Rachael Hamilton
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite Jenny Gilruth, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, declaring for me my entry in the register of members’ interests after her statement on non-domestic rates on Tuesday, I failed to do so myself.”
“I am very concerned about this bill. First, the UK Parliament expedited the bill—it was fast-tracked—yet it confers huge powers on UK Government ministers not only to intervene in a business and take operational control, but to make a business’s failure to comply a criminal offence. This is a serious piece of legislation.”
“Time is running out, and some of Scotland’s businesses are being worn to the bone by rising rates. High streets are also being hollowed out. Will the Scottish Government consider a pause on the collection of non-domestic rates while it sorts out the glitch in the software system? What is the definition of “rapid”?”
“Our commitment to the industry is clear through ministers’ ongoing involvement in the UK steel council, as well as our role in and input to the development and publication of the recent UK steel strategy. This has always been—and will continue to be— a Government that takes action.”
“Members will have seen in UK minister Chris McDonald’s recent written statement that the UK Government “is strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.” I suggest that thi…”
“I hope that the member understands that we have sought to act in good faith by keeping the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee informed and by ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to consider, at the very least, the matter of legislative consent through the debate that we are having this afternoon.”
The complete record
Every one of 429 lines we hold for Rachael Hamilton, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“Last month, the Bank of Scotland announced that it would close its branch in Kelso. That is the ninth closure in the Borders since 2022. I agree with Richard Lochhead that we need to review the access to cash criteria, and the Scottish Conservatives will be pushing the United Kingdom Government to do that. However, does the minister think that we should now organise a round-table meeting with the high street banks, LINK and Cash Access UK so that we can bring this problem to the Scottish Parliament? Richard Lochhead: Such events have taken place in the past; I have attended them and I am happy for that to continue at some point in the near future. Perhaps the new Government and the new cohort of MSPs will wish to take that forward. It is important that Scotland’s voice is heard.”
“I am keen to strengthen good-practice principles around engagement and community benefits, so that communities can have more say and so that more communities can benefit from the revenues that come from energy projects. I listen to the views of communities all the time. In the energy consents unit, all statutory consultees can raise their opinions, and anyone can raise any opinions on any development. I go back to my initial point, which is that it is incumbent on developers to engage with communities early and meaningfully. That is the best way for them to introduce plans for consent that are reflective of the views of communities.”
“Gillian Martin attended the first quarter of the rural Scotland convention on major energy infrastructure on Tuesday, so she will know that communities are concerned that the SNP is not listening to their concerns about the energy industrialisation of communities across Scotland. Can the Government tell us how community participation will be strengthened while it simultaneously removes the automatic trigger for a local public inquiry? Gillian Martin: There has been no removal of a public inquiry option; that has not been relayed by the Government at all. I have outlined the new powers that have been given to the Government in order to strengthen community engagement.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how much it has allocated in its draft budget 2026-27 to support women in enterprise, including in the Scottish Borders. (S6O-05557)”
“[Inaudible.]—budget 2026- 27— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Hamilton, could you repeat your question? We missed the first few words. Budget 2026-27 (Women in Enterprise) 3.”
“I ensured that it was made clear that independent prosecutors had been involved in the case and also that there were legal rules that restricted commentary. That is the whole purpose of sending it. The fact that these questions are being asked here today, following the release of the minute, which resulted from a freedom of information request, is why the timing has come about—in terms of the forthcoming election. That is not of my making; it is the process that has been involved in the freedom of information request—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us not shout. The Lord Advocate: It is the process that has been involved in the freedom of information request and the minute becoming available. That is how we are here now in terms of timing. The timing is not one that I have chosen. If that is the criticism, it is not down to me.”
“The Lord Advocate says that sharing details with the First Minister is normal. Does she, however, accept that now that the correspondence has been shared with the wider public just weeks before election, that risks undermining the confidence in the impartiality of the prosecution service? The Lord Advocate: I do not accept that, and I think that it is worth while looking back on how this all developed. The minute was sent— [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us be courteous. Let us hear one another in a courteous, respectful manner. The Lord Advocate: The minute was sent because of the significant development of the details of the indictment entering the public domain. I sent the minute to ensure that we had a transparent process from which we could see that I had communicated the significant development to the First Minister.”
