Latest news with #)Bill
The Herald Scotland
7 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Nicola Sturgeon's legacy may be defined by Isla Bryson
Nicola Sturgeon has said she was 'like a rabbit caught in the headlights' when asked if double rapist Isla Bryson was a woman. In her new book, the former first minister said she was 'completely blindsided' when the case prompted a public outcry. 'I had no advance warning that the case was pending,' she wrote in Frankly. 'To this day, I do not understand how no one in the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) or Scottish government officialdom thought it important to flag it up to me.' Read more from Unspun: Bryson was convicted at the High Court in Glasgow in 2023 of raping one woman in Clydebank in 2016 and another in Glasgow in 2019. He began identifying as a woman only after being charged and has not legally changed gender. Although the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service expected Bryson to be sent to Barlinnie, the SPS initially moved him to the women's prison at Cornton Vale. It was only after a backlash, and Ms Sturgeon's intervention, that Bryson was transferred to HMP Edinburgh. The row came just weeks after MSPs passed the controversial Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. Although the Bill never became law, the SPS had for years allowed prisoners to self-identify their gender. Which is why nobody flagged it to the first minister. Despite the Bryson scandal, subsequent policy changes, and the Supreme Court case, the SPS continues to house dangerous, biological men in the women's estate. Its post-Bryson 2023 Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody states that a transgender woman 'will not be eligible to be considered for admission or transfer to a women's prison' if convicted of serious offences such as murder, assault, robbery, abduction, rape, and sexual harassment. However, the policy includes an exception: the SPS Risk Management Team can approve transfers if there is 'compelling evidence' the prisoner does not present an unacceptable risk. What is unacceptable risk? Research by the Murray Blackburn Mackenzie (MBM) policy collective found that prisoners currently in the women's estate include Alan Baker (also known as Alex Stewart), convicted of murder in 2013 and held in the female unit at Greenock prison. So too is Richard McCabe, also known as Melissa Young, who was convicted of murder in 2014. While on remand at Cornton Vale, they assaulted a female officer, biting her stomach Peter Laing, who now goes by the name Paris Green, was also convicted of murder and torture in 2013. They were still in the female estate in 2024 and recently charged with assaulting a female guard. Do these prisoners represent acceptable risk? The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) helped draft the new SPS policy. MBM has repeatedly called on the SHRC to withdraw its submission. In June 2023, they were told their request was being considered. Despite chasing in August and October 2023, they received no reply. As reported in The Herald, they wrote again in April 2025, following the Supreme Court case, renewing their call. Almost three months later, SHRC executive director Jan Savage responded. Part of the delay, she said, was due to the prison service. On May 22, 2025, the SHRC wrote to the SPS asking how it was monitoring the impact of its policy, whether it had published data, if the policy would be reviewed, and if it collected information on sex and gender. More than two months on, the SPS has yet to reply. When asked, an SPS spokesperson told me: 'We value the important role of the Scottish Human Rights Commission and will respond to their correspondence in due course. 'We have received the Supreme Court's judgement and are actively considering its impact.' With Frankly, Ms Sturgeon attempts to define her legacy. The truth is, the chaos in Scotland's public sector, and Scotland's prisons in particular, could well define it for her.
