Chamber and committees

There is absolutely no place for prejudice, discrimination or racism in Scotland. The First Minister reinforced that message at the weekend, at the Scottish Trades Union Congress St Andrew’s day march and rally to stand up against racism, when he committed this Government to tackling prejudice, rooting out racism and leaving no community marginalised, isolated or vulnerable.

I am sure that Ms Harper will be pleased to hear that the Scottish Government and the STUC have launched the united workplaces project, which is backed up by £200,000 of Government funding, to support trade unions to promote equality and diversity in the workplace, to challenge discrimination and to build stronger links with communities.

I will ask the Minister for Equalities to write to the member regarding conversations with the UK Government.

My understanding is that that is correct.

As I said earlier, our focus is on supporting the police to tackle that issue effectively. Enforcement is a matter for Police Scotland, and local policing teams are best placed to identify misuse and work to prevent future incidents. That has informed action, including a campaign to encourage anonymous reporting through Crimestoppers.

I was pleased to note that, last week, Police Scotland partnered with the Royal hospital for children and young people to launch an awareness campaign that urges parents and carers to consider the dangers that e-scooters and e-bikes present before purchasing one for a child this Christmas.

Police Scotland has advised that the current powers under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 are sufficient to respond to the misuse of off-road vehicles. I know that the member has attended several of our meetings in the past year and is aware of all the work that the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, and I are doing.

I highlight a really good example that is going to committee at the City of Edinburgh Council tomorrow, of which the member might be aware. Council officers have proposed a targeted package of actions to address the misuse of quad bikes, dirt bikes and other non-compliant vehicles. That would be run through a cross-agency community interest partnership with Police Scotland, which would deploy mobile closed-circuit television in hotspot areas. We know that the problem exists across Scotland, but the situation in rural areas is very different from that in cities. That package of actions, if it is approved, will be a really good example, and other local authorities could follow suit.

No one in a school community—children and young people, school staff, families or other visitors—should experience intimidating or racist behaviour. Early in 2026, we will publish new guidance that supports a whole-school approach to addressing racism and racist incidents, which includes guidance on responding to parents, carers and families who experience racism in a school setting.

The right to peaceful public assembly and freedom of expression should never be used to justify any form of hateful, violent or otherwise criminal behaviour. We support Police Scotland in taking appropriate action in response to any criminal offences that are being committed at, or around, protests.

Ministers and officials regularly meet Police Scotland and others to discuss the impact of the illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters on local communities and the powers that are available to tackle the crime. That has informed action, including our campaign in the summer to encourage anonymous reporting through Crimestoppers. The Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity, Jim Fairlie, and I met His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary on the issue two weeks ago, and we continue to engage with the United Kingdom Government, which has the powers relating to off-road vehicles, including vehicle licensing.

I am aware of Dumfries and Galloway’s community policing unit, which was out recently leafleting residents about the dangers of e-scooters. We support Police Scotland and its partners in dealing with the misuse of vehicles. Last week, Police Scotland confirmed that anyone who is found riding a non-compliant e-bike or e-scooter on public roads is likely to have it seized by officers.

It is important to highlight that, this year, we have increased police funding to £1.64 billion, which is an increase of £90 million, in order to support police capacity and capability. I note that Mr Hoy did not support that budget or vote for it.

Good morning. The bill that we are discussing today implements recommendations that the Scottish Law Commission made in 2018. It largely restates the current Scots law of contract formation while clarifying some doubts about the law that have crept in over the years.

Contract law is vitally important to our everyday economic life and for all types of transactions, involving businesses and individuals alike. Many contracts are made, carried through, and become the subject of disputes between parties who have no professional assistance. One of the bill’s principal purposes is to produce legal rules that are clear, certain and accessible. Like most of the witnesses that you have heard from, I think that we have achieved that.

As you know, part 1 of the bill concerns the formation of a contract. The main reform that is proposed in part 1 is the abolition of the postal acceptance rule. Abolition of this rule has been a long-time recommendation that the SLC has made repeatedly over the past 50 years. I am glad to bring forward a provision that will, finally, give effect to this recommendation and bring Scots law into line with other international instruments that have no such rule.

Part 2 of the bill, meanwhile, deals with remedies for breach of contract. Although that part is not as wide as the consultation topics discussed by the SLC, it is in line with the SLC’s recommendations and stakeholder opinion. The committee has heard from a number of witnesses about why the scope of the bill should not be widened.

There is one exception, which is the law of retention. I wrote to the committee in October to set out my intention to lodge amendments at stage 2 that would reform the law. That is the end result of a period of consultation, building on the considered work of the SLC and Lorna Richardson of the University of Edinburgh over the past decade or so. The law of retention is unclear, and we have in the bill an opportunity to introduce some much-needed clarity. Having listened to the evidence given to this committee, I am pleased that there has been broad consensus on the general purposes of the bill.

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.

As the committee heard from a range of stakeholders, there is uncertainty in a number of specific points around contract law. I think that only one respondent to the committee’s call for views was outright against reform. The overwhelming majority of consultees agree that law reform is needed in this area.

The bill largely restates the common law on formation of contract to improve accessibility to the law and make important reforms to clarify and modernise the law. As I said in my opening statement, the principal reform on contract formation is the abolition of the postal acceptance rule, which has been a repeated recommendation by the SLC for more than 50 years. We are going to make the law clearer and more accessible, and the committee and Parliament should take that on board.

I have considered carefully Dr Brown’s comments, particularly the suggestion that reforming contract law inadvertently alters the wider Scots law of obligations and formation of trusts, wills and promises. Although the bill puts in statute law on formation of contract, it is not a complete codification of the law. Section 23(a) states:

“The provisions of this Act are without prejudice to any enactment or rule of law which … regulates any question which relates to … the formation of a contract … but is not provided for by the provisions of this Act”.

The law on other contractual matters is also saved by section 23. As Professor MacQueen told the committee, Dr Brown’s concerns appear to be “misplaced”, and I agree with that assessment. I also note that Dr Brown’s view was not shared by the other stakeholders who gave evidence.