Scottish Parliament, 16 December 2025

134 contributions from 31 members. The official report.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-20196, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, on a change to business. Any member who wishes to speak to the motion should press their request-to-speak button now.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees to the following revisions to the programme of business for—

(a) Tuesday 16 December 2025—

after

followed by Topical Questions

insert

followed by Motion of No Confidence

(b) Thursday 18 December 2025—

delete

3.10 pm Decision Time

and insert

2.40 pm Decision Time—[Graeme Dey.]

Motion agreed to.

Decision Time

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There are two questions to be put as a result of today’s business. The first question is, that motion S6M-20167, in the name of Maurice Golden, on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As it is a motion to pass the bill, the question must be decided by division.

Members should cast their votes now.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-20167, in the name of Maurice Golden, is: For 119, Against 2, Abstentions 0.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill is passed. [ Applause .]

The next question is, that motion S6M-20138, in the name of Liz Smith, on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3, be agreed to. As it is a motion to pass the bill, the question must be decided by division.

Members should cast their votes now.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-20138, in the name of Liz Smith, is: For 120, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees that the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill is passed. [ Applause .]

That concludes decision time.

Members’ business will be published tomorrow, 17 December 2025, as soon as the text is available.

Motion of No Confidence

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay, on a motion of no confidence. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak button. I call Russell Findlay to speak to and move the motion.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Today, my party brings forward a motion of no confidence in the justice secretary. I will now explain why that is a necessary course of action.

In my four years at Holyrood, I have had more dealings with Angela Constance than with any other member of the Government. Our encounters have usually been courteous, sometimes fiery and mostly serious. We fundamentally disagree on the Scottish National Party’s approach to justice. That can be defined as seeking to excuse criminal behaviour, which I believe fails crime victims and Scotland’s law-abiding majority.

I disagree with the Government’s closure of police stations and releasing hundreds of prisoners early. I disagree with gender self-identification in the justice system and weak bail laws. I disagree with unjust under-25 sentencing guidelines and a £1 billion price tag for a new prison. I also disagree with the Government’s position on grooming gangs.

However, this motion and today’s vote are not about the fact that we disagree. They are about the conduct of the justice secretary. This is about the fundamental importance of honesty and integrity in Government and in Parliament. No matter the attempts of John Swinney, Kate Forbes and other SNP members, Angela Constance’s conduct is inexcusable and her position is no longer tenable.

The starting point for today’s proceedings was 16 September, when my colleague Liam Kerr lodged an amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. That amendment sought to begin the necessary work of establishing a grooming gangs inquiry—an inquiry that would answer questions about the sickening sexual exploitation of children, and that would establish why so many were so badly failed, why abusers acted with impunity and why whistleblowers were silenced. The amendment was imperfect, but it was the only mechanism at our disposal.

In rejecting it, Angela Constance cited leading abuse expert Professor Alexis Jay. The justice secretary said that Professor Jay shared her view that a grooming gangs inquiry was not needed. However, Professor Jay did not say that—and she did not say that because that is not her position.

Ten days later, Professor Jay emailed the Government to object. At that point, the justice secretary was obligated to correct the parliamentary record, as stipulated by the Scottish ministerial code. She had 20 days in which to do so, but she did not.

Instead of coming clean, it was decided that a correction would be made to the online minutes of the national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is buried on an obscure Government web page and was not posted until 18 November.

Then, on 26 November—more than two months after misrepresenting Professor Jay—Angela Constance doubled down. She publicly denied that she had misrepresented Professor Jay. When asked whether she had misrepresented Professor Jay, Angela Constance said:

“No, certainly not. I gave an accurate quote and indeed the correspondence that Ms Jay sent to me acknowledged that the quote that I gave was accurate.”

I note that we are not allowed to use the word “lie” or to call anyone a “liar”, so I will not. However, it is little wonder that Professor Jay sent another email to the Government on the very same day, in which she said:

“The current position is unsatisfactory for me.”

After all of that—misleading the public, Parliament and grooming gang victims—Angela Constance has still not admitted her mistake. She has still not corrected the record and she has still not apologised. That is the problem. It is not that a mistake has happened, but that Angela Constance, John Swinney and the whole Government want to pretend that it never happened and that it does not really matter. Well, it did happen, and it should matter.

Many will see this tawdry defence of the indefensible for what it is—the typical actions of a calculating and cynical Government. The First Minister can look grooming gang victims in the eye and tell them that he cares, only to destroy his own warm words with his cold inaction.

I have met Taylor, who, from the age of 13, was drugged and gang raped, and who was failed by the authorities that should have protected her. A recurring theme around grooming gangs is the existence of a conspiracy of silence in which police, social workers and others fail victims over fears of being branded racist. Survivors say that there is evidence of institutional cover-up. They are forced to battle for records, many of which no longer exist or have been severely redacted. Taylor raised that exact issue in her meeting with John Swinney on 9 December. In a letter to all MSPs, Taylor’s mother says:

“Within 24 hours of leaving Bute House, the suppressed email from Prof Alexis Jay was made public.”

Do John Swinney and Angela Constance really not understand what message their conduct sends to victims who already lack trust in authority? When he became First Minister, John Swinney made big statements about restoring the relationship between the public and politicians. Earlier this year, he said that he would

“renew public trust in politics”.

He has the opportunity to do so today; however, we all know that he will not.

Even though he will not do the right thing, each of us can do the right thing. Here is the choice: we can say that it is acceptable for ministers to mislead and to cover up, or we can say that there should be reasonable consequences for doing so. This is about truth; this is about respect; this is about simple decency. Therefore, I urge every MSP who is here today to vote to remove the justice secretary for misleading the Parliament, the public and grooming gang victims.

I move,

That the Parliament has no confidence in the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, in light of her failures in candour and openness in her misrepresentation and subsequent misleading statements made to the Parliament with regards to Professor Alexis Jay and grooming gangs.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The safety and wellbeing of children in Scotland is a paramount concern of all of us as members of Parliament, no matter our politics or whether we are members of an Opposition party or a supporter of the Scottish Government. The safety and wellbeing of children in Scotland matter to us all.

Like many members here today, I have spoken to survivors of abuse to hear about their experiences—Russell Findlay has quoted some of my recent experience in this respect. I discussed those issues with Taylor and her family last week, in one of many conversations that I have had with abuse survivors. There is no doubt in my mind, and it is obvious to all, that many people have been fundamentally failed by the system over the years. That is shameful, and facing up to that awful reality has underpinned the approach of the Scottish Government.

Every member of my Government is committed to doing everything possible to deliver justice and the possibility of some element of closure for victims of the past, as well as to keeping safe the children of today and tomorrow. That sentiment anchors the steps that have been taken by my Government in addressing those issues—and those issues are being addressed, contrary to what Mr Findlay has just said to Parliament.

First, we established a year ago the expert, multi-agency national child sexual abuse and exploitation strategic group, which is considering previous inquiries, evidence and practices across social work, education, the police and healthcare in order to agree further actions and recommendations for national improvement and reform. Professor Alexis Jay, who has always been a member of that group, has now been appointed as its independent chair.

Secondly, an independent national review of the response to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation in Scotland is being established. That will be undertaken by the Care Inspectorate, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education and Healthcare Improvement Scotland. The inspectorates are statutorily independent of Government and the agencies that they scrutinise, and they are able to compel public authorities to provide information that they request. Professor Jay has agreed to provide expert advice at key stages of the process.

Alongside that work, Police Scotland is continuing to review child sexual abuse and exploitation cases. I received an update from Police Scotland on that important work when we met recently, and Opposition leaders and spokespeople from across the chamber have been offered a briefing with Police Scotland on that work in the new year.

We will also draw on the published evidence and reports of the independent Scottish child abuse inquiry, which was established by Angela Constance in 2015 and which has been considering the abuse of children in the care of the state. The inquiry has now commenced phase 10 and has made it clear that there is scope to hear and act on evidence relating to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation where that falls within its terms of reference. All that activity underlines the seriousness with which my Government takes the issue and our determination to leave no stone unturned, guided by expert opinion.

On several occasions in the chamber, we have discussed the comments that are at the heart of today’s debate, so I will reiterate what has already been stated. During stage 3 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, in relation to Liam Kerr’s amendment that would have meant that the new victims commissioner should carry out research into child sexual abuse, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs raised awareness of the work that was led by Professor Alexis Jay. The cabinet secretary noted specifically that Professor Jay had been the chair of an independent inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales, and drew on a comment, made in the past, that, in regard to child sexual abuse and exploitation,

“people should just get on with it”.

Following correspondence with Professor Jay, it was minuted at the strategic group’s meeting in October that the quote was correct and was from January but was not made in relation to the amendment or the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. In the debate in September, the cabinet secretary did not state that Professor Jay was speaking directly about the amendment. She made a general point, drawing on the publicly stated views of Professor Jay—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

That is absolutely scandalous.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Kerr! Thank you.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I acknowledge that members of Parliament and members of the public will draw different conclusions from the words that we all use. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear the First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I know—and I imagine that most members know this, too—that Angela Constance is a sincere minister who would never address Parliament in a way that would in any way mislead Parliament or the public. That is evident to me from the way in which Angela Constance has, over a period of almost two years, openly and with candour, shared with Parliament the very acute challenges that we face in dealing with the rising prison population and the incredibly difficult decisions that we must take on this issue. There is vital work to be done to protect children, and getting on with that work has been what my Government has been doing, just as it has been getting on with a raft of other reforms.

For example, in justice, Angela Constance, in the past 18 months, has successfully steered four crucial acts through the Parliament, including the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, which delivers the biggest reforms for victims of crime in the history of devolution. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Sorry, First Minister.

There is a lot of noise in the chamber. I would very much like to hear those whom I have called to speak, and I am sure that other parliamentarians would, too.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

That act will transform victims’ and witnesses’ experiences of the justice system and ensure that they are treated with compassion. As all those bills were progressed, the justice secretary worked constructively and collegiately with members from across the chamber. She approached all their suggestions to improve the bills with an open mind.

Throughout her term in office, she has worked tirelessly to build a safer Scotland. She has championed the rights of victims and has worked to improve the conditions of those who serve across our criminal justice system. She has made justice more accessible to all, and in particular to those who have suffered some of the most serious crimes. She has never shied away from asking tough questions about our approach to justice, nor has she ever avoided tackling some of the biggest issues that we face.

