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 7 of 11.
“Therefore, there are clearly cases in which it would be beneficial for the jury to actually see the item and it is possible to produce the item. It would make sense to have some sort of tick-box exercise in advance of the trial that would serve as a prompt to ensure that, if the physical item is required, it can be produced. I do not intend to press my amendment, but I wanted to ensure that we properly examined the matter. Audrey Nicoll: I hear what the member is saying; I simply want to point out the significant implications that the proposed provision would have for Police Scotland. The member might recall that Police Scotland communicated that to the committee some time ago.”
“14:45 At stage 2, the cabinet secretary said that “there is an existing common-law right for the defence to examine any physical item whose condition is critical to the case against the accused, even when it will not be produced at trial.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 11 June 2025; c 26.] I found that reassuring, but I thought that, in the interests of justice, we should tease out whether we have got that right. In the past, I have used the example of a case in which a replica gun was produced in evidence. I have not witnessed this myself, but, as those who have seen one will understand, it would be really important that the jury was able to see that a replica gun looks like a real gun, because that is obviously a criminal matter.”
“Amendments 61 and 62 seek to ensure that either party can ask for the physical evidence to be produced. What the issue boils down to is that I do not want there to be a time bar, because we already operate on the principle that the item will be produced in court. There is a minor issue, which is that it is possible that the court could say no. You might think, “Why would the judge ever say no, you can’t have the item in court”? I also had the chance to talk to the Law Society, members of the Faculty of Advocates and practitioners. They seem pretty satisfied; I suppose that they are just looking for an assurance that the Government will continue to discuss with them the guidance and how it will operate in practice.”
“I totally support the principle behind digital productions because, in many cases, there is no requirement to have a physical item in court. A lot of time, money and space could be saved, so I am in favour of digital productions. However, before we close on the issue, I want to ensure that we retain the status quo to some degree. Under the status quo, there are cases—I do not know how many—in which producing the physical item in court for the jury to see could be really important. The way that the bill is structured does not prevent that. Parties would be required to say in advance that they wanted the item to be produced in court. If they did not do that within the time limit, they could go to the court and ask the judge whether the item could be submitted to the court.”
“Pauline McNeill: Amendment 61 says: “Where an image of physical evidence is to be treated in criminal proceedings as if it were the physical evidence itself, either party in the proceedings may request that the physical item be produced in court.” It also says: “Where a request is made under subsection (1ZA) before or during the trial, the physical item must be produced in court.” Amendment 62 says: “Notwithstanding any direction made under this section, where either party in the proceedings requests for the physical evidence to be produced in court, the request must be granted.” First, I will say what I am trying to achieve. At stages 1 and 2, there was quite a bit of debate about digital productions.”
“I am reassured that the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has said that the technology is a work in progress, but we have to ensure as a Parliament that we reach a point at which it is satisfactory. It is capable of being so, but we need to ensure that it works regularly on that basis. I intend to move amendment 59, but I will withdraw amendment 58, and I will not move amendment 60. Amendment 58, by agreement, withdrawn. Amendment 59 moved—[Pauline McNeill]—and agreed to. Amendment 2 moved—[Angela Constance]— and agreed to. Amendment 60 not moved. After section 2 Amendment 1 moved—[Liam Kerr]—and agreed to. Section 4—Digital productions The Presiding Officer: Group 2 is on digital productions. Amendment 61, in the name of Pauline McNeill, is grouped with amendments 62, 63 and 3.”
“The default will be physical attendance, but we need flexibility to allow vulnerable witnesses and people who are ill to attend the court virtually, and we know that that process works. All that I am ensuring is that we as legislators—we are not practitioners—close every possible gap. The cabinet secretary was right to say that it is quite hard to consider who would test whether a connection was good enough. However, as I have said many times, I have sat through a custody court session in which the sheriff literally asked me to come to chambers and told me, “Look, this is what I have got to put up with. It is just an appalling quality.” That is where I am coming from.”
“The cabinet secretary’s concerns about amendments 58 and 60 are well founded; thus, if they are pressed, I will not vote for them. Pauline McNeill: I reassure the cabinet secretary and Liam Kerr that I do not intend to press amendment 58 or move amendment 60. I just felt that we needed to flush out some of the issues. The Government and Liam Kerr have raised some of those issues, which is really helpful. The Government’s amendment 2 will achieve what I was trying to achieve, so I will be delighted to support it. I am also pleased that the Government will support amendment 59, which states that the Lord President must set out the rationale for using the power. I welcome what the cabinet secretary said earlier about its use, because that is the important part to debate.”
