Scottish Parliament, 18 March 2026

408 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on business confidence and investment of non-domestic rates thresholds having limited movement since 2020-21. (S6O-05648)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Annual decisions on non-domestic rates are made in the context of prevailing economic conditions and Government priorities at the time. Our budget supports businesses with a decrease in all three non-domestic property rates, delivering the lowest basic property rate since 2018-19, and a reliefs package that is estimated to be worth £870 million in 2026-27.

Thriving businesses are key to Scotland’s prosperity. Many factors, such as the United Kingdom Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, have had significant impacts, which have contributed to reduced business confidence in Scotland.

Engagement with business on non-domestic rates continues through the NDR consultative group.

Sharon Dowey (Conservative, South Scotland)

The number of businesses in critical distress in Scotland is rising faster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom—it has gone up more than 80 per cent in a year. The Fraser of Allander Institute reports that each of its headline business confidence indicators has been negative for five consecutive quarters, and 15,000 fewer people are on Scottish business payrolls than was the case a year ago. When the minister stands to defend frozen rates thresholds that have barely moved in half a decade, does he not see that as part of a wider picture—a Scottish National Party Government that has squeezed businesses from every direction and is now watching them close?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated, many factors are impacting on the situation, not least the UK Government’s action on employer national insurance contributions.

I remind the member that Scotland continues to outperform the rest of the UK, having attracted for 10 years in a row the most inward investment of any part of the UK outside of London. That shows the confidence that businesses have in Scotland’s economy.

It is important to recognise that the amount of revenue that is raised through non-domestic rates is now 6 per cent lower than it was pre-Covid, despite the fact that there are more businesses in Scotland than there were then. That shows that we have reduced the NDR burden on businesses over recent years.

Bill Kidd (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Anniesland)

According to the Bank of Scotland and the “Business Barometer”, business confidence in Scotland is continuing its upward trend as firms embrace new tech and innovation opportunities. How is the Scottish Government working to ensure that that trend continues?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Bill Kidd has raised an important point about the fact that Scotland’s business confidence is continuing its upward trend on that measure. Although cost pressures remain, the fact that businesses plan to adjust shows a growing sense of confidence and a firmer footing for future investment.

Business confidence in Scotland is closely linked to firms’ ability to adopt new technologies and innovate, and the Scottish Government is actively working to ensure that that positive trend continues. A key part of that is the Techscaler programme—now in its fourth year—which provides a national platform that supports the creation, development and scaling of tech start-ups across Scotland.

We have also transformed the investment landscape in Scotland to make Scotland more attractive to investment, thus creating jobs in our communities.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support high streets and town centres in the West Scotland region, in light of reported issues, including high vacancy rates. (S6O-05649)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I recognise that many of our towns face challenges with vacant buildings, which is why we are continuing our long-standing commitment to regeneration, with investment of up to £52 million in the next financial year.

Since 2014, we have provided almost £169 million of capital regeneration investment for local authorities in the West Scotland region. Some of that has supported town centre revitalisation through the transformation of empty properties and the enabling of community ownership.

There is also support for local authorities to address vacant retail spaces, through a non-domestic rates relief package. Two schemes in particular—the fresh start and business growth accelerator reliefs—support the reuse or repurposing of vacant properties.

Paul O'Kane (Labour, West Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for that answer, and in doing so, I acknowledge that this will be her last portfolio question time. I say to her: beannachd leat—farewell.

In towns and villages in communities such as Johnstone, scores of people have raised with me their sadness about the state of their high street, whether that is due to the lack of upkeep and investment, insufficient public transport to access the high street or reduced activity. In Renfrewshire, the town centre vacancy rate was 19 per cent in 2024-25, which means that almost one in five units sat empty.

Successive SNP ministers, including one who represents a town that is affected, have failed to grip the issue and to support our streets. High streets are going to be hammered again by inaction on business rates that, in many cases, are doubling or trebling. Has the Government done any analysis of the impact of those increases on business closures and vacancy rates, and what they will do to the streets? Should the Government not look again at pausing the process?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

That is definitely an issue of concern to us. We have looked at a number of different options to try to resolve the issue of empty properties, which is largely driven by a change in trading conditions and the fact that people are increasingly choosing to shop online rather than locally.

Back in 2025, we consulted on permitted development rights and compulsory purchase reform—key issues that have an impact on town centre regeneration and, more importantly, the reuse of vacant and unused buildings. We are currently analysing the responses to inform next steps, and that analysis will be published in due course.

We can learn from examples where councils have taken alternative approaches. In Aberdeen, the council and the local business improvement district have led award-winning work to bring upper-floor premises on Union Street back into use.

I mentioned in my opening answer the different reliefs that we have available—the fresh start and business growth accelerator reliefs—which specifically give non-domestic rates relief for tenants or owners who are purchasing or moving into properties that were previously unused.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

Businesses in my West Scotland region are under immense pressure thanks to increased employer national insurance contributions from the UK Labour Government, the failure of the Scottish National Party Government to fully pass down rates relief, and ever-increasing retail crime. It is little wonder that so many small businesses are being forced to shut down, which removes jobs and livelihoods. Does the Deputy First Minister agree that more taxes and regulations will only lead to more vacancies on our high streets and in our town centres?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

That is why we have the most generous rates relief anywhere in the UK, including some of the most ambitious support, through the small business bonus scheme. The member will know that a lot of the properties on our town centre high streets are beneficiaries of the small business bonus scheme.

We have other initiatives in place to provide support to businesses, but, on an issue such as this, we need to understand what the key drivers are. Predominantly, those are changes in trading conditions and in behaviour, which means that more people are choosing to shop online rather than in person.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to expand the availability of venture capital funding to aid business growth. (S6O-05650)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

That is an important question, because expanding access to private investment is a critical element in seeing Scotland grow. Scotland has a strong public sector investment ecosystem, with our enterprise agencies and the Scottish National Investment Bank focused on investing alongside private investment to achieve the best outcomes for Scottish businesses.

Since its launch in 2020, the SNIB has committed more than £1 billion in investment, which has, importantly, leveraged £1.7 billion in investment from the private sector. I have seen that, where there is a density of investable propositions, it attracts increasing levels of venture capital.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I suspect that this might be our last ever exchange in the chamber, so I wish the Deputy First Minister all the best for the future. I have enjoyed our constructive engagement over a number of years.

On that note, I wonder whether she would agree with me on what I am about to say. We see an issue with start-ups that are looking to grow and that struggle to get venture capital to move to the next stage. There is a lack of availability of venture capital in Scotland, and that is because there is a lack of venture capitalists in Scotland. We need to attract more venture capitalists to come to Scotland and invest.

Therefore, contrary to what is said by the Green Party—which I notice is boycotting this session on the economy, perhaps not surprisingly—we do not need to drive billionaires out of Scotland; we need to attract more billionaires into Scotland, with their investment, to support our economic growth. Does the Deputy First Minister agree?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I agree that attracting a varied and diverse range of investors who are able to meet the needs of companies across all projects and stages is vital. We have seen huge growth in start-ups, and now the focus needs to turn to scale-ups. A number of innovative private sector equity investors are active in Scotland, and they have sometimes been able to complete investment deals partly due to support from public bodies. We cannot completely exclude that from the equation, but the average VC fund size has increased significantly in recent years, particularly among US-based VC investors, meaning that the highest-publicity VC investors and deals are operating on a larger scale than the Scottish business investment market.

The point is that our focus is on scaling businesses. They will attract investment from a range of sources. The critical element is that they do not leave Scotland. If they cannot attract investment while being headquartered in Scotland, that becomes a risk.

As I said in my opening remarks, I have always thought that the right approach is to build up the density of investable businesses, which naturally attracts capital, rather than to focus on the capital initially in the hope that there are investment propositions as a result.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what further support provisions will be available to Alexander Dennis following the expiration of the current £4 million support package this month. (S6O-05651)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

We continue to work closely with Alexander Dennis Ltd following our award of a time-limited company furlough scheme that is designed to retain jobs in the firm’s manufacturing capacity in Scotland. The agreed terms and conditions of the grant require the business to provide the necessary evidence to access that support.

Yesterday, we accepted in principle a formal furlough extension request from the company, and we stand ready to discuss all possible options beyond that. I spoke with the company yesterday, and I reiterated the Government’s full commitment to continue to do everything that we possibly can to protect those skilled jobs and bus manufacturing in Scotland.

Stephen Kerr (Conservative, Central Scotland)

I thank the Deputy First Minister for the important update that she has just given. The order paper for today’s questions says that I have a registered interest in this area. I do not think that I do, so I think that it is a mistake. The registered interest that I definitely have and wish to register with everyone is in those highly skilled jobs in Larbert and Falkirk, which we should retain.

The Scottish zero emission bus challenge fund 3 programme is the real test of the Scottish Government’s claims on social value, because £45 million of public funding is about to be allocated. Will the Deputy First Minister confirm that not a single pound of taxpayers’ money will go towards Chinese-built buses and that that funding will support Scottish jobs and Scottish manufacturing?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

It is important for me to say at the outset—because I have a declaration of interest to make—that my primary responsibility when answering these questions is to Alexander Dennis and that I have no role at all in ScotZEB 3, for very important proprietary reasons. ScotZEB 3 is led by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, because Transport Scotland is the procuring authority, as it were. It has made the decision to extend the ScotZEB 2 programme. It will be for the transport secretary to announce the conclusions and outcomes of ScotZEB 3, which opened for applications on 5 December.

I appreciate the question, but that will be disappointing to Stephen Kerr, who wants something a bit more robust, but I hope that he appreciates that it is critical that I am kept at arm’s length from the ScotZEB 3 process.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests.

I pay tribute to Kate Forbes, who, in my view, has been a breath of fresh air as an active and interventionist cabinet secretary for the economy.

Yesterday, another vehicle manufacturer in central Scotland, Volvo Construction Equipment, announced plans to close its factory near Holytown. Will the Deputy First Minister respect the fact that there will now be a statutory redundancy consultation with trade unions to consider options for averting closure and avoiding redundancies altogether, and, in that spirit, will the Government urgently meet the GMB and the company to consider how these 120 highly skilled jobs can be saved?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I am very thankful for Richard Leonard’s kind words; I was almost dreading that there was a “but” coming afterwards, but I am grateful for those comments.

Richard Leonard raises a very serious issue. I had a call with the GMB this morning—the intention was to discuss another issue, but we spent some time at the end of the call talking about the Volvo situation; I also had a very helpful letter from the GMB about that this morning. In that call, I committed to the GMB to engage thoroughly and quickly on this very serious issue, because I understand what the consequences will be for that community.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

I wish the Deputy First Minister well in her future journey. We actually crossed paths as children, apparently—the fact that we stayed in the same street gives weight to the idea that Scotland seems to be a bit of a village at times.

I want to ask the Deputy First Minister about the 10-year zero emission bus order pipeline that the United Kingdom Government announced this week, with 23,000 buses projected, and the potential deficiencies in the ScotZEB scheme. It is a limited subsidy scheme, so it cannot be directed to UK manufacturers. It might have been worthwhile for the Scottish Government to look at a direct purchasing and leasing model, which could allow for direct awards to Scottish manufacturers.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

The member makes a very interesting point, and I thank him, too, for his kind comments. It is an interesting approach, and we have looked carefully at all the approaches that we could take through procurement and grants, for example to support domestic manufacturing at Alexander Dennis. The company was clear that it could not rely only on Scottish buses to get it through these difficult times—the approach had to be UK wide, so we welcome commitments to procure buses.

There has been a challenge arising from international bus manufacturing’s increased market share in those procurement processes, to which I think Stephen Kerr was alluding. We have not seen sufficient progress on some of that, as it is still putting at risk Scottish domestic manufacturing. However, we will look at all that and see whether we can learn lessons for our approach.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government what support it is providing to businesses facing higher energy prices and other increased costs resulting from the conflict in the middle east. (S6O-05652)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Ministers are deeply concerned about the impact of the conflict in the middle east. Both the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy and the Cabinet Secretary for Housing have made representations to the United Kingdom Government on energy costs.

We are hopeful that any de-escalation can reverse the higher energy prices and other increased costs that businesses face. We were disappointed that the financial support that the UK Government announced on Monday did not extend to businesses. We will, however, continue to work with companies to create better certainty and stability for business where we can. That includes an investment of £326 million for enterprise agencies in the budget and our package—which was referred to earlier—of non-domestic rates reliefs, which is worth an estimated £870 million.

Jamie Halcro Johnston (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

While £10 million is going to support 71 businesses in Glasgow that have been impacted by the fire there, thousands of businesses across the Highlands and Islands will be seeing fuel costs double, with apparently no support coming to them. Will there be specific support for those businesses across the Highlands and Islands and across Scotland? I am thinking in particular of businesses in our rural areas, which rely on oil and already pay higher costs for it, and which are already massively impacted by the rise.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

The member raises a serious issue that is impacting on businesses in Scotland, and we share his concerns. As I indicated earlier, issues relating to energy costs are largely reserved to the UK Government. We will continue to do all that we can to help; the member may be aware that we also fund Business Energy Scotland, for instance, to give advice to businesses. That initiative has, since we launched it, identified more than £200 million-worth of savings for businesses and has saved, on average, 24 per cent in the cost of energy bills for those businesses that have taken advantage of it. I encourage members to share information about that advisory service with businesses that are affected by high energy bills.