“To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government will provide an update on the service delivery review of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. (S6F-04675)”
“It is for those reasons that I call, again, for parliamentary time to be provided for ministers to make that statement, giving Parliament the clarity that it deserves and the transparency that the public need and deserve. The Presiding Officer: I call the Minister for Parliamentary Business to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau. 17:17”
“We have already seen enormous legal bills accumulate: £363,000 spent on defending the botched Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill case; £250,000 spent on unsuccessfully testing independence powers at the Supreme Court; £766,000 spent on resisting cases brought by brave campaigners For Women Scotland; £630,773 spent on defending the misconduct investigation into Alex Salmond; and, so far, another £73,024—and counting—spent on attempting to keep the Salmond and Sturgeon files under wraps. The public interest is clear. Ministers must now provide Parliament with the date for publication, confirm that protections will remain in place and explain how further delay and expense will be avoided.”
“Continued delay risks giving the impression that process is being used as an excuse rather than its being a necessity, in particular as we approach an election. Taxpayers, whose money has been wasted on this cynical action, deserve full transparency. We are seeing continued concerns about Scottish National Party secrecy and cover- up, and the public are rightly asking how much more public money will be spent before the matter is finally concluded. The SNP is no stranger to frivolous litigious endeavours.”
“Court orders protecting individuals must be respected and safeguards against so-called jigsaw identification are essential. However, ministers have said that work to resolve the issue is being carried out at pace. If that is the case, it is simply stating the obvious to say that the Government must know how far through the process it is—or does it mean at a snail’s pace? There are only a finite number of documents involved. If we are to take what the Government says at face value, work will already have been completed on many of them. It is therefore incumbent on ministers to tell Parliament when publication of the Salmond and Sturgeon files will happen. There is absolutely no acceptable reason why a firm date cannot now be provided immediately.”
“Presiding Officer, I did not give you prior notice of my intent to speak. In relation to the business programme, I ask for parliamentary time to be scheduled for a Government statement on the continued delay in the release of material connected with the Salmond and Sturgeon inquiry. Parliament has repeatedly sought clarity from ministers on when that information will be published, yet requests for both a statement and a firm timetable have been refused. Meanwhile, the Scottish Information Commissioner has taken enforcement action after deadlines were missed, and the matter now sits in the courts. This is not some small procedural issue—it is about transparency and accountability to the Parliament and to the public. Let me be clear that no one is suggesting that the identities of alleged victims and complainers should be put at risk.”
“Given that the River Tweed is an iconic salmon river that provides around £24 million to the economy and 500 jobs, what action is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that sewage treatment works and overflows along the Tweed are not damaging water quality or undermining salmon recovery? Mairi Gougeon: I can get back to Rachael Hamilton on those particular points if she follows up on them with me in writing. We should take all action to mitigate any damage to the Tweed, and I am happy to look into the issue in more detail. Avian Influenza (Support for Poultry Producers) 2.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what work it is doing to improve access to thrombectomy services across the Scottish Borders. (S6O-05469)”
“It is shameful because hundreds of businesses will close. We need to see action from this Government. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on saving Scottish hospitality. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business. Daniel Johnson: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I acknowledge the error that I made with the figures—I was quoting a previous threshold. I wanted to acknowledge that at the earliest opportunity. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Johnson. That is not a point of order, but the matter will be noted on the record. Council Tax”
“It has been stuck in the cupboard and it has gone mouldy. The non-domestic rates system for retail, hospitality and leisure is unfair. Fergus Ewing says, “Please publish how much the tax take is going to be.” How sensible would that be? I say to Fergus Ewing, “Come and join us—you, too, are the party of common sense.” We want to see urgent action on the current methodology of revaluation. It is as clear as day that that has been in the hands of the minister, because the Government sets the framework. Ultimately, we want to see the SNP postpone the revaluation, as the Northern Ireland Assembly has done. We need action now. Labour, Lib Dems and Fergus Ewing agree that a Scottish statutory instrument could be laid to delay the revaluation. Hiding behind the independent function of the assessors is shameful.”
“I wonder whether she has spoken to that business. In Shona Robison’s constituency, the rateable value of the Barrelman in Dundee was previously £38,200, but the new RV is £68,700. Has the cabinet secretary spoken to that business to see how that will impact its bottom line and whether job losses are possible? We know that doing business in Scotland is more costly overall than it is in the rest of the UK. The cost of doing business in Scotland is the highest on record, and the tax burden is higher than the UK average. Let that sink in as we debate the new revaluations. Let us assess the operating environment in Scotland—or can we, given that the SNP dropped the tourism minister role? As Willie Rennie pointed out, the First Minister said that he wanted to reset the relationship with business. The SNP’s new deal for business is stale.”