“The amendment requires that, “as soon as reasonably practicable” after the review has been completed, Scottish ministers must prepare a report on the review, publish it and lay a copy before the Scottish Parliament. The amendment is a positive step that will assist all stakeholders, so I will be pleased to move it. As for the other amendments in the group, I find myself persuaded by Pauline McNeill’s amendment 59 and the cabinet secretary’s amendment 2. Both are useful, and the Scottish Conservatives will vote for them. However, I am unpersuaded by Pauline McNeill’s amendments 58 and 60. I have significant concerns, which I shall describe later, about the burden—particularly the financial burden—that we as a Parliament are placing on what is an already stretched justice system.”
“If agreed to, amendment 1 would place a requirement on the Scottish ministers to undertake a review of the way in which the virtual attendance provisions in new sections 303G to 303M of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as inserted by section 2 of the bill, operate over the two years after section 2 comes into force. When undertaking that review, Scottish ministers will be required to consult stakeholders such as the chief constable, the Law Society of Scotland—I remind members that I am a current member of the society and a practising solicitor— and the Faculty of Advocates. That is to say that the views of those who will use the provision the most will be considered and included as part of the review.”
“At stage 2, I lodged an amendment that would have required the Scottish Government to publish a report on the use of virtual attendance in court proceedings. Although the provisions for virtual attendance have been in place for years, there is a dearth of data about their operation. Publishing such a report could allow stakeholders to better understand the extent to which virtual attendance is delivering greater efficiency and effectiveness. At stage 2, I conceded during the debate that the amendment that I had lodged was not quite right as drafted, so I did not press it. Amendment 1 is the new and improved request for such a report. I put it on record early that I am grateful to the Government for working with me on what has now become a handout amendment.”
“[Interruption.] For the record, I have always said that it provides short-term relief. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Less commentary, please, Mr Kerr. Angela Constance: The Prisoners (Early Release) (Scotland) Act 2025, which is the primary legislation that was passed last year, reduces the population by around 5 per cent from what it would otherwise be. On the numbers, I anticipate that, in the first three tranches, around 470 risk-assessed prisoners will be released, and thereafter, around 100 prisoners will be released each month, at the end of January, February, March and”
“Liam Kerr: They are over budget. Angela Constance: There is also the new bail test, which has come into operation this year. Again, the Conservatives opposed the expansion of home detention curfew. The Conservatives seem to be of the view that doing nothing is an option. Well, doing nothing is not an option right now, nor will it be in the future. It would be a welcome change if we could hear from the Conservatives what they are for, as opposed to what they are against, and whether they will stand with our Prison Service and our communities right now and do what is required to ensure that, when people leave prison, they return to their communities rehabilitated and in a fit state to lead a different life. Liam Kerr should not confuse my words, because I have never said that early release is a permanent fix.”
“Angela Constance: Of course, it is often the Conservatives, with their rhetoric, who seem determined to set people up to fail. Let me assure Mr Kerr and the Parliament that there is a plan of continued action—Mr Kerr can call that a strategic plan if he wishes. I remind him that I have increased investment to increase capacity in community justice services, which is often opposed by the soft-touch rhetoric of the Conservatives. I have made efforts and will continue to make efforts to maximise the prison estate. Conservatives, among other members, voted against the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Act 2024, which removed children from the estate, freeing up more spaces for adults. There are the new builds for HMP Highland and HMP Glasgow, but all that the Conservatives can do is complain about the cost of those.”
“The population is now higher than it was before, and this Government’s projections show that our prisons will be dangerously over capacity, holding more than 8,500 prisoners by 2026. How many prisoners will get out of jail and be back on Scotland’s streets under the latest scheme? What strategic planning and genuine actions have been put in place since the previous opening of the gates that will mean that we will not be in this situation in early 2026? Evidence shows that many of those who are released early are not ready for it and rapidly find themselves back in the justice system. What has the cabinet secretary done since the previous early release scheme to ensure that we are not setting people up to fail and putting the public at risk while doing so?”