We will, of course, continue to do all that we can to support businesses, but energy policy is largely the UK Government’s responsibility. As it has given some—albeit very limited—support to households, it should extend that support to businesses.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Defence experts cited in a recent RenewableUK report have urged for there to be an acceleration of renewables development in order to shield against further geopolitical shocks. Does the minister agree that it is more important than ever for Scotland to develop renewables generation and storage capacity in order to enhance our energy security for businesses and households across Scotland?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

Emma Roddick raises an important issue. It is ironic that, in energy-rich Scotland, we are facing rising energy bills. As the member has said, we do not have enough measures in place to shield Scotland and to ensure that we can take advantage of the massive energy resources, particularly renewable energy resources, which are on our doorstep. I agree that we have to accelerate the development of renewables. Grid connections and other projects that are waiting for the green light are in the hands of the UK Government. We have to ensure that they are expedited as much as possible, so that we can ensure that energy is available to Scotland for our business communities in the Highlands and Islands and the rest of the country.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I join other members in paying tribute to Kate Forbes as she leaves this Parliament. She was cheered on by Richard Leonard and the Conservatives, but there was silence from the Scottish National Party benches. I do not know whether that tells us anything.

We are paying the price of the folly of Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, and that was also cheered on by the Conservative Party. My concern, which I hope that the minister will take on board, is about the fishing industry, which is facing significant increases in bills for running fishing boats. I hope that those representations are made strongly when the minister speaks to the UK Government, because the sector is already under quite a lot of strain.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will ensure that I convey Willie Rennie’s comments to Mairi Gougeon, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, who often discusses those issues with her UK counterparts. As a former fishing minister, I know very well how, over the years, the cost of fuel has fluctuated, which has caused particular challenges for Scotland’s fishing fleets. We continue to pay close attention to that.

I associate myself with members’ comments about my colleague the Deputy First Minister, Kate Forbes, given that this is her last question time session. I commend her contribution to public service and the Scottish Parliament. I will also be leaving the Parliament and will be joining her in post-politics life. I do not take any offence at Willie Rennie not mentioning that.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to support Dumfries town centre. (S6O-05653)

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

As I outlined in a previous answer, we continue to deliver on our long-standing commitment to regeneration, with investment of up to £52 million next year. It has long been a commitment of mine to support local regeneration, which is why we have worked hard to safeguard capital investment, because it supports the revitalisation of our towns and town centres. That is one of the ways that we have supported Dumfries town centre, alongside other forms of support. Since 2014, Dumfries and Galloway Council has received nearly £21.5 million in regeneration capital funding, including £4.5 million for the award-winning Midsteeple Quarter, which has revitalised a previously vacant town centre building into a community event and enterprise space and seven homes.

Oliver Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire)

I associate myself with comments from colleagues across the chamber about the Deputy First Minister.

I am concerned that the Scottish National Party-led Dumfries and Galloway Council is undoing all that hard work by continuing with its obsession with wasting £70 million of taxpayers’ money on the deeply unpopular Whitesands flood scheme, which will see vital town centre parking being removed and the setting of the River Nith diminished. Surely the money could be better spent on maintaining vital local services and improving the upkeep of the town centre?

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I am aware of the Whitesands flood protection scheme. Its purpose is to combine major flood defences with significant public realm improvements. It is set to start this spring after receiving approval from Dumfries and Galloway Council. I am aware of the member’s concerns. However, there are issues to do with reducing flood risk and enhancing recreation and active travel opportunities. Ultimately, as I understand it, it is a decision that the local council has made. Therefore, the member’s comments should be directed to representatives of the local authority.

This is my last planned comment in the chamber before I leave my post as an MSP so, if I may, I will take a brief moment to thank, from the depths of my heart, everyone who has enabled me to serve our country and the communities of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch over the past 10 years.

I thank the staff and officials of the Parliament and the Government, colleagues across the chamber who have become friends and everybody who has an interest in the decisions that we make.

I feel as though I have squeezed multiple lifetimes into the past 10 years—certainly, I barely recognise the young woman who was elected 10 years ago, aged 26, to represent the constituency of Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch.

Above all else, I have always enjoyed intelligent debate, good-natured disagreement and constructive engagement and, sometimes, I have even been able to make a difference. I leave with enormous respect for colleagues across the chamber, many of whom argue their case robustly but with respect and wisdom.

Our democracy relies on debate, and debate requires at least two people who disagree. Disagreement does not require bitterness, animosity or malice. I hope that the next Parliament can exemplify the joy of dispute and debate in the service of our constituents. [Applause.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Deputy First Minister.

I could squeeze in question 7 if the question and supplementary are brief.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government for what reason, despite an increase in the number of businesses pledging to pay the real living wage, the percentage of people actually being paid the real living wage or more has been decreasing for three consecutive years. (S6O-05654)

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

While key powers over employment law remain reserved to the United Kingdom Government, including those on the minimum wage, we have made significant progress towards our ambitious goal of becoming a leading fair work nation. Around 88.7 per cent of Scottish employees over 18 years of age are paid the real living wage or above, which is the highest proportion in the UK countries. Although the share of Scottish employees paid the real living wage or above was slightly lower in 2025 than in 2023, that has also happened in other parts of the UK and reflects a range of national and international pressures and costs in recent years.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Nobody on the Conservative benches opposes fair pay for workers, but the minister must recognise that the gap between the number of accredited employers and the number of workers who actually receive the real living wage tells us a story. Businesses in Scotland are closing, relocating or simply not starting up because the Government has created a hostile environment for enterprise. Continually making feel-good announcements makes no difference. What action will the Scottish Government take to protect those businesses that are disappearing daily across our communities?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, Moray)

As discussed in previous answers, businesses in Scotland face a number of pressures, not least rising national insurance contributions and rising energy costs, both of which are the responsibility of the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. We are continuing to do all that we can to support businesses against that tough backdrop.

At the moment, 2.45 million people are payrolled in Scotland. That might be a slight decrease on the previous year, given some of the factors that I have discussed, but, compared with historical records, it is quite high. We should not forget the fact that unemployment rates in Scotland are lower than those in the rest of the UK, or our other successes in attracting inward investment to Scotland, which have created high-value jobs in our country.

The Scottish economy is resilient, but we are not immune to those pressures. Businesses are facing tough times and we will continue to do all that we can to help them.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 8 was not lodged.

That concludes portfolio questions on Deputy First Minister responsibilities, economy and Gaelic.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will introduce a licensing system for local authorities to address the growing number of vaping shops. (S6O-05656)

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

Scotland is the only country in the United Kingdom with a tobacco and vapes retail register. All businesses, regardless of size, need to be registered in order to be able to sell such products in Scotland. The register exists to support the enforcement of regulation on age-restricted products, given the public health harms of tobacco and vaping. Individual business owners are responsible for registering any business that sells tobacco and/or vapes, and failure to do so could result in a fine of up to £20,000 and/or possible imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. It is the responsibility of local authorities to enforce compliance with the register in their local areas.

We remain committed to considering how the register could be improved, including by imposing possible further conditions on registration, in order to support our public health aim of reducing the use of tobacco and vapes.

Gillian Mackay (Green, Central Scotland)

I thank the minister for that answer, but the register is clearly not working. There is no mechanism to remove shops from the register, and The Ferret discovered that the shop that went on fire in Glasgow was not even on it. It is vital that we have a robust licensing system that is accompanied by sufficient funding for councils so that their trading standards departments have the resources to crack down on bad actors.

In the light of that, why does the minister believe that we do not need a licensing system at a national level, which would be similar to those that cover premises that sell alcohol? What funding can the Government give local authorities to ensure that the legislation has teeth?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated, there are significant sanctions for non-compliance with the requirement to register such businesses. There are fines of up to £20,000 and possible imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. It is the responsibility of local authorities to take forward any enforcement measures in that regard.

As I indicated, we remain committed to considering how the process could be improved. I take on board the member’s point about a licensing scheme but, as I said, the enforcement powers and sanctions already exist in the current registration system.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

I declare an interest as a former trading standards officer.

We are all devastated by the fire that took place on 8 March on Union Street in Glasgow, yet it turns out that the shop where the fire began was not listed on the mandatory register, as is required for a business to sell nicotine products, and was thus selling vapes illegally.

After years of cuts, there are only about 250 full-time equivalent trading standards officers in councils across Scotland, with the number having reduced by more than half since 2002. At the same time, 22 of Scotland’s 32 councils now operate with eight or fewer trading standards officers. That puts not only consumers but the general public at risk. Does the minister agree that it is impossible to have effective law on licensing if there are no trading standards officers to enforce the law?

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

As I indicated, it is the responsibility of local authorities to take forward enforcement measures, and it is also their responsibility to provide the resources to do that. The Scottish Government has provided a real-terms increase in funding to local government precisely to enable it to deal with its range of responsibilities, including enforcement in the area of registration that we are talking about.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

In light of the fire in Glasgow, will the minister consider looking at the planning use classes in Scotland? They allowed the retail unit that went on fire to switch from being a bureau de change, after being empty for 10 years, to selling vapes, with no need for a change in planning consent. There seems to be an obvious opportunity to quickly tighten up the regulations so that consent would need to be sought for such use.

Ivan McKee (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Provan)

I do not know whether doing so quickly would be appropriate, because we would need to go through a proper process to understand any changes that we chose to make.

The member is right in that the class of use is fairly broad, covering as it does all retail, but to start to compartmentalise the class would potentially take us into a place where we were putting up unnecessary barriers for businesses. It would need to be considered in the round. However, the existing registration scheme requires businesses that sell such products to be registered, and a broad range of factors can be considered through that mechanism.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact of its budget 2026-27 on the ability of local authorities, including Perth and Kinross Council, to meet rising demand for services. (S6O-05657)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Presiding Officer, before I answer the question, I hope that you will indulge me just for a moment, as this is my last portfolio question time and my last opportunity to speak in the Parliament. I take this opportunity to thank my Government officials for all their support in my Government role. I thank all the Parliament staff for looking after us so well over the years, particularly for the very late sittings of late. I also thank my staff in my local office for supporting my constituency work. Last but by no means least, I thank my constituents in Dundee City East, whom I have had the honour to serve for nearly 27 years. It has been my absolute privilege to do so. I wish my colleagues who return to the Parliament well, and I wish those who are not returning the very best for whatever comes next.

In response to Roz McCall’s question, we appreciate the pressures that local authorities face. That is why we are providing record funding of £15.7 billion, including £250 million of unrestricted general revenue grant. There is also full flexibility on council tax.

The vast majority of the funding that is allocated by the Scottish Government is provided by means of a block grant. It is then for individual local authorities to allocate the total resources that are available to them on the basis of local needs and priorities.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am glad that I got to ask the question, because it means that I am the first to wish the cabinet secretary all the best in her future endeavours.

In large rural local authorities such as Perth and Kinross Council, the cost of delivering services from social care to education and community provision is already significantly higher, and councils need to make increasingly difficult decisions about the services that they can sustain. This year, the Scottish National Party administration in Perth and Kinross has imposed an 8.9 per cent council tax increase, taking the average band D bill to £1,673 a year. That rise was justified locally on the basis of rising demand and what the SNP council described as an insufficient funding settlement from the Scottish Government.

The cabinet secretary pointed to a record local government settlement in the budget. However, if the amount of funding was truly sufficient, SNP-run councils such as Perth and Kinross Council would not be forced to raise council tax by nearly 9 per cent simply to stand still.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the so-called record funding is not keeping pace with rising costs? Does she accept that the reality of the choices that were made in the budget is that there is a gap that is now being filled by higher council tax, which is leaving my constituents paying £130 a year more for less while still facing uncertainty about front-line services?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms McCall—that question was quite lengthy.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Different council tax rates have been set across the 32 local authorities by administrations with different political colours.

I acknowledge that there have been rising costs across the whole public sector. They include the rising costs of employer national insurance contributions and VAT, while the global situation at the moment will put fuel costs up for local authorities and every other part of the public sector. We are well aware of the rising costs. We have given local government a record settlement, but that is against the backdrop of those rising costs. We expect local authorities to work to manage within those budgets in the same way that the rest of the public sector does.

The distribution formula, which I think is what Roz McCall was hinting at in relation to Perth and Kinross Council being a rural local authority, is a matter for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to decide on.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any impact of its local government funding settlement on the condition of roads across the Lothian region, in light of the City of Edinburgh Council, for example, facing an £86 million repair backlog. (S6O-05658)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The vast majority of the funding that is available to councils is provided by means of a block grant from the Scottish Government. It is then the responsibility of individual local authorities to manage their budgets and to allocate the financial resources that are available to them. That includes the maintenance of local roads on the basis of local needs and priorities, having first fulfilled statutory obligations and the jointly agreed set of national and local priorities.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

Road condition figures that were published this week confirm what every driver in the Lothians already knows: our roads are getting worse, not better. The reason is straightforward: this Government has squeezed council budgets so hard that roads spending has been cannibalised by statutory obligations.

Audit Scotland has said that the roads funding shortfall will nearly double to £458 million by the end of the decade. Does the cabinet secretary accept that that is a direct consequence of a funding settlement that forces councils to meet Scottish National Party priorities over basic services such as road and pavement repairs?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Many of those joint priorities, whether on tackling child poverty or providing childcare, are important to the people of Scotland. Those are important priorities that local government shares with the Scottish Government.

