Official Report 1643KB pdf
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21036, on approval of a Scottish statutory instrument. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 (Characteristic of Sex) (Amendment and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey]
22:09
I support this SSI, which adds the characteristic of sex as a protected characteristic to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, because women and girls deserve protection in law and we must seek to address prejudice based on sex, exactly as I, Adam Tomkins, Johann Lamont, Jenny Marra, Pauline McNeill and so many others argued in the chamber when the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill was going through Parliament.
At that time, the Government rejected our arguments and whipped its MSPs on the promise of a stand-alone, dedicated misogyny law that would be specifically designed to address the misogynistic abuse, harassment and hostility that women and girls experience daily. I recall my, and many colleagues’, doubts that that law would be delivered—and, sure enough, last summer, the Government abandoned its promise of a misogyny law.
Now the Government offers these regulations, which insert the characteristic of sex into the existing hate crime framework. That change goes some way to providing additional protection, and for that reason, I support it. However, we should be under no illusion—it is not the comprehensive response that Baroness Kennedy recommended and it is not what women and girls were promised. Indeed, many have made it clear that the hate crime model is ill suited to tackling the wider forms of misogynistic behaviour that women experience: behaviour that may not present as overt hatred but which is nevertheless vicious, harmful and pervasive. Not only that, but these protections will not even come in until April 2027, despite the Government having had more than a year to work out how to bring them in.
I will vote for the SSI, but I recognise that it is not the full answer. It is not the legislation that women and girls were promised, and today must not be the end of the matter. Women and girls deserve to be protected by a justice system that fully recognises the scale and nature of misogynistic behaviour.
The previous Government made promises of protection; this Government has failed to deliver. Today, we go a small part of the way to remedying that, but I urge, in the strongest possible terms, any MSPs who return to this place in May to urgently take forward the comprehensive misogyny legislation that Baroness Kennedy demanded, that this Government promised and that women and girls deserve.
22:12
The regulations add the characteristic of sex to the existing legislative framework that is contained in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. They have been introduced because we are not prepared to leave a gap in protection for women and girls in hate crime legislation. They deserve protection alongside other groups that are already protected by the hate crime legal framework.
The Scottish Greens strongly oppose the SSI. Helena Kennedy and the misogyny working group were clear that misogyny should not be addressed by adding sex to the hate crime framework and instead recommended dedicated misogyny legislation. Given that advice, can the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs explain why the Government is choosing to proceed through amending the 2021 act rather than bringing forward comprehensive misogyny legislation as has been recommended?
Scottish Greens also strongly oppose the trans-exclusionary language that is used in the proposed definition of sex in the regulations. Can the cabinet secretary say why the Government has, in effect, replicated the definition of biological sex that was used by the United Kingdom Supreme Court in relation to the Equality Act 2010, when the court was explicit that its interpretation applied only to the 2010 act?
There are several protected characteristics in the 2021 act that are defined differently from how they are defined in the Equality Act 2010. Why has the Government chosen to import the definition in the 2010 act into Scots law, given the serious concerns about its impact on trans people? There is no requirement to do so and it risks trans people having to out themselves in order to get support.
There are three important points that I should address to Ms Chapman and the rest of the members in the chamber. It is important to remember that there are existing protections under the 2021 act for transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics, and it is really important to stress that those remain in place. We have endeavoured to ensure that there is no significant overlap.
I wish to explain that the SSI defines sex for the purposes of the 2021 act. We have taken the approach of defining the characteristic of sex as relating to biological sex, which means sex at birth, in the light of the need for our criminal law to be clear and unambiguous. That approach has no wider read-across to other laws, and it reflects the current operation of the 2021 act.
The hate crime model is a proven way of addressing crimes that have been aggravated by malice or ill will on the basis of protected characteristics. However, I accept that it is most certainly not the only approach that can be taken to the protection of women and girls.
I assure Ms Chapman that I very much respect, appreciate and value the work that was undertaken by Baroness Kennedy and the working group that she led. I very much understand why many consider primary legislation on misogyny to be necessary, and there is no reason why legislation on misogynistic harassment cannot be introduced in the next parliamentary session. It is clear that there is still merit in Parliament giving further consideration to bespoke new protections that would be separate from the hate crime framework.