For those reasons, Angela Constance has my full confidence as justice secretary. She is getting on with the job of making Scotland safer, and I urge members to enable her to continue doing that by rejecting the motion.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I speak in favour of the motion of no confidence in Angela Constance, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. I do so for one reason above all others: victims and survivors of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation have lost confidence in this justice secretary.

What has led them to lose confidence is that they feel that the justice secretary and this Government are not on their side. That has been cemented by a clear breach of the ministerial code. Angela Constance misrepresented the views of Professor Alexis Jay on an issue as serious as grooming gangs and organised child sexual exploitation. In doing so, she misled this Parliament.

Angela Constance has had multiple opportunities to correct the record. She has failed to do so. She has received repeated requests from Professor Alexis Jay herself to correct the record. She has failed to do so. This has now stopped being an error and has become a matter of honesty and transparency.

Let us be clear about why that matters. This is not an abstract argument about process or wording; it is about grooming gangs. The justice secretary misrepresented Professor Jay’s views in order to find an excuse not to have an inquiry into grooming gangs. Victims and survivors should be able to rely on their justice system and their Government to tell the truth, to act with integrity and to put them first. On that, the justice secretary has failed.

I want to read the powerful words of Taylor’s mum. Taylor is a brave survivor who has spoken out. Her mum said:

“Taylor is again feeling that she can trust no one, all because of this Government’s inability to be truthful and transparent.”

She said:

“Any MSP who chooses to support Angela Constance in this vote is choosing politics over victims. It is as simple as that.”

She went on to say:

“You cannot say you stand with victims while defending a minister who lied to Parliament, the public and, more importantly, the survivors.”

This has now also become a question of John Swinney’s judgment and of whether victims and the public can have confidence in him. Taylor’s mum said:

“My daughter and me attended Bute house last week. I travelled over 500 miles in a round trip to meet with the First Minister to spend one and a half hours being lied to my face.”

That is utterly damning. John Swinney should have sacked Angela Constance, but he has not. Shamefully, he is not willing to even refer the matter to the independent advisers on the ministerial code. However, it should not be up to him, which is why I have written to the independent advisers on the ministerial code and asked them to investigate.

The justice secretary has lost the confidence of victims. She has lost the confidence of survivors. In my view, she should not have the confidence of this Parliament. She cannot continue in her role. I will end by speaking Taylor’s mum’s words to every MSP in the chamber:

“Can you look yourselves in the mirror, knowing that you are supporting her to remain in position against the will of the victims?”

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yes.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Can you?

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

Yes.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Wow. Shame on you for shouting that out, Mr Mason. For every single—

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Shame on you!

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

Shame on you too, Mr Brown, for shouting that out.

I have quoted the words of the mother of a victim. For them, this Parliament should support this motion of no confidence.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I am profoundly sad that we have got to this point. The Scottish Government can and should have handled this issue far better, but I doubt that that would have dissuaded those who have used it for political advantage. In recent weeks, we have seen how detached the debate has become from the issue that is at the heart of this: protecting children from sexual abuse and securing justice for victims and survivors.

I do not pretend to understand the trauma that survivors have gone through, and I doubt that anyone who has not gone through it can truly understand that pain.

However, in this job, I have spent a lot of time with survivors, particularly during the establishment of Redress Scotland. I appreciate how angry many of them are, and that anger is justified. I respect the fact that survivors are not a homogeneous group who speak with one voice—I certainly do not claim to speak for them now—but the pain of having been let down and failed by those who should have protected them, as children, is near universal.

We could have used this afternoon to put questions to the Scottish Government about what additional action it is now taking to deliver justice for those who were failed and to prevent the same thing from happening to more children in the future. It is hard to think of anything more important for a Government to do.

We could have talked about the need to improve the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, which is due to be passed before the election. We know that a disproportionate number of victims of this scandal are care-experienced children and young people. We have a bill in front of us that has unanimous support, but people’s frustration with it is almost equally unanimous. The bill is intended to fulfil the Promise, but it does not do so. We are already talking about legislation being required in the next parliamentary session to meet that commitment. The Promise Scotland has said that the bill does not fulfil the vision of the independent care review.

Almost four years ago, the Scottish Government committed to reviewing the legislation underpinning the care system, with the aim of making it more understandable, less fragmented and more effective, but that has still not happened, despite the total fragmentation of support being one of the contributing factors in grooming gangs being able to target and abuse children without anyone in a position of authority stopping them.

We could have challenged the justice secretary on the huge problems in the legal aid system and the effect that those are having on survivors seeking justice. Reform of legal aid was promised in this parliamentary session, but it has not yet been delivered. We hear that there might be something before the election, but there are only 10 sitting weeks left. Through the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Act 2025, the Parliament agreed that independent legal advice should be provided to victims of sexual offences, but that is irrelevant if there are simply not enough solicitors taking on such cases. We know that, in some parts of the country, none are doing so. That is not an easy problem to solve, but, unresolved, it shuts down access to justice for far too many people, including survivors of grooming gangs and other forms of child sexual abuse.

We could have talked about the delayed update to guidance for schools on relationships, sexual health and parenthood education. One of the simplest things that we can do to protect children from sexual abuse is to provide age-appropriate and stage-appropriate education on what that is and, critically, who they can go to if they or someone they know is being abused. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

However, the current guidance on RSHP education is so out of date that it does not even have a section on the importance of consent. The updated draft guidance, which represents a huge improvement, could have been completed and published years ago. We could have used this afternoon to push the Government to at least roll out that guidance early in the new year.

However, we are not doing any of that now. I hope that, at tomorrow’s meeting of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, we will have the opportunity to put such questions to the cabinet secretary and Professor Jay. This afternoon, though, is about politics. I have no time for that, which is why the Greens—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, members. We will hear Mr Greer.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

The Greens will be voting against the motion.

Jamie Greene (Liberal Democrat, West Scotland)

The Scottish Liberal Democrats take no pleasure in this debate. We came to the view that today’s vote is regrettable, and it was avoidable. When we deliberated on our response to the motion of no confidence, our discussion was tainted by a collective feeling of disappointment, not least because colleagues expressed much personal good will towards the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. On a personal level, I thank Ms Constance for the constructive attitude that allowed me to successfully progress my victims proposals in a Government bill.

However, in politics, people sometimes make mistakes. To err is, of course, human. It is not for me to decide whether the cabinet secretary purposefully or inadvertently misrepresented the views of a well-respected judicial figure, but the correct course of action would have been to immediately correct the record and apologise to the Parliament, to Professor Jay and to the victims, who should be at the centre of all our attention. There has been ample opportunity for that to happen in recent months. There has been ample opportunity to take ownership of the error. Instead, junior ministers have been put up to shield the cabinet secretary from the flak.

It is three months to the day since the cabinet secretary made the erroneous assertion and the argument was presented to the Parliament—an argument against a Conservative amendment, which we supported, to establish a bespoke inquiry into group-based child exploitation in Scotland.

In response to the First Minister’s comments today, I will say that I re-read the Official Report of the meeting, and there is no ambiguity about what was said or how it could be interpreted—none whatsoever.

In our view, the correct and proper response to that would have been a simple statement of correction in the chamber, which could have put the matter to bed. That is why we believe that the vote today is the inevitable result of a series of events that could have been avoided, and the matter resolved.

We bear the justice secretary no ill will. We do not subscribe to any great sensationalist theory of conspiracy on her part, nor do we see any opportunism in any of this whole sorry saga. Indeed, the substance of the original debate from which all of this stems merits gravitas that it has not always been afforded in this place. When ministers place on the record a view that is based on false representation, the code demands that the record be put straight, with absolute candour, and that is yet to happen.

The Scottish justice system is in upheaval and crisis in equal measure. It is undergoing some of the most substantial changes in centuries, starting with the removal of the not proven verdict. Our prisons are in a state of crisis and a condition that neither rehabilitates prisoners nor keeps people safe, either inside or outside them. Serious violent crime and domestic violence are on the increase in far too many areas in Scotland. Victims and the accused are waiting years for their trials to come to pass. Our police force survives only on the good will of officers and, largely, overtime and, of course, our drugs death crisis continues to be our national shame.

We are in such a critical period. Our justice sector needs to be led from the front and with confidence. The justice secretary in their role must command the confidence not just of the whole Parliament but of every cog in the judicial wheel. Most importantly, they must command the confidence of victims, particularly those who have suffered the most horrendous and unimaginable trauma and abuse, who now tell us directly that that confidence has been lost.

Given that point alone, we will vote in favour of the motion. However, irrespective of the outcome, it is important that we all continue to act and work constructively and sensibly with the minority Government in this Parliament, as it is right to do so. Lessons can and must be learned from this and from the Government’s unacceptable response to the events that have led us to today’s vote.

Rachael Hamilton (Conservative, Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We have been down the road of calling for a vote of no confidence in ministers before. In the past, we have called for people in charge to step down because of catastrophic exam results or the misuse of public money. However, today’s vote of confidence is darker and graver. It is about something that is potentially widespread and that affects thousands of young women. It is about vulnerable young girls as young as 13 being gang raped and abused and teenagers being trafficked, drugged, plied with alcohol and waking up naked and bruised on a mattress with no recollection of the night before.

There is a material difference in today’s vote of no confidence. In this case, the Parliament has been misled by the justice secretary, who is responsible for safeguarding victims. Survivors of grooming gangs have been let down unforgivably. It is despicable.

The First Minister did not address the substance of our motion. Instead, he read out the justice secretary’s CV, diverting from the substance. It was 80 per cent deflection, 10 per cent spin and perhaps 10 per cent job reference. Our Scottish Conservatives party leader has set out the timeline that demonstrates with clarity that the justice secretary has misled Parliament—a timeline that has been protracted for survivors and victims and a scale of events that has escalated to such serious levels that survivors have lost trust in the Government.

It has taken months to reveal that Angela Constance clearly misrepresented Professor Alexis Jay’s comments in relation to her view of my colleague Liam Kerr’s amendment, which was voted down by the Scottish National Party and the Greens. The justice secretary continued to deny that she had misrepresented Alexis Jay until correspondence confirmed that the current position was unsatisfactory to her.