As a consequence of the budget, Scottish local authorities have an additional £522.4 million of funding that would not have been available had the Budget (Scotland) (No 5) Bill not been agreed to by the Parliament. As I said earlier, it is for local authorities to decide how to spend that money, in addition to the council tax revenues that are raised locally. We are in discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and are keen to work with local government to explore imaginative ways to increase investment—whether for local roads or other priorities—given the reduced capital that is available from the UK Government. Those discussions continue.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I had requests from two members to ask supplementary questions, but now I have one. I point out to Fergus Ewing that the question relates to the impact of funding on the condition of roads across the Lothian region.

Fergus Ewing (Independent, Inverness and Nairn)

Thank you very much indeed for that advice, Presiding Officer.

Whether in Lothian, where the backlog is £69 million, in Highland, where it is £233 million, or anywhere else, particularly in rural Scotland, roads and bridges are being closed because of safety issues. In my patch, Neil Gordon is a farmer who used to use the Balnaan bridge, but, because it is closed, he now has to take a detour of up to 100 miles after a day’s farming. How can it be fair that rural residents face their livelihoods ending at the same time as £226 million is being spent on building new cycle lanes in cities that no one uses?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask the cabinet secretary to respond on matters relating to the question at hand.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We have provided record resources to local government, whether in rural areas or urban areas, and it is up to local authorities to determine their priorities. We have struck a number of deals to ensure that the borrowing capacity of local authorities can be used alongside accelerator deals to provide additional investment in communities. We already have deals along those lines with many local authorities, and we are prepared to discuss such deals with other local authorities that are interested.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of Audit Scotland’s recent statement that local authorities will face a budget gap of nearly £1 billion by 2027, what action it is taking to provide additional support to third sector organisations that prevent and respond to rent and council tax arrears. (S6O-05659)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The Scottish Government’s council tax reduction scheme ensures that nobody should have to meet a council tax liability that they cannot afford, and we continue to promote take-up, including through working with Citizens Advice Scotland. Where arrears occur, councils have powers to write off those debts.

The budget has provided councils with record funding of £15.7 billion, including £253 million of unrestricted general revenue grant. Councils have full discretion to allocate that money as they see fit, including to support for third sector organisations, where appropriate.

Maggie Chapman (Green, North East Scotland)

I associate myself with Roz McCall’s comments and wish the cabinet secretary well in whatever comes next for her.

Public sector debt pushes people into and keeps them in poverty. All local authorities in the north-east region have announced council tax increases that are well above the rate of inflation. Financial and social pressures on many constituents make it difficult for them to pay their rent, and delays in receiving social security support compound that situation.

What action can the Scottish Government take to enhance community capacity and local third sector infrastructure to respond to that potential spiral of decline? Will we see reform of local government finance in the next session of Parliament?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Maggie Chapman will be aware of the joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities consultation on the future of local government finance, which has now closed. It will be for members in the next session of Parliament to consider the options. We have already set out a proposal for new council tax bands at the higher end, which will provide additional funding for local government.

I should say that council tax for an average band D property is significantly less in Scotland than in England—there is a difference of about £350. That is not to detract from some of the rises in council tax that have been mentioned, but it is an important comparison of the rates that people are paying across these islands.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Questions 5 and 7 are grouped together. We will therefore take any supplementaries after both of them have been answered.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of how its budget 2026-27 delivers fair funding for health and social care services across the country, including in South Scotland. (S6O-05660)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The 2026-27 budget provides almost £22.5 billion of investment in health and social care services, which exceeds the consequentials. National health service boards, including those in the south of Scotland, will see an increase in their baseline funding, which will bring total investment to more than £17.6 billion. That is a real-terms uplift of 1.8 per cent to support services, fund pay and implement agenda for change reform.

We are also providing £32.8 million for NHS Scotland resource allocation committee—NRAC—parity, ensuring fairer funding and that all boards stay within 0.6 per cent of parity. The NRAC formula reflects demographic changes and excess costs.

Carol Mochan (Labour, South Scotland)

The underfunding of health and social care is a systemic problem across Scotland. Local authorities face cuts year on year, services are being pulled and budget shortfalls have led to local communities’ care packages being cut. This year, East Ayrshire health and social care partnership, which is in my region, faced a financial overspend of more than £10 million, forcing the council to establish a health and social care emergency financial support fund, as a one-off to plug the funding gap. That is not sustainable. Does the cabinet secretary recognise the funding gaps and the direct impact that the cuts are having on communities right here, right now?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I certainly recognise the demand and pressures that are on all our public services, particularly given the demographic challenges that we have, which will increase over time. That is why we made the commitment to increase funding to social care by 25 per cent in this session of Parliament. We have exceeded that by more than £500 million in 2026-27, because the budget provides more than £2.3 billion for social care. That is not to say that there are no challenges, but it is a record settlement for social care. We need to ensure that the delivery systems at local level are working to deliver services to local people. I am sure that the Parliament will return to that issue in the next session.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that its budget 2026-27 adequately funds health and social care partnerships to deliver services, including social care. (S6O-05662)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I acknowledge the work that the health and social care partnerships have undertaken towards balancing their budgets in the difficult financial context that we collectively face and given the demographic challenges that I alluded to earlier. That is why we are providing record funding in 2026-27. The budget provides a real-terms increase in the local government settlement, taking it to more than £15.7 billion, and there is almost £22.5 billion for health and social care.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

Despite opposition from service users, care workers and trade unions, North Ayrshire health and social care partnership has voted to make significant cuts to social care provision, with funded care set to be restricted to those who are assessed as being at critical risk. Those cuts are being made because the health and social care partnership faces a deficit of around £9 million. Will the Scottish Government intervene to ensure that there is the necessary additional funding to prevent those devastating cuts from coming into effect next month, given the impact that they will have?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

We want to ensure that local services are retained, and that is of course the responsibility of local partnerships. I am sure that my colleague Neil Gray will be well aware of the issues that Katy Clark has raised.

To go back to the point that I made earlier, we have gone beyond the commitment to increase funding for social care by 25 per cent over the course of this session of Parliament—by £500 million. We must recognise the funding that is going into local services, in addition to the record funding to local government.

In my previous answer, I said that we needed to look at the local systems of delivery. I will go further than that: we perhaps need to revisit whether local health and social care partnerships are the right model for delivery of this critical service across Scotland.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have a number of requests for supplementary questions. I am keen to accommodate them all, but I need succinct questions, and answers to match.

Brian Whittle (Conservative, South Scotland)

As we have heard, East Ayrshire faces a staggering £10 million health and social care budget gap next year. To mitigate that, the council will be forced into management actions, including reducing care home capacity and re-evaluating care packages to find £5.6 million in savings.

Although East Ayrshire currently boasts low community assessment waits, the average hospital discharge delay has doubled to 64 days. Given that NHS Ayrshire and Arran is now at stage 4 on the intervention framework, does the cabinet secretary truly believe that the budget is fair when it forces local authorities to choose between financial insolvency and cutting the very front-line care that prevents our local health boards from total collapse?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I have set out that the budget provides real-terms increases, with £15.7 billion for local government and almost £22.5 billion for health and social care. If there are members in the chamber who think that that is inadequate, they need to tell us by how much and where the money would come from. I did not hear that in the course of the budget bill. It is easy to demand more money without saying where the money should come from.

There is a question whether the money in the system is working as effectively as it could. My suggestion and request to the Parliament in the next session is that it looks at whether local systems and their resources are working as intended.

Foysol Choudhury (Independent, Lothian)

With NHS Lothian and local social care services under real pressure from staff shortages and rising demands, can the cabinet secretary set out how the budget helps us to move towards properly resourced and publicly delivered care, rather than continually relying on overstretched staff and the private sector to fill the gaps?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

The budget provides record funding for local government and for health. In fact, we have consistently gone beyond the health resource consequentials that we get from the United Kingdom Government and have consistently provided more money to the national health service. The budget also provides more than £2.3 billion for social care, which exceeds our commitment to increase funding by 25 per cent over this parliamentary session by more than £500 million.

Record resources are going into both systems. I reiterate that the Parliament in the next session could look at whether the resources in those systems are being spent in the most effective way through the delivery systems that we have in place.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

As the former Deputy First Minister leaves the Parliament, I wish her well for the future and thank her for her public service over a couple of decades.

Yesterday, the chamber was divided on Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, but it was absolutely united on palliative care, and we need a step change in that area. What new information can the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government tell us today to show that the will of the Parliament is respected by this Government?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

First, I thank Willie Rennie for his kind remarks, although his talking about a couple of decades made me feel rather old.

Willie Rennie raises a very important point, and there is clearly a need for us to look at the funding for palliative care, because the Parliament was of one voice last night. The First Minister has already indicated that it will be looked at. Many in the palliative care sector hold very deeply and powerfully to their independence when it comes to what they provide, so we need to bear that in mind when we look at the future funding of palliative care. I suspect that the issue will no doubt find its way into manifesto developments, but it will also be a key priority for the Parliament when it reconvenes in the next session.

Emma Roddick (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The Scottish National Party’s budget provides welcome investment in Scotland’s primary care service. Can the cabinet secretary say any more about how the investment in new walk-in centres will address the 8 am rush and increase access to primary care? Does she agree that Labour members should welcome that ambitious move instead of opposing it for opposition’s sake?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I ask the cabinet secretary to respond on matters within her responsibilities.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I think that everyone should welcome the increased investment in primary care. We have provided general practice with a £531 million three-year funding deal to recruit more general practitioners and improve access, and, as Emma Roddick referred to, we have provided £36 million for new walk-in GP services in communities across Scotland. That can only help to ease pressure at peak times, including during the early morning surge for appointments, so I thought that that would have been welcomed across the chamber.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to support local authorities, including Falkirk Council, to deliver vital services, including those aimed at reducing child poverty. (S6O-05661)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Local government has a key role to play in driving progress on reducing child poverty, including by delivering whole-family support that breaks the cycle of poverty. That is why the 2026-27 Scottish budget provides a further real-terms increase to the local government settlement. The measures include making £90 million available for devolved employability services next year, continuing to invest more than £1 billion in funded childcare and investing to make free school meals available to more than 350,000 pupils.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Falkirk West)

As others have done, I wish Shona Robison well as she departs the Parliament. It has been a real pleasure to serve in the Parliament with her over the past 27 years—I hope that that does not make her feel old—and she leaves with my very best wishes for the future.

Local authorities have an important role to play in supporting the Government’s national work to tackle child poverty. Falkirk Council recently expanded its family inclusion teams to support its tackling child poverty strategy. That has been enabled because of the flexibilities and undirected funding that this year’s budget has provided. What discussions are taking place with local government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to consider how the flexibilities provided to local authorities through their budgets can support them in tackling issues such as child poverty?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

I wish Michael Matheson well in the future after his many years in the Parliament, including his time in the Government.

The flexibility that Michael Matheson referred to is really important. Along with the additional money that is going to local government, additional flexibility is being provided through the baselining of funds and the removal of ring fencing. It is important to provide local government with that flexibility so that we can align our shared priorities, and tackling child poverty is one of the most critical priorities that we share with local government.

I am confident that Falkirk Council, through its family inclusion teams, is setting a direction of travel that will ensure that it can tackle poverty in that area.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in question 8, but I will need succinct questions and answers.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to council tax increases approved by local authorities across Scotland for 2026-27. (S6O-05663)

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Council tax is a local tax that is set and administered by individual councils, which have had full flexibility in setting their rates for 2026-27. That was a key ask of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

The Scottish Government has been clear on the importance of the record funding of almost £15.7 billion for the local government settlement. Compared with the previous budget settlement, the funding has increased by more than £650 million.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

Earlier this month, the Scottish National Party-run Renfrewshire Council announced that it will increase council tax by 7.5 per cent. That comes after a record 9.5 per cent increase last year. The year before, when councils passed their budgets, the First Minister said that council tax rises of 3 per cent would be reasonable. The cabinet secretary has said that it is a local tax, but it is, of course, also the “unfair” council tax that the SNP promised to scrap in 2007. Since then, we have seen council tax bills going up, services getting cut and councils being underfunded. Does the cabinet secretary or her Government regret breaking their promise to scrap the unfair council tax in 2007?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

Of course, we wanted to scrap the council tax, but we did not get a majority in the Scottish Parliament to do so. To put it bluntly, what we need is to reach some political consensus on what should replace the council tax. At the moment, such a political consensus does not exist. Even modest changes, such as the introduction of additional bands at the higher end, have been opposed by Labour members such as Daniel Johnson, for whatever reason, even though the Labour Government at Westminster has done exactly the same thing. That shows that there is a need to get beyond that dispute and to try to find political consensus.

I make the point again that there is a huge difference between council tax rates in Scotland and England. As of 2025-26, the average council tax bill in Scotland is £344 lower than the average bill in England. Despite all the talk of increases, council tax payers in Scotland will continue to pay less, on average, than they would south of the border.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

That concludes portfolio questions on finance and local government. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.

Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20921, in the name of Mark Ruskell, on the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill.

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 for a Scottish parliamentary election. In the Presiding Officer’s view, no provision of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill relates to a protected subject matter, so the bill does not require a supermajority to be passed at stage 3.