However, we all know that, because of the short time that was left in the parliamentary session after last year’s Supreme Court judgment, there was simply insufficient time to progress a misogyny bill in this session, given the complexities in providing for gendered law. A misogyny bill would have been the first example of gendered law, which is why so many people had rallied around it.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, thank you—I am just about finished. [Interruption.] I took Ms Chapman’s intervention because the Green Party is not represented on the Criminal Justice Committee, whereas the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are. When I gave evidence to that committee, it explored all these matters in great detail, quite correctly and properly, and it unanimously recommended that the SSI be approved by the Parliament as a whole.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No, thank you.
I ask you to conclude, cabinet secretary.
I wish to make an important point about criminal law: provisions in criminal law need to be robust and unequivocal. I will end by saying that women and girls experience disproportionately high levels of harassment, abuse and threatening behaviour simply because they are women and girls. That behaviour is motivated by prejudice relating to our sex.
I urge members to vote for the motion that the regulations be approved, to ensure that women and girls have legal protections through the existing hate crime framework.
You must conclude, cabinet secretary.
Of course. If Parliament agrees to the motion, that will mean that those legal protections are passed into law in this parliamentary session.
Thank you for your indulgence, Presiding Officer.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21037, on approval of an SSI. I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Council Tax (Variation for Unoccupied Dwellings) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey]
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-21038, on approval of an SSI. I ask the minister, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the National Bus Travel Concession Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendment) (Scotland) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey]
I call Sue Webber.
22:19
As members know, buses are central to Scotland’s transport network. Although most passengers just want to get on with their journey, it is clear to bus operators and other passengers that antisocial behaviour on our buses has been a growing problem for the past number of years. A small minority of disruptive passengers, whether they are aged under 22 or older, disrupt buses, commit verbal and physical assaults and put the safety of passengers and drivers at risk.
We all remember the tragic death of Keith Rollinson in February 2024. However, only a few weeks ago, the First Minister was unable to answer whether Rollinson’s killer would have had his bus pass removed under the Scottish statutory instrument that we are voting on tonight.
The Scottish Conservatives will support the SSI. However, although it is a step in the right direction, we believe that it does not go far enough. The fact that the minister, Jim Fairlie, had to appear before the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee twice to get the SSI passed demonstrates that.
Furthermore, the SNP’s plan to remove free bus travel from passengers who commit antisocial behaviour on buses is soft touch and full of loopholes, and it does not guarantee that criminals will have their bus passes removed.
Keith Rollinson was a constituent of mine. I attended his funeral at Elgin town hall. I have listened as his wife, Sue, and his family have expressed their deep concern and, frankly, disgust that the killer of their relative could soon be released from prison—well, I cannot even say “prison”, because he is not in a prison—and still be entitled to his free bus pass. Does Sue Webber agree that that is completely unacceptable and that the Government should do everything possible to ensure that someone who has killed a bus driver is never allowed to retain his free bus pass?
Frankly, yes, I agree, and law-abiding Scots across the country would also agree, and they would agree that free bus passes must be stripped from those who have used them as any excuse to act violently, whether they do so on a bus or whether they use their pass to travel to a location where they carry out antisocial behaviour and criminality at stations—bus or rail—retail venues or leisure facilities.
The Scottish Conservatives are on Scotland’s side and believe that any passenger who commits criminal or antisocial behaviour should automatically have their bus pass stripped from them. That is the least that passengers and bus drivers deserve. The SSI gets the ball rolling, but far more needs to be done to deliver safer buses for Scotland.
22:22
The programme for government for 2025-26 set out a commitment to suspend and withdraw free travel from anyone who does not act responsibly on Scotland’s buses. The SSI is an important step in delivering that commitment. It secures the enabling power for the policy and provides the basis for the on-going work with operators and partners to finalise the supporting administrative procedures.
The policy will apply to all national concessionary travel schemes, recognising that people of any age can engage in unacceptable behaviour. It will be backed by a code of conduct that will set out clear standards for respectful behaviour and a code focusing on behaviours that hurt or threaten others or damage or disrupt the bus. At its core is a focus on the behaviours that have the most significant impact on passengers, drivers and the safety of the bus journey.