Finally, just a few weeks ago, the Scottish Government published email correspondence from Alexis Jay confirming that Angela Constance had misled Parliament. There has still been no correction or apology.

You just could not make this up. Cabinet secretaries have tied themselves in knots trying to defend their justice secretary. Let me remind Ross Greer that we have been standing up for victims of grooming gangs, not slavishly and spinelessly protecting the SNP Government. A plethora of cabinet secretaries have been rolled out to shut down the truth.

Over the course of a few weeks, Natalie Don-Innes has responded to an urgent question from Meghan Gallacher while the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs sat in the chamber; Meghan Gallacher raised the subject of an inquiry through a business motion but, again, there no action; Tess White, Pam Gosal, Sharon Dowey and Douglas Ross called for an inquiry in the violence against women and girls debate led by Shirley-Anne Somerville and Kaukab Stewart but, once again, there was no action; there was a Labour debate on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, led for the SNP by Jenny Gilruth and Angela Constance, but once again there was no action; and there was a point of order and an urgent question from my colleague Douglas Ross but, again, there was no action. On top of that, there was an opportunity for John Swinney to respond to his justice secretary’s lying in Parliament at two separate First Minister’s question times in answering questions from my colleague Russell Findlay. There have been no answers, however—just stonewalling. That is no way to treat victims of horrific crimes.

As Taylor’s mum said,

“Where is the humanity for these young people who have to keep being re-traumatised time and time again every time they have to speak out in the hope that you will all do the right thing. The survivors demand honesty and transparency.”

John Swinney could have called an immediate inquiry. It is unclear why the First Minister has not called an immediate investigation or indeed why he has instructed his Cabinet to defend Angela Constance misleading Parliament. As my colleague Russell Findlay said, John Swinney met Taylor and her mother a week ago, on 9 December. Taylor and her mum told the First Minister about the destruction and loss of vital evidence and records held by the Government, the police, education, the national health service and local authorities.

Victims’ voices are clear: they do not want to be fobbed off. Transparency and honesty matter. It is not that the SNP is shy of inquiries, but this one really matters—this situation matters. It appears that the SNP’s strategy has been to get the issue out of the road before Christmas and hope that it goes away, and that people will have forgotten about SNP members’ disgraceful behaviour from the moment that they voted down Liam Kerr’s amendment to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill and about the behaviour of the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who has let down victims.

This stinks. This is on a different scale. Labour and the Liberal Democrats agree: Angela Constance must go, for the sake of survivors and thousands of others whose trust and confidence have been undermined by a cover-up.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes the debate on the motion of no confidence and we move to the question.

The question is, that motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay, on a motion of no confidence, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

We will suspend the meeting to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We come to the vote on motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Brown. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on motion S6M-20135, in the name of Russell Findlay, on a motion of no confidence, is: For 57, Against 67, Abstentions 1.

Motion disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

That concludes this item of business, and there will be a short suspension before we move to the next item.

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendment, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 58A—and the marshalled list. If there is a division, the division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes. The period of voting for the division will be 30 seconds. Members who wish to speak in the debate on amendment 1 should press their request-to-speak buttons or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as the amendment is called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

Section 2—Theft of assistance dogs

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I will not detain the Parliament for too long.

At stage 2, I lodged amendments to establish in the bill the term “helper dog”, which I defined as a dog that satisfied one of two conditions—namely, that it was

“an assistance dog, as defined by ... the Equality Act 2010”

or

“a dog of a category prescribed by regulations”.

The bill as amended at stage 2 links those two conditions with the word “and”, thereby risking an interpretation whereby the dog has to be both an assistance dog and a dog of a category that is prescribed by regulations. That was not my intent. I therefore seek to correct that minor drafting error at stage 3 with my amendment 1, which seeks to ensure that there is no ambiguity and that, to be a helper dog, a dog must be either an assistance dog “or” a dog of a category that is prescribed by regulations.

I move amendment 1.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I confirm that the Scottish Government supports amendment 1, in the name of Maurice Golden, for the reasons that he has given.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Do you have anything to add by way of winding-up remarks, Mr Golden?

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I have nothing further to add.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That ends consideration of amendments.

As members will be aware, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to decide whether, in her view, any provision of the bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise of Scottish parliamentary elections. In the case of the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill, in the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20167, in the name of Maurice Golden, on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. I invite those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call Maurice Golden, the member in charge of the bill, to speak to and move the motion.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am grateful to all those who have assisted with the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill to get it to the point at which the Parliament will vote on it at decision time tonight. However, as a former business manager, I will not be counting my chickens, or indeed my chihuahuas—I had to get that in—until the moment the Presiding Officer announces the result of the vote.

First, I thank my team, as well as everyone in the Scottish Parliament legislation team, including Neil Stewart and Ezgi Denli, who are in the chamber. I am also particularly grateful to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, expertly chaired by my colleague Finlay Carson, for its excellent scrutiny. The committee’s stage 1 report contained a number of recommendations that resulted in stage 2 amendments to refine the bill. The committee’s scrutiny resulted in an improved bill, which I hope will soon become the Dog Theft (Scotland) Act 2026, so I again thank the committee.

I also want to thank the Minister for Victims and Community Safety, Siobhian Brown, and her officials. Over the course of the bill’s development, we have formed a very positive and constructive working relationship to deliver a bill that achieves the policy intent and the vision of those stakeholders who campaigned for a dog theft law and that remains practical for the Scottish Government and partner organisations to implement.

I also thank the witnesses who gave evidence at stage 1, who came from organisations that have campaigned for a change in the law in this area, such as Dogs Trust, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Guide Dogs for the Blind, and those that are involved in implementation and enforcement, such as the Law Society for Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland. The evidence from all those bodies and many others who gave written evidence to the committee or my consultation shaped the bill that we are debating today.

There has been much consideration and scrutiny of the bill, in response to my consultation, in committee and in the chamber at stage 1, and back in committee at stage 2. However, I would like to update members on some of the changes that have been made to my bill since the Parliament agreed to its general principles at stage 1. Members of the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee will be very familiar with these changes, but others might not be.

First, the aggravation in the bill for the theft of an assistance dog is now an aggravation for the theft of a helper dog. That still includes assistance dogs, but it gives the Scottish Government the flexibility to extend the provision to include other categories of dog by regulations. That could include working dogs, which was a recommendation of the lead committee at stage 1. It could also include working gun dogs, should the Government choose to add them, the possibility of which my colleague Rachael Hamilton raised at stage 2.

Secondly, after discussing the matter with the minister, and following stage 1 recommendations from the lead committee, I removed what was section 3 of the bill on victim impact statements. During the bill’s passage, the law on victim impact statements more generally was changed to provide for such statements in solemn cases. I was persuaded by the argument that creating a unique situation for victim impact statements in summary cases through my bill would have been disproportionate. Therefore, I lodged an amendment at stage 2 to remove section 3, which was agreed to.

Following discussions with the minister, I lodged amendments to remove the requirement for the act to be reviewed and to make changes to the reporting mechanisms, creating a one-off reporting mechanism after three years, rather than making it an annual requirement. As well as ensuring that the act does not place overly onerous duties on those who will be required to implement its provisions, that will provide for the collection of good data and reporting mechanisms, with consequential scrutiny. I think that the amendments struck the appropriate balance in that regard.

As regards reviewing the legislation itself, the Parliament could do that at a future date. As I have said previously, post-legislative scrutiny is vitally important, and this Parliament can carry out such scrutiny regardless of whether a requirement to do so is included in an act.

What we have before us is a bill that has been developed following parliamentary scrutiny, stakeholder engagement and constructive working with the Scottish Government. It is a good example, if I may say so, of our legislative procedures and, in particular, the member’s bill process, working effectively, and of parliamentarians, stakeholders and Government shaping a law that will make a positive difference to the lives of dog owners and dogs themselves. It is a law that will help to prevent cruel acts of stealing family pets from taking place, that will punish appropriately when such acts take place, and that will create an aggravation for the particularly egregious theft of helper dogs, be they assistance dogs or other dogs prescribed by the Scottish Government.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill be passed.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Siobhian Brown to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I thank Maurice Golden for his constructive engagement throughout the bill’s parliamentary journey, and I thank the non-Government bills unit for its work and regular engagement with my officials.

No one should ever underestimate the challenges that exist for a member who seeks to take forward their own legislation, and I pay tribute to Mr Golden and his supporting officials for developing legislation that has reached the final stage of its scrutiny process.

I thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its stage 1 report and recommendations and for its further consideration of the bill at stage 2. I must also express my thanks to all the stakeholders who offered their views on the bill’s provisions in evidence sessions and in writing to help to inform policy discussion on the bill.

As a dog owner and a dog lover, I recognise the emotional benefits that dogs bring to our lives. Dogs can lift our mood and provide companionship, and they are treated as members of the family. Therefore, to lose a much-loved dog through theft is horrendous. Dog theft causes distress and can have a profound and devastating impact on victims.

Research and study by the University of the West of England in Bristol tell us that the emotional turmoil experienced by dog owners after their pet has been stolen can lead to owners feeling a sense of grief, and, owing to the closeness of the human-animal bond, it can feel like a devastating loss, with owners experiencing anxiety, sadness, sorrow and despair.

During the stage 1 debate, we heard from many members who spoke passionately about the positive impacts that dogs can have on our lives and the importance of the role that dogs can play within the family setting by bringing happiness, companionship and a sense of purpose. There are also other mental and physical benefits of having a pet.

There is widespread understanding across the Parliament of the impact and emotional turmoil faced by owners who have had their dog stolen and of the very concerning consequences for the health, welfare and wellbeing of dogs that have been stolen.

The amendments that the committee agreed to at stage 2 have addressed the concerns that were raised in the committee’s stage 1 report and have improved and strengthened the bill.

Should Parliament pass the bill this afternoon, there will, of course, be more work to do during the implementation stage. For example, Maurice Golden’s stage 2 amendments to section 2 allow for regulations made by the Scottish Government to be capable of prescribing a category of dog within the description of “helper dog”. That category is wider than the category of assistance dog—for example, it can include a working dog and a support dog. That improved future flexibility in the bill does not affect the aggravation’s operation in relation to assistance dogs as defined by the Equality Act 2010, which remains unchanged.