I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak button.

15:03

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am grateful that, in the busy final hours of this parliamentary session, a moment has been found to consider a law to alleviate the suffering of animals.

The true mark of a society is the way in which it treats its animals. The case against greyhound racing is plain to see. The numbers speak for themselves. Since the industry started recording figures in 2017, there have been nearly 4,000 deaths and a staggering 35,000 injuries across the United Kingdom.

The reasons for that are clear. Racing greyhounds at speeds of up to 40 miles per hour on an oval track results in catastrophic injuries and deaths. The dogs slow down as they enter the first bend, bunching together and crashing as they jostle for position. Centrifugal forces pull the dogs towards the outside of the track, resulting in crashes on the fence. Dogs break their legs, break their backs and end up paralysed and with serious head trauma. I am sickened by the images from racetracks that show deaths and injuries day in, day out on social media. It is time that that stops. Today, we have the chance to ensure that in Scotland—if the bill passes.

Even at this late stage, some members will continue to argue that regulation and licensing are the best way forward, but the injuries and deaths are happening mostly under a licensed regime. The industry has had years to reform, but it has been unwilling or unable to make changes that remove the inherent risk to the dogs that are racing. Licensed greyhound racing is simply licensed animal cruelty. As long as greyhound racing is a lawful activity, it will continue to be impossible to prevent suffering under our animal welfare laws.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on bringing the bill to this stage in the Parliament. Should it pass, it will be groundbreaking legislation on protecting animal welfare and will improve the lives of many greyhounds. Does he agree that the ban on greyhound racing will save the lives of dogs and reduce injuries?

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yes, absolutely. I thank Clare Haughey for her relentless support for the bill, which comes from a position of experience, because the Shawfield stadium is in her constituency, and she has listened to and seen the evidence first hand. I agree with her that the only way forward is to make racing a greyhound a stand-alone offence in law. Some argue that the last remaining racetrack in Scotland, which is unlicensed, is an exception—a harmless hobby enterprise—but Thornton racetrack in Fife is no different from any other track in the UK. The dogs face the same risks, just with less oversight. There are those who want to see a resurgence of greyhound racing in Scotland. The owner of the Thornton track has stated that, if it were not for the campaign for the bill, he would be expanding and televising races to betting shops around the UK. There would be more dogs racing in more races, more dogs injured and more dogs killed.

The public do not want to see that. More than two thirds of people in Scotland want to see an end to greyhound racing. A spectacle that was invented 100 years ago is now becoming socially unacceptable. Our values have changed; times have changed. The case against greyhound racing has never been stronger, and the international consensus to end the suffering of these dogs is now unstoppable. Just yesterday, Wales voted to ban greyhound racing. Scotland cannot be left behind.

The bill would end greyhound racing on all tracks in Scotland, licensed or unlicensed. It would protect these beautiful dogs from the inherent harms of greyhound racing. I appeal to all members in the Parliament to vote for the bill at decision time tonight. I am greatly honoured to move the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill be passed.

15:07

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

As the lead minister for the bill, I thank Mark Ruskell for his constructive and collaborative approach in bringing this important bill to the Parliament. A member’s bill does not reach this stage without a significant commitment and a great deal of effort. I know how much work Mr Ruskell has put into the bill throughout its stages in this parliamentary session. I commend the hard work undertaken by the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit in supporting Mr Ruskell with the bill, as well as that of my officials, the policy officials and all the parliamentary staff in getting us to this stage. I also thank the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee for its role in hearing evidence and producing helpful recommendations at stage 1, which we considered carefully. That process led to the changes that were made at stage 2 and to the creation of a bill that puts in place safeguards for the benefit of all greyhounds.

I remind the Parliament that, when the bill was first introduced, the Government adopted a neutral position. At that stage, the proposal sought to prohibit all greyhound racing in Scotland. The bill that is now at stage 3 is more focused in scope, in that it seeks specifically to prohibit the racing of greyhounds on oval tracks. Having carefully considered the evidence, the Scottish Government considers that the bill addresses the inherent welfare risks associated with running dogs at speed on oval tracks—risks that, even with good practice, cannot be eliminated. Therefore, the Government supports the bill.

As I stated previously, previous studies have shown that an oval track design is a key factor in injuries and deaths, due to the combination of bends and the speeds at which racing dogs enter the bends, and that those risks cannot be fully mitigated. Similar concerns are echoed by animal welfare organisations and veterinary reviews, which point to thousands of recorded injuries and numerous fatalities each year linked to the racing conditions internationally. Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that greyhound racing, as currently practised on oval tracks, exposes dogs to significant risks that cannot be eliminated by other measures. That gives me confidence that the bill is a rational and proportionate measure and that there is a sufficient welfare justification for supporting it.

As Mark Ruskell said, the Welsh Senedd last night passed its bill, which will implement a complete ban on greyhound racing in Wales. That shows that the issue is being discussed not just in Scotland but in many areas of the world. However, I stress that there are points of difference between the two bills, including the fact that the Welsh bill prohibits racing on all types of track, whereas the bill that we are considering is focused on oval tracks only, in response to the particular risks that are posed by such tracks.

We are very mindful of the implications for the individuals and communities that are connected with greyhound racing in Scotland—in particular, those who are involved with the Thornton track in Fife. I do not doubt the dedication and devotion of those people to their dogs, but the evidence shows the welfare case for banning racing on oval tracks. That is why we support the bill.

Deputy Presiding Officer, members’ bills such as this can—as you well know—achieve a great deal in the Parliament when people work together on important matters for the benefit of Scotland’s people, communities and, in this case, greyhounds.

I note that there is a lot of public support for the bill. A petition to ban greyhound racing is the most-signed petition in the Parliament’s history, and the Scottish Government therefore fully supports the bill.

15:10

Finlay Carson (Conservative, Galloway and West Dumfries)

I recognise the commitment of any member who brings forward a member’s bill, and the significant time and resources that that takes. However, without any disrespect to Mark Ruskell, with whom I have worked on many occasions over the past 10 years, it has to be recognised that it is hard to conclude anything other than that this process has been a waste of precious parliamentary time, given that it will not improve the welfare of a single greyhound in Scotland. There is no active track nor on-going racing, yet we are being asked to pass a total ban without ever exploring the very thing that has improved welfare in England and Wales, which is licensing, robust regulation and proper oversight. The evidence has been contested throughout, and the Government has produced nothing new to justify its U-turn from calling a ban “disproportionate” to now supporting it.

Meanwhile, we read reports of a possible legal challenge to similar legislation in Wales before the ink is even dry. That should alarm anyone who cares about good governance and legislative competence.

However, what worries me most is that the bill is portrayed as advancing animal welfare while delivering absolutely nothing in practice. It is gesture politics and virtue-signalling legislation that is designed to look busy rather than make a difference. All the while, genuinely needed reforms languish.

Scotland’s animal welfare law is spread across numerous dated and disjointed acts. A future Government must grab the bull by the horns and develop a proper consolidation bill that brings together the patchwork of existing legislation into a coherent, modern framework that truly improves outcomes for animals and the people who are responsible for their care.

Instead, today, we debate a bill that does none of that. It contributes nothing to welfare and simply reinforces the impression that the Parliament has, to be frank, gone to the dogs, given that such a measure takes precedence over legislation that might make life better for man and beast in Scotland. For those reasons, we will vote against it.

15:13

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

I congratulate Mark Ruskell on getting his bill to this stage. I also thank the committee staff, the legislation team and those who assisted us during the bill process, as well as those who gave evidence to the committee.

I have said more than once that we have had a fragmented approach to the welfare of dogs throughout this session of Parliament. We have had a number of members’ bills, but, as Finlay Carson said, what we need is a Government bill to pull together all aspects of animal welfare and stop the confused and piecemeal approach that has been taken.

Animal welfare is a concern for us all. Many people have family pets, and we cannot allow demand for those to lead to animals being harmed.

However, the bill will do nothing to improve the welfare of any animal in Scotland. It will prevent oval greyhound racetracks from being opened, but I do not think any such track would have received planning permission had it been sought in any event.

At stage 2, I tried to see whether we could do more to enhance animal welfare through the bill, but that was not possible. Some amendments were not competent, and those that were competent did not impact on any dog.

It beggars belief that, in a Parliament that has been sitting late in the evening for weeks to pass essential legislation, we have made time for a bill that does little or nothing. I will leave my comments at that and will take up no more precious time.

15:14

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the many members from all parties in the Parliament who have contributed to the passage of the bill. It is a shame that they were not all able to speak this afternoon.

I give special thanks to Clare Haughey, Rona Mackay, Christine Grahame, Karen Adam and the many other members who have been relentless in advocating for the bill.

I also thank Gill Docherty and Jax Brown, who came to my office in 2019 to educate me about the dangers of greyhound racing, and whose petition to Parliament was the inspiration behind the bill. Their work at the trackside alongside others, including Gill Donn and her team, has been critical, because they built the case for an end to greyhound racing in Scotland.

Now, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Dogs Trust, OneKind, Blue Cross and many others have joined the fight, and we have been able to link to the campaigns of Grey2K to end greyhound racing globally. Over the years, thousands have joined us on that journey. Many joined us this morning outside Parliament with their dogs, and I thank them all.

In 2015, my family rehomed an ex-racing greyhound called Bert. He sadly passed over the rainbow bridge last year. He was a wonderful dog. He was kind and affectionate and so patient with kids—and even with cats. However, until I started working on this campaign, I did not fully understand the trauma that Bert had endured while racing.

The physical scars were obvious—the ear tattoos and the broken leg that constantly made him lame—but it was his mental trauma that we struggled with at the beginning. He could not sleep at night without a light on because he had been raised on a puppy farm. His separation anxiety was awful. He was scared of vans and loud noises from his days of kennelling and being shipped around the country to races.

It is only through love that these dogs heal from their years spent in an exploitative industry. Reading through the consultation responses to my bill, I learned about dozens and dozens of dogs like Bert—gentle souls who had been scarred—and the patient work of rehomers across Scotland to bring them into their lives and heal them.

For those who still ask where the evidence for a ban on greyhound racing is, I point to Bert and Bob, Sasha and Joy, Bluesy and countless other dogs who have been treated abysmally by a gambling industry that disposes of dozens of dogs every month of every year.

There is a challenge for the minister, because, although I warmly welcome his reconsideration of the evidence and his support for the bill so that it can become law, it must be only the first step. There will still be dogs who are kennelled and trained in Scotland and raced across the border when the bill becomes law.

It is for Westminster to end greyhound racing in England. There are passionate champions who will fight for that in Parliament, including the Green Party’s newly elected MP, Hannah Spencer. However, the Welsh Government, which had its Prohibition of Greyhound Racing (Wales) Bill passed in the Senedd last night, has pledged to end the suffering of Welsh greyhounds that continue to be raced over its border. I call on the Scottish Government and the minister to follow that lead and ensure that no dog is left behind in Scotland.

Finally, I thank my parliamentary team, past and present, who have been outstanding, and the Parliament’s non-Government bills unit for its professional and dedicated support, which has got me to this point. I also thank the minister and his officials for some constructive engagement throughout the passage of the bill.

Tonight, Scotland can ban greyhound racing for good. We will be a better, more compassionate country for that. Let us do this for the dogs. Let us pass the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

That concludes consideration of the Greyhound Racing (Offences) (Scotland) Bill at stage 3.

Business Motion

A member

15:19

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-21139, in the name of Graeme Dey, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, which sets out a timetable for stage 3 consideration of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees that, during stage 3 of the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill, debate on groups of amendments shall, subject to Rule 9.8.4A, be brought to a conclusion by the time limits indicated, those time limits being calculated from when the stage begins and excluding any periods when other business is under consideration or when a meeting of the Parliament is suspended or otherwise not in progress:

Groups 1 to 3: 1 hour 30 minutes

Groups 4 and 5: 2 hours 20 minutes

Groups 6 to 8: 3 hours 30 minutes

Groups 9 to 11: 4 hours 30 minutes

Groups 12 to 14: 5 hours 15 minutes

Groups 15 and 16: 6 hours 20 minutes

Groups 17 to 19: 7 hours 40 minutes

Groups 20 to 23: 9 hours.—[Graeme Dey].

Motion agreed to.

Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3

A member

15:19

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Children (Care, Care Experience and Services Planning) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 74A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The voting period 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 any debate on a group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or type RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group has been called.

Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.

Before section A1

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 1 is on aftercare. Amendment 91, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 6 to 8, 92, 93, 9, 96, 97, 13 to 15, 33, 209 and 88.

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

My amendments in group 1 all relate to the provision of aftercare and are needed to deliver quality care for young people in a transparent, organised and rights-respecting way. I listened carefully to the points raised during the stage 2 debate and have lodged amendments that I hope give assurance about our initial intention that all eligible young people who want aftercare can receive aftercare.

Amendments 91, 6, 7, 8 and 93 will ensure that the restated section 29 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 in relation to aftercare is as coherent as possible as a free-standing provision in the bill. The amendments provide for the expansion of aftercare to formerly looked-after children who ceased to be looked after before the age of 16 and will ensure that aftercare support is provided in an equitable way to all young people aged 16 to 18 who left care before or after their 16th birthday.