“I say to the cabinet secretary that this Parliament recognises that our prisons are critically overcrowded, and we are well aware that it is this Government’s failures both to get on top of crime rates and to build new capacity on time and on budget that are to blame. Twice before, I have stood right here and flagged that, without any strategic planning, any concrete solutions to the overcrowding or any meaningful work with third sector partners, emergency release is little more than a knee-jerk, panicked response to a situation that is entirely of this Government’s making. I said that it potentially endangers the Scottish public and it would not work. The cabinet secretary did not agree, saying that early release “will bring about a sustained reduction in the prison population”.”
“I meet the Fire Brigades Union’s Scottish officials to hear directly about current issues. The SFRS chief officer and his strategic leadership team have the expertise that is needed to deliver fire and rescue services that keep our communities safe. Therefore, we should listen carefully to the evidence that the SFRS provides for change. 17:03”
“I understand from speaking to the fire service that one major concern is that the first appliance might arrive but it might not be possible for the crew to act because of the lack of a second or third appliance. Does the minister agree with me that, as well as response times, the reduction in the number of appliances is a major concern? Siobhian Brown: That is why the SFRS is having the service delivery review that looks at all such issues. Response times are a really important factor. Many years ago, firefighters would get in their fire engine without putting on personal protective equipment. There is a time delay due to those health and safety issues, which are very important. I work closely with the SFRS. I regularly meet the board, the chair and the chief officer.”
“The issue is complex, because dynamic factors impact and influence response times. They vary across wide- ranging and diverse geographical areas. Factors include rising traffic levels, varying degrees of congestion, unexpected roadworks, road closures and diversions and an increase in the use of traffic-calming measures over the years, but foremost is firefighters’ safety and wellbeing. The SFRS has strict health and safety policies to protect its staff. For example, firefighters must ensure that they follow correct safety procedures when mobilising for an incident, which can impact response time. Katy Clark: As the minister knows, response times are not the only issue.”
“Any changes that are agreed will be decided by the SFRS board in December and then carefully rolled out over a five-year period, with any impacts fully evaluated on an on-going basis. I have set out that the risks to people have changed over time, so there are good reasons why the SFRS should look at the footprint of fire stations, types of appliances and crewing patterns. Keeping everything the same for years is not an efficient or effective way to manage the service. I apologise for not being able to get to response times in my opening speech, because I ran out of time. However, it is important to recognise that response times alone do not provide a meaningful measure in determining an effective emergency response. We are aware that increasing response times are a trend that is being witnessed at fire and rescue services across the UK.”
“Sarah Boyack: Will the minister take an intervention? Siobhian Brown: I am not taking any interventions at the moment, because I have a lot to get through. The SFRS would not propose any option for change that could place communities at risk. That is important. The SFRS chief officer and his strategic leadership team have the expertise that is needed to deliver fire and rescue services that keep our communities safe. Therefore, decisions on how to keep communities safe should primarily be a matter for the service, rather than politicians deciding how the service should be delivered. It is appropriate that we await the independent analysis of the public consultation and learn how the SFRS proposes to progress with the options for change.”
“The statistics show that the SFRS has been successful in that regard, with a 20 per cent reduction in house fires over the past 10 years, along with a 33 per cent reduction in non-fatal fire casualties between 2009-10 and 2023-24, and a 32 per cent reduction in fatal fire casualties in the same period. I have listened carefully to everybody today, and I have heard the concerns that members have expressed on behalf of their constituencies and communities. I know that this is a really emotive issue. However, I have to point out that I have engaged extensively with the SFRS, which has assured me that any changes that were proposed as part of the service delivery review have been assessed through detailed simulation modelling. The SFRS would not propose any option for change— Liam Kerr: Will the minister take an intervention?”
“They will try to ensure that the Parliament passes a sanitised, safe and sterile amended motion that absolves the Government of any responsibility and ensures that, in the face of all the challenges faced by our extraordinary and brave fire service, nothing will change. That betrayal of our brave firefighters is the most depressing thing of all. 16:58 Siobhian Brown: There is no doubt that people are rightly very passionate about our Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. When we think about a fire service, we tend to think about it dealing with fires and other emergencies, but it also carries out vital fire safety and preventative work, which prevents fires from happening in the first place.”