“The minister needs to look at the stats, because he clearly does not understand them. Let us hear what the industry thinks. Leon Thompson of UKHospitality said: “Without action, we will only see business closures accelerate, more jobs lost”— Ivan McKee: Will Rachael Hamilton take an intervention? Rachael Hamilton: No thanks. Maybe in a bit. Mr Thompson continued: “Scottish communities” will “continue to see the loss of much-loved local venues.” Stephen Montgomery, director of Scottish Hospitality Groups, said: “Hospitality is the absolute backbone of Scotland’s communities and high streets, but it cannot survive another tidal wave of unaffordable rates hikes.” Let us look at Clare Adamson’s constituency. The rateable value of the Electric Bar in Motherwell is moving from £26,250 to £45,250, which is nearly double.”
“As Daniel Johnson, who has run a business, recognises, in an SME that has a large turnover and a low profit margin, it is the people who are running the business who actually know what they are doing, and they recognise that the methodology is completely unfair, because how it is calculated is completely different from how that is done in other sectors. The decision makers on the front benches clearly do not understand that. I will take the intervention. Ivan McKee: I will correct Rachael Hamilton. The average increase for businesses in Scotland in terms of rateable value is 12.2 per cent, spread over three years, and not the 80-odd per cent that she is talking about. That compares with an increase of more than 19 per cent south of the border. Rachael Hamilton: Some hospitality businesses are facing increases of up to 300 per cent.”
“Thanks to Keir Starmer, duty on beer and wine has increased, and added to those are the headwinds of the increasing costs of ingredients such as meat, fish, dairy and coffee. Now, thanks to the SNP, the non-domestic rates revaluation will impose a further crippling rise. Business rates will rise for them from £85,000 to £115,000, which is an extra £15,000 payable per year. They are not exactly sure what they get for their rates, and they would like to know. On average, businesses in Scotland are facing an 86 per cent rise. A small-to-medium enterprise in hospitality— Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Rachael Hamilton: I will, in a second.”
“Jamie Halcro Johnston has been listening to businesses. He understands that they cannot absorb any more pressures on their sector. I want to tell members about a local husband- and-wife team. For the record, I would also like to tell Lorna Slater that it is not about little guys with little businesses; it is about big girls with big businesses. This husband-and-wife team are proud business owners. They have a hotel that has been in their family for 55 years, and they are determined to reach their 60th anniversary. However, with all the closures in hospitality, it is proving tricky for them to remain optimistic. They are willing to put in the long hours, for very little return, because they put their loyal and dedicated employees first. They say that Rachael Reeves’s NI uplift alone represents £40,000 off their bottom line.”
“I agree with Stephen Kerr about how disappointing it was to see only three SNP back benchers here earlier. SNP members obviously got the text: now there are an extra three. Members who have worked in hospitality know that it is an excellent career, and it was good to hear that Keith Brown has done so—good on him. I have pulled a few pints in my time, and I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests: my husband has a pub. Has the SNP noticed that it is hammering the last nail in the coffin of Scottish pubs? My colleague Murdo Fraser described the situation as “catastrophic”. SNP demands of hospitality are as relentless as a rising tide, and I am pleased that the Scottish Conservatives—the party of common sense—are using their debating time to bring the issue to the chamber.”
“More than 100,000 properties will remain eligible for the small business bonus scheme, which will continue to be the most generous of its kind in the UK, and thanks to the generous non- domestic rates relief package, we estimate that 96 per cent of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses could benefit from some form of relief in 2026-27.”
“BJ Gill KC, an advocate depute, was appointed to chair the review, and I confirmed the names of the four members of the review group earlier this week. There will also be an advisory panel for the review, which will include members from the business community. A call for evidence will be issued shortly. Daniel Johnson: Will the minister clarify that point? The last time that I was responsible for providing such information, there was a legal obligation to provide it for rating purposes. Is he saying that people are not complying, or is the Government just not exercising its powers? Ivan McKee: I am saying that the assessors will work it out based on the information that they have available. For the different sectors, that will be based on the information that is available for those sectors.”
