Skip to main content
Loading…

Chamber and committees

Official Report: search what was said in Parliament

The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.  

Filter your results Hide all filters

Dates of parliamentary sessions
  1. Session 1: 12 May 1999 to 31 March 2003
  2. Session 2: 7 May 2003 to 2 April 2007
  3. Session 3: 9 May 2007 to 22 March 2011
  4. Session 4: 11 May 2011 to 23 March 2016
  5. Session 5: 12 May 2016 to 4 May 2021
  6. Current session: 13 May 2021 to 15 February 2026
Select which types of business to include


Select level of detail in results

Displaying 985 contributions

|

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

If you agree that there is nothing wrong with the equally safe at school programme and that it complies with the UNCRC, why would there be a problem with guaranteeing in law that it should apply to domestic abuse education?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

It is good to hear that 23 out of 32 local authorities have rolled out rehabilitation work, and that that could increase to 25. However, Glyn Lloyd from Social Work Scotland said last week that there is

“no consistency across the 32 local authorities.”—[Official Report, Criminal Justice Committee, 10 December 2025; c 15.]

He also said that the Caledonian system is the only accredited programme in Scotland. An election could change that. A new Government that comes in in May could decide that it is not worth rolling out the Caledonian system across the country. If you agree that we could guarantee access to rehabilitation programmes, would it not be better to enshrine that in law so that it does not become a postcode lottery?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

My question was about the sex offenders register and the notification requirements that are imposed by it. Does that register help to keep the public safe?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

If you believe that sex offenders should be required to comply with notification requirements, do you not believe that the same should apply to those who are guilty of crimes of domestic abuse?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

In your letter, you said that you agreed that claims that notification requirements act as a deterrent for potential offenders were “unevidenced”. If so, why is that system still in place for sex offenders?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

I have a couple questions about some other areas. Could you tell us which public bodies collect data on protected characteristics?

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

My bill has been in progress since 2022, and I have been talking about data since then. We are three years on. If I am not wrong, you noted in a response to one of the committee’s questions that you would be looking at data next year, which would mean that data has not been collected for the four years since my bill was lodged.

I have spoken to people with disabilities and people from an ethnic minority background, which I myself come from, who have been domestically abused. I know that they are very worried that, when they go into a police station to report a crime, their background or disability is not taken into consideration. Sometimes, they cannot even correspond, in a way. That crucial data is not being collected. Why should the data not be put into statute? Four years on, the Government has not done anything about it.

Criminal Justice Committee [Draft]

Prevention of Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Meeting date: 17 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

Are you satisfied that the equally safe at school programme complies with the UNCRC?

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 16 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

I am not convinced by the cabinet secretary’s response in relation to having the right processes and framework in place, so I will move amendments 5 and 6.

Amendment 5 moved—[Pam Gosal].

Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee [Draft]

Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Meeting date: 16 December 2025

Dr Pam Gosal MBE

The bill currently presumes that every child, regardless of their age, is capable of forming a view unless proven otherwise. At stage 1, many parents and education professionals raised concerns that that would place unreasonable pressure on younger children and leave teachers to make difficult judgments about capacity without a clear framework. As drafted, the bill risks creating conflict between pupils and parents and placing schools in a difficult position.

Amendment 5 would remove the automatic presumption and replace it with a more realistic test. It would require schools to be satisfied that a pupil can meaningfully express a view, taking account of their age, stage of development and understanding. That would reduce risk for schools, support teachers and still ensure that children’s views are taken seriously where appropriate.

Amendment 6 would address the concern that, under the bill as drafted, a pupil’s objection would normally determine the outcome of parental requests to withdraw. As the committee has recognised, parents are the primary guardians of their children and have legal responsibility for their upbringing and education. Amendment 6 would not remove the pupil’s voice; it would require schools to take account of the pupil’s views, and it would make it clear that the parent’s request should be given effect unless the school is satisfied, having regard to the pupil’s views, that doing so would be contrary to the pupil’s best interests. That is a balanced and proportionate approach. It would protect children where there is a genuine welfare concern while avoiding a situation in which schools are routinely placed in conflict with parents over sensitive family decisions.

10:15