Amendment 6 makes it clear that all eligible persons must be assessed according to their needs. Aftercare support must be provided to 16 to 18-year-olds unless their welfare does not require it, and to all 19 to 25-year-olds who have eligible needs.

Amendment 93 ensures that a local authority can seek the help of another public body, including another local authority, to support its efforts to deliver aftercare and financial assistance towards expenses of education or training for eligible individuals. The phased roll-out of the provisions that are enabled by amendment 91 will support the workforce in delivering aftercare to a wider group of young people in a considered manner, giving them the time needed to adjust to increased numbers of children and young people requesting and receiving aftercare support. That will protect the quality of the support that is available.

Amendment 9 makes amendments to primary legislation that are consequential on amendments 91, 6, 7 and 8. Amendments 13 and 14 remove sections 1A and 1B of the bill to enable my amendments 91, 6, 7, 8 and 93.

Although section 2 of the bill as introduced sought to extend section 29(7) of the 1995 act to care leavers from Northern Ireland, we now understand that no legislative reciprocity currently exists in relation to care leavers who have moved elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That means that it would not be desirable to have a legislative duty on Scottish local authorities to provide aftercare to care leavers from England and Wales.

Amendment 91 no longer includes the amendment made by section 2 of the bill as introduced in relation to extending the aftercare provisions to care leavers from Northern Ireland. Amendment 15 therefore removes section 2 of the bill.

Amendments 33, 209 and 88 create relevant definitions in the new provisions and clearly articulate the procedures that apply to the various regulation-making powers.

I support Roz McCall’s amendment 92, which allows local authorities to continue to provide financial support to young people who have been looked after at some point who are aged between 16 and 25 years, and to those beyond the age of 26 on the basis of their individual need.

Martin Whitfield’s amendments 96 and 97 are similar to his amendments 127 and 128 at stage 2, which helped to inform the approach to my amendments 91, 6, 7 and 8. We all want to ensure that aftercare provision puts the needs and wellbeing of each individual young person at the centre of the support that they receive.

My amendments 91, 6, 7 and 8 continue to promote a rights-respecting approach, including for young people who choose not to approach local services upon turning 16 or who choose to do so at a later time. That is missing from amendments 96 and 97. Also absent are provisions that hold to the principle of minimal intervention and that protect vital resources. Under the approach that is taken in Mr Whitfield’s amendments, resource for those who need it most would be used in identifying and approaching young people who do not wish to engage with the service. That is neither proportionate nor desirable.

It is important to stress that all the amendments that I have lodged in relation to the stand-alone aftercare provision have been carefully drafted to bring clarity for children, their representatives and local authorities, in so far as that is possible, while also working together with the connected provisions that remain in the 1995 act.

I hope that Mr Whitfield is assured that my amendments give effect to what he also wants to achieve while mitigating against some of the unintended consequences that his own amendments, as drafted, present. I ask that he support the Government amendments 91, 6 to 8 and 93 and not move amendments 96 and 97.

In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments 91, 6 to 8, 93, 9, 13 to 15, 33, 209 and 88 and to vote against amendments 96 and 97 if they are moved. I also ask members to support Roz McCall’s amendment 92.

I move amendment 91.

Roz McCall (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I put on record my thanks to the minister for the work that she has done with me and the rest of us on the amendments. I am going to speak only to my amendment in the group. I am proud to have lodged amendment 92, which would allow local authorities to provide financial support for education, training or employment to a young person aged between 16 and 25 years of age who is no longer looked after. It would also promote a person-centred approach by enabling local authorities to continue that vital support to the young person beyond the age of 26 when that is clearly needed. I think that it is an amendment that we can all get behind, and I am glad that the minister is supporting it. I ask members to support amendment 92 in my name.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I remind members in the chamber, and those who are watching, of my entry in the register of members’ interests.

With regard to group 1, I echo Roz McCall’s thanks to the minister and to those supporting her for what has been an unusually active engagement with regard to this complex and long-standing bill, which comes very late in the session. It is very much to the credit of the minister’s leadership, particularly at stages 2 and 3.

Having got the compliments out of the way, I will speak to the amendments in the group. My two amendments 96 and 97 build on amendments that were lodged at stage 2. There is a challenge in differentiating between children and young people on the basis of when they left care. I know that the Government’s amendments go some way towards doing that, but there is still a challenge coming down the line. I therefore welcome the Government’s willingness both to seek to solve the problem in its drafting and, perhaps more importantly, to acknowledge that the issue exists. That issue can create what I believe to be an unacceptable additional barrier to access to support, particularly for children who left care just before they were 16 and would have had to apply for support. That goes against the fundamental principles of fairness that are outlined in the Promise. I hope that we will find greater agreement later on.

I can confirm that Scottish Labour will support Roz McCall’s excellent amendment 92 with regard to accommodation and maintenance.

I will leave it at that.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

I will make just a brief contribution on this group. At stage 2, I lodged a series of amendments to include estranged young people in various provisions of the bill, including, to some extent, in relation to aftercare. I raise the issue now because, at that point, the minister kindly agreed to take those proposals away and consider how, either through the bill or by other means in the provisions relating to the bill and some of the powers that will be afforded to the Government as a result of it, the experience of estranged young people can be better taken into account.

I ask the minister to address that in her closing speech on this group. I am acutely aware—as, I think, we all should be—that care-experienced young people have built an incredibly powerful political movement in this country over the past 10 to 15 years. That is why we have got to this point with the bill, and they should be incredibly proud of that.

The estranged community in Scotland no longer has a single representative organisation. There was one charity that stood up for its interests, but it folded a few years ago. It is my view that it is the Parliament’s responsibility to ensure that estranged young people are not forgotten in the conversation. Some, but not all, estranged young people are care experienced. For the proposals in group 1 that relate to aftercare, I would be keen to hear from the minister how she intends to ensure that estranged young people are not forgotten as we take the provisions forward.

15:30

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

I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on group 1, and I thank Ross Greer for raising the important issue of estrangement, which we discussed at length at stage 2.

The stage 2 amendments provided an important opportunity to further consider estranged young people during the scrutiny of the bill. At stage 3, I will provide some assurances on the record. I understand that young people who are estranged from their families can face additional challenges. Although they do not have formal care experience status, they do not have the same family support network as their peers. That is particularly important for those who are aged 16 to 25 years who are navigating the transition into adulthood without support and life guidance. At stage 2, I advised that further reflection was needed. I thank Scottish Green members for their engagement ahead of stage 3, and I am grateful for the constructive discussions on how we can give proper consideration to estranged young people in our work to keep the Promise.

Following the commitments that I outlined in my recent letter to Mr Greer, I am happy to put on record that further work will be progressed to raise awareness and build a better understanding of estranged young people, the challenges that they face and how we can ensure that they are properly supported. Through the development of guidance or regulations, depending on the outcome of group 8, on guidance related to care experience that will be published under section 5 of the bill, there will be a good opportunity to reflect further on estranged young people and inform public authorities’ understanding of the issues that they face and how to properly support them. The guidance will be co-produced and developed closely with young people with lived experience. I will ensure that estrangement forms a key part of that work. To complement that, wider work will be undertaken, including the mapping of existing local support for estranged young people in order to further develop our understanding of how that works in practice. Careful consideration is also being given to how estranged young people can be referenced in children’s service plans, further promoting consistency and understanding across Scotland.

I hope that those clear commitments provide reassurance to Ross Greer and others that the Government understands the importance of ensuring that there is proper awareness and understanding of, and support for, estranged young people.

I press amendment 91.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The question is, that amendment 91 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.

15:32

Meeting suspended.

15:38

On resuming—

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

We come to the vote on amendment 91, in the name of the minister. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Claire Baker (Labour, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I had trouble connecting. I would have voted no.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you. I will ensure that that is recorded.

Stephanie Callaghan (Scottish National Party, Uddingston and Bellshill)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Thank you, Ms Callaghan. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 15, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 91 agreed to.

Amendments 6 to 8 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 92 moved—[Roz McCall]—and agreed to.

Amendments 93 and 9 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 2 is on provision of accommodation and continuing care. Amendment 99, in the name of Martin Whitfield, is grouped with amendments 100 to 102, 98, 103 to 108 and 144.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I have the privilege of having lodged all the amendments in the group, so I look forward to hearing comments from members around the chamber.

There are essentially two elements to the amendments that sit in group 2. The first relates to amendments 98 to 107 and 144. I drafted amendments 99 to 102—the other amendments are simply consequential—to highlight the importance of the bill’s provisions as they relate to the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Members will be aware of the many efforts that have been made since the passing of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 to ensure—and there have been assurances in this regard from the Scottish Government on many occasions—that our legislation will take into account pre-devolution matters, so that our young people can enforce their rights in a simple and straightforward way. The purpose behind these amendments is to address that. The amendments would provide a legal landscape around children in care. The situation urgently needs simplification, which is a key ask of the Promise that the legislation has failed to deliver on.

The bill is anything but simple, and members in the next session of the Parliament, which might look drastically different in terms of who comes here, will urgently have to look again at the situation. The purpose behind my amendments is to bring to the fore the importance of the UNCRC, which this Parliament and this Scottish Government absolutely agree on, and to start to see some evidence of that in legislation.

Amendment 108 takes a different approach. I am fully aware that there is a dichotomy and a challenge between amendment 108 and the other amendments in this group, and I look forward to hearing from the minister and perhaps others on whether we can resolve the challenge. Amendment 108 would build on the provisions that were introduced by Nicola Sturgeon at stage 2. It seeks to introduce a clear and unambiguous right for young people who have left a care setting to return. If the Parliament is serious about acting as a parent to children in care, that is one of the bare minimum standards that we should look to achieve.

For many parents, the idea that their own children would be unable to return to home is unthinkable, but that is the reality that care-experienced young people face, and amendment 108, alongside the provisions previously introduced by Nicola Sturgeon, would represent a transformational step towards ensuring that every care-experienced young person can grow up safe, respected and loved—a word that was first introduced as a concept in legislation when it was embodied in the Promise.

I move amendment 99.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

Amendments in this group relate to sections 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D of the bill, and, as Martin Whitfield has said, those sections reflect amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2. I am very grateful to the minister for accepting those amendments at stage 2—despite, I know, some reservations—and for not seeking to reverse them at stage 3. I am also very grateful to The Promise Scotland for all its hard work in this area.

15:45

Those sections represent significant improvements in care for vulnerable young people as they start to move on from care. They ensure that any person under the age of 18 who is homeless or in accommodation that is unsuitable for their welfare will be accommodated by a local authority as a child, not routed through adult homelessness services or, worse, given no help at all, which is what happens to many 16 and 17-year-olds right now.

The sections place a mandatory duty on local authorities, in place of the current discretionary power, to accommodate care-experienced young people who are aged 18 to 21 if their welfare requires it. That again ensures that any vulnerable young person whose move out of care does not go to plan will not end up in adult homelessness services.

The sections ensure that young people who leave and then return to care remain eligible for continuing care on the same basis as those who never left. They also give local authorities a discretionary power to provide continuing care up to the age of 25 if they consider that to be necessary for a young person’s welfare. I strongly support amendment 106, in the name of Martin Whitfield, which would raise that age to 26. That amendment would better align the section with the aftercare provisions that are in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

Martin Whitfield’s amendments to replace sections 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D with rewritten provisions that are within the scope of the 2024 act are well meaning and, at first glance, I was minded to support them. However, as he has acknowledged, they risk unintended consequences and, more fundamentally, they are inconsistent with amendment 108, in his name, which is vitally important.

Amendment 108 would put it beyond doubt that a care-experienced young person can return to continuing care during any period that the right applies to. It would mean that a young person who was eligible for continuing care but who left to live independently of their own accord could return to care if things went wrong, in the same way as non-care-experienced young people can go home to their parents if they hit bumps in life’s road. That goes to the very essence of the Promise, which is to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, care-experienced young people get the same support from the state as the rest of us get from our families.

The transition to adulthood is tricky for all of us. For most of us, even in adulthood, we have the option of going home to our parents when life gets tough. The amendments in my name that were agreed to at stage 2, coupled with amendments 106 and 108 in Martin Whitfield’s name at stage 3, would take us much closer to that option being the reality for care-experienced young people, too.

I urge the Parliament to support amendments 106 and 108 and to reject the other amendments in the group if they are pressed, for the reasons that I have outlined.

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

I am grateful to Ms Sturgeon and Mr Whitfield for their engagement ahead of stage 3 on these sections of the bill.

Every member wishes to protect children’s rights in Scotland, and I fully support the intention of bringing legislation within the scope of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. However, that must be done in a careful way that does not further add to a confusing and disjointed legislative landscape or give rise to unintended consequences. The level of engagement on the bill between stakeholders and the Education, Children and Young People Committee has highlighted what I hear from families across the country, which is that keeping the Promise includes ensuring effective implementation of the laws that we pass in the Parliament.

As Martin Whitfield has acknowledged, his amendments 99 to 102 would give rise to an unintended consequence, which is that looked-after status would be removed from children who are accommodated under the new restated section 25 of the 1995 act. Those vulnerable children would therefore no longer be entitled to vital supports, which I think that we would all agree would have a negative impact on children and young people. If agreed to, those amendments would necessitate consequential amendments by future subordinate or primary legislation ahead of implementation to address that specific unintended consequence.