“It completely defangs the proposition and substitutes warm words while kicking things into the long grass and slopy-shouldering responsibility—it contracts it out, as Richard Leonard rightly put it. I have one more thing to say, Presiding Officer. For most of the debate, there were a mere seven MSPs from the SNP back benches in the chamber. Over the next 10 minutes or so, SNP MSPs, most of whom have not been in the chamber this afternoon to listen to the contributions and come to their own view, will start to file into the chamber so that they can vote for the Government amendment, as they have been told to do.”
“Stuart McMillan blamed house builders for building houses and, of course, the Tories for delivering record block grants for years. Incredibly, Jamie Hepburn spoke for four minutes but said absolutely nothing of any value. Rachael Hamilton: He is out of practice. Liam Kerr: Indeed, he is out of practice. What is most concerning is that neither the SNP amendment nor any SNP speaker has proposed any realistic solutions to the issues that are flagged in the Labour motion and the Conservative amendment. The Labour motion sets out the myriad challenges that beset the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service after 18 years of SNP Government. The Conservative amendment highlights further challenges and proposes solutions. However, as Douglas Ross told us, the SNP amendment deletes all that.”
“Despite Balmossie being in the finance secretary’s backyard, I note with interest that Shona Robison has not bothered to show up to the debate today. Things only became more depressing when I saw the Government amendment, which, as Monica Lennon rightly highlighted, deletes all references to those harsh facts from the original motion. Instead, Scotland’s Government denies any responsibility and fails to set out any concrete actions or measures that it might be taking to sort the situation. In fact, we heard the minister blithely say that the reduction in numbers is about duplication, while she completely ignored the response times issue and, indeed, failed to respond appropriately to Rhoda Grant’s timely intervention.”
“Sharon Dowey also talked about the long-term underfunding by the Scottish Government, with the loss of around 1,250 firefighter jobs across Scotland since 2013. Maggie Chapman rightly highlighted the impact of that, with pumps being unavailable as a result of there being too few firefighters to crew them. We heard powerful comments from Katy Clark about call handling, with response times increasing—and potentially increasing even further. We also heard from Liam McArthur about the plans to close 13 stations. Those stations include Balmossie, as we have just heard from Mercedes Villalba. That proposed closure totally ignores the large number of incidents that Balmossie’s crew attended in Dundee and Angus.”
“Given the wording of the Labour motion, which we will support and which sets out many of the serious problems that beset Scotland’s fire and rescue service after 18 years of SNP Government, this was always going to be a pretty depressing debate. So it has proven, with speaker after speaker highlighting the serious challenges that the service faces. Douglas Ross highlighted the £800 million backlog facing the service, of which £500 million is required to bring stations up to modern standards. I say “modern standards”, but I note Sharon Dowey’s amendment, which says that we are asking those heroes—for that is what they are—to work in conditions that include 18 stations that lack running water.”
“I move amendment S6M-19124.2, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert: “recognises that, whilst house fires have reduced by over 20% since 2013, due to the climate emergency, incidents and risk of flooding and wildfires have significantly increased; further recognises that the recent Scottish Fire and Rescue Service’s (SFRS) Service Delivery Review aims to ensure that the service can respond to these changing risks and that the right firefighters and appliances are in the right place at the right time; notes that no decisions will be taken until an independent analysis of the public consultation has been carried out and that any changes would be implemented over a five-year period; agrees that all public services need to provide efficient and effective services that deliver value for the public purse, and encourages the Scottish Government to continue to work alongside the SFRS and the Fire Brigades Union to ensure that Scotland has safer communities.” 16:13”
“Despite financial pressures in recent years— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, you need to bring your remarks to a close. Siobhian Brown: I conclude by saying something about response times—that is really important because, if anything about that is misconstrued, it can cause public fear. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has been clear that it advises against using response times as a meaningful metric for performance and that the focus should be on outcomes. There are complex and dynamic factors that impact on those times. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Minister, you need to conclude and move your amendment. Siobhian Brown: Thank you, Presiding Officer. I will try to update Parliament more in my closing speech.”