“Does the minister recognise that the methodology for the valuation of hospitality businesses is entirely different from the methodology for other businesses, and that the methodology puts pressure on them because of their high turnover and low profitability? Ivan McKee: I have actually talked to assessors about that, and the difference is because of a lack of information from the sector to allow the assessors to be able to conduct the assessment in the same way. That is why, as I will come on to talk about—[Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members, let us hear the minister. Ivan McKee: That is why we have responded to the calls from the sector to set up the independent commission that will look at the issue.”
“Scotland for Decrim makes the case for safety, not criminalisation, and for rights, not rescue. I will close with the words of a sex worker who is currently working in Scotland: “As someone who does sex work in Scotland, I find the Prostitution Bill deeply offensive. In 2024, it is standard procedure to give the people you are legislating ... a voice. It is ... patronising ... It is based on sensationalist stereotypes of sex work. Sex workers in Scotland have been organising for worker rights for years. We are well informed: The Nordic model is harmful to workers. We have clear demands: full decriminalisation. We are resilient and organised people. Not powerless victims as we are portrayed in this proposal.” The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call on Katy Clark to close for Scottish Labour. Up to six minutes, please. 17:37”
“I cannot support a proposal that people with lived experience—that is, the people with an interest in the proposed legislation—have told us will make them more vulnerable, put them at risk of further harm and create additional stigma. I hosted an event with Scotland for Decrim in Parliament last year, where sex workers were clear that the bill would make them more isolated, more stigmatised and more at risk. It would push already marginalised people further into the shadows. It would empower traffickers and abusers, who would be able to capitalise on those who are forced underground. It would make sex workers who need help less likely and less able to seek help and support. Criminalisation is not a gift of protection. It is a threat to the rights of working people.”
“As National Ugly Mugs has said, “Repeal would reduce stigma and criminalisation, improve access to justice, and help to build trust between sex workers and Police Scotland.” It follows that we should quash any historical offences. We know from evidence given by Scotland for Decrim that “having a criminal record with prostitution-related convictions and/or a police warning makes it much more difficult for people to leave sex work. Employers are likely to rescind offers of employment, or the worker can be barred from certain forms of employment if they have to undergo a Disclosure Scotland check.” With 10,459 people having been convicted under the soliciting offence since 1982, that would be a major piece of work, but it would be important work to undo a major injustice. However, we cannot support the main aim of the bill.”
“In such cases, whilst COPFS would not wish to add to the trauma experienced by those exploited by prostitution, their evidence may be required to prove the accused’s intention.” That echoes sex workers’ concerns that they will inevitably be dragged into investigations in order for the purchase offence to be proven. Ash Regan wants us to introduce a crime that the police and our prosecution service do not know how they will investigate or prosecute. I will move on to other parts of the bill. It is clear that Greens do not support the primary purpose of the bill, but there are parts that, guided by sex workers, we would support. Greens would welcome, for example, the abolition of the offence of solicitation.”
“Although I accept that Police Scotland supports the bill, Detective Superintendent Bertram’s evidence to the committee showed that the police are not yet clear on how they would be able to tell if a crime had taken place. He raised the issue of capacity, as he reported that Police Scotland struggles to respond to all reports of brothel keeping, never mind an entirely new offence. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said that it can “foresee difficulty in proving the accused’s intention in circumstances where the offence takes place ‘off street’ and where there is no admission.”
“In France, which criminalised clients in 2016, Médecins du Monde’s 2018 report found that, since the law was introduced, 63 per cent of sex workers have experienced “deterioration of their living conditions”, more isolation and greater stress; 42 per cent are more exposed to violence, including sexual violence, theft and armed robbery; and 38 per cent have found it increasingly hard to demand use of condoms. That sounds like pretty clear evidence to me. I will turn to the matter of enforcement. When we create new crimes, we must be sure that they are not only justifiable but workable. Evidence that was presented to the committee calls that into question.”
“Amnesty International’s 2016 research found that sex workers are still criminalised, including for working together for safety, and they face forced evictions, investigations, surveillance, prosecutions and increased stigma, with migrant workers in particular being targeted. In 2022, research found that Nordic model legislation was a “smokescreen for … punitive and racialised policing”, where sex workers were targeted for deportations and evictions.”