I have commissioned the Scottish Government’s responsible dog ownership expert advisory group to provide the Government with advice as to what types of dogs it considers could be added to the aggravation offence in section 2 of the bill and, importantly, how to define them. The focus will be on working dogs and support dogs. Those who are working on the definition will take into account the views that were expressed during the stage 1 debate and at stage 2, and they will be listening to the stage 3 debate in order to ensure that all points that are raised are carefully considered.

We recognise that dogs are sentient beings and that they have an emotional connection with, and impact on, their owners. I want to share with members a quote from Henry Wheeler Shaw, an American humorist, lecturer and author, who is credited with the famous quote:

“A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself”.

That quote aligns very well with the bill’s overarching policy aims, which recognise that it is not the monetary value of a stolen pet that matters most to an owner, nor is it the breed or pedigree of a stolen dog—it is the loss of a member of the family.

By passing the bill today, Parliament can help to raise awareness of, and shine a light on, the heartbreak that is caused by the theft of a dog. The Scottish Government will support the bill at stage 3 today.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Tim Eagle to open on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

Tim Eagle (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do not intend to speak for very long today, but I begin by thanking Maurice Golden, whose dedication in introducing this member’s bill and steering it through Parliament has been tireless. His commitment reflects not only his care for animal welfare, but his understanding of the deep bond between people and their dogs.

He is right that, for many Scots, dogs are more than pets—they are companions in times of isolation, loyal partners on long walks, and, for people who are living alone or with health challenges, a daily source of emotional support and wellbeing. Research from animal welfare organisations emphasises that dogs can significantly reduce loneliness and improve mental health.

Losing a dog to theft is not like losing an object; it is—as the cabinet secretary has just pointed out—like losing a valued and loving family member. That is why groups such as Dogs Trust, the Scottish SPCA and other welfare charities have supported stronger recognition of dog theft as a stand-alone offence. They have highlighted the immense emotional impact on owners and the trauma that is experienced when a dog is taken.

The bill, as we know now, will create a specific statutory offence of dog theft with appropriate aggravations where an assistance or helper dog is taken, thereby ensuring that offences are treated with the seriousness that I believe that they deserve.

I therefore urge all members, whether or not they are dog owners, to support the bill today, so that Scotland can send a clear message that we value the welfare of our dogs and the deep, irreplaceable bond that they share with their owners.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Maurice Golden on introducing the bill; it is not easy to bring a member’s bill to this stage.

I thank committee staff and those working in the legislation team who support MSPs in scrutinising legislation, as they are often the unsung heroes of these processes. I also thank those who gave evidence and helped the committee with its deliberations.

The bill changes dog theft from a common law offence to a specific offence in its own right. On the face of it, that appears to change nothing; it is still an offence to steal a dog. However, the bill raises awareness of dog theft. The common law treats a dog as a possession—a thing, rather than a sentient being. The law as it stands does not recognise the distress caused to the dog that is stolen; it recognises only the distress of the owner in having lost a possession and does not recognise the relationship between people and their pets. Pets are more like family members than possessions, and this bill seeks to highlight that relationship.

The bill also includes an aggravated offence for the theft of a helper dog and allows the Scottish Government to add, by regulation, to that definition. The committee had discussions about police dogs, sheep dogs and the like. They are highly trained dogs that have a value due to that training. Obviously, guide dogs are already included in the bill’s definition of a helper dog.

The bill also means that dog theft data will be reported. That does not happen currently, so it was difficult to ascertain the prevalence of the offence. We suspect that it is significant, but we will not know that until data becomes available. We have all heard of cases where dogs have been stolen, and that is especially the case for sought-after breeds that are valuable and can be sold to order. That appeared to be more the case during the pandemic, when dogs were very much in demand, as people were spending more time at home. We will need to see whether that trend continues, but, without historical data that we can depend on, it will be difficult to follow trends.

Arguably, the greatest benefit of this bill will be dependent on awareness raising being carried out in such a way that it acts as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The awareness raising could also highlight the impact of dog theft on the animal and its owner, while reminding people that it is a serious crime and will lead to a criminal conviction.

Although we support the bill, we note that there have been a number of members’ bills on dogs and their welfare in this session of Parliament. It is also clear that there is a lack of Government action on the issue of dogs and their welfare. We need these pieces of legislation to be brought together under new legislation that protects dogs and their owners. We know that dog smuggling goes on, and members’ legislation has tried to deal with unscrupulous breeders, but here we are again with legislation around dog theft.

We need legislation that is not piecemeal but follows through all the issues of criminality around dogs and their breeding, sale, care and welfare. It looks like that will be a job for a new Government in the next Parliament. I hope that the new Government deals with this issue, because it is incredibly important to our constituents.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Ariane Burgess to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Greens.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am grateful to Maurice Golden—and the officials who have supported him—for the work that he has put into this member’s bill, and for introducing legislation that responds to a real public concern. I also thank the Scottish Parliament’s legislation team, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee clerks, the Scottish Parliament information centre, and everyone who participated in the discussions during the proceedings on the bill.

For many people, dogs are not property in any meaningful sense—they are family. Therefore, when a dog is stolen, the impact is not just financial but distressing and traumatic, and it can be life-changing, not just for the humans.

This bill is based on the United Kingdom Pet Abduction Act 2024 and it takes an important step for Scotland. It creates a clear offence with serious penalties—up to five years in prison—and the possibility of an unlimited fine. That matters, because dog theft is not a harmless, opportunistic crime. The evidence suggests that, during the pandemic, as the price of dogs rose sharply, dog theft increased, too, with concerns that organised crime was involved in some cases.

The data is imperfect, but it is sobering. It is also striking how few successful outcomes there are for victims. Research has highlighted that, in the vast majority of cases, no one is charged and, in more than half of cases, no suspect is even identified. If we want to deter this crime and support victims, we need laws that reflect the real harm done, and a system that can deliver justice.

I particularly welcome section 2, which makes the theft of assistance dogs an aggravated offence. For someone who relies on an assistance dog, their theft does not simply mean losing a companion—it means losing mobility, independence and safety, so recognising that additional harm is absolutely right.

As Maurice Golden has discussed, the bill introduces the term “helper dog”, and he explained that that part of the bill is intended to create flexibility through regulations. I simply urge ministers to use that power carefully and to keep the focus where it belongs—on protecting those who depend on assistance dogs, and on ensuring that the law is clear and enforceable. It was good to hear from the minister this afternoon that she has already commissioned work on that.

I also welcome section 4, which would create a reporting mechanism. That matters because, right now, we are working with partial and inconsistent information. If we are going to tackle dog theft properly, we will need reliable data on its prevalence, on patterns and on outcomes. That will let us know whether the bill is working and what further action may be needed.

Alongside criminal law, we should also keep moving on practical measures that will make it harder to steal dogs and easier to reunite them with their owners. Scotland likely has somewhere between 800,000 and 1 million dogs, and that population may have grown significantly since Covid. Measures to improve the accuracy and compliance of microchipping and to have better traceability from breeder to owner can strengthen prevention and enforcement.

The stage 3 amendment that we dealt with today was minor and technical, but the bill itself is not. It would respond to a real harm, signal that Scotland can take this crime seriously and help us to measure whether we are succeeding. The Scottish Greens will support the bill, and I again thank Maurice Golden for his work.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We move to the open debate.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I am delighted to speak in this debate in support of my colleague Maurice Golden’s bill, and not only because I was the additional member in charge of the bill—that is a smart title but, to be honest, I was not actually required to do anything. I know how much determination is needed to introduce a member’s bill, having successfully introduced two of my own.

During the early stages of the bill, the Law Society of Scotland stated:

“Theft is already an offence under the common law, defined as ‘to appropriate moveable, corporeal things belonging to another person, without the consent of that person, where the accused knows that those things belongs to another and intends to deprive the owner of their use permanently, indefinitely or (in certain circumstances) temporarily’. This offence can be used to prosecute dog theft incidents.”

For balance, I will also quote the Law Society’s comments that

“Judges in Scotland have the tools to assess and sanction appropriately dog theft offences, considering the harm that such behaviours may cause to the animal’s welfare and the dog’s owners and family.”

I recall from my days in practice as a solicitor that, when a relationship broke down, although issues with the monetary assets could be resolved, there was often a fight about the family dog, and there were even circumstances in which the family dog was used in a coercive manner.

The rub is the concept of a dog as a “corporeal thing”. It may break our hearts to have a valuable or sentimental piece of property stolen but, in my book, that by no means equates to having a family dog stolen. We have moved a long way from viewing animals—including pets—as property.

There is also specific reference in the bill to “assistance dogs” and “helper” dogs. The heartbreak may be the same or be of a more professional nature if those dogs are stolen, so that classification is important. I welcome the penalties and the aggravation that would be introduced if it is a helper dog, which helps children and adults in their daily lives, that is stolen. Helper dogs can also be used to detect drug smuggling and explosives, and can possibly alert individuals to the presence of cancer. Therefore, an aggravation of the crime in those circumstances—and that is by no means an exhaustive list—would be very welcome.

I appreciate that the possibility of recording dog theft as a specific crime may offer challenges, but those are not insurmountable—I will leave it at that.

I will conclude my speech with a few words about my very late dog of 40 years ago, Roostie—my delightful, kindly Irish setter. She let the cat sleep on top of her—for her body warmth, not his. My sons, who are now fathers themselves, used her as a pillow for comfort as well as for fun. She dragged us out for walks in the pouring rain and we felt the better for it. She was never—ever—property or a “corporeal thing.” Her impact on my life can be measured by the fact that, 40 years on, she is keen in my memories. She taught my sons how to behave and respect her, just as she taught me how to be a good and responsible owner. The reciprocated love and affection of a dog is invaluable.

I will briefly parachute in another point: the festive season is not the time to buy a dog or a puppy, and, when people buy a dog or a puppy, they should do so only from a reputable source.

Going back to my script, I also agree that it would be a good idea in the next parliamentary session to introduce a consolidation bill on all laws that relate to dogs.

On that note, again, I congratulate Maurice Golden. As a postscript, I say that I know that the member is not seeking re-election. He will be a great loss to this place.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

We now move to closing speeches.

Ariane Burgess (Green, Highlands and Islands)

As we close this debate, I want to return to the human impact. When a dog is stolen, it is not just a theft. A family member is taken, routines are shattered and owners are left with the awful uncertainty of not knowing where their animal is or whether it is safe. Again, I thank Maurice Golden for pursuing his member’s bill and for listening to stakeholders as it has progressed.