“Will the minister give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister will be concluding shortly. Siobhian Brown: I must make some progress. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service plans to redeploy resources that are freed up by making changes to front-line delivery to provide greater resource to its prevention and protection function, and to boost training provision to ensure that firefighters remain fully ready and competent to keep us all safe from the changing risks that we face. The SFRS also aims to ensure that investment is going to the fire stations that need it most—for example, to tackle reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete roofs and to enhance the facilities for firefighters, including modern decontamination facilities. Therefore, I do not accept the accusation that the service delivery review is a cuts exercise.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the agriculture minister has had with the justice secretary regarding support for farmers in relation to rural crime. (S6O-04998)”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason Scotland will see the slowest GVA growth of the devolved nations over the next three years, according to the EY “UK Regional Economic Forecast 2025”. (S6O-04962)”
“may lead to unintended consequences in the fairness of criminal trials.” The bill is called a victims and witnesses bill. It does some good things, but it fails to do what it could have done, and it will make changes that may well fail and could even be counterproductive. It is a victims bill in name only and it represents a massive missed opportunity to truly put victims at the heart of justice. The bill that we have in front of us is neither for victims nor for witnesses, and that is why the Conservatives will vote against it. 15:40”
“If we are going to change a system that has worked for more than 200 years, we need a strong basis to found the change on, but the Government does not have that. Three of the four key features of our criminal trial system will be altered, largely without evidence, largely without precedent and against expert advice. We have all received the warnings that the rebuilt system could be counterproductive. It could reduce conviction rates and lead to more miscarriages of justice, and outcomes for victims could be even worse. The Law Society has been clear. It stated: “We are concerned that the model proposed ... has never been proved effective in any other comparable jurisdiction ... The lack of evidence to support the proposals ...”
“The cabinet secretary candidly admitted that the Government originally proposed juryless rape trials, which was abandoned only after overwhelming expert opposition, threats of legal boycotts and warnings that it would lead to miscarriages of justice. As the cabinet secretary noted, the Conservative manifesto committed to abolishing the not proven verdict. That could have been done simply and effectively. Instead, however, the Government has decided to go much further, with changes that strike at the heart of the Scottish criminal justice system. As well as changing the verdicts in the context of the Lord Advocate’s corroboration changes to a system that has consistently featured since at least the 1600s, the Government has also changed the size of the jury majority, following a back-and-forth about its size.”
“Children First has said that it could “distract from efforts to make the clear practical changes that victims and witnesses consistently tell us would make things better”. The bill also establishes a victims commissioner—an idea that England adopted more than 20 years ago. However, the commissioner will have no power to intervene in individual cases. They cannot investigate grooming gangs or address the crisis in legal aid or, indeed, the court backlog. That is why it is unsurprising that Scottish Women’s Aid has said: “We maintain our opposition to the creation of this Commissioner”. It will add a layer of bureaucracy, and the funds could be better utilised in improving services and advice to victims. I come to the changes to the trial system.”
“Ellie Wilson told the Criminal Justice Committee: “Rape is one of the most serious crimes in Scots law; such cases are only ever heard in the High Court. That solemnity is sacred, and it is important that we maintain it.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 17 January 2024; c 4.] The sexual offences court will cost millions of pounds that could instead have been invested in trauma-informed practice in our existing courts and in tackling the backlog, which leaves rape victims waiting for up to three years for justice. The Law Society of Scotland—of which, I remind the Parliament, I am a member—warns that it will increase complexity, noting that “specialist divisions” could achieve the same thing.”
“It could have extended the parole period from two years to three, giving victims both peace of mind and respite from the revolving door of parole hearings, but it does not. It could have introduced a genuine Suzanne’s law—no body, no release—but it does not. Instead, the headline reforms are deeply flawed. The so-called specialist sexual offences court has been described as little more than a sign on a door. Simon Di Rollo KC has called it “window dressing”. It will use the same judges in the same buildings with the same overstretched staff, and it could potentially add to the existing backlog. Rape survivors have deep concerns about what their cases not being heard in the High Court will mean.”
“putting victims right at the very heart of everything.” She is absolutely right: it should—but it does not. To be fair, there are some welcome measures. Thanks to Russell Findlay, victims will have greater access to notifications about the outcomes of plea deals, and Sharon Dowey and Pam Gosal have strengthened victims’ protections through non-harassment orders. The bill also includes improved rights to information for victims of crime and better recognition of child victims and witnesses. Those are steps in the right direction. However, the bill misses so many chances to do so much more. It could have launched an inquiry into grooming gangs in Scotland to uncover the scale of the problem and prevent further victims of this vile crime, but it does not.”