The National
07-08-2025
- Politics
- The National
Plans to deliver the SNP's 'Promise' are a muddle. They won't do
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Nick Kempe of the Common Weal Care Reform Group, who was previously head of commissioning of social care at Glasgow City Council. ON June 17, the Scottish Government introduced the horribly named Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill to the Scottish Parliament. This was almost nine years after Nicola Sturgeon first promised to improve the lives of children and young people with experience of the care system. The Independent Care Review was then set up to consider how to do it. In 2020, it produced its report, The Promise, which was followed in 2021 by The Plan. The purpose of the bill is to implement recommendations arising from The Promise and The Plan – for example, reforming the Children's Hearing system, which the Scottish Government believe requires changes in the law. Among them is also the recommendation that profit should have no place in the children's care system. READ MORE: SNP must do more to keep my flagship 'promise', Nicola Sturgeon says The policy memorandum accompanying the bill starts well, with this statement: 'The Promise is clear that there is no place for profiting in how Scotland cares for its children and that Scotland must avoid the monetisation of the care of children and prevent the marketisation of care by 2030.' Unfortunately, the proposals which follow represent a complete policy muddle and will not deliver what was promised. Residential care and for-profit problems Take the proposals for children's residential care. They will do nothing to prevent private companies extracting large profits. For residential children's services, the bill only gives Ministers the power to limit profit, not abolish it and that only after a period of collecting data about profit levels – a recipe for delay. In proposing this, the Scottish Government has decided to follow England but not Wales, who are in the process of abolishing private provision completely. The Scottish Government's justification for this stance is they believe profits are lower in Scotland (£28k a year per child) than England and the UK average of £44k a year. This is based on data from the Competition and Markets Authority. For context, £28k a year is four times the amount per child the bill proposes to spend extending aftercare services to children who leave care before 16 over their lifetimes! Every pound extracted in profit is a pound less for helping a child who needs it. (Image: Vitolda Klein on Unsplash) The latest Looked After Children Statistics report that 1324 children and young people were in residential care settings in 2024, and suggest that of these a minimum of 365 were in placements provided by the private sector. That is more than £10 million in private profit. The explanation for this retreat from The Promise appears to lie in the Financial Memorandum to the bill. This states that the Scottish Government is concerned that profit-making providers would walk away from service provision (with their buildings) if the profit extraction stopped. The answer to that risk is for the Scottish Government to pledge to use emergency powers to take over such services and, if their current powers are not sufficient to do this, to add new emergency powers to the bill. The bill contains no proposals to stop profit-making by private companies which operate services for care-experienced children in local communities rather than residential or foster care settings. Such services also monetise the care system. A step forward for foster care The proposals in foster care do, however, represent a step forward. Independent Fostering Agencies (IFAs) are the only type of care service in Scotland that are currently required to operate on a non-for-profit basis – but this has never been enforced by the regulator responsible, the Care Inspectorate (CI). As a result, as Common Weal showed in our The Crisis in Foster Care in Scotland report, profits continue to be siphoned out of some IFAs by profit-making parent companies. We are pleased that the Scottish Government has explicitly mentioned our report and acknowledged what is happening in the policy memorandum to the bill. To address these problems the Scottish Government is proposing that all IFAs should be required to register as charities with the Scottish Charity Regulator. It also correctly argues that if any of the current IFAs decide to withdraw from the foster care market as a result, the foster carers contracted to work for them can be taken on by other IFAs or local authorities. It predicts this will release £6-10m a year which can then be reinvested in foster care – less than will be taken in profit for residential children's services. Public services for private profit? All this does represent a significant step forward in government thinking – but begs the question as to how the not-for-profit requirements will be enforced? More specifically, how will profit-making parent companies be prevented from continuing to extract money from IFAs through internal charges for legal and administrative services, or borrowing large sums of money interest-free, as they do at present? The Scottish Government is proposing that the CI should be responsible for delivering this and that after setting up new systems the costs of doing so will be minimal. If it's so simple, the CI could have done this years ago. First Minister John Swinney's Government had published the proposals (Image: Jane Barlow/PA Wire) We would like to see the bill go further and the Scottish Government use its legislative powers to break all links between IFAs and profit-making companies, the only sure way to ensure profit extraction stops. Common Weal's Care Reform Group will publish our full response to the Scottish Government's proposals in due course. The consultation and the bill itself, however, present an opportunity for the public and other stakeholders to challenge the hold that profit-making companies now have over swathes of what are supposed to be public services. We must ensure that they are once again run for public benefit – and only ever in the interests of the children who need them.