The bill sits within a wider pattern of legislation in this session of Parliament of members introducing practical reforms to improve dog and pet welfare. We saw that with Christine Grahame’s Welfare of Dogs (Scotland) Bill, which has strengthened responsible dog ownership by improving the information and safeguards that are in place for people buying a dog.

Although there has been progress, more needs to be done, some of which needs Government time and leadership. In particular, we need the Scottish Government to ensure that Mark Ruskell’s Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill is given ample opportunity to pass before the end of this session. Greyhound racing remains a glaring omission in Scotland’s animal welfare landscape. If we are serious about preventing suffering, we cannot keep leaving that gap unaddressed.

Beyond that, there are clear next steps that we should take. We need to ban shock collars for cats and dogs. Training and behaviour should not rely on pain or fear and Scotland should draw a clear ethical line. We need to crack down on puppy smuggling and on poor breeding practices that put profit before welfare, so that people who are trying to buy responsibly are not misled and animals are not traded as commodities. We need tighter regulation of fireworks, because we know the unnecessary suffering, which is predictable and preventable, that they cause to pets, livestock and wildlife.

We need to streamline and strengthen dog legislation. Responsible authorities currently work across multiple overlapping regimes—the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 and wider welfare law—and those often have different tests, thresholds and processes. That complexity makes enforcement harder than it needs to be and it can leave victims feeling as though no one is accountable. We should ensure that the police and local authorities have clear guidance and the resources to enforce the rules.

I believe that, as others have said, we should bring the framework together through a modern, breed-neutral dog control bill that simplifies welfare rules, makes it easier to intervene early, and supports consistent, effective enforcement, focusing on behaviour, responsibility and risk, not on the look of a dog.

Times have changed since some of our laws were written. We now have thriving dog grooming, boarding and walking sectors that remain largely unregulated. Most providers are responsible, but a lack of baseline standards means that not every dog gets the treatment that it should, which can lead to inadvertent harm.

Finally, it is worth remembering that Scotland already has strong foundations in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering, places a duty of care on those responsible for animals and provides powers that can be used to regulate activities to protect welfare. We should use the powers that we have, and strengthen them where needed, to raise standards and prevent harm.

The Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill will help. It recognises the harm of the crime, provides for tougher consequences and improves our ability to measure what is happening through reporting. The Scottish Greens will support the bill, and I hope that we will treat it not as the end of the journey but as part of a clear programme of work to protect animals, support responsible ownership and prevent suffering across Scotland.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

This small but important piece of legislation is about animal rights and animal welfare, but it is also about human rights. It is about our values, our principles—it is about our very moral philosophy.

As representatives of the people, we must be advocates of the people—and they are clear. The people are clear: they unequivocally want us to pass this law today. So, today it is about us and it is about our responsibility to the people.

Let me start on a positive note. It is welcome that the bill now provides for a broader definition of the kind of dog theft that qualifies for an aggravated offence to that of a “helper dog”, but I regret that some other elements of the original version of the bill have been dropped completely.

There should be a victim statement, even though we are talking of summary, not solemn, cases.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way on that point?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I happen to think that it is a useful component in any legal proceedings, because it helps to inform sentencing decisions and brings to our legal system some welcome democratic victim voice.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

But I understand that Government support for the bill was conditional on this being dropped, and Maurice Golden is hemmed in by those dreaded words: “political feasibility”.

Similarly, in my view, there could be, and there should be, annual reporting. The minister—

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

Yeah, ok.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

That was a bit graceless, Mr Leonard.

I am happy to be corrected, but I do not think that a victim statement influences the penalty at the end of the day. I do not think that it does, but no doubt the minister will clarify.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

For me, it is about a principle—about whether the impact on the victim is a matter of record. I think that it should be and it should be taken into account.

Let me turn to something else that has been dropped, and that is the annual reporting on the enforcement of the act. The Minister for Victims and Community Safety told Parliament at stage 1 that providing an annual report on the enforcement of the act “makes it operationally impossible”. I do not accept this, and neither should Parliament. Accountability is important for the functioning of our democracy, and the minister appears before Parliament as a prisoner of operational matters far too often, whether it relates to cuts to the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service; the continued defiance of laws prohibiting fireworks and pyrotechnics use and the absence of a licensing system for that, which, in my personal experience, is also an animal welfare and animal cruelty issue; or this legislation today on dog theft—each one an important area of policy that the minister has direct responsibility for, and I would ask her to reflect on that.

On the other hand, I do accept the argument that post-legislative scrutiny is the prerogative of this Parliament and not of the Government, but that, in turn, requires good data—good data collection and transparency—so that future members of Parliament are able to follow the evidence. As a matter of record, that is something that the Government and its agencies are not always very good at providing. We need action in this area, because people and Parliament deserve more than words of admonishment by the Auditor General for Scotland or criticism by the Public Audit Committee. People deserve action and a wholesale change in political culture.

Where there has been good understanding and where good progress has been made is on the need to raise awareness of the new offence, because our purpose in voting for the legislation is for it to act as a deterrent. While Maurice Golden and I differ on his custodial approach, we can agree that we need to stop dog thefts happening in the first place. We can agree that, when they do happen, we need to raise the probability of the safe return of the dog to their home.

Let me finish with the principles and the values that lie behind the legislation. Dogs are not property—they are living, sentient beings. They are not commodities—they are companions. They are not a lower form of life, but an equal form of life. Without them, for many of us, there would be a loneliness of the soul.

We will be voting for this Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill this afternoon. Many of us will be doing so not only with moral purpose and passion forged on personal experience, but with political principle as well.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Jamie Halcro Johnston to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I had the opportunity back in October to speak in support of the bill and in recognition of the hard work of my colleague Maurice Golden and others at stage 1. As Christine Grahame rightly says, Maurice Golden will be missed in this place, although his humour—judging by the start of his speech—might not be missed quite so much.

I am pleased that the bill has reached this stage, and I sincerely hope that, at the end of the day, it will complete its progress through the Parliament, as it sounds like it will. A key component in the bill advancing is the Scottish Government’s support for the creation of a distinct dog theft offence. That is welcome, and I largely commend the minister for the way in which the Government has engaged with the process and helped to create a level of cross-party consensus.

As others have mentioned, the bill is different from the one that we were faced with at stage 1. In the stage 1 debate, I argued, alongside others, for the positive role that victim statements could play in relation to the proposed offence, as highlighted by Richard Leonard. At that point, it was already clear that there was no obvious route to the provision gaining Scottish Government support, and it has been removed from the bill that is before us today.

That is disappointing, because the inclusion of victim statements was a positive measure that seemed to earn widespread support in the chamber. It now appears to have fallen victim to expediency—specifically, the Scottish Government’s view that, in the words of the minister, “at this point”, it did not wish to address the introduction of victim statements in summary cases. I acknowledge the position that summary offences that are equally serious would not have provision for victim statements to be used. Although I accept that that is the cost of securing the Scottish Government’s support, that provision could have been a powerful tool to emphasise the deeply personal and emotional elements of the offence, as highlighted by other members, and to inform sentencing decisions.

There are a number of other worthy elements that members may wish to have seen added to the bill rather than subtracted from it. Protection for other animals was high on the list. Cats were most obviously mentioned, although, given the freedom to wander, for practical purposes, they are quite different from dogs. Christine Grahame put it best when she said:

“Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.”—[Official Report, 2 October 2025; c 87.]

At stage 1, Richard Leonard made an impassioned plea on behalf of his constituent about dog attacks on other dogs, and he pointed to the public position on the subject. Such attacks can be devastating for dogs and owners alike and can leave owners with enormous costs for treatment. Unfortunately, there have been many examples of people not taking proper precautions to prevent dog attacks, and a considerable gap exists in how the law addresses those.

Elena Whitham made some very insightful, powerful and concerning points about the role that pets can play as a tool of domestic abuse and coercive control.

One of the most pressing remaining issues with the bill, should it be passed and receive royal assent, is that of what resources will be available to publicise and enforce the new law. I hope that the Scottish Government and relevant agencies will make that part of their work once the new offence is in place.

I commend Maurice Golden, his staff and all those who have been involved in bringing the bill to this stage. Any dog owner will attest to the fact that it has been an important issue to champion and, as any victim of dog theft will know, Maurice Golden is tackling a terrible evil. It seems that the Parliament accepts and recognises the main issue that dog theft is different from normal theft in category rather than just degree, and that such a difference ought to be recognised consistently.

We all appreciate that the bill can go only so far and achieve only so much, and the bill’s critics are by no means entirely wrong or misguided. Much more is needed than legislative change, and the direct gain from the bill might be smaller than we might like. However, I hope that it can help to drive a shift in our institutions’ culture towards treating dog theft with the seriousness that it deserves. The Parliament, in its role not only as a legislative body but as a forum for the nation, will also be sending a strong message that this sort of crime should not and will not be tolerated.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate.

As I made clear in my opening remarks, I have welcomed the constructive and helpful meetings that I have had with Mr Golden since stage 1 to discuss the bill. Although the Scottish Government had concerns about aspects of the bill when it was introduced, Mr Golden lodged stage 2 amendments on those aspects to ensure that the Scottish Government could support it.

I will come to some of the points that have been raised throughout the debate.

A few members mentioned consolidation of legislation in the next parliamentary session. I have responsibility for dangerous dogs, and animal welfare is under Minister Fairlie. With that in mind, last September, we hosted a responsible dog ownership summit, because we believe that more can be done to improve public safety by ensuring that dogs are responsibly acquired, owned and looked after. The Scottish Government is always open to considering carefully any evidence-based suggestions to help to improve people’s safety. The summit was an opportunity to bring together attendees from a wide range of organisations, including Police Scotland, local authorities and veterinary bodies as well as public health and third sector organisations, to consider how dog control and public safety can be improved. My colleague Christine Grahame was also in attendance.

The summit’s key outcome was the Scottish Government’s establishment of an expert advisory group to look at the various issues that were raised and to help to determine what can be progressed in the short, medium and long term. A number of sub-groups of the expert advisory group have now been set up to look at specific areas of work, such as enforcement and resources; dog welfare; prevention, education and communication; data to inform and support dog control policy; and health service data.