“The bill has had a tortuous passage. The cabinet secretary said that it has been a marathon, not a sprint, and that is certainly true. It was originally going to be called the “Criminal Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill”. It was introduced in April 2023, but it did not reach stage 1 until a year later. Since then, it has been through repeated rounds of evidence taking, fundamental amendments, extensive scrutiny at stages 2 and 3, and the introduction of novel and unscrutinised amendments at stage 3. The Government even amended its own draft only to realise its error and reverse course again. The bill’s name was changed to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. On Sunday, the cabinet secretary said: “This Bill should modernise our criminal justice system in the most radical ways ...”
“On the specifics of that scheme, extensive planning and preparation for its implementation involved third sector and statutory organisations. Good planning for any release, whether in an emergency or otherwise, is the backbone of reducing the return rate. Preparation is needed for release, whether that is under standard or different arrangements. I also highlight the governor’s veto and statutory exclusions from that scheme. Firefighters (Role Expansion) 7.”
“In summer last year and earlier this year, in an attempt to ease overcrowding and without consideration of their individual rehabilitation journeys, the Government released 789 prisoners early from their short sentences. One in 10 of the prisoners in the first tranche was behind bars again within weeks. That begs the question: what analysis of each prisoner’s stage of rehabilitation did the Government do before those releases, to ensure that the rehabilitation was not being terminated early? Angela Constance: Liam Kerr is referring to early emergency release. That demonstrated a return-to-custody rate of 12 to 13 per cent, which is way lower than the general reconviction rate for those who are released from short-term custodial sentences. It is imperative to address issues with short-term sentences in the longer run.”
“However, I have to say that none of the victims whom I have met during the past four years has ever heard of it or read it. It has clearly not been promoted, and it has limited scope in terms of the interactions that people might have with the justice system. I hope that the charter goes further than the code. Indeed, a similar charter exists in England and Wales, with which victims are presented. Overall, the whole package should create a meaningful piece of work for the commissioner to do on day 1 of his or her job, should that role be created. I will leave it there. I move amendment 4.”
“It will be written in friendly language, and it is something that everyone will be able to pick up to allow them to understand the journey that they are about to go on through the justice process. I am genuinely pleased that Victim Support Scotland supports the creation of the charter. In its briefing to members of the Scottish Parliament, it said: “VSS supports the preparation and publication of a Victims’ Charter as part of the role of the Victims and Witnesses Commissioner”. It notes that that is complementary to the existence of the current victims code and said that it welcomes the increased awareness that those rights, when coupled with the powers of the commissioner, will offer to victims. The “Victims’ Code for Scotland”, which Mr Kerr rightly points to, is a good document.”
“For example, I know that the Government has just carried out a consultation on parole reform. That might result in changes to guidance or to Scottish statutory instruments. Perhaps those changes will need to be reflected in future iterations of the code. Equally, the third sector is evolving, so the nature of the advice that is available and given to people might change over time. I suspect that, as the years go on, the charter will require updating rather than complete renewal, and therefore the workload will be less as time goes on. To get to the crux of Mr Kerr’s point, as has been expressed, we do not want a commissioner for a commissioner’s sake—we have had long debates in Parliament about that issue. We want a commissioner who has something meaningful and tangible to offer to victims. The code is tangible.”
“Jamie Greene: I thank Mr Kerr for his comments and for his—as always—constructive and helpful feedback, which he has shared throughout our negotiations on the bill. The first draft and iteration of the charter will require work and time to be spent on it, and, inevitably, that will come at a cost. That will be part of the costs that are associated with the running of the office of the commissioner. I appreciate that there are a range of views on that. The annual review is, indeed, a review—it will not be a complete reproduction of the charter. I do not expect it to be completely rewritten each year. However, during a political year there might be legislative changes, changes to guidance that have been issued as a result of secondary legislation or other changes that the Government expects to make.”
“The broad thrust of Jamie Greene’s amendments is reasonable and I am inclined to support them, although I note that an awful lot of what is in the proposed victims charter seems to replicate what is in the “Victims’ Code for Scotland”. Given the requirement on the commissioner to carry out an annual review of the charter and the concerns that we have heard from Scottish Women’s Aid about that potentially taking the commissioner’s resources away from other priorities—including the promotion that Mr Greene has just mentioned—how much time and money does he think will be spent on producing and reviewing the charter every year, as opposed to the other work that the commissioner will be doing?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what the justification was at the time for the purchase of Glen Prosen by Forestry and Land Scotland in November 2022, with a reported cost to the public of £17.6 million. (S6O-04899)”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”