required to grant every request for physical evidence to be produced at any point before or during the trial, thereby removing any judicial discretion to consider what is fair. Compelling the court to grant every request in every circumstance would, ultimately, favour the use of physical productions instead of images.”
“However, not only would such opportunities for modernisation be lost if Ms McNeill’s amendments were agreed to, but their effect would represent a step backwards in how evidence is retained—although I note Ms McNeill’s remarks about her intentions, and I acknowledge that it is important that each and every matter is discussed and debated to members’ satisfaction. On the specifics, Ms McNeill’s amendment 61 would undo stage 2 amendments that were unanimously agreed to by the committee and which set out the process and timescale by which parties can apply to the court for a direction providing that an image cannot be used in place of physical evidence. That process gives the court the power to determine whether using the image in lieu of physical evidence would prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.”
“I assure Audrey Nicoll and Police Scotland that I do not intend to move amendment 63, but we should be absolutely clear, before we pass the bill, about the important difference between producing an item and storing it, and that there will be no loss to the interests of justice as a result of passing the bill. I move amendment 61. The Presiding Officer: I call the cabinet secretary to speak to amendment 3 and the other amendments in the group. Angela Constance: The bill aims to increase the use of modern technology in our courts through a number of measures, including permitting the use of images in lieu of physical productions. As we have heard, such practices are already happening.”
“However, given that it has a significant role in the management of productions once they have been taken possession of, I simply want to flag the significant burden that her amendment would place on Police Scotland. Pauline McNeill: The provision in question relates to the retention of evidence. Again, my motivation was to maintain the status quo. I am not trying to put any more responsibility or burden on the police to retain any evidence that they do not already retain. Given that we are not practitioners, we must examine the matter and ensure that there will be no loss to the justice process as a result of destroying or not storing evidence. In some cases, the justice process is long.”