Edinburgh Live
11-07-2025
- Edinburgh Live
Former Edinburgh police chief says murderers 'must reveal where bodies are to get parole'
Our community members are treated to special offers, promotions and adverts from us and our partners. You can check out at any time. More info A former police chief who brought killer Peter Tobin to justice says he backs calls for murderers who do not reveal where victims' bodies are to be kept in prison. David Swindle told the Daily Record podcast, Criminal Record, that he backs Suzanne's Law. This demands that killers must disclose their victim's whereabouts if they are to be considered for parole. The Scottish Government has included a proposal for Suzanne's Law in the Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill which is going through parliament. Suzanne's Law is named after office worker Suzanne Pilley, who was murdered by colleague and ex David Gilroy in 2010. He was sentenced to life in 2012 but has never revealed what he did with her body, which is believed to be buried in Argyll. Other high-profile cases include Arlene Fraser, Margaret Fleming and Lynda Spence. Swindle, who probed more than 100 murders in a 34-year police career, said: 'We need to have something like a Suzanne's Law to stop people getting out if they don't reveal what they did with the body. 'With Suzanne Pilley her body has never been found and there is a person convicted of that, the same as Arlene Fraser, Margaret Fleming and Lynda Spence. Sign up for Edinburgh Live newsletters for more headlines straight to your inbox 'These people have never revealed what they did with the bodies. If they don't reveal what they did they should not then be eligible for parole. If your loved one is murdered by someone who is in prison and has never revealed what they did with the body you would not want them to get out." Swindle, who retired in 2011, says a murder without a body leaves victims' families in limbo. He added: 'People think by destroying the body that there is no evidence but you will still be caught." England and Wales already have a similar measure – Helen's Law. Suzanne's dad Rob died in 2019 without knowing where she was buried. Detectives believe Gilroy killed her in the building where they worked in Edinburgh after he confronted her over ending their affair. Arlene, from Elgin, Moray, vanished from her home in 1998 after her children went to school. Her husband Nat Fraser, who is serving life for her murder, has refused to say what became of his wife. Join Edinburgh Live's Whatsapp Community here and get the latest news sent straight to your messages. Avril Jones and Edward Cairney were jailed for life in 2019 for killing Margaret, 19, at their home in Inverkip. They refused to say where they put her. Financial adviser Lynda was abducted, tortured and killed in 2011. Colin Coats and Philip Wade were convicted of killing the 27-year-old Glaswegian in 2013. Her body has never been found. Swindle led the probe into Tobin's murder of Polish student Angelika Kluk in Glasgow in 2006 for which he got life. He set up Operation Anagram which led to Tobin being convicted of the murders of Vicky Hamilton, 15, and Dinah McNicol, 18. A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "The Justice Secretary supported an amendment at Stage 2 in May which requires the Parole Board to take account of whether the prisoner has information about the disposal of the victim's remains but has not disclosed it. "If the Bill is passed then this will become law."
Borneo Post
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Borneo Post
Henry: Increasing state seats a logical step toward more parliamentary representation
Dato Henry Harry Jinep KUCHING (July 7): The move to increase state seats is a logical step toward increasing parliamentary seats for Sarawak, said Deputy Transport Minister Dato Henry Harry Jinep. 'Normally, one parliamentary seat comprises not less than two state seats. If we want Sarawak to increase its parliamentary seats, then logically, we need to increase the existing state seats so that the number goes (up) proportionately… It's a simple logic,' he said in a statement. Henry, who is also Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) deputy president and Tasik Biru assemblyman, was responding to critics of the Dewan Undangan Negeri (Composition of Membership) Bill, 2025 which aims to increase the number of elected representatives in the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) from 82 to 99. This increase would result in the creation of 17 new state seats. The Bill was tabled by Tourism, Creative Industry and Performing Arts Minister Dato Sri Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah at the DUN special one-day sitting today. Once appoved by the DUN, the Bill will then be brought to Parliament for federal approval After both legislative bodies have endorsed the Bill, the Election Commission (EC) will be responsible for conducting the redelineation exercise. Sarawak has been seeking an increase to its current number of parliamentary seats, which stands at 31. This is in line with the proposal to restore the 35 per cent representation of Sabah and Sarawak in Parliament, in honour of the Malaysia Agreement 1963 (MA63). Henry Harry Jinep increase lead parliamentary seats state seats