A phased approach is being taken to the implementation to ensure that a fair and robust process is established. That will take into account a range of issues that I know concern colleagues, including business impacts, child wellbeing and poverty considerations and impacts on older and disabled people. The approach will also take into account any operational issues as they emerge. There has been substantial engagement with internal and external stakeholders as part of the policy. Legislation and procedures in this approach will continue, with published impact assessments being updated as appropriate.
Our goal is to make the bus network safer. We want to create a deterrent that stops people behaving in an unacceptable way. That is surely the best possible outcome.
Will the minister acknowledge that this will not prevent people who have committed antisocial behaviour from getting on a bus? It will only mean that they will not have a free bus pass.
I absolutely accept that point. People could still pay to get on a bus, and I raised that at the first round-table discussion that we had. However, when people act in an unacceptable way, the SSI will make our buses safer by removing the privilege of free bus travel.
We all know that criminal behaviour on buses remains primarily a matter for the police and the justice system, but the policy is part of a wider, concerted effort to improve community safety and reduce antisocial behaviour, including through the violence prevention framework for Scotland, the cashback for communities programme and the provision of further funding to Police Scotland.
The minister has spoken of bad behaviour and antisocial behaviour, but there is nothing worse than taking the life of a bus driver in the circumstances in which Keith Rollinson’s life was taken. How does the minister defend his Government’s decision to include this proposal in the programme for government in 2025-26 after Keith Rollinson was killed at the hands of someone who had a free bus pass and who will continue to have that free bus pass? The Government knew what happened at Elgin bus station in February 2024 when it introduced the proposal in the programme for government, so why has it come up with legislation that does not strip a bus pass from someone who killed a bus driver?
I think that the point that Douglas Ross has made shows that he does not understand what it is that we have actually done and the legislation that we have introduced.
I will finish by saying this, which is the most important point that I want to make. I want to pay tribute to those people who have campaigned for the policy, not least the family of Keith Rollinson. My deepest condolences go to Mrs Rollinson and to her friends and the wider family of her husband. It is absolutely correct that Mr Rollinson should have been able to go to his work and come home safely. That is why I am absolutely determined that we get this policy right. Everyone should be able to go where they need to go without the fear of abuse or worse. I urge members to support the motion and the Scottish statutory instrument.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion S6M-20139, on approval of an SSI. I ask the minister, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Private Housing Rent Control (Exempt Property) (Scotland) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.—[Graeme Dey]
I call Ariane Burgess.
22:26
Last year, this Parliament took the landmark step of reintroducing rent controls, putting them in place for the first time in almost 40 years. Without rent controls, rents were allowed to skyrocket. Here in Edinburgh, rents for a one-bedroom flat have increased by more than 100 per cent since 2010. Those unacceptable increases have worsened poverty, inequality and hardship. When the bill is commenced, local authorities will be empowered to introduce rent control areas that will hold down rents in specific locations, although they will not cut rents, as we clearly need to do in some areas and as the Greens have called for.
Rent controls will at least stop the rip-off increases that we have seen. Just as we are about to implement one of the most important ever advances for working people—one that we know will help tackle the cost of living—we are today considering pulling back by exempting build-to-rent and mid-market-rent properties from the controls that renters have called for for so long. Those changes, which would be a grave mistake, were opposed by more than 95 per cent of the consultation responses.
To work for renters and landlords, the system needs to be simple and transparent. Tenants need to understand—[Interruption.]
We will suspend for a moment.
22:28
Meeting suspended.
22:29
On resuming—
Thank you for your forbearance, colleagues. I ask Ms Burgess to resume.
In order for it to work for renters and landlords, the system needs to be simple and transparent. Tenants need to understand the system and their ability to contest illegal rent increases—the onus is very much on them. The more complicated the system is, the harder it will be for rent controls to work as intended.
Many renters are already not familiar with their rights. In the absence of the measures that Greens sought to introduce through amendments to the bill in order to increase renter awareness of rent controls, we will need to work very hard to make sure that people know whether they live in a rent control area, let alone whether they live in a build-to-rent or mid-market home. Bringing in a system of rent control for some people and not for others, and for some properties and not for others, for significant numbers of tenants, will only add to that problem. It is a recipe for confusion and for unscrupulous landlords to take advantage of that.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will proceed.