The expert advisory group is now also considering the helper dog definition issue. Although we are not progressing with legislation in this parliamentary session, work has started on that for the next session.

I will touch on victim statements, which have been raised. The bill as drafted would have allowed people who are victims of a dog theft to give a victim impact statement to the court, and that would have applied to any court. Although the Scottish Government is sympathetic on the issue, victim impact statements are currently available for certain solemn offences only. The bill, as drafted, would have specifically included the new offence of dog theft in summary cases so that, in order to inform sentencing, a victim could express to the court the impact that the crime had on them physically, emotionally and financially.

When I met Maurice Golden ahead of stage 1, I made it clear that the Scottish Government required the removal of that provision in order to support the bill, which he acted on at stage 2. That also reflected the committee’s recommendation in the stage 1 report that the provision be removed—a recommendation that was made in light of general concerns about the appropriateness of the approach.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

[ Made a request to intervene. ]

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Can I get the time back, Presiding Officer?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

If the intervention is brief.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I honestly do not know the answer to this question. As I understand it, a victim impact statement does not do anything to the sentencing at the end of the day. I know that the provision was taken out of the bill, but is it generally the case that such statements have nothing to do with sentencing?

I think that Richard—oh, I have forgotten his other name.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

Leonard.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale)

I beg your pardon, Mr Leonard, I was distracted.

Richard Leonard seemed to be confused about that issue—

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I think that the minister has the gist of your question.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

My understanding is that the statements help the court and inform sentencing, but perhaps I could get back to Christine Grahame on the exact details.

Amendments that were made to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill will in due course extend the use of victim impact statements to all solemn cases.

I know that I am short of time, but I want to touch on raising awareness of the new offence. The Scottish Government will work with Maurice Golden to publicise and raise awareness of the new dog theft offence. The Scottish Government already has links with a wide range of stakeholders that have a strong interest in dog control and dog welfare policy matters. My officials meet regularly with a range of organisations that have a strong interest in the new offence and dog welfare, including Police Scotland, local authorities, veterinary bodies, the public health sector and a wide range of third sector organisations, such as the SSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and many more. The Scottish Government will work with all stakeholders to promote and raise awareness if the bill is passed.

I thank the members who have contributed to this afternoon’s debate. I welcome the cross-party support for the bill. As I have made clear as the bill has progressed through Parliament, dog theft is an emotive issue. The Scottish Government recognises and understands the emotional impact on owners if their dog is taken from them. I hope that, by supporting the bill, the Parliament demonstrates how seriously it takes dog theft.

I congratulate Mr Golden on being able to progress his bill through all the various scrutiny processes, and I encourage all members to support the bill at decision time.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call Maurice Golden, as the member in charge of the bill, to wind up the debate. You have up to five minutes, Mr Golden.

Maurice Golden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank all members who have contributed to today’s debate, which has been very useful. More generally, I thank everyone for their engagement in scrutinising the bill.

I will touch on the speeches that we have heard. Minister Siobhian Brown, who is a dog owner and dog lover, said that dog theft has a

“profound and devastating impact on victims.”

I look forward to the Scottish Government’s expert advisory group’s recommendations with respect to helper dogs in due course.

Tim Eagle spoke about dogs being companions, loyal partners and a daily source of emotional support and wellbeing. Rhoda Grant agreed and highlighted that the bill will facilitate improved data collection. Ariane Burgess said that the bill responds to a real harm and that dog theft is not just a theft.

Christine Grahame, whom I thank for being the additional member in charge of the bill, spoke of her late dog Roostie, the Irish setter, who was never property but a loving companion. She highlighted that it would be appropriate for there to be a consolidation bill in the next session of Parliament.

On the point that Richard Leonard and Jamie Halcro Johnston made about victim statements, it is worth noting for the Official Report that the removal of that provision was a committee recommendation, so it would be wrong to frame the proposal as one that emanated solely from the Scottish Government.

Of course, politics is the art of the possible, and achieving goals often involves compromise, challenge and collaboration. The bill that is before us, which we will vote on tonight, has been refined in that fire, and I will be very proud if it becomes the Dog Theft (Scotland) Act 2026.

Again, I thank members and stakeholders for their engagement. In particular, I thank the minister, Siobhian Brown, and the committee.

During the stage 1 debate, I quoted the late American animal welfare activist Roger Caras, who said that dogs “make our lives whole”. I will close with more of his wise words. He said:

“Dogs have given us their absolute all. We are the center of their universe. We are the focus of their love and faith and trust.”

Dogs are for life, not just for Christmas, so let us repay some of that love, faith and trust this Christmas season by voting to pass the bill at decision time.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes the debate on the Dog Theft (Scotland) Bill at stage 3. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 50A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for about five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak in a debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button as soon as possible after the group has been called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list.

Section 1—Provision of residential outdoor education

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 1 is on guidance: process. Amendment 1, in the name of Liz Smith, is grouped with amendments 6 and 7.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Before I begin my remarks, I thank all those who have engaged so thoroughly on the bill. I also thank John Mason, Jackie Dunbar, Jeremy Balfour and the minister for their amendments in this group and for the general scrutiny that has taken place. I thank the minister for all the work that she and her officials have done. I also thank Pam Duncan-Glancy for all the work that she has undertaken on amendments in this group, particularly when it comes to additional support for learning.

Group 1 is about the process by which statutory guidance under the bill is developed. Amendment 1 is a technical amendment that will correct a minor drafting error by referring to section 1 of the bill rather than the inserted section 6B of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

Amendment 6 requires the Scottish ministers to consult people who are employed in public schools or grant-aided schools who are not in trade unions before providing the guidance on residential outdoor education as required by the bill. At stage 2, an amendment in the name of Pam Duncan-Glancy that required trade unions that represent school employees to be consulted was agreed to. That is a welcome measure. It did, however, leave a potential gap whereby there was no provision in the bill for employees who are not in trade unions to be consulted. Amendment 6 plugs that gap, and I hope that the Parliament will support it.

Amendment 7, in the name of the minister, requires pupils or their representatives to be consulted in advance of preparing the statutory guidance. The amendment follows many discussions that I have had with the minister. It is a welcome measure that will improve the bill and I have no hesitation in encouraging all members to support it.

I move amendment 1.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I believe that the final set of amendments that I have lodged at stage 3 respond effectively to the concerns that some members raised at stage 2 and they have been discussed and agreed with the member in charge.

Amendment 7 addresses the fact that, given that we have now agreed to provide in the bill an extensive list of key stakeholders who should be consulted, not including children and young people is a glaring omission. Should the bill pass today, Scotland’s children and young people will benefit from its provisions. It is therefore absolutely right that they should have the opportunity to give meaningful input on how the bill is implemented, so that its provisions meet their needs.

That is especially true where barriers exist that prevent some children and young people from accessing residential outdoor education through disability, support needs or poverty. If we are to change that, their views need to be accommodated, heard and listened to. The best way to know what pupils want and need from those experiences and the approach to provision that works best for them is to ask them.

Amendment 7 remedies that omission, and the approach that it takes also strengthens the Scottish Government’s commitment to upholding the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I therefore hope that everyone in the chamber will support amendment 7.

Liz Smith’s amendment 6 also helps to give effect to another of this Government’s core policies, this time on fair work, by ensuring that all workers have an effective voice and a say on matters that affect them. I emphasise again my appreciation for the commitment of the education workforce, including teachers, pupil support assistants and other professionals who give freely of their time to provide Scotland’s children and young people with valuable residential outdoor education experiences. It is important that they can give their views on the implementation of the bill. Amendment 6 therefore seeks to build on what was agreed at stage 2, as Liz Smith alluded to. I therefore encourage the chamber to support amendment 6.

The final amendment in the group, amendment 1, seeks to correct a technical error in the original drafting of the bill. It makes no change to the intention of the provision. I therefore recommend that members also support amendment 1.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I support all the amendments in the group, but I take the opportunity to comment on amendment 7. Before I do so, I thank Liz Smith for all her work on the bill and, in particular, for the compliment that she gave to my colleague Pam Duncan-Glancy.

Amendment 7 relates to the statutory guidance, and I very much welcome the on-going commitment of the minister and the Scottish Government to the UNCRC and the need for meaningful discussion with our young people and their representatives, particularly in this challenging area where there might be a disability or a challenge in accessing and understanding what they are being asked about.

In short, I thank the Government and the member for ensuring that amendment 7 was lodged. I look forward to the same level of commitment from the Government in forthcoming bills.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 2 is on guidance: detail. Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 10 and 3 to 5.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Amendments 2, 3 and 5 in my name are largely technical amendments. Amendment 2 relates to the terminology that was used in drafting the original bill provisions on guidance, including the paragraph on standards. Although standards will clearly be important to ensure consistency in the quality of provision, that cannot be compelled through guidance. Even statutory guidance cannot impose duties, so my amendment 2 seeks to adjust the wording, to remove “must” and replace it with “should”.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Could the minister confirm that the change made by amendment 2 in no way weakens the expectation that the guidance will be robust and enforceable?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I do not believe that it weakens it at all—and the other amendments in the group speak to that. I think that we are covered there.

Amendment 3 seeks to remove the superfluous word “carers”, because carers, who are an accepted part of the family structure in law, are already provided for in the definition in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which the bill seeks to amend. The 1980 act provides a definition of the term “parent” that includes any person who

“has parental responsibilities ... in relation to, or has care of a child or young person”.

The amendment is a technical change that seeks solely to ensure consistency with the definition of “parent” in the 1980 act.

Amendment 5 is a minor technical amendment to replace a reference to legislation that is to be repealed. Should the bill pass today, by the time it comes into force, the section that is referenced in the 1980 act will effectively have been superseded by the Education (Scotland) Act 2025. I therefore encourage the Parliament to support amendments 2, 3 and 5.

Amendments 10 and 4 are the more substantive amendments in this group. Throughout the bill process, I have been focused on ensuring that its provisions help to give effect to the Scottish ministers’ programme for government commitment to

“make sure that pupils from lower-income families can take part in school trips, providing support for children to go on curriculum-related trips and activities, and Primary 6/7 residentials”.