“I call on Maggie Chapman to close on behalf of the Scottish Greens. You have up to six minutes, please. 17:31 Maggie Chapman: In my closing contribution, I want to thank members of the Criminal Justice Committee, clerks and SPICe researchers for their careful work during stage 1 of the bill. I appreciate their efforts to hear from a wide range of witnesses—those who share my view on the bill as well as those who strongly and sincerely support the legislation. To those witnesses I say: I am very grateful to you for sharing your sometimes painful and harrowing stories, for speaking candidly of your experiences and for making your voices heard. I want to address some of the points that were raised this afternoon. I will start with the apparent lack of evidence that the Nordic model does not cause harm. Norway criminalised clients in 2009.”
“The Greens are also showing their true colours. They did it during the process around gender recognition reform, and they are at it again. Maggie Chapman’s views are offensive to women, especially women who carry trauma from sexual assault. I want to distance myself from those appalling views. On the basis of what Maggie Chapman said, I believe that the Greens consider prostitution the only acceptable way of driving the economy. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Hamilton, you will need to conclude. Rachael Hamilton: The Scottish public support the bill, but the opposition to the bill on the part of the SNP and the Greens sets a dangerous precedent. Tonight, we should come together, support women and back the bill. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will now move to closing speeches.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak. I also express my gratitude to Ash Regan. The Scottish Government has had plenty of time to consider the bill. It was introduced nine months ago, and it has had plenty of sitting days to look at it. It had a choice, but it has chosen not to allow the bill to move forward and not to support women. The minister used the excuse in her speech that she did not have “official support”. What or who is this official support? Was it a dark force? Was it the First Minister, John Swinney? Was it another party? Key organisations such as Police Scotland, as well as Reem Alsalem, support the bill. Someone must be pulling the strings, and whoever they are, they have a problem with women. They are shutting down women’s voices. No wonder so many women members are leaving this Parliament.”
“Douglas Ross: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. We have now heard the member in charge of the bill, the convener of the lead committee and the Government minister who is responding to the debate all claiming that they do not have enough time not only to take interventions—although the minister did—but to finish their remarks. What does it take to get you to agree to a motion without notice to extend the debate? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Ross, that is the same point of order that you raised before. I explained to you why I am not prepared to accept a motion without notice. The matter has been considered extensively by the Parliamentary Bureau over multiple sessions, and with the member in charge of the bill, and Parliament has set a timing motion, to which I am going to adhere.”
“We will also provide an additional £65,000 in the next financial year to the Women’s Support Project, improving access to services and supporting women exiting prostitution. I now turn to the detail of the bill— Rachael Hamilton: Will the minister give way? Siobhian Brown: Sorry, Presiding Officer—I have no time left. Before I finish, I want to mention Police Scotland’s national— Rachael Hamilton: Will the minister give way? Siobhian Brown: I am sorry—I do not have any time for interventions. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The minister cannot give way. Siobhian Brown: I conclude by saying, again, that I regret that we cannot support the bill as drafted, given that there is not sufficient time to develop the proposals and amendments that would be needed to address the very significant concerns that we have with it.”
“Those will be ready on their first day so that the next Government—as this Government will do if it is returned—can establish a commission at pace. Ash Regan: Will the minister take an intervention? Siobhian Brown: Secondly, if this Government is returned, we will ensure that such a commission is time limited so that legislation can be put before MSPs as early as possible, informed by the commission and by public consultation. I can commit today that my party will introduce such legislation. Ash Regan: Will the minister take an intervention? Siobhian Brown: Thirdly, the committee asked the Government to provide support for relevant support services. The draft budget includes £400,000 to further support implementation of our strategic approach to challenging demand for prostitution.”
“The next steps that we take need to reflect and respond to how commercial sexual exploitation is taking place now, in 2026, and to ensure that the challenges of online activity, which did not exist when the Nordic model was first introduced, can be addressed. That is why the Scottish Government welcomes and supports the committee’s recommendation that an independent commission be established to consider those issues, with a clear remit and timescale for reporting. I will outline three steps that the Government will take on the committee’s recommendations. First, I have instructed officials to start work immediately on the establishment of a commission so that options are available for the responsible minister in the next Government.”