I have not heard one good reason as to why some of our constituents who rent deserve protection and others do not, simply on the grounds of where they have chosen to live.
It is also important to note that the exemptions are not time limited. If we jump ahead a few years, we can easily see the nonsense of that. Why should renters’ degree of protection from unfair hikes depend on how the property was built, perhaps many decades before?
If we look at rent control systems from around the world, we see that there is nowhere near enough evidence that rent controls damage new house building to justify exemptions as sweeping as the ones that are being proposed. Despite that and the fact that the new mid-market-rent and build-to-rent homes are already free from rent controls outside rent control areas, developers and landlords have pushed for more.
Homes should be for living in, not for profiteering. On behalf of the Scottish Greens and the hundreds of thousands of renters who desperately need a simple system of rent controls, I urge the Parliament to vote against the motion.
22:32
Presiding Officer, thank you for your flexibility in allowing me to contribute remotely. I would not normally wish to do that.
As Ariane Burgess said, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 introduced a long-term, evidence-based system of rent controls for Scotland, which is allowing us to protect tenants in areas where rents have been rising too steeply. Ultimately, that is addressing affordability.
However, the housing emergency demands that we also increase the availability of all tenures of housing, including rented housing in Scotland. That, very straightforwardly, is why we have brought these exemptions forward. We have done so to remove barriers to investment in mid-market-rent and build-to-rent properties, helping to ensure confidence and a continued supply of new rented options.
As a Government, we engaged extensively during the bill process, working hard to strike the right balance with our proposals. Since the 2025 act was passed, we have continued that engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations, the housing investment task force, landlords and tenant groups.
Ariane Burgess wanted some evidence on the impact of rent controls. Will the cabinet secretary outline what has happened to the buy-to-let market and the mid-market-rent and build-to-rent sectors in the capital? Everyone I have met has withdrawn from the capital, and we have seen the collapse in the supply of housing. That has been a direct consequence of rent controls.
I can say for sure that, since the question of exemptions was debated and supported on the floor of the Parliament, there has been a renewed confidence in investing in housing in both the mid-market-rent and build-to-rent sectors in Scotland. That underlines the importance of the exemptions.
I reassure Ariane Burgess and others that I have carefully considered and designed the exemptions so that they will continue to provide support for tenants. For example, tenants in build-to-rent properties will still be protected by the rent adjudication process that is available to them, which allows rent increases to be challenged. Of course, the Housing (Scotland) Act 2025 also strengthened the rent adjudication process for those living in mid-market-rent properties. If the landlord should deviate from a mid-market rent, we are absolutely clear that they will no longer qualify for an exemption. I hope that that provides some reassurance.
However, on the whole, Presiding Officer, these exemptions are vital as part of a commitment to address the housing emergency, because, very straightforwardly, they ensure a continued supply of new rented properties. They have enjoyed support across the chamber and across the housing sector, and I ask that members support them this evening.
The question on the motion will be put at decision time.
The next item of business is consideration of seven Parliamentary Bureau motions, and I ask the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, to move motions S6M-21040 to S6M-21045, on approval of Scottish statutory instruments, and S6M-21046, on designation of a lead committee.
Motions moved,
That the Parliament agrees that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (Licensing of Skin Piercing and Tattooing) Amendment Order 2026 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland (Allocation of Functions to the Local Taxation Chamber) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the First-tier Tribunal for Scotland Local Taxation Chamber and Upper Tribunal for Scotland (Composition and Rules of Procedure) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2026 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exclusions and Exceptions) (Domestic Homicide and Suicide Reviews) (Scotland) Amendment Order 2026 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Public Services Reform (Scottish Water) Order 2026 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Renewables Obligation (Scotland) Amendment Order 2026 [draft] be approved.
That the Parliament agrees that the Social Justice and Social Security Committee be designated as lead committee in consideration of the legislative consent memorandum on the Armed Forces Bill.—[Graeme Dey]
The question on the motions will be put at decision time.
Previous
Business MotionsNext
Decision Time