That also applies to children with additional support needs, who, as we have heard throughout the bill process, are often excluded from residential experiences that their peers enjoy, because provision is simply not accessible. If we are putting residential outdoor education on a statutory footing, we must do so in a way that seeks to remedy those exclusions and make provision equitable. I therefore welcome Mr Balfour’s amendment 10.

The bill already requires that the residential outdoor education that is provided be

“suitable to a pupil’s age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs”.

The guidance will be required to set out how that suitability should be assessed.

Amendment 10 seeks to build on existing bill provisions to support education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools in considering what steps they may need to take to ensure that all children and young people, and especially those with an additional support need, are able to access residential outdoor education.

Legislation already provides for any support need, whether short or long term, to be considered and, where appropriate, supported. There are specific groups who can expect their needs to be assessed, including looked-after children, young carers and children with multiple and/or complex needs. The guidance will have to show how all those different types of need among children and young people might be supported or addressed in how residential education is provided. That is something that I think we will all welcome. For those reasons, I encourage the Parliament to support amendment 10.

Amendment 4 seeks to make clear that affordability should not be a barrier to children and young people accessing residential outdoor education in the future. Liz Smith has been very clear that her bill seeks to build on, rather than put a stop to, that good practice, and she has been clear that mixed funding models must, therefore, continue to be supported. Indeed, the stage 2 amendment from the member in charge to enable parental contributions to be sought, which was agreed to, was a welcome addition in that regard. However, as was made clear in the committee during stage 2, there should be discretion and flexibility as to when and from whom financial contributions might be sought. There will always be circumstances in which affordability becomes a consideration for some children and young people and it would not be appropriate to ask for a financial contribution. I therefore welcome Mr Mason’s amendment.

I support amendments 4 and 10. I move amendment 2.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I congratulate Liz Smith on getting this far with the bill, and I am pleased that it has cross-party support. I thank the minister for the constructive dialogue that we have had over the past weeks and months.

As Liz Smith and the minister have acknowledged, my priority in engaging with the bill process has been to ensure that the provision of residential outdoor education is made available to all pupils in Scotland. I take this opportunity to emphasise my view that no child or young person should miss out on residential outdoor education because they have an additional support need or a disability, are a young carer or need support from a carer or carers to be able to participate equitably in the scheme.

I raised these issues in amendments at stage 2, and I welcome the fact that my concerns were shared and that these important matters have been given due consideration by the member in charge and the minister, as they promised.

I welcome the comments that were made by the minister a few moments ago, particularly on young carers. I remain concerned that, not next year or the year after but in years to come, young carers will still not feel that they are able to go away due to the support that they give a family member or somebody else. We must ensure that they are protected from that.

My amendment 10 represents the outcome of our considerations. Amendment 10 will require the statutory guidance to make provision about

“the steps that education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools should take to support participation in residential outdoor education by pupils”

and, in particular

“pupils with additional support needs”.

That will be a welcome addition in providing schools with practical advice on how to make those often complex considerations.

My hesitation regarding guidance is well documented. However, I am reassured that the amendment will support existing provisions in the bill that will require courses of residential outdoor education to be suitable for pupils’ age, ability, aptitude and any additional support needs.

If agreed to, amendment 10 will give a strong further signal across the Government and the Parliament to ensure that inclusion and equality sit at the heart of Liz Smith’s bill. I encourage members to vote for it.

John Mason (Independent, Glasgow Shettleston)

As members probably know, my reservations about the bill have been to do with its financial aspects and, in particular, whether the public purse should be paying for the children of better-off families who could well afford to pay for such courses and are currently doing so. If there was plenty of money available, perhaps no family would pay, but money is tight and we need to target public expenditure. I continue to have concerns that the updated financial information provides no real idea of what the bill, if passed, will cost.

I was happy to support Liz Smith’s amendment at stage 2 to enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to require a parental contribution towards their child’s course of residential outdoor education. That is already the case in many schools and local authorities, and we do not wish to undercut effective existing good practice. However, a key aim of the bill is that residential outdoor education should be available to all young people, no matter how well off their families are and no matter whether a child has a disability, and I completely agree that there will be circumstances in which a parental contribution is not appropriate. For example, I would expect that members would agree that no pupil should be unable to participate in residential outdoor education due to their family’s financial circumstances or because of any additional costs that arise from having an additional support need.

Therefore, through amendment 4, I aim to ensure that statutory guidance includes matters to be considered by education authorities and grant-aided schools when requiring financial contributions, to further support equality of access to residential outdoor education. I trust that members will support amendment 4.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will comment briefly on the amendments in the group, all of which relate to the statutory guidance under the bill and follow on from very constructive discussions that I had prior to stage 3 with the minister, Jeremy Balfour and John Mason. I support all the amendments in the group.

Amendment 2, in the name of the minister, changes “must” to “should” in new section 6B(4)(b) of the 1980 act—which, if the amendment is agreed to, will mean that the statutory guidance that is issued under the bill must include provision about the standard to which residential education should be provided. That reflects the fact that statutory obligations cannot be made through guidance, and is consistent with the wording of a provision elsewhere in section 6B(4). I am therefore very content to support amendment 2.

Amendment 10, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, and amendment 4, in the name of John Mason, will require the statutory guidance to include provision about the steps that should be taken to support participation by pupils including, in particular, those with additional support needs, and provision about the requiring of a financial contribution from parents, including, in particular, the matters that are to be taken into account to ensure equality of access. Both those amendments follow on from discussions at stage 2 and immediately thereafter. At stage 2, the bill was amended both to remove its duty on ministers to fund the full provision of residential outdoor education and to enable education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools to ask parents for a contribution.

In lodging my stage 2 amendments, I sought commitments from the minister that parents of pupils with additional support needs would not be charged more to cover the cost of providing for those needs to be met, and that pupils whose parents could not afford to contribute would still be able to benefit from residential outdoor education courses. Helpfully, the minister gave those commitments at stage 2. I am very grateful to her for that. Amendments 10 and 4 further solidify those commitments by requiring the statutory guidance to include provision about pupils with additional support needs and about equality of access. I therefore very much welcome both amendments 10 and 4.

As the minister said, amendment 3, in her name, is a minor and technical amendment to ensure consistency with the Education (Scotland) Act 1980—and amendment 5, too, is a technical amendment to reflect the fact that the inspection regime will be governed by the Education (Scotland) Act 2025 when that comes into force. Members may recall that section 45 of that act requires an inspection plan to set out information about the extent to which, and how, inspections will evaluate outdoor education. I therefore welcome amendments 3 and 5.

I encourage everyone to support the amendments in this group.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The amendments in the group concern provisions relating to the statutory guidance that are important in seeking to ensure that legislative standards are of the highest and that those whom the bill will impact most directly will have a meaningful voice in its implementation.

I do not have too much to add, but I want to speak to Jeremy Balfour’s comments. Mr Balfour has again put on record his concerns about young carers. We have discussed that topic at length. We have worked with the aim of ensuring that the bill is equitable, so I want again to put on record, and emphasise, that the provisions in the bill will ensure the full consideration of those matters and the needs of those pupils, to ensure that they will be able to access their residential trip.

I encourage members to support all the amendments in the group, and I press amendment 2.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Amendment 10 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendment 3 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 4 moved—[John Mason]—and agreed to.

Amendment 5 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 6 moved—[Liz Smith]—and agreed to.

Amendment 7 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to group 3 on reporting duty. Amendment 8, in the name of Jackie Dunbar, is the only amendment in the group.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Members sought to introduce various forms of reporting duties through stage 2 amendments, and amendment 8 seeks to draw the different proposed approaches together, through a single reporting duty, which will address many of the concerns that have been raised.

It is important that ministers undertake a review and report on the provision of residential outdoor education by education authorities and managers of grant-aided schools. That will help to strengthen transparency and accountability of delivery. Throughout the bill process, it has been clear that members feel strongly that, if the bill is to achieve anything, it must be to deliver more equitable and accessible provision in the future, so that every child or young person who wants to participate can do so.

Amendment 8 requires the report to set out

“the extent to which the residential outdoor education provided was suitable for and accessed by pupils ... with additional support needs”

and those

“who experience socio-economic disadvantage”.

It further requires the report to include

“an assessment of the impact on and outcomes for pupils who participated in residential outdoor education”.

There are outstanding concerns around the potential workforce implications associated with the bill, which is a matter that I raised during stages 1 and 2. Those concerns will need to be resolved ahead of implementation, which is why the amendment requires that the report also assesses the impact of provision on the education workforce.

Finally, the amendment requires the report to include any further steps that Scottish ministers propose to take with respect to the provision of residential outdoor education.

Setting out in the bill the key topics to be covered in the report will provide a strong signal to the wider education system about the overall areas of focus of any future data collection that partners would need to be able to respond to.

The report is to be produced

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

after the five-year reporting period, which begins on the day on which the act comes fully into force. That will ensure that the Government can build up a robust bank of qualitative and quantitative data, from which meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

Amendment 8 covers all the key issues that were raised at stage 2 and strikes the right balance in relation to reporting duties, and I encourage members to support it.

I move amendment 8.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I rise to confirm our support for amendment 8, which is, in effect, a provision for post-legislative scrutiny to come about. That is increasingly a characteristic of bills in the Parliament, and we should continue to defend that and ensure that all legislation includes that provision. I very much welcome the five-year reporting period, but, in summing up, will the minister indicate whether any interim reporting might be published during those five years, where appropriate?

I thank Jackie Dunbar, who moved amendment 8, for discussing the potential effect on teachers and the workforce in schools. People outside the chamber have expressed some concern about that aspect, and I hope that amendment 8 goes some way towards allaying those fears or ensures that, if there are challenges, they are captured early on.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

At stage 2, members lodged a number of amendments in relation to reporting duties and how and when those might be fulfilled. I welcomed the debate and listened carefully to what members had to say about their individual amendments. I further welcomed the fact that members did not move or press their amendments and accepted my undertaking to consider reporting duties more generally and to bring back an amendment at stage 3 that would deliver on most aspirations and issues that were raised. Therefore, I am pleased to support Jackie Dunbar’s amendment 8, and I note that the general reporting duty in amendment 8 applies to Scottish ministers. I believe that a single reporting duty is the most effective and efficient approach. The amendment avoids placing undue additional administrative burdens on local authorities, the education profession and outdoor residential education facility owners and operators.