As I have said before, I am satisfied that the provisions in the bill and the relevant provisions of the 1995 act are compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under existing legislation, children in Scotland currently have routes by which they can appeal and challenge the support that they have been offered. That includes the right to reviews and appeals, access to local authority children’s rights officers, advocacy support and routes to complain to the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

I therefore cannot support amendments 99 to 102, but I am happy to support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 106, which would allow local authorities to continue providing continuing care for young people until their 26th birthday. I also support Martin Whitfield’s amendment 108, which would offer a right to return for those in continuing care when that is the right thing for their welfare.

I ask members to support amendments 106 and 108 and to vote against all other amendments in the group if they are pressed.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am very grateful for members’ contributions on the group and, indeed, for Nicola Sturgeon’s articulate description of not only the situation but the challenge that young people who are on the cusp of adulthood face without the ability to return to care. I thank the minister for her very positive approach to amendments 106 and 108.

With nothing further to add—I do not want to waste time, given how little of it we have—I seek to withdraw amendment 99.

Amendment 99, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 100 to 102 not moved.

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 3 is on family group decision making. Amendment 10, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 94, 95, 79 to 83, 203 and 84.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak to amendment 10. I thank Children First, whose advocacy for children in respect of family group decision making has brought us to this point. In particular, discussions with Miles Briggs, Willie Rennie, Roz McCall and Martin Whitfield have enabled a coherent package of amendments to be lodged.

Throughout the passage of the bill, members have emphasised the importance of ensuring that families are supported to play a meaningful role in decisions that affect children and that the child’s voice is heard in this process. The amendments in this group reflect that shared ambition. They also build on Scotland’s approach through getting it right for every child and the ambition of the Promise that children should be supported to stay within their families when and wherever it is safe to do so, and that families should play a meaningful role in shaping the support that surrounds them.

By bringing families together to identify their strengths, family group decision making helps to make that possible. I hope that members will support the amendments and extend the statutory framework around the provision of family group decision making in Scotland.

The amendments that are before Parliament today will strengthen the visibility, accessibility, consistency and national understanding of those services in four ways.

First, amendment 10 will introduce a right for children and families to request that a family group decision-making service be provided. Any person who considers themselves to fall within the definitions that are referred to in proposed new section 69A(1) of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 will be able to make the request. A local authority will need to consider and respond to a request unless it considers that there are good reasons not to do so.

Secondly, amendment 94, in the name of Willie Rennie, will bolster amendment 10 by making sure that local authorities promote awareness of that right to request FGDM and publish information about the service more broadly.

Thirdly, amendment 95, which is also from Willie Rennie, will require the publication of national guidance on family group decision making, supporting a clearer and more consistent understanding of how to use it.

Finally, amendment 84, which is from Miles Briggs, will strengthen national reporting with a duty on local authorities to provide information on the operation of services to the Scottish ministers, who will collate that information in a report to Parliament within three years of royal assent.

Other amendments in this group seek to make technical changes to ensure consistency of language when referring to family group decision-making services.

Taken together, the amendments will strengthen family group decision making in a practical and proportionate way, while maintaining the flexibility that is needed to respond to the circumstances of each child and each family.

I move amendment 10 in my name, and I invite members to support all the amendments in the group.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I thank the minister for her collaborative approach on this important issue. I also thank Children First for its very strong support in making sure that we get this right.

Family group decision making is at the heart of the delivery of the Promise. It is clear that it strengthens family networks, gives children a voice in decisions that affect them and can help to prevent situations from escalating into crisis—and I am sure that we are all supportive of that.

My amendments form part of a cross-party package in this group. I endorse amendment 10, in the name of the minister, on the right to request family group decision-making services. My amendment 94 will require local authorities to promote that right and to publish broader information about FGDM services in their area, so that what those services are and how to access them is widely understood.

The collaborative approach to this group reflects the strong interest across Parliament in ensuring that families are better supported and that children’s voices are heard in decisions that affect their lives.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Certainly.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. I merely want to articulate my thanks for the cross-party work with regard to this group, and to confirm that my party will support all the amendments in it.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

On that point, I will conclude. I urge members to support the amendments.

Miles Briggs (Conservative, Lothian)

I am pleased to speak to amendment 79 and the other amendments in my name in this group, which relates to family group decision making. As the minister and Willie Rennie have pointed out, family group decision making is a well-established approach that has been used by some local authorities in Scotland—including my own here in Edinburgh—over a number of years to bring families together to make plans for children where there are serious concerns about their wellbeing.

My amendments in this group focus on strengthening transparency and accountability in how family group decision making is used, and on ensuring that we all tie in to the same definition of the service. My amendment 84 would require the Scottish ministers to publish and lay before Parliament information on the use of FGDM nationally within three years of royal assent. That would help Parliament and the public to better understand how this important service is being provided across Scotland and where it could be strengthened. My amendments would also make technical changes to reflect the definition of family group decision-making services that the minister’s amendment 10 will add to the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014.

Importantly, my amendments form part of a cross-party package of proposals in the group, and I believe that the overall package of measures now strikes the right balance. It will improve visibility and understanding of family group decision making while continuing to respect the professional judgment of those who work with our children and families.

I welcome the constructive discussions that have taken place across the parties, and I especially thank the minister for moving the agenda forward. I also put on record my thanks to organisations that support children and families, particularly Children First, which has long advocated for the wider use of family group decision making. I look forward to supporting the wider package in the group.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Amendments 94 and 95 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.

Section A1—Kinship care needs assessment

Liam McArthur (Liberal Democrat, Orkney Islands)

Group 4 is on kinship care. Amendment 11, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is grouped with amendment 12.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I, too, thank the minister for her proactive engagement. Although we will not agree on everything this afternoon and evening, I appreciate the way in which she and her officials have reached out. I also thank all the charities and organisations that have helped to shape my thinking and decision making on the bill. With regard to my amendment 11, which is on kinship care, I especially thank Children First, Scotland’s national children’s charity, for its guidance on the amendment to ensure that it is child centred and appropriately measured.

It has become clear to me during this session of Parliament that kinship care is a wee bit of a Cinderella service in Scotland. Those of us who sit on the Social Justice and Social Security Committee had a number of sessions with people who are involved with kinship care. There are many issues that still need to be addressed, and the support that they require still needs to be provided by the Government and local authorities.

Amendment 11 would reframe the wording in section A1 of the bill regarding kinship care assessment needs to ensure that we remove any barriers that carers and children in kinship care arrangements might face. The premise of amendment 11 is simple: rather than the local authority having to offer to assess a person’s kinship care assistance needs, there would instead be a guarantee that an assessment will take place. That would take the potential postcode lottery out of the process and ensure that the needs of the carer and the child are assessed appropriately and without question.

16:00

In its submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation on the draft vision for kinship care, Children First stated that

“asking carers to apply for an assessment may become a hurdle, especially for those who are unaware of the option or find it difficult to ask for help.”

Kinship carers are the backbone of our care community: grandparents and other relatives who, at a time in their lives when they should be enjoying retirement and relaxation, are instead stepping up to support and raise grandchildren, keeping families together during difficult times. Those people deserve the full backing and support of our local councils to ensure that a full, trauma‑informed assessment of a person’s care needs is performed and that pathways to assist and support them are identified. Kinship carers should not have to ask for an assessment or wait for a council to offer one; an assessment should be given without hesitation or demand.

Amendment 12 follows on from that and would ensure that the kinship assessment is carried out within three months of the application being received. That would ensure that the assessment is timely and that families are not left waiting and struggling. It would ensure that appropriate support—whether financial, practical or professional, such as social work support—is put in place at the earliest opportunity, and it might prevent the kinship care arrangement from breaking down.

For so long, kinship care has been misunderstood, mismanaged and undersupported. My amendments 11 and 12 would go some way to ensuring that kinship carers are recognised, listened to and given the appropriate assessment of support to ensure that they can care for children to the best of their ability.

I move amendment 11.

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

I understand the intention behind Mr Balfour’s amendments in this group, which seek to strengthen access to assessments for kinship carers. Like others, I have been very keen to improve and strengthen support for kinship carers throughout the bill process.

Section A1 provides kinship carers with the right to request an assessment or review of their support needs. It also creates enabling powers for the Scottish ministers to make provision about when or how a local authority must assess, or review an assessment of, a person’s kinship care needs.

Amendment 11 would change the provision that requires local authorities to offer an assessment to one that requires them to guarantee that an assessment will take place in all circumstances. However, the bill’s current wording allows local authorities to respond proportionately in cases in which needs have already been assessed or in cases in which a further assessment might not be necessary, which reflects the wider principle of proportionate and minimum intervention that underpins Scotland’s approach to children’s services. Changing the provision would mean resources being tied up in conducting assessments whether they are needed or not, which does not feel appropriate. Through section A1, we already have the ability to provide more detail on the assessment process, through secondary legislation, if it is necessary to do so. I hope that Jeremy Balfour is assured by that and that he will not press amendment 11.

Amendment 12 would introduce a statutory requirement for an assessment or review to be completed within three months of a request being made. I recognise the importance of ensuring that kinship carers receive timely consideration of their support needs and, on that basis, I am content to support amendment 12, because it would create a window within which assessments should be conducted. Local authorities will continue to prioritise assessments according to risk and need, and the statutory guidance that is referred to in the bill’s provisions will support authorities to implement the requirements in a way that reflects local circumstances and the needs of children and families.

I therefore encourage Jeremy Balfour not to press amendment 11. If he does, I urge members to vote against it, but to vote for his amendment 12.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I have nothing to add. I press amendment 11.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Members: No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 43, Against 70, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 11 disagreed to.

Amendment 12 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Section 1A—Aftercare

Amendments 96 to 98 not moved.

Amendment 13 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 1B—Financial assistance towards expenses of education or training and removal of power to guarantee indentures etc

Amendment 14 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 2—Aftercare for persons looked after in Northern Ireland

Amendment 15 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 2A—Duty to provide accommodation for children in need

Amendment 103 not moved.

Section 2B—Provision of accommodation for care-experienced people

Amendment 104 not moved.

Section 2C—Extension of continuing care to children returning to care

Amendment 105 not moved.

Section 2D—Extension of continuing care to age 25

Amendment 106 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.

Amendment 107 not moved.

After section 2D

Amendment 108 moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.

Section 3—Corporate parenting duties in relation to persons looked after before age 16

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 5 is entitled “Corporate parenting: duties and guidance”. Amendment 16, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 17, 109, 18, 19, 19A, 19B, 110 and 20.

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

I will first speak to my amendments 16 to 20. Amendment 16 will reinstate the position that corporate parenting duties and responsibilities apply up to the age of 26. The amendment relates to amendment 19, which will place a duty on the Scottish ministers to issue guidance about corporate parenting. The guidance may include advice and information on when and how it might be desirable for corporate parents, in so far as they are acting within their powers, to continue their corporate responsibilities towards people aged 26 and over who were formerly looked after.

Amendments 18 and 19 will remove and reinsert amendments that were agreed at stage 2, with minor technical and consequential fixes.

Amendments 17 and 20 will remove provisions that were inserted at stage 2, which would most commonly affect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and young people. Those provisions related to corporate parenting responsibilities in relation to age and identity. There has been some confusion on that, so, to be clear, all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are looked after and should receive the support that they need as looked-after children. Although the issues of age and identity are complex, I am firmly of the view that they would be better addressed for that particularly vulnerable group through strengthened responsibilities and a wider regard being given to corporate parenting responsibilities in respect of the UNCRC. I hope that members will agree with that view. That is also why I support Martin Whitfield’s amendments 19A and 19B, which cover similar ground.

I thank Willie Rennie for lodging amendment 109. Corporate parents are key to keeping the Promise and ensuring that looked-after children and young people get the best possible chances in life. Their role goes far beyond just adhering to statutory duties. They shape opportunities, nurture aspirations and help to create the foundations for children and young people to grow up loved, safe and respected. Requiring corporate parents to be explicit in corporate parenting plans about how they propose to exercise their responsibilities in a way that delivers on the Promise recommendations will make it easier to track progress, identify gaps and ensure that the needs of all looked-after children and young people can be met. I am therefore happy to support amendment 109.

I recognise the intent behind Martin Whitfield’s amendment 110, but it is neither necessary nor desirable. The Government’s no one left behind approach has established an employability system that is delivered through local employability partnerships and is supported by nationally consistent priorities and expectations. That approach already funds key workers to provide employability support that is tailored to the circumstances and needs of participants and includes consideration of work, education or training. That is important, because amendment 110 assumes that work is the best option for care-experienced young people, when further or higher education, an apprenticeship or other training might be more in their interests. Care-experienced people are a priority group for employability support. Since April 2019, almost 7,500 care-experienced people have accessed support through no one left behind. That figure has increased since the same amendment was lodged at stage 2, with 381 new care-experienced individuals accessing employability services in the past quarter. Amendment 110 would therefore result in unhelpful duplication of funding and provision that I believe are already working well. I hope that that reassures Martin Whitfield and that he will not move his amendment.

In summary, I encourage members to support my amendments 16 to 20 and amendments 19A, 19B and 109. I ask members to vote against amendment 110, if it is moved.