The National
19-06-2025
- Politics
- The National
Scotland can lead the world with 'ecocide' bill currently in Holyrood
Good evening! This week's edition of the In Common newsletter comes from Michaela Girvan and Tara Pierce of the Ocean Rights Coalition. IMAGINE the scene: a CEO sits handcuffed, silent, in the dock of a Scottish courtroom. He is not there because of a shareholder scandal or financial fraud but because the company he leads has caused widespread, long-term destruction of the marine environment through illegal bottom trawling in Scottish waters. Expert witnesses describe the devastation. Once-thriving seabeds flattened. Biodiversity lost. Species pushed to collapse. Carbon stores released from the seafloor, worsening climate change, communities along the coast left with the wreckage and coastal artisan fishermen struggling. The courtroom listens, and the law now recognises this harm for what it truly is – not an unfortunate side effect of business but a crime against nature. That scene may feel like fiction. However, it is exactly the kind of accountability the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament could make real. If passed, Scotland would become the first country in the world to criminalise ecocide in domestic law – a powerful and necessary step at a time of ecological crisis. The bill, brought forward by Scottish Labour MSP Monica Lennon (above), defines ecocide as the causing of severe environmental harm, whether intentional or through reckless disregard. The harm must be either widespread or long-term – measured not in headlines, but in habitats, ecosystems and years. If passed, the law would make individuals, companies and public bodies liable for the most serious kinds of environmental destruction. Punishments include up to 20 years in prison, fines and court-ordered restoration of the damaged ecosystems. Importantly, it introduces personal liability for directors and decision-makers. In a world where corporate impunity too often shields those at the top, this matters. What sets this legislation apart is not only its ambition but its timing. Just last week, world leaders gathered in Nice for the third United Nations Ocean Conference. Once again, they committed to reversing marine biodiversity loss and protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. The pledges are noble. But if we are honest, global action has repeatedly failed to match the scale or speed of the crisis. Here in Scotland, we have a rare opportunity to do something the international system has so far failed to do: make marine destruction legally actionable as a criminal crime. From deep-sea mining and industrial overfishing to oil spills, chemical dumping and plastic pollution, Scotland's marine environment is facing an onslaught of threats. Some of these are caused by foreign actors; others are permitted under existing UK or devolved policy. Either way, the law has not kept up with science, morality or the pace of destruction. That is why this bill matters so deeply to those of us working in ocean protection. It acknowledges that the sea is not an industrial buffer zone or economic abstraction. It is a living system on which we all depend. Its kelp forests and corals store carbon. Its species form fragile food webs. Its health is climate health, biodiversity health and human health. The bill does not mention the ocean by name, but its scope is broad enough to include it and serious marine harm. In doing so, it brings new hope to those who have campaigned for decades for stronger protections for the sea. It gives voice to communities who have watched polluters act with impunity. It sets a legal precedent that others can follow. Scotland is no stranger to progressive leadership. From banning smoking in public spaces to providing free period products, it has shown the courage to legislate ahead of the curve. With this bill, it can again lead – not just the UK, but the world – on environmental justice. There will be attempts to dilute this legislation as it moves through Parliament. Some will argue the definitions are too broad. Others will raise fears about economic impact. The truth is this: the cost of doing nothing is far greater. The science is clear, the damage is real and the legal gap is glaring. We must not allow this bill to be watered down into symbolism. It must retain the strength to do what it promises: hold powerful actors to account for the destruction of the natural world. This is not about stifling enterprise. It is about drawing a line. About saying, as a country, that we will no longer tolerate the wilful wrecking of our wild ecosystems that sustain life. The Ocean Rights Coalition is calling on MSPs to support this bill with integrity and urgency. We are asking members of the public to do the same. If you care about the future of our seas – about their resilience, their beauty and their survival – now is the time to act. Email your MSP. Tell them you support the Ecocide (Prevention) (Scotland) Bill. Tell them not to weaken it and to keep the lion's teeth, and remind them that Scotland has a chance, right now, to lead the world and make history. To make sure the Scotland their grandchildren will inherent is protected. The ocean is rising. It's time Scots law rose with it.