On Mr Whitfield’s concerns, I understand why he might want interim reporting before the end of the five years. We can discuss that, but we need to be careful because we will be laying the regulations for commencement in two years, and there will be a number of checkpoints, so we will need to see when we reach those. Therefore, we do not yet have a final date for when the bill will be commenced. However, as part of on-going discussions, we will be more than happy to consider whether that might be helpful, including whether it might be helpful in specific areas.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful for that confirmation, which adequately answers the question that I raised.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Overall, I believe that the general reporting duty proposed by this amendment reflects a proportionate and deliverable approach to assessing provision under the bill. I am pleased, too, that the member in charge of the bill has agreed to this approach. I therefore encourage members to support amendment 8.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I very much welcome amendment 8 from Jackie Dunbar. As members will recall, Pam Duncan-Glancy lodged a series of reporting amendments at stage 2 but ultimately Ms Duncan-Glancy did not move or press those amendments on the basis of the minister giving a commitment to consider a general reporting duty. Amendment 8 gives effect to that commitment.

I particularly welcome the fact that amendment 8 requires the report to set out

“an assessment of the equality of access to residential outdoor education ... including the extent to which the residential outdoor education provided was suitable for and accessed by pupils ... with additional support needs”

and pupils

“who experience socio-economic disadvantage”.

Equality and equity of opportunity have always been at the heart of the policy underpinning this bill and I know that that ambition is shared by the minister.

At the same time, it has been clear throughout the bill’s passage that data collection in the sphere of residential outdoor education has been patchy for a number of years, and amendment 8 seeks to address some of those issues, ensuring better data collection and reporting and further ensuring that the issues faced by children who either have additional support needs or experience socioeconomic disadvantage are considered, reported on, and addressed as appropriate.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jackie Dunbar to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 8.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

I have nothing further to add, Presiding Officer. I will press amendment 8.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

After section 1

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 4 is on facilities. Amendment 11, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Amendment 11, in my name, sets out that facilities that provide residential outdoor education have to put in a changing places toilet within five years of section 1 coming into force.

I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, but the minister pointed out that perhaps it was not absolutely correctly drafted and that we would have problems in regard to amending other pieces of legislation and also in regard to calling it a changing places toilet. Taking those words to heart, I have redrafted the amendment to simply put in what has to happen and, rather than describing it as a changing places toilet, to outline what a changing places toilet is made up of.

The reason for doing that is that we can have all the funding, all the children and all the will in the world, but, if a facility is not suitable for a disabled child to use, they will be excluded. All the evidence that has been gathered over the past number of years, by the Scottish Government and others, is that the changing places toilet is the toilet that makes the difference to those with certain disabilities, and it seems reasonable to me that residential outdoor education centres should have that type of toilet within five years. If there is a financial issue, there is Scottish Government funding to allow such toilets to be put in.

I genuinely believe that, without such toilets, we would exclude a substantial minority of children from being able to benefit from this bill. I believe that the amendment gives us plenty of time for it to happen. It is proportionate and would open up access to outdoor residential education, so I hope that members will support the amendment.

I move amendment 11.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

The Scottish Government champions and supports the roll-out of changing places toilets in appropriate public settings, including by providing £10 million in funding across this financial year and the next to create up to 150 additional community toilet facilities across Scotland for people with complex disabilities and health conditions. That builds on progress to date, which has seen the number of changing places toilets across Scotland increase to 270—a 30 per cent rise since 2019.

I very much appreciate Mr Balfour’s intention in lodging amendment 11, and I welcome his reaching out in advance of doing so to seek my views on the proposed approach. He will, therefore, be familiar with the points that I am going to set out and my position on the amendment.

For assurance, I believe that existing provisions in the bill will ensure that pupils who may require a changing places facility, and their associated needs, will be considered with regard to the requirements that are set out in inserted section 6A(3)(c) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and to the statutory guidance, which must include relevant content as set out in section 6B(4)(c) of the 1980 act.

As has already been discussed, I welcome Mr Balfour’s amendment 10, which would further strengthen the place and priority that is given to ensuring equity of provision and access for pupils with additional support needs.

Mr Balfour is right to draw attention to the need for residential outdoor education facilities to consider making adaptations to ensure that they can meet the needs of all pupils, including disabled pupils. However, amendment 11 would seem to pre-empt a robust analysis of what the overall adaptation requirements may look like to ensure deliverability of the bill, should it become law.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

The minister has hinted at some of the challenges that may exist with amendment 11, although we must extend great sympathy for its intent. Is the minister confident that the alternative measures and the guidance will ensure that pupils who require such provision do not feel excluded from accessing outdoor education facilities?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I am confident, and I have something to show why that is the case, which I will come to in a moment. Nevertheless, there are other reasons, over and above what I have already laid out, which I am about to come to.

A key requirement for our delivery plan for the bill will be the mapping of existing sector capacity compared with the demands to be generated by the legislation upon commencement. That will ensure that consideration of adaptations across the residential outdoor education sector is informed by different pupils’ needs and can be designed and planned for in a way that ensures effective delivery at both regional and national levels.

I am really encouraged by feedback that I have received from those in the residential sector. They are very prepared and enthusiastic to make the changes and to build out facilities to support the bill’s implementation, including equity of provision for all our pupils.

Another challenge is that the amendment asks centres to go above and beyond what is required of them under existing planning legislation, which could incur significant additional costs that would risk making the bill unaffordable and undeliverable. For some facilities, such as camp grounds and sailing boats, it would simply not be possible to comply with the requirements stipulated by the amendment. That would unhelpfully restrict the range of providers who are available to respond to the legislation.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

I have some sympathy for Mr Balfour’s amendment, because I have been a great advocate—as he has—for changing places toilets. However, I recognise that there are some facilities where it will not be possible to put such changing places provisions in place. Will the Government look at whether it would be possible for mobile changing places toilets to come into play in some facilities where it may be impossible to build a fixed changing places toilet?

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

That could certainly be considered. I do not know the full detail of mobile changing places facilities, but I understand that we would not want some pupils losing out on a visit to a specific residential outdoor education facility because of a lack of such provision. We can—absolutely—consider that.

I do not have anything further to add. I cannot support amendment 11, and I ask members not to support it either.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

First, I put on record, as I did at stage 2, the very high regard that I have for the tireless and constructive way in which Mr Balfour, in the 10 years that he has been in Parliament, has campaigned on issues affecting disabled people. I very much welcome his engagement with the bill and his championing of the issues affecting disabled people and children and young people who have caring responsibilities.

Like other members, I have sympathy for the policy intention behind amendment 11. Having changing places toilets in outdoor centres is a very positive and valuable measure, and I know, from discussions that I have had in the outdoor education sector, that ensuring that there is such provision as part of making facilities accessible more generally is a very live and important issue.

There is, however, a technical issue with amendment 11, because the bill is about more than just outdoor centres. Facilities that could, within the terms of my bill, be used to provide residential outdoor education include not just outdoor centres but youth hostels and camps—and, as the minister just mentioned, sailing boats. The list in the bill is without limitation, so amendment 11 would have the effect of requiring any of those facilities to have changing places toilets although, as Mr Stewart has just intimated, in some instances that might not be possible.

I therefore agree with the minister. Although we welcome the intention behind amendment 11, I do not think that it is workable. For that reason, we will not support it.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 11.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I am disappointed with the response from the minister and Liz Smith. In this Parliament, when it comes to disabled people, we are good at words but I am afraid that actions do not always follow.

Last Thursday, the Deputy First Minister made a helpful closing speech on British Sign Language provision and how her Government was going to make sure that work on that would happen. It was interesting that, even at stage 2, when I lodged an amendment in relation to BSL, it was rejected while an amendment in relation to Gaelic was accepted. The disability community hears that—it hears that Gaelic is important but that BSL is less so. Again, we have heard lots of warm words.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

I hear what Mr Balfour says, and I echo what has been said about his dedication to supporting disabled people. However, before we set up any false divisions, will he acknowledge that many of us have campaigned for both Gaelic and BSL?

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I do accept that, but my point is that, at stage 2, the committee did not accept that amendment.

Yet again, we have heard that the minister is concerned about cost and implementation. My big fear is that, down the road, a number of places will say that this provision is too expensive and they will not have to implement it.

In his intervention on the minister, Mr Stewart took some of the words out of my mouth. I was disappointed that the minister did not know about portable changing places toilets, which would rectify many of the issues that she has raised with regard to some of the facilities.

I will press amendment 11, because the disabled community does not want just to hear warm words from this Parliament. We want to see real action that will make a real change to people’s lives.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 11 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

There will be a division. As this is the first division of stage 3, I will suspend the meeting for around five minutes, to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We move to the vote on amendment 11. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—actually, I can see that I voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Mr Gray. I can confirm that your vote was counted.

I call Alex Cole-Hamilton on a point of order.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

[ Inaudible .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

If I could have a little less noise in the chamber, I may have a chance of hearing. [ Interruption. ] Members, you are now heckling me.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I hope that you can hear me now, Presiding Officer—[ Inaudible .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Could you please repeat that, Mr Cole-Hamilton?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

[ Inaudible .]

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I am afraid that the audio was not sufficient to record that, Mr Cole-Hamilton.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 1, Against 95, Abstentions 18.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Section 3—Ancillary Provision

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 5 is on ancillary provision. Amendment 9, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

Amendment 9 makes a procedural change to align the scope of the power in section 3 to make ancillary regulations with that of the power to make such provision in commencement regulations. The amendment creates internal consistency throughout the bill. It makes no substantive changes to the intention or the meaning of the bill; rather, it ensures clarity and consistency.

I move amendment 9 and recommend that the chamber support it.

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have very little to add to what the minister has just said, because it is an important if technical amendment.

As we are reaching the end of the amendments stage, I put on record my thanks to everybody who has lodged different amendments and for their considerable engagement throughout the process.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

I call the minister to wind up.

Natalie Don (Scottish National Party, Renfrewshire North and West)

I recommend that members support amendment 9.

Amendment 9 agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes stage 3 consideration of amendments.

Members will be aware that the Presiding Officer is required, under standing orders, to decide whether, in her view, any provision of a bill relates to a protected subject matter—that is, whether it modifies the electoral system and franchise for Scottish parliamentary elections. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Schools (Residential Outdoor Education) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter. Therefore, the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.