I move amendment 16.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am grateful for the minister’s support of my amendment 109, which was developed at the suggestion of Who Cares? Scotland. To reiterate, the amendment will require corporate parenting plans to include information on how corporate parenting responsibilities will be exercised in a way that delivers on the recommendations of the Promise. That is intended to increase accountability. Who Cares? Scotland has set out the need for stronger accountability in primary legislation for keeping the Promise, and that has been backed up by the Audit Scotland report of 2025, which evidenced confusion five years on from the Promise being made and the difficulty in distributing accountability. Together with my amendment 204 in a later grouping, amendment 109 will help to ensure policy coherence across corporate parenting, children’s services, planning and the Promise.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Amendment 19A seeks to require specific consideration to be given to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the guidance on corporate parenting that is to be produced under amendment 19. I thank the minister for her positive approach to this amendment; unaccompanied asylum seeker children have been overlooked on too many occasions, so it is right that a clear corporate parent owes a duty of care to those individuals and that they fall under the looked-after category.

16:15

Amendment 19B would require that the guidance for corporate parents refers them to the guidance issued under section 13(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024 about the UNCRC requirements. This is an important protection, and I welcome the Government’s co-operation on this amendment. Like my amendment in group 1, it speaks to the importance of the UNCRC in these matters. I also welcome the support for amendment 109, in the name of Willie Rennie, with regard to the fundamental role that corporate parenting will play in this situation and the understanding that is needed. In particular, it is in the actions of the corporate parent that we will most successfully see the fulfilling of the Promise.

Amendment 110 builds on discussions at stage 2, when very powerful testimony was heard from Duncan Dunlop about the golden opportunity that the bill provides to create proper pathways to employment and training for our care-experienced young people, because, for a variety of reasons, those young people cannot or do not access the networks and support that families would normally provide. We should be bold in our ambition to support those young people and in arguing that representatives from our care-experienced communities, some of whom are in the public gallery today, are worthy of that support. They are worthy of the very same opportunities that everybody else has.

I recognise the concerns that we have heard recently from organisations such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Social Work Scotland. We are not in an environment in which policies such as those proposed in amendment 110 are feasible, and there is an overlap with existing work. I am very grateful that the minister was able to provide the current quarter figures, which show the success of that work. However, I urge the Government to continue to build on that, and I seek confirmation from the minister that that will be the case, so that: we can identify successes; challenges can be easily and quickly picked up; and, through the corporate parenting responsibilities under the UNCRC, work on those challenges can be supported. On the basis of the minister’s response, I will consider whether to move amendment 110.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call the minister to wind up.

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

I will respond directly to Mr Whitfield’s comments. That aspect will absolutely have to be followed up. I have been clear that the provision exists and that children and young people are benefiting from it. However, we must absolutely ensure that we are making a tangible difference as a result of where we are making efforts and putting funding. In my earlier comments, I referred to ensuring that we provide the right route for children and young people, and employability is just one part of that. We need to look at the wider picture and ensure that all access routes and pathways for children and young people are progressing in the way that we intended. I reassure Mr Whitfield that I absolutely feel that further work must be delivered, but I do not necessarily believe that amendment 110 is the way forward.

Amendment 16 agreed to.

Amendment 17 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendment 109 moved—[Willie Rennie]—and agreed to.

Amendment 18 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

After section 3

Amendment 19 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].

Amendments 19A and 19B moved—[Martin Whitfield]—and agreed to.

Amendment 19, as amended, agreed to.

Amendment 110 not moved.

Section 3A—Duty of corporate parents in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

Amendment 20 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Section 4—Advocacy services for care-experienced persons

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 6 is on advocacy services for care-experienced persons. Amendment 21, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 22, 111, 23, 112 to 116, 24, 117, 25 to 27, 29, 29A and 86. If amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 112 to 115, due to pre-emption.

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

The Promise tells us of the importance of independent advocacy services and the role that those can play in supporting and upholding the rights of children who are currently in care and people who have experience of care. That is why we put into the bill a lifelong right for people to access advocacy services.

At stage 2, the Education, Children and Young People Committee agreed to a definition of independent advocacy, introduced by Ross Greer, that was directly taken from the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. I raised concerns about directly lifting a definition from other legislation that was designed for a specific purpose within a mental health context and that had the potential to exclude some advocacy providers from being considered independent. I have, therefore, lodged a package of amendments that directly addresses those concerns and seeks to provide a definition that is both workable and desirable in meeting the needs of children and adults with care experience.

Amendment 29 will insert a new section to set out that local authorities and health boards cannot be regarded as providing independent care experience advocacy services and that members of those bodies are not independent advocates in relation to care services that are provided by the body of which they are a member. It will also set out that those who operate under contractual or other arrangements with a local authority or health board are not to be automatically treated as a service of the local authority or health board. That will mean that Barnardo’s and similar providers could continue to provide independent advocacy where they deliver other support services under contractual arrangements with local authorities; however, importantly, it will prevent any overlap between individuals who provide advocacy services and those who provide or make decisions about the care services to which a care-experienced person’s use of the advocacy services relates. That is an important boundary to put in place.

Amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27 and 86 are consequential to amendment 29.

I recognise that Nicola Sturgeon, through amendments 114 and 29A, and Martin Whitfield, through amendment 115, seek to protect against conflicts of interest by ensuring that care providers in a local authority area do not also act as independent advocates in that area. That is a legitimate concern.

Amendments 114 and 115 would amend the stage 2 definition of independence in section 4(2)(a) by adding that exclusion criterion. However, we already intend to insert a comprehensive revised definition of independence through amendment 29. Amendment 29A would simply add the same exclusion criterion to that definition, and supporting it would therefore achieve more comprehensively what amendments 114 and 115 seek to achieve.

I have reflected very carefully on amendment 29A. On balance, I consider that it reflects a principled approach that would protect against conflicts of interest. It would ensure that organisations that provide care services in an area under contract with a local authority are not regarded as providing independent advocacy for care-experienced people who are, or were, placed in residential or secure care in that area. That would create a clear structural boundary, preventing any overlap between those who make decisions about care and those who provide independent advocacy in such circumstances. I thank Nicola Sturgeon for lodging amendment 29A and allowing us to consider these important issues.

I also recognise that amendment 29A would affect third sector providers such as Barnardo's and Aberlour, which currently provide both independent advocacy and wider support services under contract with local authorities. If amendment 29A is agreed to, they will not be able to provide independent advocacy for care-experienced people in residential or secure care in areas in which they provide contracted care services. However, amendment 29A reflects a clear choice to prioritise absolute clarity about the independence of advocacy services from care provision by creating structural separation. By ensuring that organisations do not provide relevant care services and advocacy in the same area, we will remove any possibility of perceived or actual conflicts of interest. On balance, that feels right, and I support amendment 29A.

Amendment 25 seeks to protect choice. It states that giving a person the statutory right of access to care experience advocacy does not prevent them from choosing someone else to support and represent them—for example, a children’s rights officer or a trusted adult—when they are accessing services or making their views known to decision makers. That includes a child choosing a family member, care worker or someone else who is employed in the provision of care services as their advocate, albeit that they would not be an independent advocacy support worker.

Amendment 25, therefore, protects against care-experienced people feeling pressured into taking up advocacy support if it is not wanted or if it prevents them from accessing support from a person of their choosing. Without choice, we lose the benefit and strength of relationships from the service. Care-experienced people tell us that that matters hugely to them.

I hope that I have reassured Martin Whitfield on those key points, and that he will prefer my amendments to his own.

Finally, I welcome Mr Balfour’s amendments 24, 116 and 117, which bring refinements to amendments that he lodged at stage 2. I encourage members to support them.

I ask members to support amendments 21 to 23, 26, 27, 29, 29A and 86, and to reject amendments 111 to 115, if moved.

I move amendment 21.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Martin Whitfield to speak to amendment 111 and other amendments in the group.

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I thank the minister for explaining the reasoning behind amendments 21 and 22. It is right that we needed confirmation of the requirement for separation so that there is independence.

My amendment 111 seeks to make allowances for advocacy services that do not meet the strict definition of independence. For example, arrangements where contractors might work with local authorities in the provision of some services or provide other services alongside advocacy should not mean that the invaluable expertise of those organisations is lost to care-experienced children and young people. Amendment 112 is consequential to that amendment. The minister picked up on and highlighted one of the organisations to which that would apply.

Notwithstanding that, I believe that we should have a definition.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

I thank the member for taking an intervention, and I apologise if he is about to come on to his point, but his amendment uses the words “reasonably practical”. What does that mean? He will remember from his legal days that the definitions will be looked at by lawyers and courts in due course. Does that mean financial reasonability? Can he give a clearer definition, or does he think that it is clear enough, if the bill is passed?

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

I am grateful for Mr Balfour’s intervention. I will not attempt to stray into a long-forgotten land of lawyers’ definitions of reasonableness and practicability. However, the member was right to bring up one of the challenges with the bill, which is that, when we talk about keeping the Promise—and we talked about corporate parenting earlier—we need to consider the extent to which the definitions in the legislation will achieve what we want them to.

Section 4 seeks to define independence and challenges us to define what organisations have to be independent from. In essence, we mean independence from corporate parenting. That is a challenge, and it will continue to push against the Promise.

When we look around the United Kingdom and at other areas, we see the challenge with independence and have to consider what independence means if there is only a small pool of independent people to choose from. We need to go back to the principle of what the Promise is about and who it is speaking to. It is speaking to our care-experienced young people and their lives. The need for independence in certain circumstances is easy to legislate for but very hard to enforce. One of the challenges that we have had across the chamber, and it arose before stage 2, is defining independence.

I have gone a long way round to avoid answering the member’s question, but I will send him a very large invoice for my services in helping him to understand the point.

Amendment 115 seeks to provide a definition, but we have several options before us on that issue and I look forward to hearing members’ contributions.

16:30

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

All the stage 3 amendments in my name, which are in this group and in groups 8 and 17, have been lodged in consultation with Who Cares? Scotland. Before I turn to my amendments 113, 114 and 29A in this group, I want to take a quick moment to pay tribute to Who Cares? Scotland. Bluntly, without its campaigning passion, skill and perseverance, we would not be here debating the bill today. It was the Who Cares? 1,000 voices campaign that persuaded me to establish the independent care review, which led to the Promise.

Some of the young people who came to Bute house around a decade ago as small children to persuade me to try to make life better for those who spend some or all of their childhood in care are here with us in the gallery. Back then, I had to crouch down to speak to them, but most of them tower over me today.

I am so grateful to them and to everyone in the care-experienced community, who have certainly burrowed their way into my heart, and, much more importantly, have ensured that life will be better for those who come after them. They deserve the gratitude and the respect of all of us in the chamber. [Applause.]

One of the massive achievements of Who Cares? Scotland in the context of the bill has been securing the right to independent advocacy for care-experienced people. I believe that that is important in its own right, but I believe that it is more fundamental than that. I believe that independent advocacy will become a catalyst to help young people to realise their rights overall and to help us to keep the Promise.

That takes me to my amendments in the group that relate to the definition of independent advocacy. Amendment 113 would remove language imported from the definition in mental health legislation that is not appropriate in this context. Amendment 114 would add more specification to the definition. It stipulates that, to be classed as independent as an advocate, in addition to not being a member of a local authority or health board in the same area that the advocacy service is to be provided, they must not provide care services under contract to a local authority in the same area. In simpler terms, a worker in a care home or a secure unit cannot be deemed to be an independent advocate for a child living in that care home or secure setting.

To be clear, and in response to those who say that that will unduly restrict the availability of good advocates, that would not remove choice from a young person opting to have the care home worker as their advocate if that is an arrangement that they are happy with and have confidence in. However, if they do not wish that—if perhaps the young person has issues or conflict in the care home or with their care provider more generally—it means that they will have the option of an advocate who is genuinely independent. That is essential to avoid conflicts of interest and to give proper protection for the rights of young people.

That also aligns with the definition of independence that is supported by the Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, which is advocacy that is

“structurally, financially and psychologically separate”

from services.

As the minister has highlighted, my amendment 29A would achieve the same provisions as amendment 114, but it is an addition to the minister’s amendment 29, which rewrites those provisions and, in my view, makes them better. I am grateful to the minister for indicating her support for amendment 29A. In light of that, I will not move amendments 113 and 114, but I urge members to support amendment 29A.

Jeremy Balfour (Independent, Lothian)

Advocacy plays a vital role in enabling people to express their views and make informed decisions. It supports children and young people, and adults, to navigate complex systems and have their voices heard.

At stage 2, I lodged an amendment to ensure that care-experienced people are offered advocacy at the earliest appropriate opportunity. The committee agreed to the amendment, and I am grateful for members’ support for constructive engagement with the Minister for Children and Young People and The Promise since then.

Today, thanks to the help of the minister and her officials, I introduce amendment 116, which preserves the intent of the amendment at stage 2 but sets out further detail to strengthen how the provisions will work in practice. That requires regulations under section 4(1) to specify how care-experienced people will be made aware of the right to access advocacy. It also places a duty on the Scottish ministers to have regard to the desirability of a person being able to exercise their right at the earliest appropriate opportunity.

The principle of earliest appropriate access is important, but effective delivery depends on the practical details: deciding who informs the care-experienced individual, and when and through which channels, of their right to advocacy support; putting awareness-raising arrangements into regulations; and placing a duty on ministers to consider the desirability of early exercise of the right.