“With regard to tackling online prostitution, the Scottish Government, in response to the cross- party group on commercial sexual exploitation’s 2021 report, “Online Pimping: An Inquiry into Sexual Exploitation Advertising Websites”, was quick to point out that it did not have the levers to address online matters. It is therefore a little bit concerning that the Government is using that as a reason not to legislate on the matter. Siobhian Brown: One of the issues is that it is a reserved matter. However, as I think that Police Scotland told the committee in its evidence sessions, online activity is a huge issue in prostitution these days, and it needs to be able to enforce any legislation that goes through. Even though it is a reserved matter, therefore, we need to put it all in context as we move forward.”
“Will the minister take an intervention? Siobhian Brown: —which did not exist when the Nordic model was first introduced, can be addressed. Ruth Maguire: Will the minister give way on that point? Siobhian Brown: I ask members if I can please make a bit of progress—[Interruption.] I will take interventions, but there are people screaming from the back, and I think that we should show a little bit of respect. Members: Oh! Siobhian Brown: I will take an intervention from Ruth Maguire. Ruth Maguire: I appreciate the minister giving way.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call for brief contributions—first from Edward Mountain and then from”
“In addition, in 2024, only one licence was issued in the Borders, compared with 10 in the previous year. Communities need practical solutions to the issue. My amendments would provide clarity by reviewing the licensing process to ensure that it is suitable and accessible. 18:15 Finally, I want to say how unfair the minister’s comment about my colleague Finlay Carson was. Yes, he is a Scottish Conservative. I am proud of what he does in the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee. As convener, he has the casting vote; that is how the process works. Just because he is a Scottish Conservative does not mean that that vote is invalid. In any other committee, a similar vote would have been considered to be entirely valid, especially if Jim Fairlie was commenting on one that had been voted on by an SNP convener.”
“Although I was unable to attend the summit in Eyemouth, I have heard from local businesses and residents that it was a step in the right direction. They noted that it is critical that the actions are discussed and followed up pre-season every year. Despite acknowledging that aggressive gulls are a health and safety issue—which it also took us a long time to convince the minister of— NatureScot’s licensing process remains bureaucratic and inconsistent. I totally agree with my colleague Douglas Ross that NatureScot should be stripped of its powers, because there is a conflict of interest. I want to take the minister back to 2024, when NatureScot issued only 505 licences for gull control, compared with more than 2,000 in the previous year.”
“The report should outline “the number of applications rejected and approved”, outline information on the conditions attached to the licences, consider “problems faced by urban and coastal communities” and question “whether the licence conditions address any of those problems.” I want to take the minister back to the point about how NatureScot was addressing the situation. As Douglas Ross said, it was suggesting ridiculous ways to deal with ground-nesting birds or to manage gulls. I repeat that advising using spaniels on scaffolding and dogs on drones was not meeting the needs of the community. Before I outline my reasoning behind amendment 152, I acknowledge the recent engagement by the minister and NatureScot on the issue. Following pressure from members on the Conservative benches, regional round tables were hosted by NatureScot.”
“I am heartened that the minister now admits that there is a gull problem. We took a long time to get to that stage—we had to ask numerous questions and use parliamentary time to highlight the issue to the minister but, through amendment 60, he clearly recognises it. The culmination of the pressure from the Conservatives led to the gull summits, which at least allowed communities to have a say. Amendment 152 provides that ministers should review the use of licences and the licence conditions in relation to the management of gulls. Specifically, it would require a report on the annual number of licence applications in each of the previous five years. The minister said that there is not a timeframe in the amendment, but I repeat that the amendment says that the report should be done every five years.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will propose the scheduling of time for a ministerial statement on the written case for the Scottish ministers and Lord Advocate in the judicial review of the Scottish Prison Service policy for the management of transgender people in custody, including how many times women’s rights are mentioned. (S6O-05423)”
“To ask the Scottish Government— Is my microphone on? The Deputy Presiding Officer: It is now. Could you start again from the beginning of the question? Rachael Hamilton: Presiding Officer, I would just draw your attention to the fact that the microphones have been working inconsistently at the start of every question. The Deputy Presiding Officer: We will look into that. Please ask your question. Scottish Prison Service Policy for Management of Transgender People in Custody (Judicial Review) 5.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call minister Jim Fairlie to wind up on amendment 20. Jim Fairlie: The bill will bring into effect the deer working group recommendation that requires us to produce a deer management plan. We are working to gather better data on deer, and I expect that any plan to tackle the data gaps will come out of that. I ask members to accept the amendments that I have put forward and the other ones that I have mentioned. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Mark Ruskell to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 20A. Mark Ruskell: I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 20A. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 20A be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”