I recognise the diverse routes by which people enter, experience and leave care, and seek to support a flexible framework that can adapt as practice evolves.

Amendment 117 is consequential to amendment 116.

Care-experienced children and young people and adults must know about their right to access advocacy support at the right time. Ensuring early information and clear routes to early advocacy support is key to securing the right support up front. I believe that amendments 116 and 117 build on the amendment in my name that was agreed to at stage 2, and is an important step in our journey to keep the Promise in relation to the care community having the right to have their voices heard. I welcome the minister’s support, and I ask members to support the amendments.

On amendment 24, I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2 and received support from both the minister and many of my colleagues at the committee. However, through the vagaries of whip-controlled voting, the amendment was voted down by the committee—a mistake that needs to be rectified in the chamber at stage 3.

At stage 2, there was a great deal of discussion about the pros and cons of an opt-in model versus an opt-out model for advocacy services. Indeed, even those in the third sector, who have been instrumental in helping us to shape our views on this matter, have been split in their views. However, it is my belief, which I think is shared by the Government, that advocacy services should be offered on an opt-in basis for children in relation to care experience. I will briefly outline the reasons why, in my view, children should always be made fully aware of their rights and options but advocacy should never be forced upon them.

If we go for an opt-out model, children might feel pressured to have to share their story with yet another individual—a stranger whom they do not know and have no connection with. I have heard repeatedly in meetings with charities that work in the sector that children do not like having to tell their story multiple times, as that can cause upset, confusion and fatigue. It should, therefore, be a right—a choice—for a child to decide if they wish to use the services of an independent advocate, but they should never have to do so against their wishes.

Advocacy helps people to express their views and make informed decisions. Advocates help children and their families to navigate the complex landscape, and support them to make their own choices. To force advocacy on a person goes against what advocacy sets out to achieve, and it would be viewed with suspicion and not entered into fully or willingly. Making advocacy an opt-out would change the power dynamic, taking the power and choice away from the child, and many children might feel unable or uncomfortable when it comes to saying no to the advocacy that is offered.

Another reason for opt-in being the preferred model of service delivery is that opt-out could create a forced demand for the service of advocates. Aberlour, a national organisation that has been supporting fostering families since 2004, says that insisting on advocacy will add more professionals to a cluttered landscape—something that would be detrimental and would have negative rather than positive effects.

I say again that I am grateful to the minister for her meetings and for helping me with this, and I ask members to support my amendments.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I will speak against four amendments in the group: amendments 113 to 115 and, in particular, amendment 29A, which I note that the minister is supporting. The amendments would add to the definition of independent advocacy for care-experienced people and would limit the number of organisations that could provide independent advocacy. They would rule out charities, including Barnardo’s, in many circumstances. Although I recognise that the intent behind the amendments is to ensure that advocacy services are adequately independent, I believe that we should listen carefully to the organisations that have raised concerns.

Members will have noted the briefing that we received from Children First, which says:

“We are concerned that these amendments would prevent high-quality advocacy services, already working in line with The Promise and the National Advocacy Framework, from continuing. In our view, this Bill should increase advocacy support options, not reduce them. However, amendments 114, 115 and 29A would remove advocacy support options for children and young people by restricting who can provide these services. Organisations that deliver both residential support and advocacy can do so with independence and integrity, and we are not aware of any evidence suggesting otherwise. These amendments could have immediate and long-term consequences, reducing the flexibility of local areas to fund services that suit their needs best.”

Barnardo’s has also raised concerns. It says:

“We are concerned that the effect of these amendments could have both immediate and long-term consequences leading to significant disruption, increased confusion and added complexity to the commissioning and provision of advocacy support for children and young people. We believe these amendments could reduce flexibility and choice available to commissioners of independent advocacy and children’s care services, and could directly lead to … disruption to the structure and delivery of the National Advocacy Service for the Children’s Hearing System which has benefited from the creation of a strong network of advocacy providers focused on the delivery of high-quality independent advocacy since 2020.”

We all want the bill to work in practice, especially now that we have reached stage 3. However, I am worried that, if the change is introduced now, we would be at risk of seriously disrupting the good work that is being done and of restricting the choice that would be available in setting up the new advocacy service. I know that I am in conflict with Nicola Sturgeon on that and I recognise the work that she has done in the area, but I would urge her not to move amendment 29A and to follow the advice of Children First and Barnardo’s, which have a tremendous record and a good reputation. We do not want to disrupt what is already in place. Therefore, we should reject amendments 29A and 113 to 115.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call the minister to wind up.

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

The time that we have spent debating the issue, both today and at stage 2, demonstrates its importance. The provision of a right to lifelong advocacy services for children and people with care experience is entirely new and is a real signal of progression towards keeping the Promise. There has been a lot of discussion on the balance that is required around the question of independence. My focus for stage 3 has been to ensure that potential conflict of interest is avoided. However, I absolutely recognise the challenges that Mr Rennie has outlined. I made many of the same points in my comments at stage 2.

The amendments that I have lodged in this group would provide a regulation-making power for ministers to specify additional independence criteria for the purpose of section 4(1). The power would be subject to a consultation requirement and the affirmative procedure, which would ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and input from the care community and stakeholders if the power is used.

Some of the challenges that Mr Rennie presented could be considered and scrutinised again in a new session of Parliament. Today’s debate demonstrates that we, as a Parliament—

16:45

Martin Whitfield (Labour, South Scotland)

Building on the request that Willie Rennie put forward, and listening to the minister’s language, is the issue not one that those regulations could specifically look at, rather than something that may or may not be considered? How that would be triggered would be open to both parliamentary and other procedures. Does the minister envisage that, at the first sign of any challenges, there would be a way of adding to the list through those regulations, which would allow the matter to be resolved?

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

It is something that has to be addressed now. There have been conflicting opinions from a range of organisations on a whole range of different issues in the bill. I will be the first to admit that it has been hard to navigate that and to ensure that we are doing the right thing. However, I have summed up the evidence, the discussions and the considerations at stage 2 and now at stage 3, and I believe that my approach at this point, in making further safeguards for children and young people, is the appropriate way to respond.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We know that we are finding it difficult to deliver the Promise on time; the interim reports have shown that we are behind. However, independent advocacy is one of the areas where progress has been made, and I do not understand why we are restricting it further, potentially undermining bits of the Promise on which we are making a bit of progress. I urge the minister to reconsider her approach. We do not have an opportunity to revise the provisions; we are at the end of the bill process. To introduce the approach at such a late stage, and in such a fashion, is a retrograde step. I urge the minister to reconsider her support for amendment 29A.

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

I have considered the matter very carefully. I do not believe that the approach will undermine efforts that have already been made or delivery in relation to the Promise. In fact, I think that it will help to bolster the right support for children and young people by ensuring that there is absolutely no potential for or possibilities of conflicts of interest.

Mr Rennie referred to the delivery of the Promise. We have provisions in the bill, and we are about to debate amendments in relation to reviews. If some of the unintended consequences that Mr Rennie refers to were to be considered, we could use the powers that we will have through the regulations to address them.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

On the point that Willie Rennie has raised, and on behalf of organisations that provide a lot of excellent service in this area, I ask whether the minister could provide some reassurance on the issue of immediate disruption. Whether through how we commence the provisions of the bill or the steps that are taken in the immediate aftermath, is it the Government’s intention to ensure that, during the transition period, there will be no scenario in which any individual young person has an advocacy service that is currently working well for them taken away? Are we considering a transition towards a model of the most effective kind of independent advocacy, and not a sudden switch from one system to another that would see some people’s advocacy disrupted?

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

Yes. That would absolutely be my intention. The amendments in relation to choice for young people also speak to that. Of course we would not want to see something ended abruptly where young people are being supported. I would expect that support to continue as we move to the new system on a transitional basis.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

I have sympathy with the points that Willie Rennie has raised, and I have great respect for the work done by organisations such as Barnardo’s. It is important that we establish in the bill a clear principle that conflicts of interest are an issue. They have been raised with me as an issue several times over the years by care-experienced young people in residential care homes and in secure settings. That is what I am trying to address. However, I welcome the minister’s comment about consideration of transition in her last contribution. That is important, and I am the last person who would want to see immediate disruption.

Finally, I will underline the minister’s point, and perhaps ask her to underline it again, about choice, which exists thanks to one of her amendments. This is not about imposing something on young people. Young people will continue to have the choice of having an advocate if they wish one, but amendment 29A recognises that, to be genuinely independent, there cannot be conflicts of interest.

I recognise the concerns that have been raised, but I think that, with patience and sense, the practical challenges of implementation can be worked through without compromising the principle that is at stake.

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

That sums it up perfectly. I have been very clear that I have decided where to lend my support based on having the best interests of children and young people at the heart of the provisions. I have been very clear that the element of choice is extremely important and will remain.

Members’ amendments have allowed us to debate the issues fully. I ask Martin Whitfield not to move his amendments and to instead support my amendments, Jeremy Balfour’s amendments and Nicola Sturgeon’s amendment 29A.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 21 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

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

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Ms Robison.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Ruskell.

Jim Fairlie (Scottish National Party, Perthshire South and Kinross-shire)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Fairlie.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 94, Against 1, Abstentions 15.

Amendment 21 agreed to.

Amendment 22 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 22 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 92, Against 1, Abstentions 16.

Amendment 22 agreed to.

Amendment 111 moved—[Martin Whitfield].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The question is, that amendment 111 be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division is: For 16, Against 94, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 111 disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I remind members that, if amendment 23 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 112 to 115 due to pre-emption.

Amendment 23 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Amendments 116, 24 and 117 moved—[Jeremy Balfour]—and agreed to.

Amendments 25 to 27 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes]—and agreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Group 7 is entitled “Structure of Act”. Amendment 28, in the name of the minister, is grouped with amendments 30 to 32, 34, 42, 43, 87, 89 and 90.

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

All amendments in this group are technical in nature and will not change the policy intent of any of the bill’s provisions. Amendments 28, 30, 31 and 34 will reorder the sections of the bill so that its free-standing sections, including a local interpretation section, are placed together in chapter 1 of part 1.

Amendment 32 will make it clear that section 7 is a local interpretation section for the purposes of chapter 1, in which it is placed. The definitions in that section will apply only in respect of the provisions in that chapter.

Amendment 89 will create an interpretation section that is applicable to the whole bill, which will make it clear that the definition of “child” applies to the whole bill.

17:00

Amendments 42 and 87 will ensure that all the regulation-making powers sit together under section 24, with amendment 43 being consequential to amendment 42.

Amendment 90 will ensure that, where a provision in the act refers to a day on which a section comes into force, ministers may specify the date.

All the amendments seek to maximise accessibility and enhance clarity and coherence across the bill as a whole.

I move amendment 28.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

As no member wishes to comment, I call the minister to wind up.

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

I have nothing further to add. I press amendment 28.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

After section 4

Amendment 29 moved—[Natalie Don-Innes].

Amendment 29A moved—[Nicola Sturgeon].

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The question is, that amendment 29A be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee City East)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect to the app. I would have voted yes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you, Ms Robison. Your vote will be recorded.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

The result of the division is: For 103, Against 4, Abstentions 0.

Amendment 29A agreed to.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I call the minister to press or withdraw amendment 29, as amended.

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

I press amendment 29, as amended.

Amendment 29, as amended, agreed to.

Section 5—Guidance in relation to care experience

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Group 8 is on guidance in relation to care experience. Amendment 118, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, is grouped with amendments 119 to 133.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Southside)

My amendments in this group relate to sections 5 and 6 and the duty on ministers to issue guidance to public authorities about care-experienced people and their lived realities, and the duty on public authorities to have “due regard to” such guidance.

The amendments will replace references to “guidance” with “regulations” throughout the sections. Let me be candid: I realise that this might seem a bit esoteric, but it goes to the heart of one of the biggest issues that I have heard time and again from care‑experienced people over the years—namely, a lack of trust among care‑experienced young people that public authorities will always do what they are supposed to do.

We can argue about whether that criticism is justified, but it is very real in the minds of many care-experienced people, past and present, across the country. There are concerns about variation and postcode lotteries of care, and there are concerns that what is meant to happen in theory does not always translate into practice. Those are perennial problems and concerns. They operate to undermine trust and confidence, and, on occasion, they have a real impact on the day-to-day experience of care-experienced people.

I will take a moment to address the concerns that have been raised about the amendments, which I am sure will be raised during the debate. The first is that regulations take longer to prepare, conclude and issue than guidance does. I recognise that, although I would say, from some experience in Government, that there is no hard and fast reason why regulations cannot be passed at pace. Also, with parliamentary engagement, what emerges from that process will be stronger and more likely to stand the test of time.

The other concern that I anticipate being expressed is that regulations are more difficult to change in future than guidance is. However, if the Parliament gets the regulations right in the first place and if they command confidence, they will not need to be regularly changed. The challenge is to get the regulations right so that they have the confidence of the care-experienced community.

Crucially, as regulations, they will be binding and not optional. They will have to be complied with consistently and in all parts of Scotland. That is important for building trust and confidence and for ensuring that we do not have the kinds of variations in care that we have seen all too often. However esoteric the proposal might seem, I think that it will help us with the overall delivery of the Promise and help to build confidence in that delivery as we go on.